The first thing I did with the palm saver was store it in my gun cabinet. That is where it will remain. I always shoot with the ramrod in place. I hunt with the ramrod in place. I don't and won't use loads that require a lot of effort to get down the bore. I have shot from the bench with ramrod in vs out and never noticed any significant change in accuracy. I can see how the ramrod would/could affect accuracy noticeably if it was an extra heavy rod or somehow put torque on the barrel when in position but that effect has never shown itself in my shooting.
Although I strive for better than a 1.5" group at 100 yards, I consider that group size to be totally adequate for a hunting load. My UltraMag and my Apex will both shoot considerably better than that as long as I do my part. Have as yet not shot the MR so can't attest to it's performance but have no reason to suspect it will be any less a shooter.
The Accuras and Apex do NOT have a QLA and the term QLA is based upon marketing bull. Quick Load Accurizer sounds great until you look at the "accurizer" part of that claim. It cannot and does not add anything to accuracy. Once a bullet is loaded and properly seated, the only thing it can do is DETRACT from accuracy and it very often does exactly that... sometimes very dramatically. CVA calls their "false muzzle" a Bullet Guiding Muzzle and that labeling is perhaps more appropriate. Since it is much shorter, it makes any negative effects of having that un-rifled section less dramatic. And since CVA has, so far in my experience, positioned their "false muzzle" section concentric with the bore much more consistently I've seen no ill effects on accuracy from their barrels.
I consider myself a bit of a spastic. But, even so, I don't need a false muzzle to accurately position a sabot load in a barrel. Someone must be more than a bit spastic if they can't do the same. I don't find the shallow bullet guiding muzzle section to be a detraction from performance or accuracy and will give you that it does make positioning the load a bit easier. TC took an old idea and incorporated into their modern designs. They seemed to overlook that "false muzzles" of the past were not permanent fixtures - they were removable for a reason.
Bottom line is that I find CVA's BGM to be a marked improvement over TC's QLA and the fact that it is shorter in length to be a very big plus rather than a negative.
Oh by the way... can anyone show me where some real metallurgical testing has been done on current CVA (Bergara), Knight, TC to determine yield strength?
