For light revolver target loads, I’ve done a lot of both and can’t say I’ve noticed much difference. Generally, I roll into crimp grooves and taper for semi-auto.
The good... I've had the opportunity to acquire several Model 720 rifles. The bad, none are "original". Yet to in the "good category" the opportunity for a hands-on evaluation though none personally fired.
Quick Model background: Produced from 1941-44. Replaced the aged Model 30 after 20 years of honourable service! By then as 1941 about to expire and some months late, the first lot of 500 completion just under or just over the 31 December deadline. The Model 720 in any case, notably 5 years after its main competitor, the Winchester Model 70 launch in 1936! On the other hand, Remington resources overtaxed with by that same month getting production of the "Remington Model 1903 under War Department Contract. Allegedly Department Officials watching eagle-eyed for an on time 720 Lot completion as insisting resource reallocation primarily to War Effort*
The Model 720 to me, a conundrum. Remington since the intro of the Model 30 in 1921 seemed to take half-hearted interest in competing with even the Model 54, much less the Model 70. Frankly, the Model 720 was a good rifle but poor competitor. The Model 70 metallurgy was superior as barrel, receiver and bolt of 4140 Chrome Molybdenum (aka Chrome Moly) steel. Remington didn't make a practice of disclosing its steel but widely perceived as same composition of Model 1917 military origins, as Nickel Steel. Nothing wrong with that at all. But as the Model 70 (beginning with later Model 54 barrels) of Chrome Moly. So, the net of superior newer age steels going to the Model 70. So to the design, spring-boarding from the Model 54, itself of later design to the Model 30!
Significant change from the Model 30 incorporated in the Model 720, were of of barrel length availability reportedly of - 20", 22" & 24". The bolt handle of perhaps most apparent difference as finally dropping the military introduced Model 1917 so-called "dog leg" style. I personally found it distinctive, happily of coincidental "low bolt" configuration and no real downside. But the 720 style was more era "traditional" handle configuration as also yet "low scope" functionality. The ejector exterior housing design and function as a novel "push to release". Superior convenience to the Model 30 with its mauser traditional pull to release bolt feature. This feature among the pix below. Also, some notations claiming increased lock speed. Yet such too the latter Model 30, so as "new feature", as a decade prior.
All these presumable pluses in an otherwise unremarkably "new & improved" context. Yet the downside. The bottom metal as... Damn! Aluminium alloy, attracting scratches as notable! Yet worse, the floorplate secured to the trigger guard frame assembly... By a screw! Functionality & aesthetically a downgrade to my thought! Whatever novelty of aluminium in an era bolt rifle, lost in lack of durability.
The 'net' to me more perhaps than anything else, "new & improved" morphed into "design opportunity lost" as seeming Remington could have done considerably more! A rifle of pretty much "all show and little go". Yet "heart & soul" of the Model 30 action as "baubles" to differentiate from the last iterations of the 30. The War contracts for Remington in Model 1903 and then 1903A3, something as face-saving for the Firm as excuse for not even getting beyond that initial lot as 'about' on target date.*
Below is the NRA Museum rendition of Remington Firm history. 'If accuracy of its version of Model 720 history/information/data is to be depended upon... Heaven help the reader! Errors and conclusions differing from mine in several details as well as the accolades from NRA pundit perspectives. Read them! The matter of serialization by year attributed to the Model 720 production, perhaps the opposite. More likely factual than several other renditions I've seen in the past. My "Postscript" to be added below along with photos of my three "altered" models. I'll hopefully be adding my pix & said Postscript soon.
You seem to be willing to comment on others opinions yet here you are... starting topics and making statements that you refuse to acknowledge nor defend.
You made previous comments about hypocrisy and here you are..the kettle, calling the pot black. Whew!
So, first, the question that DBT runs away from.... simple, but both you and DBT avoid it.....
#1 "Must we know HOW something is made to know THAT it exists?"
I also tried to make it easier on the two of you... I restated: "...if one sees, holds a nd something... does one need to know HOW it came into existences to KNOW it exists?
This is ludicrously simple yet you two avoid it..... why?
You also objected to a previous wording of this question and implied that "conflation" paid a visit and the word "made" implied "being made by a sentient being". OK, that is a good comment, so I ask simply if there is evidence that something has been "made"... does that .... logically infer that a "sentient being was involved.
Again, very simple.... YOU brought this "sentient being" aspect up, not me.
I've already called out the word game you are playing and why it doesn't prove what you think it proves.
The universe exists.
We do not know how it came to exist.
That does not mean "god did it".
So, you make assumptions of what I said in the discussions... then argue against a point I never made regarding these two HOW/KNOW postings. What kind of conflating... or ...straw man or red herring is that?
You use the same word twisting you castigate others for.....
Since you have brought God into the discussion, let's run with that for a bit....ok
You did say that the universe does indeed exist and further state that "That does not mean 'god did it'."
BUT, the current view of the "astrophysicists" of today all seem to believe that the universe had a "sudden" and dramatic beginning. Big Bang or "everything everywhere all at once" is what I read being talked about. Some how SOMETHING happened and the Universe just came into being....Right? (And don't give me that Magic Larry nonsense about the "Universe from Nothing." He's been proven to be a degenerate a fraud and just a self serving book seller.)
So, SOMTHING happened and the UNIVERSE is just suddenly HERE. Of course, there those that would say, "Well we don't HOW the universe began, but we KNOW that it did." It did indeed come into existence... but HOW is indeed an intriguing question.
Now... let me state as I understand YOUR meaning ..... You said.. paraphrased.... .."If there is evidence that something has been MADE, that implies the involvement of a sentient being."
So, let me ask all who are reading this post..... Do you see in the world around you..... the landscapes, oceans, deserts, plants, animals and of course ...us humans.....Do you see evidence that this world and this universe has been MADE?
Many have posted on this thread that they sense a "sentient being" when they behold nature, the stars and the world. I agree.
So there are really two logical choices when one regards the origin of all we see in this world today.... A or B
A - "Everything we see came from Nothing and we literally have no idea of how or why."
B - A great and almighty powerful "sentient being" MADE the Universe and this World and US.
I ,as do many of you..... vote "B"
You're wrong about the current understand of The Big Bang and it's implication for the early universe:
Nope, not off target at all…. The real issue, the one you try to avoid is not what I propose about the origin of the universe…..this video is just your attempt to divert …..and hide.
Did this narrator list not one but at least a half a dozen ill defined theories about possible alternatives or variations to the big bang….or what ever happened at the beginning? Yes he did….
Did the narrator offer a single most viable theory to the origin of the universe? No, he did not.
You are resorting to 13 minutes of bafflegab in a weak attempt to avoid the real issue.
The real issue is not about which theory is most current or even accurate…
You remind me those twerps that “abstain” or even “flee” when the time to vote…..or act comes upon us.
“A” or “B”……. Or perhaps “F”….for fear of being exposed.
I will mark you down as “abstaining for lack of conviction.”
Knocking down the high spots with a sander helps a ton, especially when you are talking a 1/4" max.
A layer of tar paper, or two, helps more.
Self leveler is a problem with nailed in floors, unless it is mixed with latex or acrylic, as it cracks when nailed and sounds "crunchy" under the floor.
Prep work is what you pay professionals for, the installation is simple.
With the Krylon or the Rustoleum, it dries to the touch in a few minutes, but it really takes four or five days to fully harden. It hardens faster in you leave it out in the sunlight during a hot day.
Lasagna or spaghetti with thousand Island dressing. Sometimes sour cream. Salt and pepper on watermelon. Probably others that struck my fancy at the moment. Working on changing eating lifestyle so most sauces including ketchup ( a favorite) have been cut out. Wife jist made meatballs with pork rinds for a binder. Ketchup would have been a nice dip
I guess you about have to paint the rifle and stock at the same time?
That's how I do it.
Here's an example. I just put tape wherever I don't want paint. Some say clean with alcohol first, it's a good idea if your rifle is really oily. I don't usually bother with that though.
Base coat dark brown. Note the tape.
Tan accents. Diagonal passes sprayed through dry grass,
Added some sage green accents, kind of overlapping the tan,
I bought 1000 of these a while back. Haven’t gotten the accuracy I was hoping for yet.
Been working on loads for 2 different ARs and a Tikka Lite. All 3 rifles have been easy to find a < MOA group with a variety of bullets and weights.
Best 5 shot groups from each rifle with the 55 SP Horndays (w/cannelure) have been between 1.5 and 2 MOA.
Anyone having these shoot as well as Sierras, Vmaxs, NBTs, etc?
I like the price and hear they do well on game, but I’d like to get a little better accuracy out of them.
No, they have been a MOA bullet or slightly more in my experience. They are better than ball (55gr fmj) but there is no mystery or magic in their accuracy.