.30-338 TACTICAL PRECISION RIFLE BY YOST ENGINEERING

Ultra-Accurate & Powerful, A Precision Rifle

That's Truly Effective Out To 1000-Yards!

  By

Chuck Taylor

January 2004 Precision Shooting Magazine

These days, there are myriad tactical precision rifles available and they take many forms. Some are self-loaders based on the M14, G3, FN-FAL or AR15, for example. Others are bolt-actions, mostly built upon either the Winchester Model 70 or Remington M700 action, although a few even utilize custom-designed actions.

They're offering in many different configurations, too, be they self-loader or bolt-action, with stock designs that are seemingly limited only by your imagination. They range from traditional, to full-house target, to Star Wars in their appearance and, for the most part, they all shoot very, very well.

The cartridge for which the majority are chambered, however, is the 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester ) which, in my view, is fine for urban sharp-shooting by police marksmen and “out in the boonies” at ranges inside 500-meters. First appearing in 1957, it was until the late 1960s the choice of the entire U.S. military establishment. Today, it remains in use only as a machine gun and sniper rifle cartridge, the smaller 5.56x45mm NATO (.223 Remington) having replaced it in general service.

It remains because the U.S. military understands it – they know its capabilities and limitations inside and out. And though it's considered anything but ideal for sniping by those “in the know” within the services, it produces recoil levels tolerable by nearly anyone, a strong plus-factor that contributes much to its continued popularity.

Throughout its military career as a sniper rifle cartridge, the .308 has utilized just two bullets – the M118 173-grain projectile of the original .30-06 military load (called the .30 M1) and, in the last two decades, the Sierra 168-grain Match King boattail. The latter superceded the former because high-power competitors found that it ranged just a little better, shot just a little flatter and at least equaled the 173's accuracy.

In the eyes of some precision shooting aficionados , it's a wonder cartridge, capable of amazing feats. Yet, viewed objectively, it falls considerably short of the status it's accorded. The currently-popular variation produces a muzzle velocity in the 2600 fps range, which computes to only 2522 ft. lbs. of energy, with a 200-meter zero dropping a whopping 68-inches at 500-meters.

To me, this kind of performance seems mediocre, to say the least, though the load is unquestionably very accurate, capable of MOA or better groups, depending upon the rifle in which it's used. Still, just being accurate isn't in and of itself sufficient to label it as a wonder cartridge – lots of cartridges are just as accurate.

To be sure, accuracy is certainly important, I'd be the last to deny it. However, in my view, more is needed. What about what happens on the other end of the rifle, when the bullet strikes its target? To me, this performance category – termed terminal ballistics – is just as important.

For a SWAT sharpshooter, the .308/168 is sufficient because he nearly always makes cranio-ocular shots, for which nearly any kind of bullet design will suffice. For a military sniper, the Hague Accords dictates that only FMJ bullets be utilized, lest international law be violated. But neither law-enforcement personnel nor civilians are bound by the Hague Accords, meaning that they can utilize virtually any kind of bullet design they wish.

Clearly, frangible bullets (those that upset and deform) produce better terminal ballistics than any FMJ type and thus have a wider range of capabilities. Some opine that FMJ bullets penetrate better, but interestingly enough, I've found this to be considerably less absolute in reality than in theory, especially with the .308/168.

In a recent ASAA Tactical Precision Rifle Course, we tested a number of cartridges/loads at 100 meters for penetration through light vegetation and other forms of light obstacles (aluminum siding, automobile windshield and side window glass, wooden fencing, aluminum doorway moldings chain-link fencing, residential and so-called bullet-proof glass). We discovered that the .308/168 isn't as good in the penetration department as its proponents assume.

Against bullet-proof glass, it failed completely, although through windshield and side-window glass and residential glass, it succeeded, albeit with some deflection. Against aluminum siding, such as that used in doorframes, it tends to disintegrate completely, a target placed six-feet behind sustaining only a peppering of light fragments. Against chain-link fencing, it deflects horrifically and occasionally disintegrates completely.

We also shot through a 6-ounce can of tomatoes placed on a shelf six-feet in front of the target. Though the shooter quite literally center-punched the can, surprisingly little happened – the bullet merely slipped through leaving a .30-caliber hole in both front and back – deflected substantially, keyholed and missed the target (a 6x6 inch head) entirely.

Through light vegetation in the form of a couple of potted plants placed on the shelf, it deflected, too, although it did strike the head near enough center to have been effective.

Am I indicting the .308/168? No, I'm not. I'm merely relating it's true capabilities and limitations, which are substantial. And for my needs, I feel that it just doesn't offer enough. I know what you're thinking -- what are my needs?

And it's a legitimate question. I want not only the best-possible accuracy, but the best penetration and terminal ballistics I can get as well. Moreover, I also want the flattest-possible trajectory for long-range shooting, which is difficult enough without making it worse by utilizing a cartridge/load with a trajectory like a basketball. So a better cartridge is needed, something producing the highest possible muzzle velocities without also producing excessive recoil.

A number of cartridges come to mind, but those larger than .300 also produce excessive recoil for most shooters in rifles of less than 12-lbs. So, let's leave the issue of cartridges for a bit and move to the rifle itself.

I chose a bolt-action rather than self-loader because it can economically and quickly be adapted to a wider range of cartridges. And within this category, the Remington M700 reigns supreme. There are two versions of the M700 – the ADL (without floorplate assembly) and BDL (with).

Many highly competent gunsmiths are of the opinion that the ADL shoots more accurately than the BDL because, without a floorplate assembly, it has fewer pressure points. I don't know if this is true or not, at least with rifles outside the benchrest category, but as part of my project, I decided to find out, so I chose the ADL.

Another asset of the M700 series is that is comes with an easily adjusted trigger, whereas the Winchester M70 does not. Via three small screws in the trigger group, one can obtain virtually any kind of pull and poundage he wants, as longs as the pull weight doesn't drop much below 1½-lbs. This is well within my specifications, since I found long ago that I do my best shooting in the field with a 1¾-lb. trigger.

Another critical, yet often overlooked, issue with tactical precision rifles is barrel length, with 22-inches and sometimes 24, being pretty much the norm. This wasn't quite good enough for me, because I wanted the highest possible muzzle velocity from whatever cartridge I eventually selected. But on the other hand, it couldn't be too long, lest the weapon's handling qualities in the field be negatively affected. For this reason, I finally decided upon 25-26 inches as best fitting my criteria.

With any cartridge producing over 3000 fps, the rifle's weight is also an important consideration. The laws of physics dictate that the lighter the weapon, the more it recoils, regardless of cartridge, even if it is less fatiguing to carry around. Recoil causes negative psychological effects within the shooter sub-conscious mind, thus preventing him from achieving his and his rifle's full potential.

Put bluntly, no one likes to have the living daylights kicked out of him every time he pulls the trigger. Yet, to properly zero, calibrate, field-check and train with the weapon, the shooter must be able to shoot sixty to eighty rounds at a sitting without “mashing” or “flinching” becoming an issue. And so a balance between convenient field-carry and best accuracy/shooting must be found.

I settled on 12-13 lbs. as a maximum weight (weapon fully finished, with scope, et al, in place), with a center of balance a bit forward. I chose a MacMillan synthetic stock with aluminum bedding blocks to allow long-term accuracy retention and minimize warpage. I also opted for a free-floated, 25-inch, target-crowned McGowan stainless (sandblasted to dark gray) heavy barrel tapered from 1.21-inches at the chamber end to .81-inch at the muzzle.

From a tactical perspective, stock colors are also an issue, since the weapon shouldn't attract any more attention than absolutely necessary. Thus, from my standpoint, only three colors are worth considering – matte black, matte gray and matte olive drab. But since I already have a number of other rifles with stocks of gray and olive drab, I decided upon matte black for this one.

Full camouflage paint jobs are available from nearly everyone who makes stocks, but I decided that since the camouflage must be matched to the area of operation, it would be too limiting. I could “spruce up” the stock with indigenous vegetation and/or burlap, etc. when and if it became necessary.

Now, having fully explored the issues of weight, field-carry, bulk and accuracy, back to the subject of cartridges. I knew from previous experience that the .300 Winchester and .300 Weatherby (I have both) perform quite well in rifles built to the specs I've stated. However, I wanted to explore the potential of lighter-than-typical bullets to further enhance velocity, trajectory and terminal ballistics, so for this rifle, I chose a respected wildcat – the .30-338.

Originally appearing in the late 1950s as a 1000-yd. match cartridge, the .30-338 has enjoyed a long and revered reputation. Essentially a .338 Winchester Magnum necked down to .30 caliber, it's a highly efficient case, capable of duplicating or exceeding the performance of the longer .300 Winchester, .300 Weatherby and .308 Norma magnums bullet weight for bullet weight, with less powder and a shorter case (which makes bolt manipulation faster and easier, especially under stress).

If bolt-manipulation is that important, you're wondering why didn't I choose one of the new “.300 short magnums” so I could use a regular short action in the first place. Simple. I don't feel that they've been around long enough to have reached their full potential – in spite of spectacular early write-ups of them in prototype form, their factory performance specs are essentially the same – not superior to – as the rest of the .300 magnum-class cartridges. And they feed reliably, which without extensive feedway modification, the new short magnums do not.

I had already completed full research and development projects to get the best performance from both the .300 Winchester and .300 Weatherby, discovering that the Barnes “XLC” bullet fulfilled the bill completely. Being a solid copper projectile, it demonstrates superior penetration from virtually any angle, yet because it's a 4-petal hollow-point, it expands nicely, too, giving it excellent terminal ballistic capability.

It's also coated with what I believe to be industrial teflon to prevent copper fouling, a common – an annoying and accuracy-degrading – problem when bullets are driven over 3000 fps. Moreover, weight class for weight class, they have the highest ballistic coefficient of any bullet design, meaning that they shoot very, very flat.

With them, I can have the best of all worlds – a flat trajectory, good penetration from any angle, good terminal ballistics, no copper fouling and excellent accuracy – providing I could work up a load that would bring out all these characteristics to their maximum degree. And, their solid copper construction allows all these things using a lighter bullet for less recoil.

It remained to discuss the project with my friend Ted Yost, the honcho of Yost Engineering, Inc. ( 929 Heather Lane , Chino Valley , AZ 86323 ; 1-928-583-0393; website: www.tedyostguns.com ) to confirm its feasibility. Not surprisingly, after a short discussion of “what-why-how,” Ted concurred with my specifications and with considerable enthusiasm, agreed to build the rifle. A few weeks later, it was finished. It looked more elegant than I had expected, but its matte black pebble-grain MacMillan stock and dark gray McGowan barrel betrayed its true function as a tactical rifle.

In addition to all the features previously mentioned, it sported quick-detachable 1¼-inch sling swivels and matching black leather claw shooting sling, a Leupold (Leupold & Stevens, Inc., PO Box 688, Beaverton, OR 97075-0688; 1-503-526-5195; website: www.leupold.com ) 1-piece STD windage-adjustable base and Leupold 25mm scope rings.

Via earlier discussion with Ted, I'd decided to continue using a scope that had given me superb service in the past (I have no less than fifteen of them on various precision rifles) – the Leupold VARI -X III “Tactical” 3.5-10x50mm, with adjustable objective lens and standard duplex reticle. To this, I added a 4-inch Leupold sunshade, Butler Creek flip-up lens caps for both objective and ocular lenses and an Anti-Cant Device (SCD) from Mounting Solutions, Plus, Inc. (PO Box 97-1202, Miami, FL 33197; 1-800-428-9394; website: www.mountingsolutionplus.com ).

The VARI -X III Tactical is as compact and light as a tactical scope can be, bright, clear and has excellent light-gathering qualities. But it also has positive, easily identified ¼-MOA elevation and windage clicks to allow not only precise zeroing, but very finite calibration at distance as well. As such, it's my opinion that it's the best tactical scope now available, bar none. With scope and accessories mounted, the rifle's final weight was a shade over 12-lbs.

Following my usual protocol, I moly-coated the bore with Ms. Moly ( PO Box 275 , Burlington , WI 53105-0275 ; 1-800-264-4140) , then “broke in” the barrel by firing 50 rounds in 10-shot increments, cleaning the bore with patches (no brushes – they remove the moly-coat) saturated with powder solvent between each increment. I then bore-sighted the weapon, obtained a preliminary zero at 25-meters and moved back to 100-meters for accuracy testing.

Next, it remained for me to work up a load that would allow the gun to reach its full potential. After a bit of cogitation, loading, chronographing and shooting for accuracy, I decided upon the Barnes ( PO Box 215 , American Fork , UT , 84003 ; 1-888-BARNESX; website: www.barnesbullets.com ) XLC 130-grainer. With a load of 76.0-grains of IMR -4350 and a Remington #9½M primer, it produced a sizzling 3620 fps and a whopping 3784 ft. lbs. of energy, and with a ballistic coefficient of .378, it would surely range well.

To my delight, my first 3-shot string from a sandbag rest was in the ¼-MOA range. Wow, I thought to myself , this baby shoots! Moreover, also to my delight, recoil was minimal, more like a .30-06 than a super-hot .300 magnum. So far, so good. Now let's zero and calibrate it and see how it ranges, I thought.

Moving back to 250-meters (the range at which I zero all rifles chambered for cartridges that produce a minimum of 3000 fps), I carefully zeroed the piece, “zero'd out” the turrets on the scope, then began the calibration process.

“Calibration” consists of shooting the weapon at increasing ranges (25-meter increments), determining the number of elevation clicks required to bring point of bullet impact up to point of aim and recording the data in your notebook. Once the process is complete, it's transcribed and reduced in physical size to soft-plastic laminated range card that's subsequently attached to the body-side of the rifle's buttstock.

Having spent a great deal of my life “in the field,” so to speak, I long ago became aware that under stress, even the simplest things require focused thought, hence making me a “true believer” in both Murphy's Law and KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Thus, I limit the amount of elevation adjustment to a maximum of “One Turn, Plus Seven Clicks.” Once this setting is reached, my “maximum effective range” is achieved.

To my amazement and, I admit it, considerable glee, I was able to reach a full 900-meters (975 yards) before this setting was reached, making the rifle a serious rival to a 7mm STW rig I have in development, but that's another story yet to come!

And this wasn't all. Having “settled in,” the weapon's accuracy was truly incredible. At 900-meters, I then proceeded to go “six for six” on a circular six-inch steel plate, noting that each bullet impact was punctuated with a loud WHOP and pronounced radial puff of smoke. It sure looked like it was a winner, all right. But how would it perform on bullet-proof glass, armor-plate, light vegetation and other such obstacles? We went back to 100-meters to find out.

We duplicated the tomato-can scenario mentioned earlier, and touched her off, watching the can literally explode and its contents vaporize upon impact. The Barnes 130-grain XLC slammed through with virtually no deflection and some degree of expansion, striking the target (the center of the 4x3-inch cranio-ocular cavities of a Taylor Combat Silhouette target). Shooting through vegetation, a section of wooden trellis and aluminum siding proved to be no problem, either, with the 130-grainer striking point of aim without difficulty.

The only material that caused any notable deflection was chain-link fencing. When the bullet struck an intersection in the links, it did deflect somewhat, but maintained its structural integrity and plowed on through, striking the target. The .308/168, in contrast, had disintegrated completely, merely peppering the target with small fragments.

Encouraged, I set up a four-foot square section of bullet-proof glass, but it, too, was penetrated with ease. Automobile windshield and side glass, as well as residential glass, proved to be no real obstacle, either, with similar results being obtained. Last, I placed several 5x7-inch pieces of 3/8-inch armor-plate against the backstop and fired again, discovering that the Barnes 130-grain XLC had sailed right through like a cutting torch! Conversely, the .308-168 barely scratched it.

The bottom line? The rifle performs beautifully – no , magnificently. It's a superb balance of size, weight, balance, accuracy, penetration and power, all in a nice, simple package. It ranges superbly well, yet can hit small targets at close range with equal ease, making it a superior sniping or police sharpshooter's rifle and a heck of a hunting gun as well. Yost Engineering did a bang-up job of building it and deserves more than just a little praise for its professionalism and skill. Ted obviously knows his business inside and out; that much is certain! Thus, I can recommend him without the slightest bit of reservation , something I do not often do.

Now the last element – how much will it cost to duplicate? I consulted with Ted on the matter, who responded that, including scope base and rings, $1800 to $2000, depending upon what make of barrel and stock were specified. I used a McGowan barrel and MacMillan stock, but there are other fine barrels – Shilen, Krieger, Douglas, et al – available as well.

In addition, HS Precision makes superb synthetic stocks, in an exceptionally wide array of configurations that a prospective buyer might well prefer. In other words, the rifle's basic concept is adaptable to the needs of the shooter, as it should be, and this accounts for the slight variation in price.

All in all, the rifle is a sweetheart and has become my absolute favorite of the twenty full-house tactical precision rifles I own. So if you have a need for a super-sniper rig that can virtually “do it all,” give Ted Yost a call – I think you'll be glad you did.