So, this is a quote by Boddington in a recent article about Blaser guns and cartridges...
"Blaser is using slightly slower rifling twists than are often standard for the various calibers. This may or may not create issues with the lightest-for-caliber bullets, but the intent was to allow accuracy with heavier bullets: 1:10 twist in 7mm; 1:11 in .30; 1:12 in .338 (as opposed to the standard 1:10 to allow the use of 300-grain bullets); and 1:14 in .375 (versus standard 1:12 so Norma's 350-grain heavyweight .375 bullet can be used without over-stabilization issues)."
This has me scratching my head. Never new something could be "too stabilized".
If that's what he wrote then he has it backward.
OK, so I'm not crazy...The way he explains it tells me he must really believe this, not just a typo.
Correction, not a recent article. March 2011, RifleShooterMag.com.
If that's what he wrote then he has it backward.
That sorta stuff is why folks are still using 1-11 twists cause they are worried about their TTSX’s flying apart from a 308 with too many RPMs
If that's what he wrote then he has it backward.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. A long bullet needs a fast twist. I have heard of varmint bullets like the very fragile ones being ripped apart in fast twist rifles, like AR15 type.
If that's what he wrote then he has it backward.
There’s a lot of confused thought in that quote.
If that is the case then the new twist rates on the 8.6 Blackout are going to melt some heads.
If that is the case then the new twist rates on the 8.6 Blackout are going to melt some heads.
1 in 3…..the same twist as a sheet rock screw. 😁
Anybody think Craig wrote that when in the Southern Hemisphere? I've been told things are backwards down there. 🤔
Anybody think Craig wrote that when in the Southern Hemisphere? I've been told things are backwards down there. 🤔
Either that or the Southern Comfortsphere.
He seems like a nice guy but I get the feeling he is a hunter who talks about guns, not a gun guy at a hunting magazine.
As an example, he questioned 243 on deer and 270 on elk...
Reminds me of a suit. Always has. He always is cordial. Was around him a few weeks ago. All of his answers sounded political to me. I'd have not agreed with a few things some of the people were saying to him. But if the goal is sales and profit...
If that is the case then the new twist rates on the 8.6 Blackout are going to melt some heads.
I'm sure most of you have looked at the thought process behind this...my take away is you need to use all copper/monos with that fast of a twist and the effect is supposed to be explosive much like a cup and core with higher velocity? Correct? I would like to pose a few questions, then:
What about a 1 in 3 twist with a .224, 6.5 or .308 in a monometal bullet? What kind of effective range could you expect from doing this? Will your barrel life be shortened?
Sorry for the derail...I met Boddington at the NRA convention 4 years ago. Seemed like a good guy, was willing to chat with us for a few minutes.
If that is the case then the new twist rates on the 8.6 Blackout are going to melt some heads.
I'm sure most of you have looked at the thought process behind this...my take away is you need to use all copper/monos with that fast of a twist and the effect is supposed to be explosive much like a cup and core with higher velocity? Correct? I would like to pose a few questions, then:
What about a 1 in 3 twist with a .224, 6.5 or .308 in a monometal bullet? What kind of effective range could you expect from doing this? Will your barrel life be shortened?
I have no idea of the downsides to more twist but I give my gunsmith the vapors every time I send him something fast or talk about it. He wants to run juuuuuust enough for accuracy.
8 twist 7mms, 8 twist 30’s, 6.5/7 twist 22’s, 7.5 twist 270’s.. he try’s to get me to order slower stuff but I think it’s kind of a running joke now. I trust him to most all of the other stuff but I order what I want for barrels.
The old thing about twist slowing down velocity hasn’t played out to me and some rifles I’ve compared yet.
That sounds like an editor changing the writer’s text.
Years ago I did a calculation about how much energy is tied up in the rotation of the projectile. It was negligible compared to the linear component.
Years ago I did a calculation about how much energy is tied up in the rotation of the projectile. It was negligible compared to the linear component.
Fact for sure and certain.
Good to see you back Aces. I’ve always liked your thoughts and thoughtfulness on a lot of the stuff posted here
Good to see you back Aces. I’ve always liked your thoughts and thoughtfulness on a lot of the stuff posted here
Thanks Nest, it’s good to be back. 👍. I’ve just been busy and focusing my (limited) attention elsewhere …. I do begin to miss the conversations and characters that this place is full of, lots of great guys here.
That sounds like an editor changing the writer’s text.
I’ve always liked your contributions here but this one made me laugh because I immediately thought that exact same thing earlier when I saw this and again this evening but I definitely think you’re on to something ….great minds and all that. 😉
I don’t know nor have I ever had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Boddington but I’ve always liked his articles, which were some of the first ones I’d jump to when a new magazine arrived, and I’ve always respected him as a man. I would be very surprised if Mr. Boddington was confused about twist and stability. The above statement attributed to him does certainly sound like something an editor would write, “improved” to keep it simple for us readers to understand. 😂
I won't pretend to know half of what Mr. Boddington knows about guns and hunting but bullet length should have been mentioned instead of weight. The statement would have still been confusing. Partitions for example can be quite heavy for a relatively short length. I am betting he really did not mean what was printed or he was misquoted
Lots of people get confused easily especially when it comes to fast twist slow twist heavy bullets slow bullets light bullets fast bullets.....
They even get really confused when it comes to slow burning powders fast burning powders especially when generally slow burning make faster velocities and fast burning powders make slower velocities if you use an appropriate size cases. And unless they're not talking about high pressures and low pressures with high speeds and slow speeds LOL
That sounds like an editor changing the writer’s text.
I’ve always liked your contributions here but this one made me laugh because I immediately thought that exact same thing earlier when I saw this and again this evening but I definitely think you’re on to something ….great minds and all that. 😉
I don’t know nor have I ever had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Boddington but I’ve always liked his articles, which were some of the first ones I’d jump to when a new magazine arrived, and I’ve always respected him as a man. I would be very surprised if Mr. Boddington was confused about twist and stability. The above statement attributed to him does certainly sound like something an editor would write, “improved” to keep it simple for us readers to understand. 😂
I've always enjoyed his writing. But I don't recall him ever dealing in reloading, gun work etc... to me, IIRC, the articles are always good reads about good hunts.
You can be a writer and not know a lot about mechanics. Not saying this is the case. But could be. And its interesting why an editor would flip that, if so they evidently have no clue between arse hole and ground
I have no idea whether this "recent" quote (from over a decade ago) was printed as Craig wrote it, or modified by an editor--but have seen editors make some really funky changes over the years.
Do know that Craig writes a LOT of articles and books, and while he knows quite a bit about rifles some details can occasionally get a little off, partly due to sheer volume. I recently wrote the foreword for his latest book about hunting-rifle cartridges, so got to read many of the pre-publication chapters. Found a couple of minor errors, and sent the editor/publisher my notes on 'em. Can't recall one of them, but the other occurred when Craig discussed the .220 Swift, saying it was based on the "semi-rimmed" 6mm Lee Navy case.
I pointed out to the editor/publisher that the 6mm LN case was NOT semi-rimmed, but "rimless." Winchester made the rim slightly larger when developing the .220 case, so it would fit the Model 70's bolt face, turning the Swift into a semi-rimmed round.
The publisher wanted to argue about this, saying there was still some debate, citing an Internet site. I said there is no debate, except when Internet sites want some for click-bait. I knew this for certain about the 6mm LN I am one of the relatively few gun writers who's owned one of the rifles, as well as some original ammunition, along with Eugene Myzkowski's fine book on the Lee Navys, researched partly using original government records. The editor/publisher still wanted to argue, so I offered to send him some photos of my actual 6mm Lee Navy cases, whereupon he finally believed me.
All of which is an example potential problems with assumptions by both authors and editors.
Might also note that every writer should have anything so be published by at least one editor, even editors who write for publication.
Maybe CB just had a brain fart when he wrote that.No one is perfect(besides me)!
Or maybe the editor had a brain-fart--which is what I pointed out a few posts ago.
We've already had a recent thread where examples of an editor VASTLY changed Finn Aagaard's some of his writing in in his otherwise great book AAGARD'S AFRICA.
One of the reasons Jack O'Connor left OUTDOOR LIFE was a new, young editor-in-chief who had very little hunting experience, and apparently even less with the English language.
Reminds me of a suit. Always has. He always is cordial. Was around him a few weeks ago. All of his answers sounded political to me. I'd have not agreed with a few things some of the people were saying to him. But if the goal is sales and profit...
Well, he did make General.
Lots of people get confused easily especially when it comes to fast twist slow twist heavy bullets slow bullets light bullets fast bullets.....
They even get really confused when it comes to slow burning powders fast burning powders especially when generally slow burning make faster velocities and fast burning powders make slower velocities if you use an appropriate size cases. And unless they're not talking about high pressures and low pressures with high speeds and slow speeds LOL
Ignore all that stuff and shoot a few groups. If the bullets go into a reasonable perimeter, it's "damn the torpedos- full speed ahead!".
The rest is just politics. :
That means it's too confusing for my poor brain, so I just don't deal with it. Ignorance CAN be bliss.
Speaking of getting All Twisted Up About Not That Much At All :
Anyone know if CB is working on American Hunting Rifles 3 ?
2 is out of print, 1 is out of date, and I’d like the mate to my copy of Safari Rifles 2.
Usually his editors keep things on track. This decades old bobble is understandable given the potential complexity of that twist topic.
🥴
He was working on one when we hunted with him this past Dec. Due date was the 14th of Dec.
That may have been the book JB refered too above.
Ross Seyfried, John Barsness, Craig Boddington…..
Some of the best……
