I've read several magazine articles that make me think that it is generally better to have a faster twist than the so called optimum needed to stabilize a bullet. First, over stabilized bullets are supposed to be not as accurate as ones that are optimally stabilized. Inaccuracy supposedly results because the the center of mass of a bullet is not perfectly aligned with its geometric center. Because of this misalignment, the greater the over stabilization, the greater the loss of accuracy. I have read that now, compared to many years ago, bullets are made so much better that over stabilization causes a lot less loss of accuracy. Second, I read an article where the author did a number of tests simulation deflection caused by shooting through brush. He found that in calibers like the .338 Winchester that the lighter bullets were less deflected. He thought that was because they were more over stabilized. He also found that big bore rifle with slow twists were not as good as big bore rifle with fast twists in regard to deflection in brush. Finally, there was a recent article were the author tested identical bullets, at the same velocity, fired out of rifles with different twist rates. He found that the bullets fired out of rifles with faster twist rates generally maintained better downrange velocity. His assumption was that the over stabilized bullets traveled more "point-forward" than the other bullets. That is, a bullet traveling point first is more streamlined than a bullet traveling slightly sideways, and he thought the bullets in slower twist guns were possibly traveling slightly sideways. In the past I have ordered a couple barrels with slower than standard twist rates for the caliber because I planned on using them with lighter bullets. I would probabaly go with a faster twist rate now.
