ttt

Bump

Let's bring back this restaurant and watch the woke crowd's head explode! If anyone here has ever ate in a Sambo's then we can be friends.

wvfarrier said:

I received a batch of the Shellshock 308 Win casings. The company has zero communication skills. I left several messages via email/phone and received no responses. I also received zero shipping info but the brass did arrive after 6 days so not bad but the lack of communication annoyed me.

The brass itself looks terrible. Its filthy unlike the photos they provide on their website where it all looks new. What I received looks like 5 week old nickel range brass. Pretty ugly.

I threw some of it in the stainless media to clean it up. We will see how it turns out. The annealing marks are almost 3/4 of the way down the case length....kinda weird. The 300blk casing I bought previously looked MUCH better.

My only guess is that they coat them in some kinda of oil during packaging. The bag is covered in it.

The interesting part is the H2O capacity. My alpha (unfired) srp brass holds 54.8 grains of water BUT the SS Nas3 holds 57!!! That is a massive difference.

My plan is too load some up tomorrow with my current 308 recipe and see how it goes.

Click to expand...

Similarly, my Sig 277 Hybrid case's volumes measured at 57 grs H2O. I'd received 4 different case headstamps of them and each was a little different. After necking them up from .277 to .308 and firing them, two of the headstamps measured at 57.7, which interestingly is exactly what my Winchester .308 brass measured.

You're idea of trying your normal load first is a good one, if nothing more than to get some fire formed and then get a measurement of their case volumes. Then you can test some different loads, which is what I did, starting with normal loads and working up with different powders for more velocity . . . assuming that's what you got these cases for.

I worked up a load max pressure (that being at 80k psi, much higher than I intend to use normally) using 46.5 grs H-4895 pushing 177 SMK's with a COAL of 2.977" to 2,900 fps. . .something I would not recommend anyone doing unless they really know what they're doing. Modern day actions and barrels can handle that pressure, but it still hard on them. I intend to keep pressure somewhere between 70k and 75k psi with these cases. I've not had any extraction or ejection issues with these cases so far.

I've very curious as to how these case's of your compare.

Yes

I have often wanted a 22lr or 300bo threaded contender barrel for back yard plinking. Sounds like the best option is to purchase a barrel that is already threaded (vs. trying to find someone to thread m existing 22lr barrel).

Ditto a 22 hornet with a fast twist barrel and chambered to shoot 77gr HPBT bullets at subsonic speeds. That's always been a dream of mine.

Bump

Rob01 said:

It’s something that is useless unless you want to play mathematician. When you are laying behind your scope are you figuring out the apparent FOV? No. You see what you see. Seeing as this is the first I heard of this super important specification and never needed it to hit what I was aiming at then that will be filed under useless info for me. You have fun with your calculations

Click to expand...

You don't need to know it, but knowing AFOV is a useful metric IMO and I wish more manufacturers would list it. If you really want to know it, you can back into it with a little math from the regular m/100m or ft/100y FOV specs. It is a spec that nearly all purchasers would be unfamiliar with which is probably why manufacturers don't list it.

Knowing AFOV at the min and max magnification makes it very easy to determine which scopes have tunneling, which ones have narrow vs wide angle eyepieces, and it makes it easier to compare the angular field of view across multiple scopes with different magnification ranges. The wider the AFOV, the wider the field of view and the more you'll see in your eye at a given magnification.

If you're comparing say a 5-25 and a 6-36 scope and the 5-25 has a 22 degree AFOV and the 6-36 has a 26 degree AFOV, the 6-36 will have a wider field of view than the 5-25 when both scopes are at the same magnification, even if the typically listed FOV specs (listed in m/100m or ft/100yd) show narrower for the 6-36 at maximum magnification. That's where I find knowing AFOV useful.

As far as trying to wrap your head around it... this might help.

18-19 degree AFOV would be considered a narrow field of view, sort of the "looking down a drinking straw" effect. You can see your target, but not too much around it. You may have to dial the mag down to see your misses or find the target after recoil, especially if the target is obscured or harder to find.

21-22 degree AFOV is sort of a middle of the road number at the moment (partly because Swarovski has a patent on a certain set of scope characteristics, including a >22 degree AFOV)-- this is why many high end scopes like the ZCO 527, TT 7-35, US market S&B 6-36, are all limited to just under 22 degrees AFOV... it's for US patent compliance.

Quite a few of the higher end LOW manufactured scopes offered right now (like the Razor G3 6-36) have a 24ish degree AFOV. Fairly wide angle, but not huge.

Some of the latest scopes have very large AFOV numbers... March has offered a 26 degree wide angle eyepiece for a while now, the S&B 6-36 Non-US version that isn't limited by the US patent compliance is 26.1 degrees, and the new Kahles k540 has 29.8 degrees-- it's the current AFOV king in the US market thanks to Kahles being owned by Swarovski and therefore they own the patent. Every person that's been behind a K540 is pretty shocked at how much you see and how large the field of view is at a given magnification because of that extra wide 29.8 degree AFOV.

I have a hunch if/when the Swarovski >22 degree AFOV patent expires in the middle of 2026 we're going to see more manufacturers touting viewing angles offered by their new "wide angle" scopes. Right now March and S&B are some of the only manufacturers I'm aware of that lists the angular FOV specs of their scopes, and they list it both at min and max mag. (However, one of my gripes is I wish manufacturers would list the FOV specs (both distance and angular) down to 2 digits past the decimal place, but the average purchaser probably dosen't care about rounding error affecting their pre-purchase comparisons, lol)

Back to the OP's question, the LHT's have a somewhat narrow AFOV at around 19.7 degrees for the 4.5-22 and 20 degrees for the 3-15 (this is off the Vortex spec sheets, and the slight difference could easily be rounding error from the single decimal place FOV numbers provided since Ilya said both LHT's share the same angular FOV)-- this is apparent when looking through them. Looking through the 20 degree AFOV LHT back to back with a 24.1 degree Razor 6-36 is a bit jarring; the rather narrow FOV of the LHT takes me back to many scopes from the early 2000s with narrow FOV's like the MK4 4.5-14 and Bushnell 4200 6-24, lol. Vortex did sacrifice some things in the design of the LHT to keep weight at a minimum; AFOV, turrets and turret feel, and illumination control being the 3 you immediately notice. I have 3 of the 4.5-22s on light builds and while the LHTs do have quite a few compromises for the light weight, I wanted them for the weight savings first and realized I'd have to live with a few compromises for that light weight at that price point. Still happy with the purchases but I accepted those compromises going in.

Has anyone heard from @Barneybdb today?

btt

btt

btt

MWAlex2 said:

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

yup, run off the happy eaters who like to tip ...for bitches, and pretend bitches who like to bitch and don't tip.

padom said:

Who's submitting the form 4??? ATF efile doesn't allow an individual submit a Form 4, says you need to be a FFL/SOT when you click on Form 4.

I tried yesterday...

Click to expand...

Pretty sure it has to be filed hard copy/ paper form 4 forin state NFA item transfers.

btt

btt

I have only used the FFP 4.5-22x50 Razor LHT. Well I have two. They have worked well for two plus years of well use. Running one on AR10 and one on AR15. No complaints