Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Not your everyday long rang rig - NULA Edition

Thanks guys. Regarding the shooting, I was obsessed with archery for a while and my light weight shooting skills were a little rusty. I have a proven light rig that I warmed up with that was constantly throwing fliers when I was certain the crosshair was where it was suppose to be. I got it worked out by the forend grip, trigger hand grip, and shoulder pressure and everything started working again.




Greg,

I've got a 308 I'll sell you. LOL




Scott,

I'd rather be better on the shots that count, and you've got that down pat my friend.



Akbob,

Appreciate the compliment, but not sure about the Political BS assertion. First time I've ever been accused of that.




irfubar,

SS vs NF

I recently picked up the SS 3-9x42 based on Greg's persuasion. He liked it so I gave it a try.

Reliability and tracking - I'm new to the 3-9 so for reliability and tracking, its reputation alone is all I'm standing on.

Glass - Its close enough that I do not notice a difference in general shooting, though I am not one to look at them side by side to compare.

Reticle - I prefer the SS Milquad to the NF Mil-R. If low light is in the equation I prefer the illuminated reticle on the NF, but sometimes I like the simplicity of not having one. The SS FFP is foolproof but the SFP on the NF is better when turned down in lower light or tight quarters, especially when combined with the illuminated reticle.

Parallax adjustment - I waiver back on forth on this one. When shooting targets I like to adjust parallax. In hunting situations with a self imposed 600 yard limit I do not feel it is necessary and do fine without it. Like the illuminated reticle, sometimes simplicity rules the day.

Zero stop - This was the main hang up for me on the SS because I've been burned before without one (off a rotation and I have no idea how it happened), so definite advantage NF.

Turrets and clicks - The NF clicks are much more positive than the SS, though the SS is definitely adequate. The NF is lower profile which I prefer.

Tunneling - The NF has no tunneling while the SS tunnels below 4x, but this is a total non factor for me.

Eyebox / Eyerelief - Both scopes are extremely comfortable to get behind with a nice eyebox. The NF is a fixed 3.5" which is nice. The SS is from 4.1 - 3.0" at 9x. 3.0" seems tight but it has proven to be a non issue and though I've not measured it, I can tell no difference between it and the NF when shooting. I would not be surprised if the 3.0" is a conservative number, it just does not feel that tight.

Overall ergonomics - The NF "compact" is in fact more compact, which I prefer, though the SS 3-9 is much more tidy than their fixed offerings. On the postal scales the difference between the two is less than one ounce; both in the 20oz range. Even though I prefer the NF, I have no problems with the SS.


Conclusion - If you were giving me one, pass the NF. If its my money, give me three SS 3-9s as opposed to one NF.

If SWFA would cap the windage turret and add a zero stop, I'd be hard pressed to ever stray from it on a dialing hunting rig.

I'll add a +2 to the ULA 260 brag board. Only thing wrong with mine is that it's not threaded for a suppressor.


ULA 260 @ 511 Yards

ULA 260

Very nice!V

I'll add +3. Mine's a little beefier, I went with a 23" #2 barrel, but even with the 20 oz. scope (S&B PM II 10X) it still comes in at 6 3/4 lb. unloaded. Mine shoots about the same as CT's, but with 123 Scenars at just under 2,900:





It's a little heavier, but not too heavy to carry up the mountain

Wow, sweet rigs both.

Yeah, Melvin makes some nice rifles.

I'd like to have one in 6.5 CM #2 contour barrel. Or, something like that.

The 6.5CM with a no.2 would be "perfect" to me. I like the 260, but 6.5 CM brass is everywhere around here, the 260 not so much. And I'd say, designed from the floor up, the CM is how I'd build a 6.5.

Thanks Brad, those are my thoughts too.

The mag box length on a Model 20 is 3" and Lapua makes 260 brass. Those are the two reasons I went with the 260.

Exactly! Accurate 130's at 2900 is hard to argue with.

I have the exact twin to that rifle except of course, my bolt is on the correct side. I have been using 120 BT and R-15 but going to give the 130 AB a run. I am going to try some R23 with the 130's.
Mine is scoped with a Swarovski 4X12X50 with a ballistic turret. Actually pretty light and trim for a 50 MM scope (14 oz.)
My son is a gunsmith that works for Melvin at NULA so I do have some insight as to how these rifles are built. The stocks start up as a roll of kevlar and carbon fiber...all hand lay up. A lot hands on and Melvin puts each one together and test it before they leave the shop.

Lefty C

That's cool lefty, I'd love to tour that place!

Thanks for the follow up information.

I can see the people at NULA sure know how to put a 260 together.

I'd forgotten about the M20 3" magazine. The 260 certainly makes more sense than the Creedmor in that length magazine, at least to me. I've only owned one 260, and only ran Lapua brass in it, which is outstanding stuff. In a 2.8" magazine I'd prefer the Creedmor... I think

I think it was you who posted "don't forget to try H4831" on the 260 load thread in the reloading forum.

That was good advice at least for mine. 48 grains and a 123 Scenar shoots like a dream in that rifle.

Yes, after fiddling with H4350, I finally went to H4831sc and hey-presto, got bugholes with 120's. Neat round the 260.

H4350 is treating me more than good, but might try H4831 just for the heck of it. I've a decent stash of both.

A smart man.

You guy's have some nice rifles.

CT, when you do I hope you post your findings. I'll be interested to see what your results are. That's a fine rifle you have there.

CT,

It was not an assertion directed AT YOU but rather a comment about the general "atmosphere of late." Not accusing you of anything other than some good shooting and sharing some quality experience and information.