Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What can you expect from a NULA?

I was wondering what level of accuracy someone can expect from a NULA - lets say one with a #1 barrel? Would you be unhappy with a 1.5 MOA rifle?

To me - I wouldn't be terribly unhappy with a flyweight 1.5 MOA rifle if I knew there would be no surprises - unexpected fliers, etc. My experience with barrels with pressure points says that if you change the hold, you may change the impact of the bullet - sometimes dramatically. With NULA's "full contact" bedding, has that ever been an issue for someone?

I have seen two NULA's, one in .308 and one in .270 wsm(unsure of the barrel contour) that shot EXCELLENT.

I would be SURPRISED to see 1.5" moa..most likely better.

While I have never handled one myself, I have heard that they are quite accurate. Often MOA or better.

I have shot a number of NULA's, and my wife and I have owned around half a dozen. I would be extremely disappointed in 1.5" 3-shot groups at 100 yards, or even 1". A lot depends on the bullet, of course, but all of our big game NULA's have grouped three shots into 1/2" or so with at least some load, and it wasn't hard to find the right load.

NULA's aren't finicky, and often group several bullet weights to the same POI as well.

I've got six NULAs, and agree with all of the above regarding accuracy. It never took very long to get sub MOA from almost any bullet I wanted to use.

I think they are terrific rifles and well worth the money. A call to Melvin is time well spent. He is very easy to talk and listen to, and a great guy. He's also a rifle design and manufacturing genius.

And full contact bedding is part of the success and accuracy. POI just never seems to change unless you adjust the scope and want it to change.

Steve

Hanging around here at the hospital waiting for cancer treatments to start again, I found this thread. I always thought that floating barrels were supposed to be better for repeat accuracy. Have I been wrong? It sure wouldn't be the first time I was. So Melvin full lengths all his barrels?

My understanding is that full bedding and/or pressure points can improve accuracy results with flyweight barrels.

Hi Elkrazy,

Just so happen to have a ULA 30-06 with No.1 profile barrel. 5 1/2 lbs all up with Leupold Vari XII 2-7 scope. Here's a couple of groups at 100 metres. As Mule Deer and others have said not at all hard to achieve sub MOA 3 shot groups. No problems with the full contact bedding in various conditions either. She just shoots to the same spot unless the scope stuffs up and that has not happened either.

regards
JohnT

Part of the reason NULA's shoot so well is that Melvin also makes the stocks, which are perhaps the best synthetic stocks made. They are very stiff, with full-length Kevlar fibers, and he uses full-bedding on the barrels because after extensive testing he found that was the bedding method that worked best.

It's also the reason they tend to group various bullet weights close together, as I mentioned in my previous post. The first NULA I ever tried, over 20 years ago, was a .300 Winchester Magnum. It was easy to get bullets from 165 to 200 grains to shoot well, and I noticed that all seemed to land pretty much in the same place. So after a couple of range sessions I shot a 9-shot group with the best loads (165 Hornady Interlock, 180 Speer Grand Slam and 200 Nosler Partition) and all nine went into a group a little over an inch up-and-down, and around 5/8" wide. Oh, and the 3 bullets were loaded with 3 different powders as well.

We've got NULA and ULA talk here. Does the ULA pre-date the NULA?
How does the Colt Light Rifle fit in there?

They were all ULA's (Ultra Light Arms) until Colt purchased the company (and hired Melvin) around a decade ago. That only lasted a short while, and was the era when the Colt Light Rifle was built.

A bunch of things went wrong with the deal, many involving the fact that nobody who made the deal with Melvin was still with Colt a few months later. So he reacquired the company and renamed it New Ultra Light Arms (NULA). Despite the name change, NULA's and ULA's are identical.

The Colt Light Rifle is not identical. The barrel and stock are different (cheaper) but the action is close enough that Melvin can restock them with NULA stocks.

ULA was the first rifles he built, then Colt jumped in with him and built a cheaper version with his guidance. I think Colt quit making them after a year or two, after that Melvin started building them under a new name. I think thats how it went.

Yeah what Mule Deer said

My understanding is that Mel Forbes will take a Colt Light Rifle and put one of his stocks on it and bed it - is that correct? How happy have people been with these reworked Colts?

Several Campfire folks have done the CLR>NULA "transition" and commented favorably on the result. Maybe some will jump in here.

I got my ULA in '93 and the NULA in 2006, both shoot everything well. Load development is not much drama as reported by the other posters. Most recently I followed Mule Deer/JB's recipe and had Melvin build a .30-'06 with 24" No. 2 stainless Douglas barrel. The rifle handles well, shoots better, and has shut off a number of other rifle projects just by being there and doing what it does.

jim

Thanks guys. I still see a few CLR's show up around here. By the way, are his base dimensions his own or do they mirror some other rifle? I believe you get a pair when you buy a rifle.
Thanks.

NULA's aren't finicky, and often group several bullet weights to the same POI as well.

DITTO !

Use the right octane, and no knocks and pings, .

WRONG?

Read MD's earlier post.

I have a 2001 ULA 300 WSM and it is my favorite rifle. It is not for those that like the challenge of finding an accurate load. I would be very disappointed with a 1.5" group. What I like about it is that it is very light, very accurate, never shifts POI, and handles recoil very well. I've been thinking about getting a NULA in 308.

I've been "blessed" to have the good fortune to own two of these rifles... ULA in 7mm-08 and a "converted" CLR im 7mm Mag.
The ULA is neat in that it has the 22" #1 barrel, weighs in at well under 6#, gets ~3040 fps with 139gr. Hornady Light Mag. factory loads, and shoots accurately as people have described! I haven't even been tempted to handload for this rifle yet as I don't know how much room for improvement there is! I don't see much better out there performance vs. weight wise except for maybe .284 Win. or 6.5-284.
The CLR was sent back to Mr. Forbes who gladly restocked it, bedded it, added his follower, firing pin spring, and a Timney trigger. It has the 24" #2 contour barrel which is nice in the 7 Mag. but adds a "little" weight. The beauty of this rifle is VALUE! It shoots just as well as my ULA but is very affordable at ~$1100-1200 depending on what you give for your CLR. Mine will someday become even more similar to it's cousins when (if I ever shoot the 7 mag barrel out) I have Melvin rebarrel it in a 26" .264 WM! Thus far though it hard to complain about the 7 Mag.

Kinda looks like to know NULAs is to love 'em.

They are really incredible rifles.

Steve