koshkin said:

Keep in mind that the scopes that tunnel on low power do not seem to be impacted by the patent.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting point, as the 3-20, while it does not visibly tunnel like the 5-25, does lose just a little AFOV down at 3x, even though it's 24.06 degrees at 20x.

Still interesting to see the selective compliance/enforcement of the Swarovski patent, as several non-European made scopes have a >22 degree AFOV and a high erector ratio but have been on the market for several years now.

I'm holding off trying an S&B 6-36 or 3-18 FFP until I see what 2026 brings in regards to potential patent expiration and full AFOV models hitting the US market. I'm actually more interested in the upcoming 4-24 Razor as I have 4 rifles that would be perfect hosts for them provided the 31ish oz weight estimate is correct.

NoDopes said:

You need to set higher goals or you'll never achieve greatness.

Click to expand...

Easily obtained by the average moron, IE sand savage.

R

JT_EagleEye said:

Hi, is it CTR or AICS inlet? Thanks

Click to expand...

AICS

BowChamp said:

What effect did venturing into true benchrest competition like ARA, with the V22S, have on Vudoo.

It seemed the powers to be pulled back pretty hard after you parted ways with Vudoo.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The BR venture was to be part of the Custom Shop run by Vudoo but with the involvement of Ivan Wells on the BR side. The plan was good, Ivan did his thing and it was showing a lot of promise. The path was designed to lead the way to an American designed and made positional rifle based on earlier work that the U.S. Olympic Training Center showed a lot of interest in.

They did back away from it.

MB

carbonbased said:

Thanks man.

Setting aside the probable clerical error of the web designers…

Given the fact that S&B are the only ones that called out (in their PDF catalog) that certain US scopes of theirs had reduced FOV, it’s curious that on this new website there are no asterisks on the Euro specs.

2024-25(?) catalog, for people other than koshkin
View attachment 8674037

Perhaps another clerical omission? However I’ve noticed EO is really trying to get rid of their existing 6-36 models, and seemingly not replenishing them. Apologies if I am wrong, I’m not taking notes, but that is the vibe.

I can’t quite remember if there were other S&B models impacted by the Swaro patent?

Click to expand...

I do not really have any insight on the efficacy of the specific numbers on the website. Typos on websites are very common.

ILya

FuhQ said:

So, what's with the pocket pussy on the suppressor?

Click to expand...

LOL it’s a manta suppressor cover, I’m seeing if I like it. Jury still out on it. Probably will switch to can chap. That is of course, after I take it to pound town.

Kiba said:

Many of the older S&B designs like the 5-25 are down in the 21-ish degree AFOV region so the patent doesn't have any impact on them.

As far as newer scopes, the 6-36 and 3-18 x 42 Meta are affected and have a much narrower FOV for the US market, and as far as I know that's currently the only other new S&B model subject to the patent compliance with different FOV's between the US and European market scopes... but I haven't scoured the S&B website and crunched all the AFOV numbers for all the S&B models to see which ones may be affected so there may be others I'm missing.

When the 6-36 first came out S&B very clearly listed both US and non-US FOV specs on their website, it appears they no longer do that. I have not tried using a VPN with a US and European exit node to see if the website automatically serves up the appropriate FOV spec for the region you are visiting from.

My older full length S&B 3-20s have an AFOV larger than 22 degrees (24.06 @ 20x), and I believe the Ultra Short 3-20 does as well-- somehow Swarovski let those slide.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the scopes that tunnel on low power do not seem to be impacted by the patent.

Few remaining if anyone wants them.
Thanks

Got my 2 firing pins in and ordered extra barrel shims and extractor kit while I was at it. Put them in and decided it's time to address some things I wanted to improve.

First I ordered the lop kit from krg. This kit comeswith a rubber butt pad vs the cheap plastic one the quick adjust version came with. That alone was worth the money but I was hoping it would push me far enough back I could get proper eye relief on my scope which is already as far forward as I can get it before ordering a cantilever mount. I got cheap rings to lower it which is nice but the lop kit wasn't enough.

Next up was the weight up front and mounting the bipod better. The 10/22 Bravo doesn't have the slants in the front to hold a harris straight so I needed to mount a pic rail to keep it centered and ran a bipod stud through that. I also took a chunk of steel and cut slots for the screws that matte the plastic exterior to the backbone. This runs from the front almost to the action mounting point. Added some good weight to the front for sure.

The last thing I wanted to address since I have no 2nd mount point yet is the fit of the rear. Krg sends 2 shims (.010" and .020") but even the .010" was too thick to seat the action. Luckily enough a tape measure tape measures .007" and a piece of blue painters tape .005". I started with making a quick shim from the tape measure and a light tap on the muzzle and she locks up right in the back. With how tight it is I'm not sure how much better a tang mount could be. What it could still improve on is bedding on the sides of the action between the backbone. The barrel can still shift left or right with a good hit.

I still plan to throw some weights in the pistol grip and perhaps in the back of the stock in the cavity they have. I also really need to get a cantilever scope mount. I can't get a good face mount on the gun with this scope, needs to move forward at least 1-2".

Looking forward to testing done ammo and the improvements .

kenny1773 said:

beer snobs are the worst, they are worse than wine snobs, no one fucking cares what beer you prefer or why

Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment.

Bgriff008 said:

Sounds like Jeep selling to Stellantis. But at least Jeep is still around to be sold.

Click to expand...

For now:

Why is Stellantis in financial trouble?

High prices and quality problems, notably in the ever-more-costly Jeep line, dogged the company's brands. As a result, "profits plummeted by nearly half" during the first six months of 2024, and U.S. sales fell 20% in the third quarter.Dec 17, 2024

Stellantis is facing significant challenges but has a fighting chance. While past performance indicates struggles, the company is actively working on a turnaround plan, including a focus on electric vehicle (EV) development and potential brand closures. The future of Stellantis hinges on its ability to adapt to a rapidly changing market and successfully execute its strategic initiatives.

Their financials are not great right now.

justin amateur said:

I've pondered the 20 fps difference in average MV.

I have a plausible explanation.
Remember I commented on how management sets the specifications?
That includes velocity range and acceptable spread on target.
If the target results from batch testing fit the specifications,
and there was a persistent change in powder/primer charge over time,
then the beginning of the run would have a different average than the end.
Still gets the same lot number, but packaging might be related
to parallel feeding from adjacent stacks of boxed/labeled cartridges.
Beginning of run stacked next to end of run,
feeding down the conveyor belts to the packing boxes.

Maybe, I think.

Click to expand...

That could be true as well.

Also wouldn’t be a big deal at all if you could just throw them all in a bag and go. Be like any normal average lot. But the low spread of the 1091 vs the high spread of the 1111 is a ES of 49fps, hence the reason I’m separating them by box

Bump

Bump, make an offer!

Sandhog308 said:

My house is 101 years old , it’s been paid for forever. I STILL have to pay $1,900 per year for it just sitting here. There’s NO improvements done , no upkeep on the Counties part.
The ONLY benefit of getting old is I won’t have to deal with this shit forever.

Click to expand...

There are holes and pits in the local tax code. Non-permanent structures are not taxed, concrete is, asphalt isn't.

I have co-op power, no municipal fresh water or waste water services. 16acs taxed is $437 yearly and I get the luxury to protest the appraisal value every 3yrs.

carbonbased said:

I can’t quite remember if there were other S&B models impacted by the Swaro patent?

Click to expand...

Many of the older S&B designs like the 5-25 are down in the 21-ish degree AFOV region so the patent doesn't have any impact on them.

As far as newer scopes, the 6-36 and 3-18 x 42 Meta are affected and have a much narrower FOV for the US market, and as far as I know that's currently the only other new S&B model subject to the patent compliance with different FOV's between the US and European market scopes... but I haven't scoured the S&B website and crunched all the AFOV numbers for all the S&B models to see which ones may be affected so there may be others I'm missing.

When the 6-36 first came out S&B very clearly listed both US and non-US FOV specs on their website, it appears they no longer do that. I have not tried using a VPN with a US and European exit node to see if the website automatically serves up the appropriate FOV spec for the region you are visiting from.

My older full length S&B 3-20s have an AFOV larger than 22 degrees (24.06 @ 20x), and I believe the Ultra Short 3-20 does as well-- somehow Swarovski let those slide.

Odd. Out of all the Grendel builds I’ve done, I’ve only given up on 2 barrels. Most have been extremely easy to find a load that shoots moa or better. I’ve had the exact opposite experience with 6ARC. They’ve been the tough ones to get to shoot.