After many, many years away from BR competition, I decided to get back into it. There was a time when I was a passable shooter but that was then. Nonetheless, I attended a couple of matches this past summer (where I shot quite poorly, thanks for asking) with the intention of attending a big match once I got sorted out a bit. I heard about the Tack Driver match, organized by Jim Cline in South Carolina. It is a match fired at 300m (I like the distance) for group and for score (the score part is on a 200 yd hunter BR target!). It is kind of a "run what you brung" event, but the winning formula, to date, has been a HV rifle in PPC or a BR or BR derivative.  Hugh Williamson has come very close to cleaning the score portion of the event and has placed second overall. If pressed, I would be inclined to pick Hugh as the likely winner this year. Still, ever the optimist, I entered the match and I brashly told Jim that I would show up with a 308. Now, I had a heavy 308 with which I had shot a 750/750 on the ISSF target and it is a pretty solid 1/4 minute rifle at that range. Instead of that, I decided to build another.
I had three suitable actions and a couple of old Hart barrels. I also had one unsuitable action which I naturally chose to use. This is an old Wichita Mini action with a PPC bolt.  I fitted one of the Hart barrels to it and rebated the rims on twenty cases to test the concept.  It worked fine except for one thing; it didn't shoot as well as my silhouette rifle. In fact, it sucked. Now and then, it would shoot under .4 but it was usually closer to .8. Pretty good for a lightweight 30/06 but an embarrassment for a BR gun. Now I had previously shot this rifle, with a 6BR barrel on it (also with rebated rims) at a couple of BR matches. It had not shot particularly well. It was worse as a 308. The likely reason became apparent when I was taking it apart to do some diagnostic work. When I removed the scope (a 36x Weaver) it rattled! Now I'm no expert, but I don't think they are supposed to do that. I replaced it with an old 24x Leupold I have and, at the same time, put on a new Williamson barrel. The improvement was immediate and I'll tell all about it later. Right now, I've got to go to town. Bill

Although you wouldn't necessarily think so, given my shooting, I had a great time. I'll see you at the provincials in August, with rifles and self finely tuned!
This is a great facility and location. I do think the wind generator could be turned down a bit!  Bill

So, I was going through some piles of stuff and came across an old Certificate Dad (James E. Leeper) got for establishing a new Canadian 200yd group record in Sporter class (for the younger members, Sporter class was like light Varmint, but you couldn't shoot a 22. It died out when it was realized hardly anyone shot a 22 anyway). The record was five shots into .844"! This would, of course, cause most competitors today to gnash their teeth and mumble obscenities. Dad's note says this was shot with a Remington 40XBR in 6mm Remington caliber. The scope was a 20X Remington with external adjustable mounts. The load was 4895 behind a Sierra 75HP. I have the action from the rifle, but nothing else. Plainly, accuracy has come a way since then. Regards, Bill

I made an improved model using aluminum flashing and duct tape. I labeled the "Red Green signature model" and expected to be swamped with orders. Didn't happen though.  Bill

Wow! That is really impressive. Got to be Canada's best BR venue. Regards,   Bill.

These guys test batches of barrels of the same make (whatever their favourite maker may be at the time). The reason they test batches of barrels (this assumes their pockets are deep enough to allow such testing and re-inforces the idea that the winners buy their way in; a contention with which I disagree) is that nobody is able to identify exactly what makes a good barrel vs a great barrel. If a barrel is perfect in all identifiable respects, it may or may not be a great barrel. If a barrel is obviously flawed, it may or may not be a turkey. It may be assumed, however, that a barrel which is straight, consistent in dimension, and smoothly finished, has greater potential to be exceptional than the flawed barrel.
Now, I have to say, I disagree with the practice of not lapping a barrel and I believe lapping may well be the most important step in producing a great barrel. Until this final finishing touch, the barrel is only potentially great. Some barrels may be good enough before lapping but they are likely to be better afterward. Also, a mediocre barrel can be improved to where it may achieve greatness. Nonetheless, I am willing to accept an unlapped barrel if I think it is basically sound because I can always lap it myself. If it doesn't work out, I have only to look in the mirror to lay blame.
I am also convinced that while most rifling configurations are just a demonstration that most anything will work well, there are configurations which are better than others for good, practical reasons.
I don't believe there is a great deal of difference between cut and buttoned barrels. Many years ago, I was quite convinced that buttoned barrels were somewhat more consistent but the ascendency of Krieger barrels over the last fifteen years or so puts the lie to this. Their practice of honing prior to rifling and lapping subsequently is a large part of their success and the guys doing the lapping should be well paid.
At one time, Ed Shilen figured that barrel straightness was immaterial as long as the barrel was not so crooked that fitting and chambering was difficult. The thing is, it doesn't take much of a curve to create a challenge when trying for a BR quality chamber and Shilen has, in recent years acknowledged this and begun straightening their barrels during manufacture (I assume this is done after drilling but prior to reaming as this makes the most sense from a machining standpoint).
Ultimately, one has to feel he is getting what he paid for and when barrels are getting into that 400 dollar range (thanks to market interference by the US State Dept.  Free enterprise, my ass!)one would hope that the necessity for trying out a batch of barrels would be a memory.
I'm hoping this is the summer our campground will take care of itself a little better and allow me to shoot a bit. We'll see what happens. I just don't have the time I need to have!   Regards,   Bill

Charlie Womack was one of the stalwarts of the Clearwater, B.C. BR club and of the BRSC. There were a number of characters in the Clearwater club and Charlie was most assuredly one of them. I think Charlie might have had some difficulty at today's matches as he was a man who kind of liked to talk and during the match was as good as any other time. There were a few of the early shooters whose company I truly enjoyed and Charlie was most definitely one of them.
Charlie perfectly illustrated that while you can take the man out of Texas, you can't take Texas out of the man. He had lived in BC since before I was born but still sounded like Texas. I think he was still coming to grips with the fact that BC was bigger.
Some of the great entertainment was the running commentary between Charlie, Alex Bulman, and Harlan Govett during the match.
That Hart action had a PPC bolt fitted to it by Larry Bagget in 1977, I believe. I put a McMillan barrel on it in the winter of 79.
I think it was in 1978 that Charlie suffered a stroke which got him to thinking of his own mortality and he donated the Womack Memorial trophies out of the mistaken feeling that he might be forgotten. Not likely.  Regards,   Bill.

In the early days of the 6PPC, the only brass available was Sako .220 brass. The original chamber neck diameter, as designed by Pindell and Palmisano, was .264" but the Sako brass would not clean up at a large enough diameter to allow the use of a fitted neck in a .264 chamber so most went to a .262 neck. I beklieve fred Sinclair, not wanting to leave anything to chance, went to .261.
My first reamer was a Hugh Henriksen reamer with a .264 neck. Of the brass I had, about half of them were thick enough to allow me to turn them to .0003" clearance and run them fitted. The other half, I had to turn down a little more to clean up and they required sizing. I shot both batches and could see no difference in performance so I turned them all so that they required sizing.
I later got a .262 reamer just because that seemed to be the popular size and most rifles I chambered were cut with that reamer. All of my own, I chambered at .264 because I had enjoyed pretty good success with that chamber. I always felt that the brass which was turned to give about .0015 clearance (diametric clearance) was less sensitive than those which were closely fitted.
Today, there are some brass choices but the Lapua seems to be the brass of choice and I see little reason to mess with anything else.   Regards,   Bill.

I have never used alibis since my ineptitude is it's own alibi. I have seen shooters who have made poor shots and who had legitimate alibis; sometimes without even knowing it.
I witnessed one such occurence whic I have recounted before but will repeat just in case somebody missed it.
It was probably in about 1979 or'80 and I was shooting at a match at Clearwater BC. I was set up next to Harland Govett. I always liked shooting next to Harlan since I found his patter entertaining. In addition, Harland had a tendency to mess up on occasion, adding t the entertainment.
On this particular day, I had fired my five shots fairly quickly; producing one of my trademark groups which make the moving backer superfluous. Having nothing else to do, I watched as Harland fired his second shot right through the first hole. He looked pleased as he chambered shot number three and sent it downrange. Again, it went right through the original hole. However, at virtually the same time as the shot hit the target, a ladybug landed nearly an inch out at roughly 2 o'clock. Both Harland and I were fooled and believed that to be his third shot. Disgusted, Harland did a creditable job of putting the last two shots between the two holes then got up from the bench. I was still looking at the target when the bug flew away! I still remember Harland's comment when he saw the target, " Hell, that's not as bad as I thought!"
Another classic was fired by John Elliot at the same range. This day was wet. The rain varied between a standard deluge and a " Get to the Ark, and hurry" downpour. I, for one have always wondered what effect raindrops had on a bullet; primarily to ascertain their alibi value. While I still have not been able to quantify the effect of raindrops, I can tell you that rain can, under the right circumstances, have an effect. In this instance, John had a reasonable group going with his 6mm International when, just as he was bearing down for his fifth shot, a stream of water came off the roof and right in front of John's muzzle (or, I should say, his rifle's muzzle. John's was well back.) At the shot there was a cloud of spray and that shot hit a good inch and a half out.
I don't remember who it was who fired a 222 mag through his 6x47. Under normal circumstances, the shot would have missed everything and  he might have thought he put one through another hole. Unfortunately for him, his 22 bullet went through the target, sideways, about 2 inches to the right.
Another shooter, I think it was Andy Gilfillan, had chosen faulty brass as his alibi for the day. On this day, Andy was shooting more than his share of flyers and with each flyer, he tossed the offending piece of brass over his shoulder. It wasn't long before he was running low on brass and had to reclaim some.
So, there are legitimate alibis and time tested alibis ( the "double" is an old favourite). Alibis are necessary and so much better than having to say, "I am just stupid!" Regards,    Bill

Now, I don't know if it really has much to do with quantum mechanics but I noticed, while reading the excerpt from the research paper, pretty solid evidence that my brain had slipped off into a parallel universe. The feeling was not unlike the feeling I get when bullets appear to fly upwind as they so often do when I'm suffering through a match.
I must say, on those rare occasions when I have shot particularily well, it did almost seem like I could will the bullets into the hole. Sadly, this phenomenon also seems to be well beyond my control and strictly random in nature.
Perhaps the best potential use for such esoteric knowledge lies in the alibi arena. Rather than simply missing a condition, one can admit to misjudging the necessary synaptic frequency for a particular shot. The cummulative effect of this error could easily spoil the whole damn group. Indeed, the entire match could be adversely affected. The beauty of this is; It may not even be the shooter's fault! I like it.  Regards,   Bill