Thread: The Howikka Test Bed

Originally Posted by Stocky

So I recently setup a new 223 now I've run the Tikka a year and am happy to hunt with it almost exclusively.

The new rifle is as follows:

A Modified Stainless Howa Mini action with a take off 16 inch 223 barrel and a DPT Mini with 2 baffles and the brake attachment.

The barrel is torqued on to the action TIGHT.

It's been fitted to a Stockys VGM stock and quickly bedded using JB Weld.

Has a 6 round Jeffersons hinged floorplate.

Action screws are torqued to 65 inch pounds

Scope mounts has a 7mm recoil pin machined into them that engages the custom action pin locations to take the shear of the screws.

Currently has a Maven RS1.2 in MIL fitted.

I plan to test a whole bunch of different reloading and rifle building ideas with this rifle as well as hunt with it. Some ideas of things to try would be appreciated.

Here's some pictures to get started. I have put 120 rounds through it the last few evenings already. Will sort that data out at some stage.

Attachment 270037

Attachment 270038

Attachment 270039

Attachment 270040

What have you done with the trigger to make it bearable? I helped a mate zero a mini the other day and I'd forgotten how terrible the factory triggers are, and aftermarket options appear limited

Originally Posted by Stocky

lots of results

A few reflections from me -

1. You've tried a wider range of powders than I'd generally consider, that's an interesting approach. As you note, with the bullet the rifle seems to like (the 77gr TMK) it is impossible to select between them based on

- precision at this stage (with the results shown I don't think you can say that any of them are any different) or
- velocity SD (from 5 shots it's too unreliable to be useful for anything, and also for hunting inside reasonable ranges it makes no difference to hit probability unless it's incredibly bad)

You'll likely want to select a powder now based on availability, price, or velocity (it's not clear here how much headroom you have with each powder to get to a velocity target) - or have to re-test with more shots to establish any precision difference.

These could be assessed from a desktop exercise prior to firing - could you filter your powder choices a bit more to those that are likely to work well ? It does appear that bullet is a larger driver of precision than powder. In my experience the hierarchy of importance for precision, with a rifle that isn't defective -
1. Barrel quality
(a very large gap)
2. Bullet
3. Powder
4. Brass
(a tremendously large gap)
5. Anything else

2. 5 shot groups provide some filtering but unfortunately not a lot as the central tendency means you're more likely to get an "ok" than a "bad" 5 shot group from an imprecise combination. The wide range of 5 shot filtering done allows you to rule out a few things really quickly, but doesn't allow you to rule anything IN . Does it really reduce component use given that the products that aren't ruled out are much more inconclusive than a 10 shot group - requiring more followup? For example, it's not clear whether or not any of the 77gr TMK results actually meet your defined precision requirement. A 10-shot group of any of those loads is likely to be in the range of anything from 0.7 - 2+ inches - more likely in the middle somewhere.


3. The 5-shot seating depth test with 75ELD and H4895. The average 5-shot group size of these 5 groups is 3.1 inches. The largest is 150% of this, the smallest is 67% of this. Hornady's data suggests that you should expect 40-50% variation in 5-shot group size around the average group size. You're seeing results in this range - so while it tells you roughly that the rifle doesn't seem to like the 75ELD at all (unfortunately!) it doesn't seem to provide any evidence at all that the seating depth changes are providing any different precision than you'd expect from 5x 5-shot groups of the same seating depth. Very inconclusive. Good demonstration of the futility of fiddling with seating depth.



The 73gr ELDM may be worth trying. It seems more likely to shoot well in rifles that are "fussier" about which bullet they like.

Originally Posted by gimp

A few reflections from me -

1. You've tried a wider range of powders than I'd generally consider, that's an interesting approach. As you note, with the bullet the rifle seems to like (the 77gr TMK) it is impossible to select between them based on.

- precision at this stage (with the results shown I don't think you can say that any of them are any different) or
- velocity SD (from 5 shots it's too unreliable to be useful for anything, and also for hunting inside reasonable ranges it makes no difference to hit probability unless it's incredibly bad)

You'll likely want to select a powder now based on availability, price, or velocity (it's not clear here how much headroom you have with each powder to get to a velocity target) - or have to re-test with more shots to establish any precision difference.

These could be assessed from a desktop exercise prior to firing - could you filter your powder choices a bit more to those that are likely to work well ? It does appear that bullet is a larger driver of precision than powder. In my experience the hierarchy of importance for precision, with a rifle that isn't defective -
1. Barrel quality
(a very large gap)
2. Bullet
3. Powder
4. Brass
(a tremendously large gap)
5. Anything else

I wanted the 75 ELD to work so tried every powder I would be happy to run to give the best chance of meeting this objective. It's saves time as i have to do less range trips. I'm time poor not powder poor. It's also provides good data if I in future have powder supply issues where to start an alternative powder load.
I agree 5 shots give me nothing conclusive but they can using inverse probability exclude things. Ie i know that the 75s are extremely unlikely to meet my desired requirements in any combination I would like to run as if they can't meet it with 5 it's exceptionally unlikely they will for 10. Until I change something significant with the rifle. Ie barrel to action torque, reprofiling, barrel swap, etc I won't bother testing 75 ELDs again. I agree regarding SD it was just noted as the data whilst unreliable is easy recorded with modern tech.

I am hoping to prove out a heirachy like yours to myself over time with more rifles.

All powders are worth considering but the results could have told me 1 or 2 were not worth continueing with. Ie im using small samples on an exclusion basis not a confirmation bias. In this case it didnt help much and i may find powder makes less difference and it never provides decent sorting at low sample size.

2. 5 shot groups provide some filtering but unfortunately not a lot as the central tendency means you're more likely to get an "ok" than a "bad" 5 shot group from an imprecise combination. The wide range of 5 shot filtering done allows you to rule out a few things really quickly, but doesn't allow you to rule anything IN . Does it really reduce component use given that the products that aren't ruled out are much more inconclusive than a 10 shot group - requiring more followup? For example, it's not clear whether or not any of the 77gr TMK results actually meet your defined precision requirement. A 10-shot group of any of those loads is likely to be in the range of anything from 0.7 - 2+ inches - more likely in the middle somewhere.

Similar to above agreed. And im not worried about component use if they arent in short supply.i find even range shooting is useful to gain trigger control etc and get comfortable with the rifle setup. Rounds down range will help try. Apply the fundamentals in a less stressfull environment. Obviously field practice is also required and arguably more important but harder to do.

3. The 5-shot seating depth test with 75ELD and H4895. The average 5-shot group size of these 5 groups is 3.1 inches. The largest is 150% of this, the smallest is 67% of this. Hornady's data suggests that you should expect 40-50% variation in 5-shot group size around the average group size. You're seeing results in this range - so while it tells you roughly that the rifle doesn't seem to like the 75ELD at all (unfortunately!) it doesn't seem to provide any evidence at all that the seating depth changes are providing any different precision than you'd expect from 5x 5-shot groups of the same seating depth. Very inconclusive. Good demonstration of the futility of fiddling with seating depth.

absolutely was good through to get 25 rounds to settle in to shooting. But i may repeat in the future at large sample sizes for interest sake

The 73gr ELDM may be worth trying. It seems more likely to shoot well in rifles that are "fussier" about which bullet they like.

I think they are actually tangent ogived like a TMK and yes they will get tried. I think if the 62 ELD VT shoot and terminally preform they will outperform the 73 signifcantly ballistically.

.

What don't you like. Trigger is fine if not a bit heavy. Have a spring to fit. Not a huge 2 stage fan but if I can't fix it I will order a Jard.

Much useful information coming through on this thread. I'm just back from the range. Low light here but no wind. Shot a heavy 308, sub MOA with the 168 S&B factory, and a smidge above 0.5 MOA with TMK reloads, only 5 round groups but it proves I was going OK.

Would the S&L shoot . . . NOPE. All groups with its new scope were over MOA for both 5 and the one 10 shot group I put down. Very frustrating but the joys of light rifles. And the scope is heavier than spec'd.

I find it does take some time and quite a few rounds to get a light rifle shooting consistently for each position, and the trigger makes a difference. It's not the $$ you spend on the trigger that counts either, I sold a $500 Tiggertech and replaced it with a good Bergara I had here, the let-off on the Bergara is way superior. The Howa triggers vary considerably, if you've lucked onto a good one or know how to tune them they can be excellent.

Originally Posted by Stocky

.

If you're time, rather than component, poor maximizing the efficiency of your time makes sense. I'm still leaning towards the view that more samples of a narrower range of things would do that...

I would be possibly concerned that the 62gr ELDVT may be the point at which you find insufficient penetration in some circumstances with .224". I really like the 60gr Vmax for goats and would expect similar performance, and those frequently exit goats with spectacular results. Goats however are small and not terribly difficult to kill, 40gr .224 bullets in the shoulder penetrate sufficiently. Interested to see results.

I think any trigger pulling probably helps if you're mindful and use it to embed fundamentals.

I was curious about the 75 ELD after your results. I've never shot them from my rifle, but I built it intending to use them. In the initial load development kiwi Greg did, he reported that they didn't shoot as well as the 80s - but that was based on 3 shot group testing. The 80s worked so well I never bothered to load anything else until a year ago. But I had a box of 75s on the shelf and figured I'd try them, because they seem to be quite fussy for many people. Book max 2206H with some dirty mixed lot PMC brass, cci450, at whatever rando seating depth my die is set for the 80s. 2810fps, SD of 12.7 over 10, and precision about the same as the 80s - and about the same as everything else shot through the rifle - the cut rifled match barrel really seems to pay off in that it will shoot almost any bullet, handload or factory, very well.



So the 75s work ok in my barrel.

Originally Posted by Tentman

Much useful information coming through on this thread. I'm just back from the range. Low light here but no wind. Shot a heavy 308, sub MOA with the 168 S&B factory, and a smidge above 0.5 MOA with TMK reloads, only 5 round groups but it proves I was going OK.

Would the S&L shoot . . . NOPE. All groups with its new scope were over MOA for both 5 and the one 10 shot group I put down. Very frustrating but the joys of light rifles. And the scope is heavier than spec'd.

I find it does take some time and quite a few rounds to get a light rifle shooting consistently for each position, and the trigger makes a difference. It's not the $$ you spend on the trigger that counts either, I sold a $500 Tiggertech and replaced it with a good Bergara I had here, the let-off on the Bergara is way superior. The Howa triggers vary considerably, if you've lucked onto a good one or know how to tune them they can be excellent.

Post your targets?

On shooter error with light rifles. My .223 weighs 3.6 ish KG all up (8lb). More or less. It isn't ultralight but it is light in comparison to anything generally considered a precision rifle.

I think that on average the shooter error contribution to precision for me is maybe .1 or .2 MOA extra group size. With my 80gr handload the average group size just lying down and banging out 10 without special care is about 0.7MOA. Today I took additional care to really focus on fundamentals while checking zero - produced this result - 10 shots with MR 0.044MRAD - A 0.5MOA group. Maybe just random variation in group size, maybe extra focus on NPOA, position and hand pressure, and trigger control really did make that 0.1 or 0.2 MOA difference in group size. But that's about the size of shooter error I think I have. It's hard to imagine shooter error contributing 0.5MOA or more into the error budget.




This is i think the first time I'd have managed to get 10 shots on a 1MOA target. It's incredibly difficult to do. It shows how irrelevant precision really is for hunting, because even though I can shoot a 0.5MOA 10rd group with the rifle, centred enough to be entirely on a 1MOA target, I still miss animals. I missed a goat at 290m the other day for no clear reason at all. Probably just yanked the trigger. Much better value focusing on fundamentals of shooting than increasing precision past 0.15MRAD mean radius, for hunting of almost any kind

Originally Posted by Stocky

What don't you like. Trigger is fine if not a bit heavy. Have a spring to fit. Not a huge 2 stage fan but if I can't fix it I will order a Jard.

His trigger is heavy and creepy and gritty feeling. I can still shoot 5 shot groups probably averaging a bit under 1MOA with it, but it's very unpleasant to use.

Originally Posted by gimp

His trigger is heavy and creepy and gritty feeling. I can still shoot 5 shot groups probably averaging a bit under 1MOA with it, but it's very unpleasant to use.

If you lighten the factory spring too much it misses the search and makes the trigger effectively a super creepy heavy single stage. I trimmed a coil too many and that was the reuslt.

The Tikka really likes Fiocchi 55 EPN factory.


Shame I missed the POA

Also not sure why the Hornady group Analysis can't do MRAD properly

Originally Posted by Stocky

Also not sure why the Hornady group Analysis can't do MRAD properly

The group size in MRAD always ends up weird after you save it. The mean radius works and it's a better number to look at anyway

Today's groups then (a bit stink to post here really but . . . )



Both load stats are pretty good, I'm happy with them, but the 223 with its "new" scope just wouldn't play ball, here is it's last 10 shot group with a slight variation on the same load

Why the change in POI?

It's a bit baffling that you've gone from good results to worse, considering your note regarding die setup just recently. Is it an expectations issue?

POI is the new scope. It had my 3.5-10 "tester" on pending the arrival of a 3-15. It is a bit weird that the load stats have improved but the group got worse. I did have a bit of an issue with the scope, it was causing "tired eyes " with a loss of clarity (like you get from suppressor mirage) but I don't know what caused it.

The expectations thing is important, the rifle shoots 73s noticeably better but I have 200 77gn TMKs and the are allegedly better on bigger animals. The rifle shoots 55s to less than one click POI difference, so I can interchange rounds on the hill.