Report by Igor Zhukov on Monolith configuration
Report by Igor Zhukov (NSK-I) on tuning the Monolith from BespokeGun in caliber .33XC
Igor Zhukov (NSK-I) — a name well known in the Russian precision shooting community. Two-time European benchrest champion, founder of the Reloading Academy, and author of the book "The Perfect Shot Is Simple!". For over twenty years, Igor has been involved in matters of extreme accuracy, tuning rifle systems, and refining his own rifle setup methodology. His approach is confirmed not only by sporting results but also by years of practice, and the methodology he developed is now being examined in specialized scientific and technical publications.
Finished tuning the Monolit. Impressions are overflowing.
Over the long years, I have probably used all the top-tier "guns" that were available in Russia at the time. I have plenty to compare with.
The Monolit impressed me with its thoughtfulness, quality, and attention to detail. The only system that requires no refinements, modifications, or improvements.
I want to note right away: this is not an advertisement for Bespoke, this is the opinion of a user — an experienced user. I know exactly what I need and how things should be in an ideal scenario.
The tuning took 4 days, and six days were spent on case preparation (250 pcs.).
I prepare cases by hand and do not use Giraud tools or similar options. I always achieve the numbers I need, without tolerances.
For example: turning the neck for a tight neck of 0.368, clearance of 0.001 per side, loaded round 0.366, wall thickness 0.01400.
Cases where the wall thickness is 0.01395 are set aside. Out of the 250 cases I prepared this time, 20 pieces accumulated in that category.
Case length — minimum per the manual, which is 3.0750 for all cases.
Yes, it takes a long time and may not be necessary, but that's my way and no other way works for me.
Peterson cases are not the best quality and require attention. The only advantage of these cases is that they hold pressure well.
I reached 1009 m/s when identifying signs of overloading.
As an experiment, I ran one case through 14 cycles at a velocity of 980 m/s. The case performed normally, without cleaning or annealing, and did not even develop work hardening.
The tight neck performs 100%: the case neck wall dimensions remained within spec.
With a tight neck, I never use annealing, cleaning, or mandrels!
The photo shows the case neck wall dimensions after 14 cycles, without annealing or cleaning.
As a reminder, this is a tight neck of 0.368, loaded round 0.366.
Bushing 0.365 and 0.364 for magazine feeding.
I won't go into the nuances of reloading and component preparation — I have explained my methodology many times. You can read about it in my book, articles, or on the Reloading.cc website. Everything is described and shown there in detail.
Break-in, case forming, and tuning were carried out at the SSK shooting range named after Dmitry Donskoy.
All conditions for tuning are provided there: an open 100 m gallery, proper concrete tables, target backer boards at the correct height, a reloading room, and a cleaning area.
Friendly staff, a barbecue area, a lounge room, and restrooms.
Highly recommended. It is the best place in Moscow for tuning sessions.
The break-in took 7 shots and one full day of work. No rush — everything was done with care and monitored with a borescope. As a result, the barrel was broken in and ready for forming the newly prepared cases.
300 Scenar bullets, Irbis 570, 75-grain charge were used for forming.
Forming is a practice session for accuracy shooting, it is data collection, and it is always a very worthwhile exercise.
In the end, we get a broken-in barrel, a formed bullet throat, and fire-formed cases. As a reminder, cases change dimensions on the first cycle, take the shape of the chamber on the 2nd–3rd cycle, and after the third cycle they are perfect.
The groups I measured for accuracy (15 groups), comprising 45 shots, had an average group size of 0.330 MOA.
45 shots!
There is nothing surprising about this — or rather, nothing surprising for Bespoke. The same results were seen over 50 shots on the previous two Spectre rifles in .33XC caliber, with strings of five and ten shots. I am used to these kinds of results from Bespoke.
Bespoke is the only company in the world that guarantees the accuracy of its products within 0.3 MOA. If I'm wrong, please correct me — maybe I've missed something.
After forming, I cleaned the cases, ran them through the preparation algorithm, and found the seating depth for the 300 Berger bullet. During forming, using one case and a Berger bullet, I built my own data, understood the charges and velocities that this barrel, bullet, primer, and Viht 570 produce.
The velocity range (charge weights) shifted. I wasn't surprised, but I noted it. On the previous barrel with the same powder, the velocities were different. This speaks to the question of using other people's load data and manual data. Everyone should understand that all barrels, powders, and bullets are different. Other people's recipes have no relevance to your barrel.
But that's just a side note.
The tuning took two days. I won't describe the algorithm — I'll share a link where everything is available.
https://7universum.com/pdf/tech/8(137)%20%5B14.08.2025%5D/Bogoslovskii.pdf
The caliber doesn't matter; what matters is the tuning algorithm. What is tuning, exactly?
Tuning is a set of activities aimed at achieving extreme accuracy from a given system.
The tuner's task is to run the system through the tuning algorithm and evaluate the result.
We take several different systems from different manufacturers, run them through the same algorithm, get results, and evaluate them. Naturally, the results will differ! Why? It all depends on the system and how it is made.
A great many different systems have passed through my hands — I ran them all through my algorithm. I have a thorough understanding of how to evaluate them and what different systems are capable of. Essentially, they are all in the same class (Barrett, Accuracy International, Mannlicher, and so on down the list).
Bespoke stands apart — it is genuinely head and shoulders above the rest and is number one in the world. That is the only way I can assess it. The opinion is subjective, I agree. But! This is the opinion of a user — and I repeat, I have plenty to compare with.
But that's not even the main point — I always back up my words with targets, and this time will be no exception. When we talk about shooting, we show targets. You can simply show the targets and say nothing at all :)
For .33XC with the 300 Berger bullet, I have all my data recorded, but this particular Monolit had a 45 mm muzzle-diameter barrel. I decided to spend some time and go slightly beyond the planned scope — to search for a node at a high velocity range, or rather, a very high one. I found no joy there and returned to normal, reasonable velocities for this bullet. The experiment took a whole day.
On the second day of tuning, the weather was uncooperative: it turned out to be a windy day, with gusty, unrelenting wind throughout. American flags were placed along the range, and they were a great help. I had to recall my benchrest youth.
When we tune, we control two parameters: charge weight and seating depth. These are interrelated parameters. But there is a nuance: seating depth is primarily responsible for accuracy. Change the seating depth by just 0.003 and the group sharply tightens to extreme values. And conversely, the group can suddenly turn bad. In other words, accuracy appears and disappears instantly: one moment there is no accuracy, you take a step — and it appears.
And BULLET SEATING DEPTH is responsible for this.
The tuner's task is to find the node for seating depth. A node is several consecutive seating depths where the accuracy is essentially the same. The seating depth step is always 0.003; a node is usually three steps, and that is considered good (9 thousandths). Sometimes 4 steps — that is 12 thousandths — but that is less common. Five steps is very rare; in all my many years of practice, I have encountered that perhaps 10 times.
What accuracy values am I talking about, and what does extreme accuracy mean to me? I have defined the range of 0.1–0.2 MOA for myself and consider that extreme accuracy.
Benchrest rifles in 6 PPC are in a category of their own, with super-extreme accuracy in the range of 0.05–0.1 MOA.
This refers to technical accuracy, when all conditions are created and all sources of disturbance are minimized — typically a proper enclosed range and so on down the list.
Global practice for tuning ELR rifles is based on an accuracy benchmark of 0.3–0.5 MOA, and that is considered a very respectable result. Anything more accurate is regarded as a benchrest-level exception and a very impressive result.
I recommend checking out the link. It is a brief overview of the Spectre tuning in .33XC caliber, with a comparative analysis of Bespoke's results against world results.
https://7universum.com/pdf/tech/7(148)%20%5B14.07.2026%5D/Bogoslovsky.pdf
I won't belabor the point — let's move on to the targets.
As a reminder: when we tune, we are looking for the bullet's place in the barrel! And it doesn't matter at all whether that place is in the rifling or in the jump. To find that place, you need to travel the entire "path" — you need to go through all the rifling and the jump. There are no other options!
Naturally, I traveled that path and found a node of SEVEN steps. 7 steps is 21 thousandths! This means there is no need to worry about throat erosion!
Below are the targets at the selected charge weight with a 0.003 step.
Beginning of the node.
The numbers on the target are the seating die head size of the Wilson die.
Seating depth step of 0.003.
Three shots per group on the targets.
And this is the last group in the node. Strictly speaking, it needed to be repeated (reshot), as the first shot landed where it shouldn't have. By all indications, all three shots should have been together.
But I reasoned: what difference does it make what the group looks like? It's the last one in the node. So it ends up tighter — so what? Nothing changes.
The node is 21 thousandths, and I am completely satisfied with that!
That concluded the tuning. The accuracy of all groups (21 shots) was 0.187 MOA.
In essence, I repeated the result of the previous .33XC tuning, but that was on a Spectre.
What I noticed: Bespoke is capable of delivering extreme accuracy and tunes into long seating depth nodes. This tendency holds across all the Bespoke rifles I have tuned. In the near future, I have several more Spectre .33XC tuning sessions planned.
And I am eagerly awaiting the Monolit in .375 — while it is being manufactured, I am sourcing components. There will be a great deal of research work ahead: we ordered different twists for different bullets. Everything needs to be tuned and evaluated to understand what works best and in what combination, and to draw a definitive conclusion on the .375.
It has always been this way with every caliber. You have to find the right combinations empirically: twist — bullet — barrel length — velocity range. That is the only way to close the question.
And I also forgot to mention the fouling shot. There isn't one! Throughout the break-in and case forming, I cleaned frequently and tested this parameter. I am satisfied with the result — there is no flyer on the first shot after cleaning!
Testing a cold-bore shot didn't make sense: the barrel is 45 mm at the muzzle, and even after a string of 20 shots it remained warm. The heavy contour meant heat was never a concern — the shooter fatigued faster than the barrel heated up.
As is tradition, I take this opportunity to invite you to my courses. One person and three days of productive work! I will explain and demonstrate all the nuances of reloading and tuning. There is plenty to share 😎
All shooting (tuning) was conducted with magazine feeding.
