OK Ballistics - Thats D.O.P.E. - Oklahoma Gun Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Tacom HQ structured barrels 1 moa with factory ammo @ 500yards
- Thread starter Beautiful Mulberry
- Start date
Please elaborate. Are all the testing videos by Pacific Tool a put on? I know just enough about vibration nullification to drink the Koolaid. Their optical collimators seem to have found favor with the ludicrously long lobbers. If you are holding information please don’t be coy. Of course I can get three Outlier chambered barrels for the same money…
Beautiful Mulberry
Member
What’s type of barrel do they use? Are they similar to the PRS/ELR style heavy barrel?
You've asked me this question like twice before and I answered. Don't understand the coy accusation, but ok. So I'll say it again: the simplest answer is structured barrels, including tacomhq's, have been tested (using the scientific method) and evaluated multiple times against current issued systems and the results have always been the same: that they provide no improvement over what they already have. None. Zero, Zilch. More elaboration on what no improvement means, is that they do not provide any performance or form, fit function improvement over existing systems. Again, Zero improvement. I can't get anymore clear than that unless I say "they don't do shit".
Additionally, I don't watch or take stock in videos of people who are either shills or are probably getting some benefit of the stuff they are "testing". Especially when they almost never use the scientific method in their "testing". I wonder how many custom tools Pacific provides to tacomhq?
WRT their "collimators", I would not call them collimators as they don't really align an image to a reticle or reduce parallax, or align an two or more device optically, or anything like that; the riflescope though is a collimator. They only provide additional bias in MOA/MIL through imaging a target with a downward looking periscope. Artillery used to do this on some of their old sights when they do LOS fires, and I think tubes still have a version, but not sure, I haven't been artillery since 1998. Ze germans were excellent at it.
That's not taking away from their prisms. They are top notch kit for what they do and have a place. Only maybe 5% of the sniper mission (being generous) would require a prism, but they def should be an issued piece of kit for the military sniper.
They also make a really expensive roll cage for your riflescope so your shit is even heavier so when you walk up and down mountains you can have more weight to make you strong and when you get too tired to carry you heavy ass gun and you drop it on rocks, your scope will be protected.
Now tacomhq is pimping a "new" reticle that's "revolutionary". LOL It's a ballistic circle dot reticle that works with multiple calibers to 500m. Like this is new. They are using "AB, Applied Ballistics, Ballistic computer, revolutionary,etc" in sentences to try to seem like it's the cat's ass. The only thing wrong with this picture is that it's been done already by some others for over 20 years. Pride Fowler was doing it with his Rapid Reticle back when he was still making good scopes before he went Chicom. That and every other maker that plugged in a ballistic reticle for like cartridges. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Snake oil
A lot of people "test" things but don't use the scientific method. What they're really doing is either evaluating or assessing something, with no other inputs or controls, or goals. Like a new round, you buy a box, you say you're going to "test" them, you shoot two groups, both groups are .8" at 100yds, you declare both groups are .8MOA (reality they aren't), you declare victory and your new precision round that's better than anything else. That's about the gist of 98% of the "testing" people do.
Science buddies is always a good source.
They use standard match barrels by whatever manufacturer of their SWS. Heavy profiles, tight twists, blah blah. It's about as exciting as any other barrel or watching paint dry. It's all open source that anyone can google but go ahead and google the following:
MK22 ASR Advance Sniper Rifle
M110
M110 6.5 or K1
MRGG-S or A Medium Range Gas Gun - Sniper or Assault
ESSO - Extreme Sniper Strike Operations rifle
Attachments
Beautiful Mulberry
Member
I figured as much to what barrels they use. I don’t know what I don’t know.
This is the first I’ve heard of structured barrels. The idea is cool because it’s different about like all the new cool cartridges that come out. Different but are they better? Innovation!!!
@JEVapa Sorry, can’t figure out how to use their quote/reply here. When I jokingly used the term being coy it’s simply to acknowledge that you definitely know more than what you intimated. Since we don’t converse regularly there’s no way you can know the spirit of the reply.
One thing I thought was funny/ironic about the Cortina video is that the structured barrel pretty much obviates Cortina’s bread and butter barrel tuner. The results were pretty much in a straight line with all the other reviews I have seen of the barrel. There was a lot said that wasn’t visually confirmed by the film though. There were too many ‘yeah but’ moments in this video for it to stand on its own. I have no personal experience with the product, but would seriously like to find the most barrel burning cartridge I can and wring it out. Since you do have contact and deep integration in the community that would have the skinny low down on actual performance vs claims I assumed there was much more unsaid. I understand that the core requirements of deployable platforms differ greatly from the civilian market, but if the barrel does what they claim it does and all other things are the same then it’s money.
One thing I thought was funny/ironic about the Cortina video is that the structured barrel pretty much obviates Cortina’s bread and butter barrel tuner. The results were pretty much in a straight line with all the other reviews I have seen of the barrel. There was a lot said that wasn’t visually confirmed by the film though. There were too many ‘yeah but’ moments in this video for it to stand on its own. I have no personal experience with the product, but would seriously like to find the most barrel burning cartridge I can and wring it out. Since you do have contact and deep integration in the community that would have the skinny low down on actual performance vs claims I assumed there was much more unsaid. I understand that the core requirements of deployable platforms differ greatly from the civilian market, but if the barrel does what they claim it does and all other things are the same then it’s money.
Beautiful Mulberry
Member
I figured as much. I’ve read a little about them earlier.
