how far out or in

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
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
So 'Muir', Alan, you both seat your projectiles at the depths as suggested in the reloading information as given by the powder manufacturer(s), with this C.O.A.L. measurement being immaterial and totally independent of the distance to lands within ANY rifle for that particular caliber.

You effectively ignore what 'anal' reloader fellas like myself call "freebore" so that whatever the distance from bolt-face to lands might be in your particular rifles your seating depths are independent of said measurements??

ATB ...... and shoot safely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

wraith

Well-Known Member
so if we all set our guns up coal set up sami speck are we not ****ing in the dark yes it will fire from 99.9 percent of guns but as stated by blobby 99.9 percent of guns do not have the same set up long throats tight chambers mag lenth etc. so standard mesurments will work in most guns muir you recomended standard seating depth for my 204 now i set my coal as you sugested and it works fine so left it at that it works but as the 204 has a very long jump the head would fall out of the case before it got close to the lands so standard works for that gun my 7mm rem mag once more it has a very long throat i seat these 10thou from the lands a long way out which shoot very well out to distances that im very happy to pull the trigger on less jump is suposed to stabilise the head better in the chamber the head enters at a better angle and engages with the rifeling straight being closer copes well with throat erosion as wee shoot the throat is constantley eroding so setting at sami speck the the jump and throat erosion that distance is just getting bigger and bigger when i put this thread up i was surprised by just set it at oal and forget it yet on reading throe lots of posts on hear and a mulitude of other forums most chase the lands for better bullet groups if we just set it to sami speck and it shoots 2in at a hundred are we not so to speak shooting ourselfs in the foot when we start shooting much further out and wondering why the deer just leged it or shot to far back etc do we not owe it to the game we shoot to be able to place a round down rainge and hit where we point but to do this a 2in group at 100yards just cant cut it so we have to manufacture better amo for our guns and as all our guns are diffrent then we have to find what works in our guns no bullet manufacture ever shot a round from my guns yet we taik it as gospel that what they say works in every ones guns i dont think that can be done
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
So 'Muir', Alan, you both seat your projectiles at the depths as suggested in the reloading information as given by the powder manufacturer(s), with this C.O.A.L. measurement being immaterial and totally independent of the distance to lands within ANY rifle for that particular caliber.

You effectively ignore what 'anal' reloader fellas like myself call "freebore" so that whatever the distance from bolt-face to lands might be in your particular rifles your seating depths are independent of said measurements??

ATB ...... and shoot safely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So Yup. Speaking for myself. I have ignored it so far...well as I have said earlier, I experimented and found no advantage for me...and despite your and @Sonicdmb73 's much valued contributions, this thread for one, has not produced much evidence to show that there is any demonstrable advantage with statistics and recorded results to back it up has it? :)

I do seem to remember reading an article that was talking about seating depth...the gist being that the amount of support and guidance given to the bullet by the case neck was more important than any reduction of the distance to the lands, and that seemed to make sense to me.

This is the reloading forum of the Stalking Directory so I presume that most reading and following this thread are loading for a stalking rifle rather than a bench rest or varmint gun...and that most will be shooting at deer below 200metres if not 100. So it would be interesting to find just how many find adjusting the seating depth improves things over a reasonable number of groups and what the variation group to group is on good or bad days.

Having read the excellent Fuller analysis of groups article a few years ago ( Shooting - Group diagnosis ) I have set much more store in the quantity of results and the average over time rather than just the best group achieved. I would like to think that I could reproduce the same group every time but, the numbers and my folder full of targets do not lie.

I have come to the conclusion that I am good for 1/2" and the rifle and ammunition are good for 1/2" so although most will cluster, the groups will still go out to 1" from point of aim if both the rifle and I are on our extremes. With the worst group just over 1MOA I know that most of my bullets will be less than 1/2 MOA from the trajectory so for chest shot deer to 200 metres I should have a good margin for error.

Although there are arguments and even formulae for including or excluding fliers and outliers (see below)...I am reloading for a hunting rifle so sadly for my ego, every shot of every group counts however wide...I must work to the worst group I have achieved with the knowledge that there is every chance I will do better when I actually point it at a deer.

Thank you for sticking with it!

Alan


OUTLIERS IN GROUP TESTING: WHEN TO EXCLUDE FLYERS
by Joe Brennan


Sometimes during a test we get a group with one shot way out, an outlier.

Our choice is whether or not to INCLUDE that outlier group in our results/calculations.

Here's a simple rule for 5 shot groups:

On the outlier target, measure the smallest 4 shot group and the 5 shot group including the outlier.

Divide the smaller into the larger.

If the answer is more than 1.7, DON’T INCLUDE the group.

If the answer is less than 1.7, INCLUDE the group.

Here's an example: A set of 5 shot groups has one group with a very wide shot. The four shot group size is .8". The five shot group size is 1.5". Dividing .8" into 1.5" we get 1.875.

Since 1.875 is more than 1.7, DON'T INCUDE the group.

For 10 shot groups, measure the nine and ten shot group sizes, divide the smaller into the larger. If the result is more than 1.43, DON'T INCLUDE; if less than 1.43, INCLUDE the group.

WHY?
A 5 shot group is 1.1 times the size of a 4 shot group.
A 10 shot group is 1.03 times the size of a 9 shot group.
The standard deviation of 5 shot groups is .269 X the average.
The standard deviation of 10 shot groups is .195 X the average.
 
Last edited:

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
so if we all set our guns up coal set up sami speck are we not ****ing in the dark yes it will fire from 99.9 percent of guns but as stated by blobby 99.9 percent of guns do not have the same set up long throats tight chambers mag lenth etc. so standard mesurments will work in most guns muir you recomended standard seating depth for my 204 now i set my coal as you sugested and it works fine so left it at that it works but as the 204 has a very long jump the head would fall out of the case before it got close to the lands so standard works for that gun my 7mm rem mag once more it has a very long throat i seat these 10thou from the lands a long way out which shoot very well out to distances that im very happy to pull the trigger on less jump is suposed to stabilise the head better in the chamber the head enters at a better angle and engages with the rifeling straight being closer copes well with throat erosion as wee shoot the throat is constantley eroding so setting at sami speck the the jump and throat erosion that distance is just getting bigger and bigger when i put this thread up i was surprised by just set it at oal and forget it yet on reading throe lots of posts on hear and a mulitude of other forums most chase the lands for better bullet groups if we just set it to sami speck and it shoots 2in at a hundred are we not so to speak shooting ourselfs in the foot when we start shooting much further out and wondering why the deer just leged it or shot to far back etc do we not owe it to the game we shoot to be able to place a round down rainge and hit where we point but to do this a 2in group at 100yards just cant cut it so we have to manufacture better amo for our guns and as all our guns are diffrent then we have to find what works in our guns no bullet manufacture ever shot a round from my guns yet we taik it as gospel that what they say works in every ones guns i dont think that can be done
It is not so much SAAMI spec. as the bullet manufacturers spec. that I go by.

There is an argument, mentioned above, that a longer seating depth helps to keep the bullet straight and stable through the free bore until it engages with the rifling.

But it is interesting and reassuring to me that you have had success with both methods.

Alan
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
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.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Nice shooting.

Thank you for taking pity and responding!

I am feeling moved to put up some of my targets with the 4 into one hole and one irritating outlier 3/4" away but I won't! :)

What I will put up are not my best, both double your enviable MOA, but they are the targets I feel most reassured by as far as shooting at a deer goes. Both standing off Limulus quad sticks in the garden, the first was shot on five consecutive days so each was the first shot from a cold barrel. Windage needed to be a click left.





Two years later same bullet, different powder and load...is the first group shot after I installed a Kick Stop bought from classifieds on here. The Kick Stop brought the POI down by 1/2" previously it was 1" high at 100. Needless to say the next group with the same ammunition fired off the bench at the range was not so good 0.775"!

Alan
121411


p.s. I lied about not showing a target with an irritating outlier... :)
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
In the final analysis Alan, all this information gathering and use of theorems and so on is just us shooters attempting to validate our abilities to put a bullet where we WANT to put it, as often as we can. If in the end we are at least reasonably Happy with the results of our struggles, in my mind .... Job Done!!..

You get to down the deer you are aiming your 7mil at and I get to see a "Super" bullseye in the target I am aiming at on Bisley's 600 or 1,000 yard target. Then, for me at least, I apply the SAME rules and time of development to my hunting rounds, safe in the knowledge that again, when I squeeze off "THAT" shot, my target suffers as little as is arguably possible to give me the venison I desire and like to take home to enjoy with my family.. How you do it and how I do it is really almost immaterial to us as long as what we WANT to happen, HAPPENS, and happens with minimal fuss.

That I do not keep reams of records is just how it is, and works for me. I actually DID when I started reloading, way back when, but I had poor organising skills back then and got lost in my own data. So I got into the much easier habit of only recording the end results of my struggles., so that, in future, I can repeat the results by looking at those minimal recordings, but only those MOST relating to whichever particular caliber/bullet/powder etc I have chosen to use....

I am more than happy to offer advice to other fellow shooters - like yourself - should they/you ask a question I think/feel I have a valid viewpoint on that will most likely help the persons asking with straightforward, SAFE and generally effective directions so that hopefully, the person(s) querying achieve a good result. Thankfully, MOST - but obviously not all - want simple answers that will direct them towards a good result, most do NOT - again thankfully (Ha!... ) ask for fine details in my reasonings, supported by significant paper records.

P.S. I have quite a few good target records like the couple I put up in my last reply, but I feel a good deal of my admirable results have been aided - SIGNIFICANTLY - by me having been in competitive target shooting rifle clubs since I was just 14 years old, more than 50 years..!! Damn that is a long time when it is visible on paper... Owch! My accurate shooting abilities have most definitely gained from this. I have effectively been "Precticing" all the interim time, and that has made a difference to my repeatable ability to hit what I am aiming at, with minimal fuss. Still get an occasional flier though, but when it happens I can usually say it was due to such and such and was not a complete surprise to me. Shooting accurately AND consistently is the major support for me and my homeloading as the results I manage are more easily attributable to variances in my loads rather than variances in ME.... Or a mix of the two...

Kind Regards,
Blobby.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
P.S. Just for fullness,my targets were shot at 200 yards (as marked on the cardboard backing)...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
@Blobby159 in reply to your post #86

Agreed it is largely different strokes for different folks as they say...

My centre fire shooting is relatively recent, my Air rifle shooting although lifelong (so yes also 50 odd years) was never competitive, just rabbits, squirrels and rats.

I have said before on here that the main advantage of reloading for me is the improvement to my shooting skills which has been brought about by the sheer number of trigger pulls it demands (and justifies!) rather than the specific loads arrived at. Having arrived at a load, practicing and testing it in different shooting positions has shown how variable the combination of it and my shooting is so, and from that I can gauge my maximum deer range.

As for records, Although it is unforgiving, my folder of targets is also really useful to look back at and see that for instance, some of the factory stuff which had given me only so so results when I first bought a centre fire had magically improved when I used it up for plinking a few years later after practising a bit! :) The other gratifying thing is that the majority of the second half of the five shot groups in the folder are below 1MOA and that is from both bench or sticks and with most loads. The worst groups in the folder were with a box of factory PPU which gave 2" of all sorts of shapes.

The target folder also shows that having fired a fair few rounds of different bullets and loads, the scope's 1" high at 100 setting is pretty constant for all when they are on song. That can be helpful when working up a load to spot a node because it is clustering around the same point of impact.

The HPS Targetmaster ammo used as a control is about 1/2" high at 100 and 1/4" right relative to the faster lighter hunting ammo with that scope setting. If those start opening up or changing POI I know something is up and need to check scope and moderator or do a squeaky clean. A typical session at the range is cold barrel first shot with current stalking round and then either continue with another 4 of those or do a group with the HPS to check everything is normal and then any load development or practice groups.

As the last 600 rounds or so have gone into an average of 0.800" five shot groups it does give me a reasonable idea of the rifle and my precision, and by including the worst groups/outliers/fliers at 1.25" gives me the guide for when it counts on deer. It shows I won't win any competitions, but it doesn't allow me to fall into the trap of extrapolation and wishful thinking based on a single superb clover leaf group either!

Sorry for the non-seating depth based rambling digression to your thread @wraith.

Alan
 

Muir

Well-Known Member
So 'Muir', Alan, you both seat your projectiles at the depths as suggested in the reloading information as given by the powder manufacturer(s), with this C.O.A.L. measurement being immaterial and totally independent of the distance to lands within ANY rifle for that particular caliber.

You effectively ignore what 'anal' reloader fellas like myself call "freebore" so that whatever the distance from bolt-face to lands might be in your particular rifles your seating depths are independent of said measurements??

ATB ...... and shoot safely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The seating depth I use is usually the one I for the specific load I am using, but.... If I am using a powder/ bullet combo that has no listed data as with some of the Lovex Explosia powder that is becoming available here, I will seat to the OAL listed by the bullet manufacturer. But yes. I do not measure distance to the lands unless it is a very special situation involving cast bullets.~Muir
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
Your approach is excellent Alan and especially having the sense AND self control to make up a target comparator of ONLY First Shot, Cold Barrel bullet hits from your home loading results is commendable... No, Really!!.. I doubt there are many deer hunters with rifles with that kind of patience to see their target results build on just the one card over a period of separate days, one shot at a time.... THAT approach is the best replication of Real World Shooting with your chosen deer rifle, and, if off the sticks you use when out deer hunting, should give you the very best idea of your top abilities - at least, in a perfect "no stress" situation.

I have experimented with that approach too, with my .17Remington C/F rifle that is (THANKFULLY)? the only rifle in my small collection that exhibits anything significant with the variances from that first shot/cold barrel shot to subsequent rounds fired. With the small rabbit targets that approach has helped me attain near 100% first shot hits on my diminutive pest quarry at significant ranges sometimes....

ATB,
Blobby159.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
The seating depth I use is usually the one I for the specific load I am using, but.... If I am using a powder/ bullet combo that has no listed data as with some of the Lovex Explosia powder that is becoming available here, I will seat to the OAL listed by the bullet manufacturer. But yes. I do not measure distance to the lands unless it is a very special situation involving cast bullets.~Muir
If it works well for you 'Muir', is 100% SAFE and is a repetitive result without wee quirks occasionally, then Who Am I to contest what you do and how you do it my friend?? ..... Happy Shooting!

ATB..... and shoot safely


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
That video is a bit confusing...what did I miss?

"This video is going to be all about seating depths" ?

He says that he measures and always starts at 10 thou off the lands. But then says it doesn't matter what the distance off the lands actually is if the barrel likes the bullet it will do well at any length, so any tuning of two or three thou increments is pointless, and if the barrel doesn't like the bullet then try a different bullet?

So apart from no point tuning the length, the interesting thing for me is that he doesn't give a specific reason for choosing to actually start at 10 thou off the lands other than "I have aways".

Hmmm.

Alan
 

palo

Well-Known Member
Alantoo has it right. Load to the length recommended for that bullet and powder charge. It's all I use now. I had my Ruger American 6.5 Creedmoor out yesterday with Nosler 123 grain Custom Competitions. Prone off of a bipod they piled atop each other at 100 yards using Noslers specified OAL. Data providers don't just randomly select a length. It's there for a reason. Save yourself some grief and use it.~Muir
How do they decide on the recommended length ? Do they test different lengths or do they just pick a length that they know will be safe in all rifles and will fit in magazines.
 

Muir

Well-Known Member
How do they decide on the recommended length ? Do they test different lengths or do they just pick a length that they know will be safe in all rifles and will fit in magazines.
"Safe" is a little out of context. Bullet seating depth is not a safety concern, exactly. It's a performance issue. It must fit SAAMI or CIP chambers but more inportantly, it must utlize the neck for both alignment and more importantly, neck tension -what is (was?) referred to as "pull weight". This is the amount of pressure needed to release the case from the sides of the bullet. This pressure effects the burning rate of the individual cartridges. Manufacturers of powder and bullets tune their loads for performance and neck tension is a part of it. Ammunition makers often apply a crimp to their cartridges. Not just the ones traditionally crimped, either, but bottleneck, centerfire cartridges. People like to to say that this is to prevent bullets from unseating during recoil but then these same people won't crimp to prevent this occurrence with their handloads. Crimping adds a uniformity to pull weight, which makes individual burn rates more uniform. This is why people who try crimping often report smaller ES and SD. I have run test comparisons so many times that I no longer need convincing. I load to manufacturers recommended OAL and then I crimp. I utilize the neck tension and add a uniform crimp to help it out. Does this uniformity make it more accurate? Not necessarily. It just makes good numbers. Rifles like what they like. Good chrono numbers won't make a poorly matched load shoot any better. ~Muir
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
So Yup. Speaking for myself. I have ignored it so far...well as I have said earlier, I experimented and found no advantage for me...and despite your and @Sonicdmb73 's much valued contributions, this thread for one, has not produced much evidence to show that there is any demonstrable advantage with statistics and recorded results to back it up has it? :)

I do seem to remember reading an article that was talking about seating depth...the gist being that the amount of support and guidance given to the bullet by the case neck was more important than any reduction of the distance to the lands, and that seemed to make sense to me.

This is the reloading forum of the Stalking Directory so I presume that most reading and following this thread are loading for a stalking rifle rather than a bench rest or varmint gun...and that most will be shooting at deer below 200metres if not 100. So it would be interesting to find just how many find adjusting the seating depth improves things over a reasonable number of groups and what the variation group to group is on good or bad days.

Having read the excellent Fuller analysis of groups article a few years ago ( Shooting - Group diagnosis ) I have set much more store in the quantity of results and the average over time rather than just the best group achieved. I would like to think that I could reproduce the same group every time but, the numbers and my folder full of targets do not lie.

I have come to the conclusion that I am good for 1/2" and the rifle and ammunition are good for 1/2" so although most will cluster, the groups will still go out to 1" from point of aim if both the rifle and I are on our extremes. With the worst group just over 1MOA I know that most of my bullets will be less than 1/2 MOA from the trajectory so for chest shot deer to 200 metres I should have a good margin for error.

Although there are arguments and even formulae for including or excluding fliers and outliers (see below)...I am reloading for a hunting rifle so sadly for my ego, every shot of every group counts however wide...I must work to the worst group I have achieved with the knowledge that there is every chance I will do better when I actually point it at a deer.

Thank you for sticking with it!

Alan


OUTLIERS IN GROUP TESTING: WHEN TO EXCLUDE FLYERS
by Joe Brennan


Sometimes during a test we get a group with one shot way out, an outlier.

Our choice is whether or not to INCLUDE that outlier group in our results/calculations.

Here's a simple rule for 5 shot groups:

On the outlier target, measure the smallest 4 shot group and the 5 shot group including the outlier.

Divide the smaller into the larger.

If the answer is more than 1.7, DON’T INCLUDE the group.

If the answer is less than 1.7, INCLUDE the group.

Here's an example: A set of 5 shot groups has one group with a very wide shot. The four shot group size is .8". The five shot group size is 1.5". Dividing .8" into 1.5" we get 1.875.

Since 1.875 is more than 1.7, DON'T INCUDE the group.

For 10 shot groups, measure the nine and ten shot group sizes, divide the smaller into the larger. If the result is more than 1.43, DON'T INCLUDE; if less than 1.43, INCLUDE the group.

WHY?
A 5 shot group is 1.1 times the size of a 4 shot group.
A 10 shot group is 1.03 times the size of a 9 shot group.
The standard deviation of 5 shot groups is .269 X the average.
The standard deviation of 10 shot groups is .195 X the average.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
If you are crimping EVERY rifle round you reload, do you pay attention to ALWAYS check the empty case length, and then accurately trim ALL your brass to a strictly uniform length? I ask as I have not seen this mentioned - at all - in the text of anyone on the bench labelled "I Load to SAAMI spec's and Crimp Every Round"..

I would have thought that this action/condition would be one of the more important criteria to emphasise to others whom you are explaining your preferred reloading operations to as, without doing that the chances of an accurate "Pull-off weight" for any particular caliber is compromised, having slightly more or less neck brass involved in the crimp rollover....

It is (in part) why we who do NOT Crimp, don't as it can introduce yet Another variable into the mix of getting a truly accurate & repeatable load, yet we DO pay close attentions to our empty case length, measuring and then trimming any that exceed the SAAMI Spec'. NOT crimping SHOULD make that "Puul-off weight" more repeatable whilst removing that extra step.


Regards,
Blobby159


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Muir

Well-Known Member
Wow. You sound so indignant!
I do trim every case to the same length. If I have resized fifty cases (or 100, or 200) I trim them to the length of the shortest case in the LOT-provided that does not exceed the recommended case length. I measure them all to find the shortest. I use a Lee Factory Crimp Die, only. Roll crimps are worthless....Except in a 22LR round, but then, they aren't built for serious accuracy anyhow.

Nobody is twisting arm to crimp but there is too much evidence to support the benefits of a crimp to dismiss it. Just poll the members here who have actually done it.~Muir

(PS: WHo is this 'we' you mention? A collaborative opinion?)
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
Hahahahahaaaaa!!.. A Collaborative Opinion indeed 'Muir' ! You have yet to be "personal" so I see no reason to take offence with you. Like me (I hope?) you have the ability to put forward your viewpoint without getting messy and hateful with it. Perhaps you read my response with that expectation, but no, absolutely no indignation from me here. Where we ALL have a valid point to expound (assuming our point works and works safely) indignation is Not where I am coming from my friend.. But where there is more than one workable method I would just like MY choice to get a fair airing too.

Likewise I too am forcing no-one to even agree with me, but where I am coming from with MY reloading choice(s) is a much written about and expounded "best practice" where Pure Accuracy Reloads is a requirement. Read just about ANY serious article on reloading FOR ACCURACY and one will find the methodology I have adopted is what is discussed and suggested, sometimes at length. That does NOT mean your more straight forward methodology is trashed as a serious suggestion, it is just how it is written about... In books on reloading, in shooting magazines where reloading methods are suggested and discussed, and in the various online tuitional tools and discussion areas.

I have yet to read a "Loading for Accuracy" tuitional blog/video etc where crimping a bullet into the case mouth at or very near SAAMI Spec's is given as THE way to go.. This of course excludes pistol & revolver cartridge reloading - especially within the fairly violent self-loading mechanisms; .... the semi-automatic and full auto rifles & machine guns where the cartridges get a pretty rough handling by the mechanisms before and as they are chambered; .... and also in rifles fed by magazines that are really heavy kickers, like the .338 Lapua Magnum and the .375 H&H and the like, where the hefty recoil at time of firing COULD either seat the bullets deeper (in the case if that action belts the bullet noses) or potentially might act as a kinetic bullet puller and may lengthen the C.O.A.L. again during the rifle recoiling action if the case is firmly held in the magazine but the bullet itself is not?
Then I too would happily adopt the criteria of factory crimping my rounds as a safety finishing option 'Muir'.

However, were I to adopt the option of loading my heavy recoiling rifle with a single bullet at a time, NOT using the magazine or where a magazine does not exist, I would again revert to the ways and methodology of my present system and NOT crimp or use SAAMI Spec's in choosing the C.O.A.L. - unless it was Obviously the Only way to go! This goes doubly so for beauties like Ruger #1 s and Farquharson single shot, falling block rifles.. .

Kind Regards



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Top