how far out or in

Sonicdmb73

Well-Known Member
Best 0.5" and worst 1.209" STDEV of 0.202 those were the factory HPS. But your point is exactly why I was asking the experienced reloaders for some numbers to compare with. How close should the groups be and over how many groups do you average to make an assessment, before seating depth effect can be observed and identified?
My point is that assuming you are shooting at 100yds you have a half MOA difference between best and worst with the same ammunition. That isn’t consistent enough to find what might be fifty or a hundred thou improvements.
For instance I loaded 87 Vmax in my 243. The worst group was maybe 1.2” the best just over .5” loads 2 & 3 and 7 & 8 were all about that. I split the difference of 2 & 3. Then tweaked the length slightly ending with .400”.
So as the first improvement by powder weight gained the difference between your two extremes. You wouldn’t see the improvement, let alone the tweaked depth one.
I don’t mean to be insulting but practice practice practice. Keep everything as consistent as possible. If you have one take a 22lr and use that while your rifle cools.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
My point is that assuming you are shooting at 100yds you have a half MOA difference between best and worst with the same ammunition. That isn’t consistent enough to find what might be fifty or a hundred thou improvements.
For instance I loaded 87 Vmax in my 243. The worst group was maybe 1.2” the best just over .5” loads 2 & 3 and 7 & 8 were all about that. I split the difference of 2 & 3. Then tweaked the length slightly ending with .400”.
So as the first improvement by powder weight gained the difference between your two extremes. You wouldn’t see the improvement, let alone the tweaked depth one.
I don’t mean to be insulting but practice practice practice. Keep everything as consistent as possible. If you have one take a 22lr and use that while your rifle cools.
Not insulted. The results are what they are. And thankfully better than they were. I go to the range 3 times a month but have still only put 1400 rounds down the range with this rifle.

The figures you quote are just the sort of detail I was after, thank you.

Have all your subsequent groups maintained the 0.400" or what has been the variation between them?

Alan
 
Last edited:

Ozalid

Well-Known Member
'Ozalid'...

It can also be a fine thing to do all you can to get the best result out of what it is one is involved in, whether or not others view your erm... let's say 'extended' hobby as an anal waste of time!?... It makes me and others like me happy to be 'anal' and it harms no-one. Neither am I forcing MY point of view onto anyone that asks me and or reads what I write down as my own considered P.O.V. in places like this fine discussion area. I wholeheartedly agree that downing a deer at even fairly extended ranges does NOT require the type of benchrest accuracy some of us apply to this task, but I bet others in my 'anal brotherhood' agree, knowing precisely where a well aimed bullet will land is a great bolsterer & sustainer of one's Confidence. This is probably as important if not MORE SO than real life accuracy - given the actual size of our given target(s) is actually quite large and forgiving of minor deviations from the ideal...

Regards,
Blobby159


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Blobby,

Sorry if I caused offence it was a poor attempt at humour and meant lightheartedly.
Of course striving for perfection is a drug many are hooked on. I myself have a touch of OCD so reloading ticks a lot of boxes for me and I always enjoy going to the range to try loads out, but it’s almost disappointing when the first shot at 100m drops straight in the 1” circle and the next four closely follow.
However, on a hill, prone or off sticks, with a breeze, uphill or down angle, with cold fingers and a thumping heart, it’s another game entirely and yes, knowing your equipment is capable of excellence makes your ability the only variable.
I was just trying to differentiate the two situations.
Regards
Al


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

A21MEO

Member
Those of you that advocate longer than the bullet manufacturer's recommended COAL...having arrived at your optimum powder load how many rounds do you fire to assess the advantage of a particular COAL?

How precisely do all the subsequent groups you fire at your chosen COAL setting reproduce your initial experiment?

How consistent does your shooting need to be to be able to assess the COAL variable? What is you average five-shot-group size SD?

I have only been reloading for a few years and only for one hunting rifle, but after reading many posts on here about the advantage I was surprised at how little difference extending the COAL made to my groups...it was much more likely to be varied by ambient temperature, that days aches and pains or the meal I eat before shooting!

Can you quantify/specify the advantageous effects you found with some statistics? ie number of rounds fired at various lengths and the resulting group sizes and then the constancy of subsequent groups?

Alan
Absolutely! After much faffing about with charge weights and seating depths for bullet weights various I am of the opinion that it has very little effect for real world hunting application. I have found that I can shoot sub MOA with all charge weights within the recommended limits and seating depths from min COAL up to 5 thou short of the lands. If you make every round as far as possible exactly the same and then shoot them at the same spot, they all land in the same place. The biggest variable is behind the rifle.
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
Blobby,

Sorry if I caused offence it was a poor attempt at humour and meant lightheartedly.
Of course striving for perfection is a drug many are hooked on. I myself have a touch of OCD so reloading ticks a lot of boxes for me and I always enjoy going to the range to try loads out, but it’s almost disappointing when the first shot at 100m drops straight in the 1” circle and the next four closely follow.
However, on a hill, prone or off sticks, with a breeze, uphill or down angle, with cold fingers and a thumping heart, it’s another game entirely and yes, knowing your equipment is capable of excellence makes your ability the only variable.
I was just trying to differentiate the two situations.
Regards
Al


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
With you 100% there Al, and no offence felt or taken! It is admittedly confusing that BOTH "systems" appear to give excellent results given proper application, leaving many of us struggling to choose which to stand behind and adopt... Discussions like this can be a healthy airing of ideas and occasionally raises points that would otherwise be missed yet may be important to us all.

Regards


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Sonicdmb73

Well-Known Member
Let me throw in another method. A mate has good results from taking a load a grain or so under max. Loading so bullet length or more is in the neck. That’s about the sum total of load development. The only thing is he’s very consistent with powder with an electronic powder measure. Worked well out to 800m with 243 and 87 Vmax.
 

CarlW

Well-Known Member
Let me throw in another method. A mate has good results from taking a load a grain or so under max. Loading so bullet length or more is in the neck. That’s about the sum total of load development. The only thing is he’s very consistent with powder with an electronic powder measure. Worked well out to 800m with 243 and 87 Vmax.
Don't ruin our self-delusion. Next you'll be telling us Santa doesn't exist.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
Let me throw in another method. A mate has good results from taking a load a grain or so under max. Loading so bullet length or more is in the neck. That’s about the sum total of load development. The only thing is he’s very consistent with powder with an electronic powder measure. Worked well out to 800m with 243 and 87 Vmax.
The only part of the process I can be in reasonable control of is the charge weight...the graduations on my lab scales represent 0.2mg so I can get the load to within the difference between a large or small kernel of N135. (large are about 0.8mg small 0.6mg).

It is just the rest of the journey to the target that introduces my variables!

You didn't say what the extremes were of your subsequent 5-shot groups after you had found the load and seating depth to give you your 0.400" group. can you share that and the sample size?

Alan
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
Let me throw in another method. A mate has good results from taking a load a grain or so under max. Loading so bullet length or more is in the neck. That’s about the sum total of load development. The only thing is he’s very consistent with powder with an electronic powder measure. Worked well out to 800m with 243 and 87 Vmax.
Hi again 'Sonicdmb73'... If you look back in THIS Thread you may find where I have discussed the strange way I am forced to load the excellently destructive .224 40gr BlitzKings in my .22K-Hornet reloads, this being caused by the long pointy bullet ogive versus the C.O.A.Ls of cartridges that can be cycled through the restrictive magazines of my Anschutz Hornet rifle.

The loads I produce to some extent relate to those produced by your mate with the .243 and 87gr projectiles - though I have not heard WHY he loads like that whereas I had/have a definite reason for my aberration....

ATB ..... and shoot safely


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Sonicdmb73

Well-Known Member
Hi again 'Sonicdmb73'... If you look back in THIS Thread you may find where I have discussed the strange way I am forced to load the excellently destructive .224 40gr BlitzKings in my .22K-Hornet reloads, this being caused by the long pointy bullet ogive versus the C.O.A.Ls of cartridges that can be cycled through the restrictive magazines of my Anschutz Hornet rifle.

The loads I produce to some extent relate to those produced by your mate with the .243 and 87gr projectiles - though I have not heard WHY he loads like that whereas I had/have a definite reason for my aberration....

ATB ..... and shoot safely


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quite simply time. Growing family limited spare time. He’d rather be stalking than loading. But his approach works for him. It relies on knowing suitable bullet powder combinations.
 

Sonicdmb73

Well-Known Member
The only part of the process I can be in reasonable control of is the charge weight...the graduations on my lab scales represent 0.2mg so I can get the load to within the difference between a large or small kernel of N135. (large are about 0.8mg small 0.6mg).

It is just the rest of the journey to the target that introduces my variables!

You didn't say what the extremes were of your subsequent 5-shot groups after you had found the load and seating depth to give you your 0.400" group. can you share that and the sample size?

Alan
Sorry I don’t keep meticulous records. I have used the same load for years. I can still get it to shoot in the .400”s when I do my bit. I can’t really add any more than that.
 

Monkey Spanker

Well-Known Member
I don't think the distance from the lands is entirely relevant just to throw a big spanner in the works!
The reason I say this is that it is not constant with age. I had a rifle that I set up 20 thou off and was accurate as you could wish for. Several thousand rounds later, the lands had moved considerably due to throat erosion, and yet it was still just as accurate?
My view is that you are just setting up a load to match the resonant harmonics of the rifle. I play with the amount of powder first, and then play with the seating depth, However, the seating depth in turn affects the pressure which in turn affects the harmonics of the shot. I'm not convinced that the distance from the lands has any real affect other than change in pressure caused by the increase or decrease in case volume?
MS
 

Muir

Well-Known Member
I bought some 6.5 Creedmoor Norma 130 grain Match ammo a while back. It was blindingly accurate. I don't remember Norma sending someone to measure the distance to the lands on my Creedmoor. Maybe they can't afford the personnel. I think I spotted the van carrying Lapua's "Lander" team once but I could be mistaken. Not certain about Federal Gold Medal's situation. They must be really busy though.... It's a pretty popular match ammo here.~Muir
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
I don't think the distance from the lands is entirely relevant just to throw a big spanner in the works!
The reason I say this is that it is not constant with age. I had a rifle that I set up 20 thou off and was accurate as you could wish for. Several thousand rounds later, the lands had moved considerably due to throat erosion, and yet it was still just as accurate?
My view is that you are just setting up a load to match the resonant harmonics of the rifle. I play with the amount of powder first, and then play with the seating depth, However, the seating depth in turn affects the pressure which in turn affects the harmonics of the shot. I'm not convinced that the distance from the lands has any real affect other than change in pressure caused by the increase or decrease in case volume?
MS
I think you just MAY have something solid there 'MS'..!!
That would make sense of what I was pointing out earlier on here, that loading bullets to the crimp groove &/or loading to SAMMI spec's length &/or loading the bullets up close to within a few thousandths of an inch to the rifle barrel lands ALL have their devotees for various diverse reasons, and ALL WORK to varying degrees, giving the operators accurate, potent rifle loads..

All our attempts at load development - certainly mine - are to give me as much control over the barrel harmonics during the firing cycle as it is possible to achieve. Perhaps those then also loading to SAMMI specs or just to the crimp groove depth on the projectile used may also be lucky enough to get somewhere near one of the rifle barrel's accuracy nodes too, given by its harmonics!? It is entirely feasible... though I am none to sure if this accounts for many of those loads not finely twiddled with under my adopted methodology....

ATB ..... and shoot safely


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
I am surprised that only @Sonicdmb73 of those who find tweaking seating depth advantageous has offered any actual figures to indicate the improvement.

I had assumed that all reloaders were anal about record keeping in order to identify those few thou of advantage given by the various adjustments to load and brass preparation and seating depth. And that they would find it useful to compare them with others.

Maybe everybody else is being polite and not wanting to show up my results.

I wonder if I started a new thread along the lines of "Average, Best, Worst, STDEV, Seating depth/COAL and sample size of 5-shot groups" there would be any contributors?

I find it so uninformative in threads when people just say "my rifle will shoot sub MOA all day if I do my bit" with no indication of whether that is three, five, ten shot groups. More importantly how many of those groups were fired in order to build up a picture of day to day variation and expectation.

When "I do my bit" I do not always get the same result so can only go by the aggregate and base my confidence on the worst group of the sample...just be interesting to know what others do.

Alan
 
Last edited:

Muir

Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on your emphasis. I load to manufacurers recommended OAL (powder or bullet maker) so I have no notes on Seating depth. I do keep load records but they focus elsewhere.~Muir
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on your emphasis. I load to manufacurers recommended OAL (powder or bullet maker) so I have no notes on Seating depth. I do keep load records but they focus elsewhere.~Muir
Yes, I do too-ish* partly thanks to you, but being a Doubting Thomas I still did some experiments to check!

Manufacturer's OAL would be just as useful to know as any other seating depth/jump to the lands when comparing everyone's results. Especially as we are in a thread discussing it.

* Barnes specify COAL as 2.735" for 110gr and 130gr TTSX .308W but that takes the case mouth at 2.005" just into the cannelure. So I seat them to 2.750" so that the case mouth remains on the parallel shank and then use a Lee Factory crimp. There being no more case mouth support beyond 2.750". The part overhang into the cannelure and crimp combination I reckoned might introduce a variable by either pushing the bullet in further or the crimp may be more difficult to keep constant...

Alan
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
I am surprised that only @Sonicdmb73 of those who find tweaking seating depth advantageous has offered any actual figures to indicate the improvement.

I had assumed that all reloaders were anal about record keeping in order to identify those few thou of advantage given by the various adjustments to load and brass preparation and seating depth. And that they would find it useful to compare them with others.

Maybe everybody else is being polite and not wanting to show up my results.

I wonder if I started a new thread along the lines of "Average, Best, Worst, STDEV, Seating depth/COAL and sample size of 5-shot groups" there would be any contributors?

I find it so uninformative in threads when people just say "my rifle will shoot sub MOA all day if I do my bit" with no indication of whether that is three, five, ten shot groups. More importantly how many of those groups were fired in order to build up a picture of day to day variation and expectation.

When "I do my bit" I do not always get the same result so can only go by the aggregate and base my confidence on the worst group of the sample...just be interesting to know what others do.

Alan
Hi Alan.. Time I sling MY thoughts into the mire methinks... You have been persistent enough that you do indeed deserve at least more than the singular views of 'Sonicdmb73' ... He Has been a Stalwart in trying to answer you from a truthful and straight forward point of view in how his results are just that, but NOT detailed in records.

'Fraid I am only going to echo 'Sonic's' statements for the greater part here, but here goes....

I do NOT KEEP detailed very records of my loading/shooting results, except that once the groups I am hoping for and working towards start to appear on a regular basis I shoot ONE cardboard target of it, record the relevant details of distance shot, projectile and powder weight, and mark the size of the group, in inches. That is that! I shoot for groups at 300yds regularly and 200yds if that distance isn't available for me or if it is a bit breezy (so as to limit the impact of wind drift), though if at all possible, I try to save up my trial rounds shooting till the weather is relatively still, with 5m.p.h breeze or less.

I also keep a record of the seating depths for each and every bullet I have tried and found gave me good results. The record of these I keep on a piece of paper inside of my die boxes.. Thus, for my 6.5x55SE the loading depths are inside the box for THOSE dies; then for my .223 Remington the seating depths for "useful" projectiles is kept inside of the dies for THAT caliber and so on.

My groups are generally 3 shot arrangements, but also 5 shot occasionally....

I will attempt to add a couple of photos of just a couple of my decent group results here that I have taken as my future load record for my new(ish) Tikka t3 in 6.5x55 Swede.

IMG_1002.jpgIMG_1009.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Top