The perfect .223 Rokslide Special Setup

[WyldGoose]

Whats the benefit of going to the other og vs the og65.
Will there be enough difference?
Didn’t catch they were doing one for 223.

I don’t really know how much the spec will differ, but I know they’re making a 223 one this year. I’m currently using my OG65 for both my .223 and 6mm. I just figured if I’m gonna end up with another can I’d just grab the dedicated .223 OG for my .223 and this one can live on the 6mm.

 

[shayes11]

Whats the benefit of going to the other og vs the og65.
Will there be enough difference?
Didn’t catch they were doing one for 223.

My very uneducated guess is that'll more closely resemble the form factor of their newest OG6-S, making it 6 inches overall including the 3" reflex. So less can forward of the muzzle and lighter. Again, just a WAG.

 

[Scoony]

I know the main discussion is 223 Tikkas, but I found a newer Rem 700 in 223 with a 8 twist.
Timney Trigger
Older Rem stock
SWFA 6x.
Modified the mag box for 75 gr ELD-M's.

I still need to have the barrel cut down and threaded, which I will get done in the next few weeks.
Son has the Tikka, and this Rem shoots just as good. This really likes the 77 gr TMKs with 8208.

 

[Coopsdaddy]

I gotcha,looking at these but if there’s not much difference I would rather have one more universal like the og6.5.
Not sure why someone would comment to a one size fits one caliber vs a more universal one other than just spending more money.
I definitely get it if there is enough accuracy or db difference to justify it.
I have an ultra 7 30 cal and from my research there’s no upside to getting the 6.5 version.
Just because it’s a db or two you can’t tell by ear.

 

[wind gypsy]

@wind gypsy

I wasn’t in argument with what you wrote- I am genuinely curious. The heavy use with sub 18” barrels in hunting weight rifles for me is mostly in the last year, and the results weren’t what I expected on the surface- though if I think about it, it makes sense. It’s even made me want slightly heavier barrels (than a T3 lite) in 16”.

I didn't take offense or interpret it differently. Why do you think that is?

I like a little heavier than lite contour too. Lite hybrid/taperless 750/benchmark #4 are my favorites for hunting rifle.

 

[Formidilosus]

I didn't take offense or interpret it differently. Why do you think that is?

I like a little heavier than lite contour too. Lite hybrid/taperless 750/benchmark #4 are my favorites for hunting rifle.

It seems to be because lightweight stocks, combined with light weight, longer barrels makes the rifle “hollow” in the middle.
It is a perception of feel, but it seems like when the barrel is longer, while the balance point may be near the same- you have this bar where there is a bit of weight at the very back, and weight at the front, but nothing in the middle- I.E., “weight distribution”.

it really became noticeable to me when Ryan had a 6UM in his first RS lite that had a silly skinny 20 or 22” barrel with a 7oz suppressor on it and total weight was 8lbs 2.6oz. It “balanced” in front of the magwell transition- yet is one of the worst feeling and shooting hunting rifles I have ever touched. On real sandbags from a bench, heartbeat alone was moving the reticle .4 mils every beat. It was awful for both of us. My rifle that had a 16” barrel, same suppressor, was lighter by 6oz, and had the balance point at nearly the same point- was a dream to shoot. Actually the most stable and easiest to shoot sub 8lb rifle I had used up to that point. The difference was spectacularly dramatic.

Overall there are some things that seem to be common.

1). A rifle with the weight forward, and no weight in the rear sucks… but is much better than a rifle with a light front and all the weight in the butt. The number of shots that are “off-call”, or unpredictable poor shots are obvious. The lighter the total weight, the more this is noticeable.

2). Weight that is proportional through the rifle, with maybe a touch forward bias- balances, handles and carries significantly better. As well, from rested and alternate positions, offhand, etc; the stability of the rifle and number of “off-call” or unexplained poor shots goes way down- to basically nothing.

3). Stocks have an obvious effect on this. Total weight matters, as well as the design of the stock. The original ROKStok is more forgiving of barrel length and weight than the Lite for instance. While now having used 16” barrels extensively in the ROKStok, I do prefer them to 18”, and 18” over 20”, etc; the ROKStok feels good and shoots well with everything from 16” to 26” (longest I have tried).
The lite however, not so much- especially the 22-23oz ones. In direct comparison- they feel like something is completely wrong when they have a 22” barrel and suppressor in them, compared to a 16” barrel and suppressor. Now, when the lite is 26oz, it feels and performs better with that same 22” barrel. And this isn’t limited to the ROKStoks. Ignoring the design compromises, the lightest Peak44 stock feels and shoots like crap comparatively with a 22” barrel, than it does with the same barrel at 16”.

Stock design, total weight, and where and how that weight is distributed seems to be the crux of it.

 

[wind gypsy]

It seems to be because lightweight stocks, combined with light weight, longer barrels makes the rifle “hollow” in the middle.
It is a perception of feel, but it seems like when the barrel is longer, while the balance point may be near the same- you have this bar where there is a bit of weight at the very back, and weight at the front, but nothing in the middle- I.E., “weight distribution”.

it really became noticeable to me when Ryan had a 6UM in his first RS lite that had a silly skinny 20 or 22” barrel with a 7oz suppressor on it and total weight was 8lbs 2.6oz. It “balanced” in front of the magwell transition- yet is one of the worst feeling and shooting hunting rifles I have ever touched. On real sandbags from a bench, heartbeat alone was moving the reticle .4 mils every beat. It was awful for both of us. My rifle that had a 16” barrel, same suppressor, was lighter by 6oz, and had the balance point at nearly the same point- was a dream to shoot. Actually the most stable and easiest to shoot sub 8lb rifle I had used up to that point. The difference was spectacularly dramatic.

Overall there are some things that seem to be common.

1). A rifle with the weight forward, and no weight in the rear sucks… but is much better than a rifle with a light front and all the weight in the butt. The number of shots that are “off-call”, or unpredictable poor shots are obvious. The lighter the total weight, the more this is noticeable.

2). Weight that is proportional through the rifle, with maybe a touch forward bias- balances, handles and carries significantly better. As well, from rested and alternate positions, offhand, etc; the stability of the rifle and number of “off-call” or unexplained poor shots goes way down- to basically nothing.

3). Stocks have an obvious effect on this. Total weight matters, as well as the design of the stock. The original ROKStok is more forgiving of barrel length and weight than the Lite for instance. While now having used 16” barrels extensively in the ROKStok, I do prefer them to 18”, and 18” over 20”, etc; the ROKStok feels good and shoots well with everything from 16” to 26” (longest I have tried).
The lite however, not so much- especially the 22-23oz ones. In direct comparison- they feel like something is completely wrong when they have a 22” barrel and suppressor in them, compared to a 16” barrel and suppressor. Now, when the lite is 26oz, it feels and performs better with that same 22” barrel. And this isn’t limited to the ROKStoks. Ignoring the design compromises, the lightest Peak44 stock feels and shoots like crap comparatively with a 22” barrel, than it does with the same barrel at 16”.

Stock design, total weight, and where and how that weight is distributed seems to be the crux of it.

I'm not calling BS but I dont understand why that would be? Longer with weight on the ends is more stable than all the weigh in the center. The balance bar someone who walks a tightrope is carrying comes to mind for illustration. Makes them more stable than just their body weight directly above the rope (balance point).

 

[rbutcher1234]

I'm not calling BS but I dont understand why that would be? Longer with weight on the ends is more stable than all the weigh in the center. The balance bar someone who walks a tightrope is carrying comes to mind for illustration. Makes them more stable than just their body weight directly above the rope (balance point).

No clue, but I am spitballing. Harmonics?

All I know is that the barrel lengths that go in my guns now are shorter than in the past. Part of it is because of handling, part of it is realistically assessing how often I really harvested animals past 450yds, and part of it is they just seem to “feel” better when shooting.

That is why I was curious about Form’s experiences above: what he’s saying matches when I have experienced. (Though not in rokstok lites and over lower round counts due to life events the past two years)

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

My version of the Perfect RSS .223

-16” PVA Barrel - 1/7, .100 fb
-UM Nitrided/Lightened Tikka, but no bolt fluting.
-KRG Midas Tikka trigger.
-US OG 6.5
-NF NXS 2.5-10x32 Mildot scope w/ Scope Bumper caps.
-UM Tikka Rings
-HNT 26 w/ Light above bore pad mod & wood grip.
-Hawkins Hunter 5 rd flush AICS 223 Magazine, modded to work with Tikka.
-Weight, loaded with magazine: 7 lbs 8 oz
-88 TMK’s @ 2700 fps.

 

[wind gypsy]

No clue, but I am spitballing. Harmonics?

Maybe under perfect prone or bench positions but I’d figure that is way into being noise for field positions under stress.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Maybe under perfect prone or bench positions but I’d figure that is way into being noise for field positions under stress.

Maybe. I’m not an engineer or physics expert. I do recall reading how barrel lengths change the waveform of recoil, so that is why I jumped to a hypothesis surrounding barrel length and harmonics through recoil.

I’m postulating that a shorter and thicker barrel, that keeps the rifle’s weight more concentrated around the balance point, will “sit” through disturbances more easily than a barrel that spreads the same weight over a longer but lighter barrel. You have compressed the harmonics into a denser package where leverage is working against you less.

Just a theory.