Joined
·
18 Posts
What's the story on all the 1:10" twist rates?
Just curious about one criticism about the XCR barrels mentioned on another forum. A poster pointed out that all the current barrels have a 1:10" twist, and said it was a definite negative.
1:10" seems less common than 1:9" .223 ARs these days. As I understand it, 1:9" is common, and 1:7" is popular for stabilizing some of the popular fighting rounds over 62gr.
1:10" seems common enough for 7.62x39mm, though glancing around I'm seeing all kinds of twist rates mentioned for AKs.
For 6.8SPC, I've read a lot of threads claiming that it's simply too fast for many of the good 6.8 loadings, and that velocity and performance are quantifiably better with 11, 12, and 13".
So is the 1:10" thing for the sake of convenience and keeping costs down, or is it a definite choice by RA based on the rounds likely owners will use? Would it add much expense to do different twists, or is it simply a matter of typing a different number into a machine?
Just curious about one criticism about the XCR barrels mentioned on another forum. A poster pointed out that all the current barrels have a 1:10" twist, and said it was a definite negative.
1:10" seems less common than 1:9" .223 ARs these days. As I understand it, 1:9" is common, and 1:7" is popular for stabilizing some of the popular fighting rounds over 62gr.
1:10" seems common enough for 7.62x39mm, though glancing around I'm seeing all kinds of twist rates mentioned for AKs.
For 6.8SPC, I've read a lot of threads claiming that it's simply too fast for many of the good 6.8 loadings, and that velocity and performance are quantifiably better with 11, 12, and 13".
So is the 1:10" thing for the sake of convenience and keeping costs down, or is it a definite choice by RA based on the rounds likely owners will use? Would it add much expense to do different twists, or is it simply a matter of typing a different number into a machine?