17
« on: December 26, 2009, 01:53:24 PM »
I do believe there has been much more experimentation and change in accessories (rests, bags, etc.) than in the rifles themselves. The rests, especially.
It is my contention that the rifles have not changed but have simply settled into a configuration which was shown to be effective more than a quarter century ago. In the mid-eighties, Lester Bruno fired a .17something agg at the super shoot. His rifle was an XP100 action, unsleeved, glued into a glass stock. Hard to believe that rifle would not be competitive today!
The top shooters are vastly improved. They are capable of seeing wind changes that I, most likely, never could. They have the patience and ability to develope loads which bring out the best in their rifles. I can't help but think bullet quality has improved somewhat though, I must confess, I'm not sure how. Bullet balance is still dependent upon jacket quality and while jacket concentricity may have improved substantially, it happened when I wasn't looking! (feel free to speak up here, Dan).
The rule book specifies stock configuration to a certain extent but it still leaves a lot of room for individuality if the shooter so desires. Barrel dimensions are limited but don't seem to make a huge difference anyway. For the right shooter, tuners are an interesting and effective innovation (again, not a really recent innovation since I recall reading an article describing a barrel tuner when I was in high school).
The rapid fire technique employed by so many shooters today, is a technique which has taken a quarter century to become as popular as it has. In 1978, a fellow from Portland, Oregon, fired a number of groups in under 30 seconds each. His rifle was the first dual port rifle I had seen. In 1980, Allen Bench showed up with an ejector rifle which also feature a gravity feed, open, magazine which fed into the left port. You can understand why I think rifle developement is minimal. By the way, the original dimensions for the PPC featured a 264 neck (light turn) which was later reduced to .262 because too many of the cases available at the time wouldn't cleanup if turned to .010 thickness.
Cyanchycki,
Actually, I doubt the equipment has improved to any noticable extent. A lathe is a lathe. It's ability to spin true is dependent upon bearing quality. You would have to ask Timken if they think they make better precision class bearing than they did 50 years ago. I suspect the precision bearings are no better but are more easily produced. Work and tool holding methods are the same as they have been for fifty years. The reamers used today are just like the one's I bought in 1978. I have and use reamers made from '78 on and, since they all come from the same area in Oregon where, I suspect, all the reamer makers are related by marriage, if not blood, these reamers are essentially the same product. Again, the reamer makers are able to more easily produce a precision product and more easily measure it. All gunsmiths, myself included, have varied our techniques in an attempt to more easily get the best out of the tooling thus making results more repeatable. The goal, however, remains the same; precise alignment and concentricity of the finished product. Regards, Bill