• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Range Report Done with Hornady tipped bullets....?

Subwrx300

Subwrx300

Major Hide Member
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 15, 2014
1,381
971
Cedar Springs, MI
So I finally had my last straw with tipped bullets. Specifically, Hornady, but I'm not likely to go back to anything with a polymer tip for the appreciable future.

Quick version: 223s they shoot great at 100, 200 and with 6.5s even 400-600yds. But small lot-to-lot ogive/BTO variation, concentricity and consistentcy is not their strong suit.

Detailed version: My 6.5CM comp gun shoots consistently .3-.5 moa at 100yards. Ragged holes with no flyers with ELDs. At distance of 400, they stay around 1.5-2" but I'll have 1-2 "flyers" every other group that I usually explain away as the nut behind the gun.

However at Kahles, I had major issues with groups beyond 650-700 (elevation and windage). Groups were more like 1-1.5MOA at much beyond 700. Came home, check at 400 still right at .5 MOA for back to back 5 round groups. Leaves me wondering....

Picked up 223 trainer and started load Dev last week. 75 ELDs, 77 SMKs, 88 ELDs and 80 Berger VLDs. Testing with 4 shot groups at 300, the Hornady 75gr had two great nodes: 24gr and 25gr XBR. Both were .4-.5MOA both and .3gr wide. SUPER!

Load Dev:
7091129


Except, when I loaded confirmation, the same loads shot 1 MOA at same distance. 3-4 in 1" or so plus a flyer. No big deal, maybe it's seating depth, right?

Confirmation target: 300yds (note these are not the 75 BTHP, I labeled it wrong and didn't fix it after shooting.)
7091130


Shot seating depth confirmation and suddenly, .020 off sucked but .080" jump was good. I loaded 50 at .080" jump and shot then today. But I also checked runout: FML. They had .000-.008" runout, and even if the runout was .002 or less, you could visibly see the tips arcing non-centered in the test rig.

Seating depth test:
7091128


I sharpied them to see where specific run-outs would land within the group. Photo below, along with 10 shots from the 77 SMK load (which shoots .5-.6 at 100, 200, 300 and 400).

77 SMK 100 yds:
7091132


75 ELD Runout test:
7091122


The black cluster in the center are the 8 rounds that had .001 or less runout. The rest are scattered around the outside of the group with a few that made it inside avg of .001 group.

The 77SMK load has not been refined at all; and it exhibits the vertical shape all the time. They always group like a tall oval. Could probably tune this out, but 8 out 10 shots landed in 1.5" at 388yds.

Plastic tips are crap and bad quality control makes it worse... It's not that they won't shoot, it's that only 50% shoot like they should. This makes them essentially useless as a trainer or wind calling, since you never know if it was really a bad call or simply a bad bullet. But they are only 18-19 cents each.

I should know better: you can't expect Ferrari performance on a Civic budget. Lesson finally learned. Lol...flame over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pga43
Spblademaker said:
I’ll trade you my 130 RDFs for your ELDs.
Click to expand...
I have 300ish 140 Elds left but i had less luck with the RDFS than the 140 ELDs. At least the BC on the RDFs was consistent though!
308pirate said:
Got any .308 178 ELD-Xs you want gone?
Click to expand...
Never ventured into the 147s. I think Hornady can make a good bullet BUT:
  1. They must be 100 count boxes or bullets get deformed. The 2000 count boxes get beaten up in transit.
  2. Have to get lucky with a good lot that has uniform tips.
Havent had much luck getting anything other than 100ct boxes to shoot and measure consistently.

Just look at the Hornady ATip: packaged in individual egg crate style containers so that no bullets are banging against one another in transit. After watching USPS, UPS and Fedex handle deliveries, its no wonder they get beaten up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pga43
Subwrx300 said:
I have 300ish 140 Elds left but i had less luck with the RDFS than the 140 ELDs. At least the BC on the RDFs was consistent though!

Never ventured into the 147s. I think Hornady can make a good bullet BUT:
  1. They must be 100 count boxes or bullets get deformed. The 2000 count boxes get beaten up in transit.
  2. Have to get lucky with a good lot that has uniform tips.
Havent had much luck getting anything other than 100ct boxes to shoot and measure consistently.

Just look at the Hornady ATip: packaged in individual egg crate style containers so that no bullets are banging against one another in transit. After watching USPS, UPS and Fedex handle deliveries, its no wonder they get beaten up.
Click to expand...
Thought you’d get a kick out of it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Subwrx300
Never blame your equipment. Or so they tell me. :)

In my experience, distance (500+ ) exposes problems that never manifest closer in. My 6.5 is a 0.36 - 0.55 gun at 100 yards, conistently. 200....300.... half MoA or less, for all the times I've tested at those distances.

But that doesn't translate in a linear fashion to 500y. i.e. Getting a half MoA group at 100 doesn't always mean 2.5"@ 500y. I have not yet figgered out why. I have a day job that significantly interferes. :)
 
Last edited:
But yes.... I tried Hornady's stuff in 6.5 CM, 338, 223, and others. On the whole, I'm not impressed with anything Hornady. Decent stuff, but not the best. I ended up with Berger 140gr Hybrid Target. in my 6.5


I might suggest changing you aiming point geometry / color. A round black circle can be imprecise, and black crosshairs can get lost on a black dot.

A colored dot (blaze orange) might provide better contrast to the crosshairs and a right angle might provide better alighment of crosshairs to target. I've found it helpful, anyway.

A colored square with points at 3 , 6, 9 and 12 oclock might provide both.
 
Last edited:
I had a similar problem with 140 eldm bullets at distance as well. I still have a bunch if them and I may give them a try but like you, I always just figured it was me. Then I switched back to Berger 140 hybrids and all of a sudden there's no fliers at distance. I didn't wring things out as much as you did here but something was off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Subwrx300 and garandman
garandman said:
Never blame your equipment. Or so they tell me. :)

In my experience, distance (500+ ) exposes problems that never manifest closer in. My 6.5 is a 0.36 - 0.55 gun at 100 yards, conistently. 200....300.... half MoA or less, for all the times I've tested at those distances.

But that doesn't translate in a linear fashion to 500y. i.e. Getting a half MoA group at 100 doesn't always mean 2.5"@ 500y. I have not yet figgered out why. I have a day job that significantly interferes. :)
Click to expand...

The reason why is proper load development at 100yds ensuring you are in the dead center of the node...

If you are not, you will see it on target beyond 500yds. This is why Dan Newberry's OCW method screams to not look at group size which unfortunately LOTS of guys do. Group size isnt what your looking for during initial load development and I feel like a broken record stressing this to shooters for years. You're looking for consistent point of impact that way weather variables, powder lots and slight variations in powder charge dont change your point of impact if you're in the dead center of your node.

Groups can look amazing at 100, 200yd but that vertical stringing and flyers out if the group really show up beyond 500.

Yes, it is a lot of work to find the center of the node, then tweak group size with seating depth to see what your barrel likes but it's the only way to go if you handload. And yes, you need to redo it every time you switch a component, whether its brass, bullet, powder or primer. I also always recheck in 0.2gr increments going .6 down and .6 up from my load to confirm my load with new lots of powder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DIBBS, aam, cornhusker86 and 5 others
Subwrx300 said:
So I finally had my last straw with tipped bullets. Specifically, Hornady, but I'm not likely to go back to anything with a polymer tip for the appreciable future.

Quick version: 223s they shoot great at 100, 200 and with 6.5s even 400-600yds. But small lot-to-lot ogive/BTO variation, concentricity and consistentcy is not their strong suit.

Detailed version: My 6.5CM comp gun shoots consistently .3-.5 moa at 100yards. Ragged holes with no flyers with ELDs. At distance of 400, they stay around 1.5-2" but I'll have 1-2 "flyers" every other group that I usually explain away as the nut behind the gun.

However at Kahles, I had major issues with groups beyond 650-700 (elevation and windage). Groups were more like 1-1.5MOA at much beyond 700. Came home, check at 400 still right at .5 MOA for back to back 5 round groups. Leaves me wondering....

Picked up 223 trainer and started load Dev last week. 75 ELDs, 77 SMKs, 88 ELDs and 80 Berger VLDs. Testing with 4 shot groups at 300, the Hornady 75gr had two great nodes: 24gr and 25gr XBR. Both were .4-.5MOA both and .3gr wide. SUPER!

Load Dev:
View attachment 7091129

Except, when I loaded confirmation, the same loads shot 1 MOA at same distance. 3-4 in 1" or so plus a flyer. No big deal, maybe it's seating depth, right?

Confirmation target: 300yds (note these are not the 75 BTHP, I labeled it wrong and didn't fix it after shooting.)
View attachment 7091130

Shot seating depth confirmation and suddenly, .020 off sucked but .080" jump was good. I loaded 50 at .080" jump and shot then today. But I also checked runout: FML. They had .000-.008" runout, and even if the runout was .002 or less, you could visibly see the tips arcing non-centered in the test rig.

Seating depth test:
View attachment 7091128

I sharpied them to see where specific run-outs would land within the group. Photo below, along with 10 shots from the 77 SMK load (which shoots .5-.6 at 100, 200, 300 and 400).

77 SMK 100 yds:
View attachment 7091132

75 ELD Runout test:
View attachment 7091122

The black cluster in the center are the 8 rounds that had .001 or less runout. The rest are scattered around the outside of the group with a few that made it inside avg of .001 group.

The 77SMK load has not been refined at all; and it exhibits the vertical shape all the time. They always group like a tall oval. Could probably tune this out, but 8 out 10 shots landed in 1.5" at 388yds.

Plastic tips are crap and bad quality control makes it worse... It's not that they won't shoot, it's that only 50% shoot like they should. This makes them essentially useless as a trainer or wind calling, since you never know if it was really a bad call or simply a bad bullet. But they are only 18-19 cents each.

I should know better: you can't expect Ferrari performance on a Civic budget. Lesson finally learned. Lol...flame over.
Click to expand...


Bergers Bergers Bergers. I'll say no more....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve123, Subwrx300 and garandman
padom said:
Group size isnt what your looking for during initial load development...You're looking for consistent point of impact ...
Click to expand...

I'm reading your post thru several times to learn all I can . Some clarification on group size vs. PoI....


I'm guessing consistent PoI would best be measured on graph / quadrille paper???

The way I'm thinking... putting 5 shots into 1 ragged hole would be both a pretty consistent PoI... as well as a pretty good group size.

So....what is the diff btwn group size and PoI? What am I missing here?
 
garandman said:
I'm reading your post thru several times to learn all I can . Some clarification on group size vs. PoI....


I'm guessing consistent PoI would best be measured on graph / quadrille paper???

The way I'm thinking... putting 5 shots into 1 ragged hole would be both a pretty consistent PoI... as well as a pretty good group size.

So....what is the diff btwn group size and PoI? What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

No, not correct. 5 shots in a ragged hole has nothing to do with consistent POI. 5 shots in a hole at 100yds is worthless if those same 5 shots at 600yds are 18" vs a say 0.5" group at 100yds that shoots 2.5-3" at 600yds..... You need to read Dan Newberry's OCW then ask any questions you have.

Group size is exactly that, the size of a group, regardless where it lands on the target....Consistent POI means it consistently impacts the target at the same point every time. This plays into barrel harmonics and being in the center of the node means the barrel is release the bullet at the same point in the whip every time.....

Dan Newberry's OCW Load Development System

Dan Newberry OCW or Optimal Charge Weight Load Development method or system for handloading, reloading, bullets, brass, powder, primers, accurate handloads.
optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com
 
Just to throw a wrench into things by giving options, if you have a magnetospeed and no access to extended range or doubts about your shooting ability, you can do a ladder across the magnetospeed and work down a charge window then do the seating depth test from there once you find the charge you need to be at. There's more than one way to skin a cat with load development.
 
This is why Dan developed the OCW method. So proper load development could be completed at 100yds where you dont have access to longer ranges and your load, if properly done, will be consistent out at distance.

I personally have seen too many inconsistency'[s picking your optimum charge weight based solely on velocity numbers. I use the chrono as 1 piece of data to help determine my OCW on calibers with very wide nodes like 6br or 6.5x47L where every charge weight has identical POI but its never the sole piece of data I go off of when selecting my OCW.

To each their own
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve123 and garandman
So I got a chance to run my Berger 140 Hybrid load directly against the 140 ELD load at 700 and 1056yds in a 7-8mph full value wind. At distances to 400-500 the ELDs hold tighter groups than Berger's (.3-.5 vs .4-.6) and better SD/ES (7/21 vs 10/30). But as you move past 500, that changes fast.

The Berger's run at 2760 vs ELDs at 2800, yet I hit 8 of 10 on 18" plates with Berger's and only 3 of 10 with Hornady. The Hornady has slightly better elevation consistency, however, it was missing left/right by far more than wind changes compared to Berger's. Berger wind was .7-.9 for all shots and Hornady varied from .3-1.0 mils.

At 700, 100% on 8" heads with Berger's and 70% with ELDs. Wind was same for both rifles but missing just left/right with ELD.

Runout with ELDs is .000-.004 whereas the Berger's are .001 or less, which cannot be helping the ELDs at all with consistent wind deflection or elevation.

Berger's are simply more consistent (for me at distance) and now I've got a body of evidence to back up my experience in matches. Glad I figured it out *somewhat* early in the season!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pga43 and Sixfivesavage
garandman said:
The way I'm thinking... putting 5 shots into 1 ragged hole would be both a pretty consistent PoI... as well as a pretty good group size.

So....what is the diff btwn group size and PoI? What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

I don't handload, but I've done work in a completely different field that involves processes similar to what I think @padom is recommending. Padom, correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Choose a min and max charge weight, divide the spread into say ten steps, load five rounds with each weight. Get ten targets, fire each set of five into its own target.

2. Now look at the groups, comparing them in sequence from minimum weight to maximum weight. You'll probably notice two things:

A. Some of the groups will be smaller than others. If you're selecting your load based on "group size", you'd pick the load that produced that small group. But maybe that's not the best idea, because it doesn't give any indication of how resilient that load is to small variations.

B. The centers of the groups will move: As the charge weight increases, the center of each group will probably move upward from the previous one, and there may also be a horizontal change across the sequence of groups. If you're selecting your load based on "consistent POI", you'd ignore group size and instead just measure the distance from the center of each group to the center of the next. Then you'd find the set of 3 (or maybe 5) sequential groups with the smallest total movement of group centers, and then you'd pick the load in the middle of that set.

By using "consistent POI", you ensure that your chosen load is resilient against small variations -- you've already proved that, by deliberately loading a little less and a little more, and seeing that the change had little effect on the POI.

The size of that "consistent POI" group might not be the smallest of the set. But once you've settled on the charge weight, you can tighten the groups at that weight by tweaking other variables with a similar series of tests.

Again, not a handloader, but I think that's the difference between what's being explained as "group size vs consisent POI".
 
Last edited:
fastfwd said:
I don't handload, but I've done work in a completely different field that involves processes similar to what I think @padom is recommending. Padom, correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Choose a min and max charge weight, divide the spread into say ten steps, load five rounds with each weight. Get ten targets, fire each set of five into its own target.

2. Now look at the groups, comparing them in sequence from minimum weight to maximum weight. You'll probably notice two things:

A. Some of the groups will be smaller than others. You might even see what looks like a clear pattern: a progression from large groups to a small group and then back to large. If you're selecting your load based on "group size", you'd pick the load that produced that small group.

B. The centers of the groups will move: As the charge weight increases, the center of each group will probably move upward from the previous one, and there may also be a horizontal change across the sequence of groups. If you're selecting your load based on "consistent POI", you'd ignore group size and instead just measure the distance from the center of each group to the center of the next. Then you'd find the set of 3 (or maybe 5) sequential groups with the smallest total movement of group centers, and then you'd pick the load in the middle of that set.

By using "consistent POI", you ensure that your chosen load is resilient against small variations in charge weight -- you've already proved that, by deliberately loading a little less and a little more, and seeing that the change had little effect on the POI.

The size of that "consistent POI" group might not be the smallest of the set. But once you've settled on the charge weight, you can tighten the groups at that weight by tweaking other variables with a similar series of tests.

Again, not a handloader, but I think that's the difference between what's being explained as "group size vs consisent POI".
Click to expand...

It's clearly laid out in Dan Newberrys ocw I posted above. No, we are not looking at group size at all.
 
WTF why can't people go read Newberry's method in his own webpage? And then once they ready it stop assuming that he's wrong because his initial focus is not group size.......

BTW, maybe that's why Hornady ELD-Xs work for me all the way to 1000 yards with boring accuracy. Cause I'm in a nice node.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ken4570tc in WY, Tim_WNC and padom
fastfwd said:
I've read the first couple pages; so far it seems to match my understanding of the process. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You obviously havent read it at all if you still think what you posted above is accurate. Nowhere does it say look for groups to get small then large again.....Dan specifically states to ignore tiny groups...Some of you guys crack me up.

 
I've read it carefully several times over. I'm still trying to understand "hitting the target at the same point of impact."


Does that means"forms aclover leaf around a central point?" Say vs. vertical or horizontal stringing?

Sorta this: (tho smaller / tighter)

7091941



Honest....I really do want to understand this.
 
So if your first group hits an inch high at 12 o'clock, second group is an inch out at 1 o'clock, next 3 groups hit at 3 o'clock. Use the middle charge weight of the 3 3 o'clock groups and adjust the seating depth to fiddle with the group size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: padom
beenawhile1 said:
So if your first group hits an inch high at 12 o'clock, second group is an inch out at 1 o'clock, next 3 groups hit at 3 o'clock. Use the middle charge weight of the 3 3 o'clock groups and adjust the seating depth to fiddle with the group size.
Click to expand...


My groups all hit the exact same spot on the target.

Guess I'm good to go.
 
garandman said:
I've read it carefully several times over. I'm still trying to understand "hitting the target at the same point of impact."


Does that means"forms aclover leaf around a central point?" Say vs. vertical or horizontal stringing?

Sorta this: (tho smaller / tighter)

View attachment 7091941


Honest....I really do want to understand this.
Click to expand...

No, it does not.

It means if you have say 7 identical targets for 7 different charge weights and you aim at the exact same spot on each target you'll typically see 3 charge weights in a row impact at the exact same point in relation to your point of aim. You select the middle charge weight which is your optimal charge weight.... so if you aimed center bullseye on all the targets and 3 charge weights impacted say 1" low and one inch right of your poa then thats your poi....
 
  • Like
Reactions: garandman
padom said:
Dan specifically states to ignore tiny groups
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get that. I think I just didn't make my point clearly enough.

Dude asked, "What's the difference between 'group size' and 'consistent POI'? Those both sound like the same thing to me."

I answered by comparing how you'd pick the best group size and how you'd pick the most consistent POI -- basically explaining that group size indicates consistency from round to round with the same charge weight, while consistent POI indicates consistency across a small range of charge weights.

Never said that Mr. Newberry's method involved choosing small group size; obviously, that's exactly what he's NOT recommending. I've edited my post a little; maybe it's clearer now. Sorry for the confusion.
 
beenawhile1 said:
So if your first group hits an inch high at 12 o'clock, second group is an inch out at 1 o'clock, next 3 groups hit at 3 o'clock. Use the middle charge weight of the 3 3 o'clock groups and adjust the seating depth to fiddle with the group size.
Click to expand...

Bingo...ding ding ding...
 
fastfwd said:
Yeah, I get that. I think I just didn't make my point clearly enough.

Dude asked, "What's the difference between 'group size' and 'consistent POI'? Those both sound like the same thing to me."

I answered by comparing how you'd pick the best group size and how you'd pick the most consistent POI -- basically explaining that group size indicates consistency from round to round with the same charge weight, while consistent POI indicates consistency across a small range of charge weights.

Never said that Mr. Newberry's method involved choosing small group size; obviously, that's exactly what he's NOT recommending. I've edited my post a little; maybe it's clearer now. Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm done
 
  • Like
Reactions: beenawhile1
Wow. I didn't expect this to devolve into a OCW thread. I definitely think the OCW has merit; I use a combo ladder/OCW (Same point of aim but multiple rounds round robin) looking for same POI (group center, not group size per se) and same rough shape (usually flat shape).

I'm looking to two or three charges that fall in the Same vertical at distance (ladder style) but making sure the groups impact in the same area. See two tests with Hornady 75 BTHP (non-tipped ?) below with Varget and 8208XBR. Had them lying around and thought they would be a good interim until my Bergers arrive (thanks @padom lol).

7092016


Vargets lowest two charges shift dramatically (3" up and slightly left). The next two fall within one inch vertically (again group centers) ... I'd test 24 grains for seating depth next using Varget. Speeds and SDs where very similar for last two charges.

With XBR, again the highest 2 charges fall right in top of each other with group centers, so I'd go with 23.5 and test seating depth. Again, SD and velocity also happened to be very similar in those charges.

This load is specifically for 400-500 yard practice. The test will be if 15-20 of those stay in same group shape (pretty sure they will.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: padom
I'm going to add my method is NOT a pure OCW test but the goal is the same: get two or three charges to impact in the same group center position so that seating depth can tweak group size smaller. Ideally, flat groups of at least 4 rounds or so.

It works much better if you do your homework to find common nodes for your bullet/powder combo so you can shoot less rounds before getting into seating depth testing.
 
garandman said:
I've read it carefully several times over. I'm still trying to understand "hitting the target at the same point of impact."


Does that means"forms aclover leaf around a central point?" Say vs. vertical or horizontal stringing?

Sorta this: (tho smaller / tighter)

View attachment 7091941


Honest....I really do want to understand this.
Click to expand...
So to help you out, if it's still unclear, you can find the mathematical group center of each group (in your picture, it would very close to the center bullet). There is a way to do it by hand, but honestly, it's a bit time consuming and it's WAAAYYY faster to simply use BallistiX or On target to plot the group and use it's POA vs Group center offset measurements.

In non-circular or non triangular groups (like the ones I just posted), I usually draw the cluster and simply eyeball it: my colored dots aren't quite centered intentionally. This is why I shoot 4/5 rounds at distance instead of 3.

See drawing below. Blue dot is approximate Point of Impact for the group. It would be better to call it "Average Point of Impact". Group size is measured by extreme spread of two bullets, average to center, mean radial dispersion, or one of several other fancy ways to give the same info. Newberrys OCW ignores size and looks for blue dots hitting same spot.

7092035


Clear as mud? ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sobiloff, Wormydog1724, spife7980 and 6 others
Yeah, the H88's in my 223AI will give a pretty big flyer once in a while, otherwise they shoot very good.

Sheesh, the RDF's in my 6mmBR shot decent out to 300Y, even got some 3/4" groups, except for a flyer here and there opening to 1.5", but totally fell apart by 900Y, in spite of the 8 twist barrel.

Berger hybrids, one awesome bullet, though they are getting expensive! I wish Berger would offer bulk discount pricing.

Sometimes a barrel will work better with one type of bullet and not so well with another. I couldn't get the 105 hybrid to shoot acceptably in my 6mmFatRat, I tried hard and thought the barrel was a dud. Ordered some 95smk and they shot fine.

If money was no object I'd buy Bart's Hammers, they'll be as close to the same for each bullet as it'll get.

Also I bet there are good batches of bullets and not so good batches of bullets in the same brand and type, and designs of bullets that shoot better than others. Dies that are wearing out, die set ups not correct, female worker on the rag on a Monday, lol, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tx_Aggie
Subwrx300 pictures should clear up a lot of confusion. So would you shoot at 200yds or further to adjust bullet seating depth? I adjusted my seating depth on my 243 at 200 yards than shot it at 100 yards and can almost stack bullets at 100.
Wondering what peaople think?
 
Subwrx300 said:
At distances to 400-500 the ELDs hold tighter groups than Berger's (.3-.5 vs .4-.6) and better SD/ES (7/21 vs 10/30). But as you move past 500, that changes fast.

The Berger's run at 2760 vs ELDs at 2800, yet I hit 8 of 10 on 18" plates with Berger's and only 3 of 10 with Hornady. The Hornady has slightly better elevation consistency, however, it was missing left/right by far more than wind changes compared to Berger's. Berger wind was .7-.9 for all shots and Hornady varied from .3-1.0 mils.
Wind was same for both rifles but missing just left/right with ELD.



Berger's are simply more consistent (for me at distance) and now I've got a body of evidence to back up my experience in matches. Glad I figured it out *somewhat* early in the season!
Click to expand...
Not trying to drift off topic, but I saw the same thing in the 140 eld m. I was shooting a 6.5 SLR, and had never had a bullet hold vertical so well or match up to a phone app or my Kestrel the way it did.
It was always short lived on the total accuracy side, I had to re-find the seat depth every 150 rds, and it was not necessarily chasing the lands, it could go the other way too. Chasing a wind hold was futile at best, just made one look stupid.
Funny part was, it was at the 150rd ct point things went south, every time.
Mot for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Subwrx300
TIMMYTOY said:
Subwrx300 pictures should clear up a lot of confusion. So would you shoot at 200yds or further to adjust bullet seating depth? I adjusted my seating depth on my 243 at 200 yards than shot it at 100 yards and can almost stack bullets at 100.
Wondering what peaople think?
Click to expand...
I'd shoot and test seating depth at 300-400 minimum with at least 4 or 5 rounds per group. Mainly because it's easy to get fooled with 3 round tests. Seating depth testing is alot like OCW style testing, except your looking for the tighest consistent group node(s) that are as wide as possible. For example, shoot .005, .020,.035,.50,.065, .80, .95, there will be two depths that keep smaller and consistently shaped groups. Some bullets work even better further out than .100. Berger recommends testing VLDs at .005, .040, .80 and.120 with (2) three shoot groups each.

Load to the longest load with good precision and as the barrel/throat wears forward, you will have longer time between any adjustments in seating depth.
 
Going to throw a cat amongst the pidgeon's OP have you tried the nosler 140 RDF. I'm well aware of the hate of them on this site but I'm glad I tried them myself. Best bullet I have shot through my 47L including berger and scenars. I didn't even do a load development with them just dropped them in the same powder charge I use for 139 scenars, did a berger seating depth test with them they shot great at all jump distances.

Took them out to 1000 5 shots held 4 inches of vertical in wild conditions rain squalls coming through with winds anywhere from 5-15mph. BC of .330 was spot on too!!! they should be called wind cheaters.

Anyway I don't get the fliers or other issues people seem to have with them. Maybe give them a try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jmccracken1214
New RemArms 700’s seem good to go.
Replies
21
Views
1K
Millron
M
B
Truing 308 Gasser, bc vs. mv help
Replies
2
Views
103
brutus1776
B
Max_The_Phoenix
Accuracy expectations from 6.5 creedmoor chassis
Replies
37
Views
611
DIBBS
DIBBS
tinker
I think my scope might not be tracking correctly.
Replies
8
Views
192
tinker
tinker
PBWalsh
AAC Data Info
Replies
10
Views
305
tucaz
tucaz
Top Bottom
Back