Frank, I am throwing this out for "general consumption", most of this is not news to you, so please don't take it that I am trying to question or insult your intelligence. As always, I am hoping people will not just take the easy answer and they will question what is being posted in the hopes of everyone gaining a better understanding on any given topic.
Couple of different issues at play:
Bullet Stability - this could apply to a couple of different performance variables, primarily Supersonic, Transonic, and Subsonic flight characteristics. For typical shooters limited on range, the only thing they generally need to worry about is Supersonic flight characteristics. Where ELR shooters who are going way out there, Transonic & Subsonic performance becomes a major factor. Many "marginally stable bullets" will do fine in Supersonic flight, however they have a much greater chance of losing stability once they enter the Transonic range. This has been documented by Litz in a number of his papers/books, and to the best of my knowledge, backed up by real world shooting results. Once I get home, I can drag out my material from Litz if anyone would like the references. I am not a Ballistician/Rocket Scientist, so I would have to defer to someone who has a much higher level of understanding on the subject than me. I have chucked plenty of bullets at ranges where they were well into Transonic/Subsonic flight, however I can't say with any degree of authority what the results were based on? If there was a miss, was it due strictly to a stability issue, or some other issue like a bad wind call or DOPE calculation?
Bullet BC - to get optimal BC, the bullet needs to be at optimal stability (and speed). If a bullet is not truly stable, it will fly with an off axis orientation that will result in drag. If you use a good stability calculator, it should also reference the loss in BC as the bullet falls below optimal stability. In the case above, a 10 twist with a stability factor of 1.38 is going to have a 4%-5% loss in BC performance. With a stability factor above 1.5, which you would achieve with the 1:9, you could achieve both optimal stability and BC performance (yes BC is also velocity dependent).
Bullet Structural Integrity - this is the one that IMHO there needs to be a lot more research conducted on. If you go back to my posts in the threads on the new Hornady Ballistics Program, their Doppler Radar Tracking, and the resulting Custom Drag Models, you will note that I stated that damage caused to the bullet as it moves through the barrel can have an impact on a number of factors like Stability and BC. Yes, if you twist a bullet fast & hard enough, you can potentially cause change/damage to both the core and jacket. This resulting damage can obviously be anywhere from very minor and inconsequential, to complete failure of the bullet. The million dollar question, what point will a twist rate, and given velocity, result in damage to a given bullet? I specifically brought this topic up at the Fall AB Seminar, and was told that a "properly designed bullet" should have no issues being fired out of a "typical twist rate" fast enough to produce an optimal stability factor of 1.5.
In terms of the issues with using a 1:8:
- It is well over optimal stability, and may well be "overkill" for what is "really needed". NOTE - I referenced a 1:9 as being optimal in terms of stability and BC. Is the additional stability gained with the 1:8, worth the potential consequences, not in my book, but I am not an ELR shooter who relies on transonic/subsonic flight characteristics for success or failure.
- It may well be twisting fast & hard enough to damage certain bullet designs, and that would have obviously be an issue in those cases. Per the comments above, not all bullet designs are equal, and thinner jacket and softer core bullets may well have significant issues, where others would not.
- Like the bullet designs, not all barrel designs are created equal. The Rifling design could have a major impact on the changes/damage done to a bullet. A 1:8 barrel that has 4 grooves which are shallow/short with a angled edge may work perfectly fine, where a 1:8 barrel with 5 grooves which are tall with a 90 degree edge could result in damage.
- In addition to the twist rate and barrel design, the pressure/velocity could also be a significant factor. Firing a bullet at close to 65,000 PSI and 3,000 FPS could result in damage, where firing the same bullet at below 60,000 PSI and 2,850 FPS, may not result in any significant damage. The chance of bullet damage, is obviously proportional to the forces being applied against it.
- Barrel Length could also be a "contributing factor", in that a bullet may be fired "harder" with a faster burning powder out of a shorter barrel, or "easier" with a slower burning powder out of a longer barrel. Not sure that dwell time, or distance traveled, would be a major contributing factor by themselves?
IMHO, there is not a simple short answer as to whether a 1:8 will, or will not, work?
As far as any results the Army is experiencing, it is the Army, and having been there and done that, I wouldn't put it past them to be doing somethings they shouldn't, which may actually explain their results. Per my comments above, you would have to look at more than just the barrel twist rate to try and figure out why they are, or are not, succeeding?
As far as King of the 2 Mile, Fitzpatrick was actually shooting a Solid Bullet, so the issue of bullet change/damage was most likely not going to be a significant factor. However he was shooting well into the transonic/subsonic range, so stability was a major factor. Fitzpatrick had first (& second) round hits at 1,454 / 1,556 / 1,724 / 2,011 / 2,480. Litz was shooting a .338 with jacketed bullets, and he also had first round hits at 1,454 / 1,724 / 2,480. I will have to look when I get home to see if I can find the rifle specs, specifically the twist rates. My point in the King of 2 Mile reference, you don't make 1st round hits at those ranges if you don't have a very stable and predictable bullet flight path (among a lot of other things!) into the transonic/subsonic range. This was what was stressed at the Fall AB seminar, and it sounds like it is also being stressed to others.
Once again, I am just trying to put things out there, so when someone asks, "do I need a 1:10, 1:9, or 1:8", they hopefully know everything they need to be looking at to make that decision.