Ultralight Ultralight Rifles

[Trackselk]

I think so, less risk of something wonky with the barrel anyway. I figure I've spent enough money and time on barrels that are decent that it would be worth a little extra in getting something as close as possible to being great; essentially, I want this one to be my "ultimate" UL-UL 223 barrel.

Still thinking about details. Was planning on using the Shaw profile, but I like this little BCA barrel a lot as well. Just thinking I don't want to go overboard on a skinny profile, but this BCA is a good shooting little barrel as far a that goes.

I'm right there with you. Here's what I've figured out the hard way with getting anyone to make extra thin profiles. Use LRI, AND send them exact dimensions or better yet, send them a profile to copy. I recently spoke with them, and they are happy to copy the bca profile.
Hopefully that's helpful, and please let us know if you find anyone else that is willing to shave down to such tiny profiles.

 

[Thegman]

I'm right there with you. Here's what I've figured out the hard way with getting anyone to make extra thin profiles. Use LRI, AND send them exact dimensions or better yet, send them a profile to copy. I recently spoke with them, and they are happy to copy the bca profile.
Hopefully that's helpful, and please let us know if you find anyone else that is willing to shave down to such tiny profiles.

I was thinking of asking Shaw to do it. They already have their profile anyway, and do 223AI chambers in bolt rifle barrels, so should be able to that in their AR barrel. That just me thinking though, haven't actually asked them yet.

 

[Trackselk]

One last thought, I'll definitely have to stay with the wylde/5.56 diameter for the 5.56 shellshock/nickel case experiment. I guess the reamer pilot will keep it centered well enough, plus the lathe on the other end

 

[Trackselk]

I was thinking of asking Shaw to do it. They already have their profile anyway, and do 223AI chambers in bolt rifle barrels, so should be able to that in their AR barrel. That just me thinking though, haven't actually asked them

Don't they only run big batches? I haven't asked LRI yet about ai of a wylde chamber yet either.

 

[Trackselk]

I was thinking of asking Shaw to do it. They already have their profile anyway, and do 223AI chambers in bolt rifle barrels, so should be able to that in their AR barrel. That just me thinking though, haven't actually asked them yet.

What cha think of this and the solo? Looks like the ai is actually a wider chamber than wylde, and perhaps 5.56?

"

• Standard Taper: Most traditional cartridge cases, including the parent .223 Remington, have a noticeable body taper. This taper helps extraction by allowing the case to start moving out of the chamber with less initial force after firing.
• Ackley Improvement: P.O. Ackley's "improved" design involves reaming the chamber to create a sharper, 40-degree shoulder and a straighter, less-tapered case body. This increases the internal case capacity for more powder and potential velocity gains.
• Extraction Difficulty: The straighter walls mean more of the case body is in contact with the chamber walls when fired. In a bolt-action rifle, a strong primary extraction cam generally overcomes this, and many users report flawless function. However, the increased contact and reduced taper can sometimes lead to sticky or hard extraction, particularly with:
  • High Pressures: Hot loads can exacerbate the issue.

 

[Thegman]

I -think- it will be fine. 350 Legend and 300 HAM'R have very little taper and extract fine. 300 HAM’R is basically an AI taper and extracts easier than anything else I've run in a Solo.

 

[Trackselk]

I -think- it will be fine. 350 Legend and 300 HAM'R have very little taper and extract fine. 300 HAM’R is basically an AI taper and extracts easier than anything else I've run in a Solo.

Sounds good, thanks!

 

[Thegman]

Then again, is there any difference between the wylde & 223 besides the throat? You might be getting what you're after with a ream and setback, as I thought the chamber is otherwise the same(?).

Sorry in advance for this long winded response:

I'm an obsessive case measurer and use before/after firing case measurements with every barrel to help get an idea of what brass measures relative to pressure with any particular barrel. Measuring literally thousands of pieces of brass that way has really helped me understand chamber variations and how that affects other things.

For me, the primary differences between the 223/223AI and 5.56/223 Wylde is the diameter of the base of the chamber, neck diameter and length of the throat.

Looking at most reamer drawings, the 223/223AI chambers are tighter at the base and neck dimensions (considerably) compared to the other two, which were designed to be loose with auto-loading systems in mind, not reloading.

The tighter chambers require less working of the brass when sizing back down due to less case expansion in their chambers relative to their sizing dies, which also reduces case stretch during firing/sizing sequences because the brass isn't being squeezed back down as much (that's where most brass stretching happens) and works brass a lot less in the process. My 223 brass (used in 5.56/ Wylde chambers) usually fails at the neck or case body from the gradual stretching, thinning and working of the brass. That shouldn't happen with a tighter AI chamber.

It's a good point that a tighter chamber and shorter throat will probably increase pressures and may reduce velocity potential in some cases, but the extra 2+ grains in the AI case should at a minimum make up for that.

All that said, there's a lot of variation in chambers. My loosest Solo 223 chamber is the Shaw 223 Wylde chamber and tightest is actually the BCA 5.56, which other than the throat, is more like a typical 223 chamber than a typical 5.56 chamber and is easy on brass compared to the Shaw and some others (nothing wrong with the Shaw, it's just made to standard 223 Wylde dimensions and the BCA isn't made to standard 5.56 dimensions).

My HAM’R chambers are generally a lot tighter than the 5.56/Wylde chambers (closer to a 223/AI chamber) and are a lot easier on brass made from the same LC cases.

Anyway, besides a shorter throat for hopefully better accuracy, those are some reasons I'm not using a 5.56/Wylde barrel to make a 223AI barrel; I want the other advantages of a 223/223AI chamber that the other two don't provide.

 

[Trackselk]

@Thegman
Thanks for the education! I was staring at the 223, wylde, and 556 drawings yesterday and was surprised how many dimensions vary. So much for the gospel of an ai just having a shoulder difference, and a 5.56 just having a longer throat. Now I know better than to believe what I read in some random thread (not rokslide) that the ai chamber is wider. I'll have to go look at that drawing next.
I'm torn between using the shaw so I have a better chance at extracting the nickel cases, and staring fresh like you are. I think I'll start with the shaw as I'm not so worried about brass longevity in my hunting ulul rifle. If it doesn't shoot well, then I'll do it right the 2nd time. Really wanting to solve the nickel case mystery/challenge anyhow.
Please let us know what barrel you start with when you figure that out. I've had good luck with a lijha (sp?) Blank for a kimber, but not sure if that's a viable AR barrel route, and I think it was $420 shipped, ouch!

 

[glock233]

What's everyone's most recent opinion on optics for 2026? I'm torn between a PA Prism 3x, SWFA ultralight, and the Maven that can be dialed.

 

[Thegman]

What's everyone's most recent opinion on optics for 2026? I'm torn between a PA Prism 3x, SWFA ultralight, and the Maven that can be dialed.

@Taudisio is the expert on the PAs, but I got a PA 3x recently. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get it set up in time for my current trip, but really wish I could have, I think I'll like it, especially for 300 yards and in. Seems clear, simple and durable and with the lighted reticle, useful in low light condition.

I have a 2.5-10 SWFA as well but I'm not a huge fan of that scope. It's really more like a 2.5-8 for me, much higher and it's pretty fussy with respect to eye position.

I'm not familiar with the Maven.

Of the two I'm familiar with, for 300 and in (maybe further but haven't tested it yet) I think I'd go with the PA 3x. For beyond that, a little reluctantly, the SWFA.

One nice thing about the SWFA (or most variables with a LR reticle) is that they can work with just about any cartridge by using different power settings. The SWFA is very good in that respect for anything from 300BLK to 223 to pretty much whatever.

 

[Taudisio]

@Taudisio is the expert on the PAs, but I got a PA 3x recently. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get it set up in time for my current trip, but really wish I could have, I think I'll like it, especially for 300 yards and in. Seems clear, simple and durable and with the lighted reticle, useful in low light condition.

I have a 2.5-10 SWFA as well but I'm not a huge fan of that scope. It's really more like a 2.5-8 for me, much higher and it's pretty fussy with respect to eye position.

I'm not familiar with the Maven.

Of the two I'm familiar with, for 300 and in (maybe further but haven't tested it yet) I think I'd go with the PA 3x. For beyond that, a little reluctantly, the SWFA.

One nice thing about the SWFA (or most variables with a LR reticle) is that they can work with just about any cartridge by using different power settings. The SWFA is very good in that respect for anything from 300BLK to 223 to pretty much whatever.

Expert, no. Researched and some experience, sure. I am waiting for the barrel for the 3x to be put into use, it is sitting on my upper in the safe. I am a big fan of the 5x for the size, weight, and practical application. A buddy has one on a semi auto gun and he has stretched the range out pretty far as well. For a hunting rifle and lung sized targets inside of 300 yards, I think the 3x would be a great choice and plan to rough one up as soon as my barrel arrives.
Negatives-
I’m not the biggest fan of the horseshoe reticle blocking out the target/field of view. We don’t know how well it holds zero/passes the drop test (it hasn’t been an observed issue yet). Identifying antlers and shooting small groups would be a job for a traditional scope.

 

[glock233]

@Taudisio is the expert on the PAs, but I got a PA 3x recently. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get it set up in time for my current trip, but really wish I could have, I think I'll like it, especially for 300 yards and in. Seems clear, simple and durable and with the lighted reticle, useful in low light condition.

I have a 2.5-10 SWFA as well but I'm not a huge fan of that scope. It's really more like a 2.5-8 for me, much higher and it's pretty fussy with respect to eye position.

I'm not familiar with the Maven.

Of the two I'm familiar with, for 300 and in (maybe further but haven't tested it yet) I think I'd go with the PA 3x. For beyond that, a little reluctantly, the SWFA.

One nice thing about the SWFA (or most variables with a LR reticle) is that they can work with just about any cartridge by using different power settings. The SWFA is very good in that respect for anything from 300BLK to 223 to pretty much whatever.

Thanks for the breakdown.

 

[JBradley500]

For 100 yards and in, the Holosun SCRS is hard to beat. Clear, light, durable.

For 2-300 I'm going to try a Trijicon Huron/Ascent 1-4 LPVO on a 6 ARC.

 

[Luke S]

I bought a 1-4:Ascent and returned it. For ME the thin reticle was a bit of a problem in dark woods looking at bears. But... I really like my 2.5-10 Huron with the same thin reticle for precision shooting (not bears in the brush). I think you idea of a LPVO for 200-300 yds will work fine. If I wasn't thinking about shooting a grizzly at dark thirty I'd much prefer that fine reticle to the fat triangle in my Accupoint.
Of course for basically same weight you could have a 3-9 Huron so that might be worth considering.

 

[ezwy]

What's everyone's most recent opinion on optics for 2026? I'm torn between a PA Prism 3x, SWFA ultralight, and the Maven that can be dialed.

The easy button is the microprism. Shooting normal rounds with that reticle, and no zoom to mess with, I am shocked at the stuff I can hit.

If I wanted to dial, have light and compact, and didn’t have a budget, I would really like to try the

Primary Arms Compact PLxC 1-8X24 FFP Rifle Scope - Illuminated ACSS Griffin MIL M8 Reticle​

16 oz. With 8x should be enough, first focal plane mil reticle, and the ability to dial.
But I would have to sell a lot of stuff to make that happen. And I haven’t seen much for real world views on durability.

 

[The Guide]

The easy button is the microprism. Shooting normal rounds with that reticle, and no zoom to mess with, I am shocked at the stuff I can hit.

If I wanted to dial, have light and compact, and didn’t have a budget, I would really like to try the

Primary Arms Compact PLxC 1-8X24 FFP Rifle Scope - Illuminated ACSS Griffin MIL M8 Reticle​

16 oz. With 8x should be enough, first focal plane mil reticle, and the ability to dial.
But I would have to sell a lot of stuff to make that happen. And I haven’t seen much for real world views on durability.

They are proud of that little tube! You could get a nice Trijicon for that price.

Jay

 

[Trackselk]

For you close range guys, I've been so impressed with the holosun 507c with the chevron reticle that I have 2 now. I've been head shooting lots of grouse and squirrels out to about 25 yards with a rimfire, but I think it would be an amazing sight for short range back east woods. My buddy was so impressed he got one on his 10mm for brown bear protection in MT. Really versatile and can't hardly beat the weight. Not sure how far it's good for though...

 

[robtattoo]

They are proud of that little tube! You could get a nice Trijicon for that price.

Jay

I've got a fair bit of experience with PAs LPVOs, although not with Trijicon.
I can definitely say that for my uses, the PAs are absolutely fantastic. I've had scopes from their cheap Classic range, SLX & PLX range. I think the PLXC might be a little bit on the spendy side, when NF is only a little more, but I've abused (and I do mean abused) the ever living crap out of the other 3 with no losses of zero on the S/PLX. The classic 1-4x24 DID shift zero by about an inch after a significant drop, but returned to zero & it continues to function perfectly. By significant drop, I mean the girl who was using my rifle at the time didn't clip in her sling properly & it fell about 16' out of a tree & snapped the stock. All I did was change out the stock & take it to the range for a test fire. 4 clicks & it was back to zero.

I've been highly impressed with everything I've ever had from them.