Tactical Twins: Micarta-Stocked PRS Rigs for SFC Brandon Green
What does a two-time High Power National Champion choose for PRS comps? A set of twins. Twin rifles that is. SFC Brandon Green of the USAMU is one of America’s best marksmen. He’s excelled in Service Rifle and High Power disciplines, and now he’s getting very serious about the Precision Rifle Series (PRS). Brandon recently took delivery of “Twins” — two impressive rifles optimized for PRS competition. Green told us: “The Twins are ready for business! The silver one is a 6XC and the black one is a 6.5×47 Lapua”. Both rifles feature Impact Precision actions (with AICS-type mags), 24″ Proof stainless barrels, and Fat Bastard muzzle brakes. Rifle work was done by Stuteville Precision (Wade Stuteville) and Exodus Rifles (Joe Walls).
In the 6XC, Brandon runs Berger 105gr VLDs in Norma 6XC brass. For the 6.5×47 Lapua he shoots 140gr Berger Hybrids or 143gr Hornady ELD-Xs in Lapua brass. Both rifles have stainless steel Proof barrels, but the 6.5x47L has a matte black Cerakote finish.
Brandon loves his new Twins. He said he likes the “feel” of the guns with the Foundation stocks: “These rifles weigh around 17 pounds with optics. They feel very solid under recoil — without the ‘tuning fork’ vibration you can get with a metal-chassis gun. They feel like a good wood-stocked gun, but the material is stronger and more rigid than wood. I’ve heard that guys are having success with these Foundation stocks with the actions installed without pillars or conventional bedding.” Currently Brandon is running both guns without action-screw pillars. He did have one skim-bedded, but he doesn’t think that was really needed. “Both rifles hammer now”, Brandon tells us.
Green Runs Vortex Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56mm FFP scopes on both rifles:
High-Tech Micarta Stock Material
At first glance, those stocks may look like wood, but they are actually a special “Micarta” material that is strong, durable, and stable. Micarta, often used for knife handles, is a “a brand name for composites of fiberglass, carbon fiber, or other fabric in a thermosetting plastic.” The stock-maker, Foundation Stocks, says Micarta offers some distinct advantages over laminated wood or conventional fiberglass: “The solid block of material gives us a dense, homogenous material that is absent of any voids or air pockets commonly found in composite stocks. The high compression strength of the material allows us to build an action/DBM specific stock that requires no bedding or pillars. The material is very durable and stable in extreme environments. We use advanced CAD software to design and model our stocks, working in conjunction with action manufacturers and rifle builders to provide exact fitment.”
Here is a close-up of a Foundation Stock showing the distinctive Micarta texture:
Tactical Competition vs. NRA High Power Competition
Brandon says PRS competition is tough: “PRS can be pretty humbling, but it’s been a lot of fun and a great challenge. For a shooter (like me) with a Service Rifle/High Power background, the variations in stages combined with the time limits can be very challenging. And the unusual shooting positions put a new spin on things. PRS is definitely a different ball game, but I really enjoy it. After the National Championships this summer I hope to shoot three or four PRS matches in September and October.”
SFC Brandon Green honored as the 2015 High Power National Champion.
Life before the Twins… Here is Brandon, with his previous PRS rig, at the MasterPiece Arms Precision Rifle Shootout, a PRS event at the CORE Shooting Solutions Range in Florida:
Similar Posts:
- Sunday GunDay: Tactical Twins – SFC Brandon Green’s PRS Rigs
- SFC Brandon Green Rocks a 10/22 at the WSC
- SSG Brandon Green Puts ‘Em in the Middle
- SFC Brandon Green Is 2022 NRA Long Range Champion
- SSG Brandon Green Sets Stunning 500-33X NMC National Record
Share the post "Tactical Twins: Micarta-Stocked PRS Rigs for SFC Brandon Green"
Tags: 6.5x47 Lapua, 6XC, Brandon Green, ELD-X, Foundation Stock, Impact Precision, Precision Rifle Series, SFC Brandon Greene, Tactical Competition, USAMU
Using micarta and/or its close variants for stocks makes good sense, to those familiar with it. Very tough material. Same strong epoxied linen fibers of paper currency. Distinctive color and pattern finishes like camo may be a real challenge with it, though it takes laser etching/engraving perfectly, leaving a recessed, darker and precise image.
I believe the muzzle break is illegal for NRA competition. I known we banned these noise makers at our club. If you need a muzzle break your shooting to big a caliber.
PRS Matches are not NRA Matches.
PRS Matches also allow suppressors. It is very rare to see a naked muzzle at a PRS type match. It is either a brake or a can.
Beautiful rifles. I want one of each
Nice rigs.
But the key to shooting like Brandon Green is being Brandon Green.
Made an assortment of copper boppers with handles made of the stock material. Neat stuff to work and has a nice feel. I’m game for one.
Need a color variety.
Guy4064, I hope you are here and read Tom’s response.
You are living in a self-righteous bubble if you think brakes should be disallowed everywhere and that brakes are only for guys shooting ‘…to big a caliber.’ (sic)
Even the lowly .300 WM is “wearing” on a shooter. Except in very heavy rifles, cartridges north of .30-06 recoil need a brake and/or can to be accessible to most shooters, and I’m not even getting into the other reasons to brake a rifle.
It is your kind of thought pattern that is killing NRA Highpower, and what makes it, and clubs like yourselves, so da^%ed unapproachable that people just won’t.
We’ve made our own bed for the last ? decades, and sure enough, people will find a different way—and NEW set of rules—to enjoy long range shooting.
PRS is one of those, and I can’t say I blame them.
-Nate
Brandon is a heck of a shooter and a all around great guy to shoot with at a PRS style match. I have always enjoyed shooting in the same squad. Tate Streeter builds the Impact actions and they are excellent, running one myself. Tate is also a top 10 shooter in the PRS and knows what it takes to make a great action.
Nate, I never said they were illegal for PRS, they are for NRA. And for good reason. They are a hazard on the line. Nobody likes them. I hardly think the rule is killing NRA Highpower
@ Nate . All of your salient points were very well stated , and I couldn’t agree more .
I’m not sure why the NRA bans silencers in competition. It seems to me that the NRA recognized that brakes significantly raised the report and side blast to the fellow shooters on the line. This truth can’t be disputed. Then someone pointed out that silencers reduce recoil too, so they banned them as well just to avoid the appearance of picking on brakes. But silencers raise no safety concerns I’m aware of. If a shooter will accept the added weight and cost to help his neighbor, what’s wrong with that.
Editor: There are a variety of reasons, one simply being “ain’t been done before”. Other important factors expressed to us include: 1) The expense of suppressor (and tax stamp) would a significant cost to a match rifle (which is already expensive); 2) Suppressors are not legal in all states, so that would require match rule variations in different jurisdictions; 3) If suppressors proved to bestow a competitive advantage, this would create yet another “hardware race”.
Editor: A user below claimed that muzzle brakes reduced sound levels. That’s totally INCORRECT and FALSE. And tests prove it. In 2015, the Precision Rifle Blog tested sound levels with two lab-grade sound meters — one slightly to rear of shooter, the other to the side of the muzzle. Control was rifle with bare muzzle — no brake. Then sound levels were recorded with 17 different muzzle brakes. The difference was dramatic! Sound levels at the rear sound meter position were up to 14 dB louder, with the average around +10 dB! Sound levels from the front position were up to 4 dB louder, about 3 dB on average.
PRB MUZZLE BRAKE Sound TEST: https://bit.ly/2LcYf1H
So the brakes INCREASED noise levels hugely. The dB Scale is actually logarithmic, so the true sound level perceived by the shooter is much greater. Cal Zant, PRB editor, did a conversion of the dB increase to actual perceived loudness, using an accepted scientific formula (see below). For the rear position, increased sound loudness levels were 41% to 162% greater, with the average about +110%, i.e. more than TWICE as LOUD.
You will see these PRB results HERE: https://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/08/07/muzzle-brakes-sound-test/
Decibel Increases for 17 Muzzle Brakes: https://bit.ly/2J2ZQ7y
Actual Perceived Loudness level chart HERE: https://bit.ly/2LdBY3L
Formula for actual perceived increased Loudness (from dB increase) HERE: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-loudness.htm
Sound Meters were military-approved Bruel & Kjaer 2209 Impulse Precision Sound Level Meters.
We list this information above, because the comments by John are not only completely misinformed, arrogant, and wrong, but they are also dangerous. We see this kind of thing all the time — where an arrogant and misinformed self-proclaimed expert talks nonsense. It is doubly ironic that John asserts that “the idea of a muzzle break [sic] increasing the volume of a muzzle blast/report is false and is a good example of people spreading bad information with no real science to back up the claim.” In fact, it is John who is totally, completely wrong. And the REAL SCIENCE, done by the PRB, proves John is the one who is absolutely wrong, as wrong as can be.
FWIW, we have logged John’s email address and IP and he will be banned from commenting on this site ever again. Lesson to readers: If you want to call other people out, you better get your facts straight.
—————- FALSE READER COMMENT —————–
John claims:
“For the record muzzle breaks do not increase the db or spl of the muzzle report. It changes the freq. and can alter the directional slightly but it actually lowers the db and spl. If people used an empirical measuring tool and did not parrot bad info this would not be so controversial. Human hearing is a terrible tool when it comes to judging the spl or db of a sound. If a pitch is increased from a low note to a much higher note but adjusted to keep the intensity of the sound the same people will perceive the increase in pitch as an increase in volume. The reverse is also true. We hear with our brains more than with the ear as it is so it is not hard to fool human hearing. So the idea of a muzzle break increasing the volume of a muzzle blast/report is false and is a good example of people spreading bad information with no real science to back up the claim. Perception of an increase in volume is not the same as an actual increase in volume.”
Relax people, no one wants to visit this site and read drama in the comments. People should be able to have an open dialogue.
Blocking email and IP is a petty thing to do and doesn’t prevent someone from commenting on this forum.