Photos "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

[96C]

Pulled out the electronic scales tonight to give this a go, been having accuracy issues at around 300 meters... Working through the system to try and iron out any bugs.

This would only be a very minor shift in POI I'm guessing but it still seems a bit untidy considering only 12% are at the actual specified weight (according to my scales) with 82% being lighter and only 6% being heavier.

Thoughts?

 

[jbailey]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

I would say this weight result is not the issue with your 300m accurary. 92% of your bullets are within 0.6 grains of each other; 0.6 grains = 0.3% spread in density (using 168gr as denominator) and therefore BC. That is not enough for you to notice unless this is a benchrest gun and you have it in a rail mount.

And the remaining 8% are very close as well, with a 1grain max ES. That is not enough to produce a flyer, even at 1000yds.

 

[High Binder]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JamesBailey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would say this weight result is not the issue with your 300m accurary. 92% of your bullets are within 0.6 grains of each other; 0.6 grains = 0.3% spread in density (using 168gr as denominator) and therefore BC. That is not enough for you to notice unless this is a benchrest gun and you have it in a rail mount.

And the remaining 8% are very close as well, with a 1grain max ES. That is not enough to produce a flyer, even at 1000yds.

</div></div>

^^ I don't fully agree. If you equate the differences back to something we all understand, i.e. powder weights and where .1gr = ~4 sticks of Varget we get 32 sticks of Varget from 168 to 167.2 and a full grain of powder difference over the entire spread of AMAXs pictured above. That's a pretty significant difference in terms of consistency on target at longer ranges.

 

[scaxeman]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Two things are going on here. On the one hand, you have a bit large (but not terribly unusual) bell curve distribution of factory bullets. On the other, you are weighing them with a compact electronic scale that will add it's own (not inconsiderable) error to the mix.

When I weigh Berger Bullets (for instance), I typically see them fit in a 3/10th grain spread. Except for your one outlier (167.2), you have all of these in 8/10th of a grain spread. I typically stratify bullets when I weigh/load them, ie. if I was going to load your pictured selection of bullets, I would start at the lowest, and keep loading them in order of weight. This way, there may be 8/10ths of a grain difference between the lightest and the heaviest (something which in itself will have NO effect on 300 yard accuracy), but there will be 1/10th at most between any two(or 10!) sequential shots. With the stratifying technique, you don't 'throw out' any projectiles, so it will save you in the end.

The other half of this picture is the scale that you are using to sort the bullets. The less expensive scales will have considerable error (with this scale, you are probably looking at +/- 2/10th of a grain... easily). At some point, I would invest in a better scale. When you are paying more for the bullets, than the scale you are sorting with...

In any event, if you are using this same scale to measure powder charges, you will have a LOT more effect on point of impact, than this small variation in bullet weight.

Long story short, use the bullets, stratify them if you like, but the distribution you show will not be measurably hurting your accuracy at short range (out to 600).

Hope this helps,

Darrell

 

[Coletta]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Looks like a normal spread.

 

[96C]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

I agree, the scales are fairly rubbish, they came with the Hornady kit that was a present a while back... I've switched over to manual scales, I'd rather go by physics visual than reading an LCD.

I'll have a look into your stratifying process and see how that turns out from now on.

This was more of an observation than a concern for me and my shooting, generally it's off a tripod on the side of steep hills in the high country around here so there's always a lot of negative effects playing their part already.

 

[scaxeman]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 96C</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've switched over to manual scales, I'd rather go by physics visual than reading an LCD.
</div></div>

Yeah, that's probably a good thing. Just remember that the beam style scales have their own inherent error associated with them.

A lot of top reloaders have gone to more precise (generally digital) scales. With errors in the range of 1/100th or 2/100th of a grain, Acculab, Sartorius are good examples of their type.

 

[firestorm1284]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

High Binder - I'm sorry but there is no comparison between the weight difference of a bullet and the change in a powder load. You are saying that all weight changes are equal, which, they are not.

If a bullet is 1 grain heavier, that does not mean you add 1 more grain of powder to the casing, and vice versa.

I agree with some of the others, this is a typical spread as far as I have seen. Still, if you took the time to weigh them out, load them in that order so that you shoot groups with the same weight bullets. You could do this with your brass as well.

 

[High Binder]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: firestorm1284</div><div class="ubbcode-body">High Binder - I'm sorry but there is no comparison between the weight difference of a bullet and the change in a powder load. <span style="color: #FF0000">You are saying that all weight changes are equal, which, they are not.

If a bullet is 1 grain heavier, that does not mean you add 1 more grain of powder to the casing, and vice versa.</span>

</div></div>

That's <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">not</span></span></span> what I said but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I thought it was pretty clear that that my scenario was just an example to help the OP understand that there is a significant difference from his high to low weighted bullets. You completely misunderstood/misread my post.

 

[BuzzBoss915]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Don't worry about it Highbinder, I understood what you were saying.

Since we do not have bullets that are the same length, or the same weight, and use cases that have different internal volume and our scales have a tolerance, it may be useful to depend on averages? I don't know, but I do know a few that have terrible handloading techniques and manage to shoot wildly accurate scores. My conclusion is that a superior barrel can compensate for a lot of deviation in components. BB

 

[firestorm1284]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

High Binder - no need to get all upset, that is the way I read your post. If that's not what you meant, then no big deal. However, I read your post again, and it still reads the same way. You are saying in your post that the variance he is getting in bullet weights is significant, and you site similar weight variances in powder charge as analogous.

What I am saying is, a .5 grain difference in bullet weight produces a POI shift nowhere near as significant as a .5 grain powder difference. I tend to agree with JamesBailey, in that the difference would be so small that you likely wouldn't notice it, whereas a .5 grain powder difference would definitely be noticeable.

 

[High Binder]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BuzzBoss915</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't worry about it Highbinder, I understood what you were saying.

Since we do not have bullets that are the same length, or the same weight, and use cases that have different internal volume and our scales have a tolerance, it may be useful to depend on averages? I don't know, but I do know a few that have terrible handloading techniques and manage to shoot wildly accurate scores. My conclusion is that a superior barrel can compensate for a lot of deviation in components. BB </div></div>

BB, I totally agree ^^.

 

[High Binder]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: firestorm1284</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You are saying in your post that the variance he is getting in bullet weights is significant, and you site similar weight variances in powder charge as analogous. </div></div>

Analogous yes, but outside of that analogy they have nothing to do with each-other (as you know and mentioned) and certainly not the relationship you attributed to me but no harm no foul.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: firestorm1284</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I am saying is, a .5 grain difference in bullet weight produces a POI shift nowhere near as significant as a .5 grain powder difference. I tend to agree with JamesBailey, in that the difference would be so small that you likely wouldn't notice it, whereas a .5 grain powder difference would definitely be noticeable. </div></div>

I agree with the above in principal but little things like +/-.5gr (bullet weight) do become significant at extended ranges (1000+yrds) which is the realm where JamesBailey was talking about but like BB eluded to, equipment and the loose nut behind the trigger account for far more variance anyway.

 

[firestorm1284]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

See, we do agree after all! Sorry for any miscommunication.

 

[darkstar]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

+1 to what JamesBailey said.

This is actually a pretty tight bellcurve. Eliminate the highest and lowest weights which many would recommend you do in an actual statistical analysis and the curve is even tighter.

Just curious, but how did you calibrate the scale you are using?

If you really want to cook your noodle, run them through the scale you are using again and then see how well it repeats this curve. I would be interested in what you come up with.

 

[96C]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

The GS-1500 scales come with a true 100 gram constant weight to calibrate. I did this twice on my loading bench that is level.

As you said, I did do about 6 random re-weigh's from the spread and surprisingly they all stated the ssame weight as the original weigh up so I'm fairly confident there IS at least a weight variation between them.

I got a mechanical scale because these small electronic scales we're struggling to measure powder trickle feeding, it would only jump in .2 grain ncrements and bounce back and forth taking a long time to settle... Not ideal.


Some interesting views here, thanks fellas

 

[stranded]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

+.1gr can increase group size from .3 to 1=MOA at 300yds. You can shoot bullets sorted with small variance between individual shots but over all spread or buy bullets with less variance.

 

[firestorm1284]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Stranded - are you talking 0.1 gr in bullet weight or 0.1 gr in powder charge? If you're saying that 0.1 grain variance in bullet weight can cause a group to TRIPLE in size, I strongly disagree with that. I've weighed my bullets, and even the Sierra Match bullets vary by more than 0.1 grains. They shoot better than I can, and I get less than .3 MOA with them on a regular basis.

 

[mdesign]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

fwiw...I sort mine to the nearest 1 grain meaning all the bullets in a group weigh within 1 grain of each other from top to bottom and have never been able to tell the difference at 600 yds.

In most boxes that I have weighed, the clear majority weigh within that range. The outliers I use a foulers, etc and yes once and a while some of these weigh in as much as 3 grains from the "norm". A group of extreme bullets does not group as well as the ones I sorted into the majority group.

 

[stranded]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Firestorm, bullet weight. I tested sgk,sst,barne,and berger.With zero difference in weight(+-0 balance beam) I would get .3 with sgk and 1moa +.1. Same type of variance the with other brands. I don't have a means to measure base to ogive hence weighing. This result led me to use a brand with the lesser variance so I don't waist bullets. I used '06,270wsm for testing.I didn't weigh cases just reloaded same ones.

 

[stranded]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Firestorm, my rifles are stock rem700bdl& weatherby vanguard maybe more sensitive?

 

[firestorm1284]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Stranded - I'm not doubting that this is your experience, it's just not even close to the same experience I have had. I used to weigh bullets and sort them that way, but I stopped when I realized that there was no discernible difference in group size when I did so.

Some of my very best groups have been shot with AMAX bullets, the exact same ones that the OP is using. I regularly shoot 1/4 MOA with them, and my average is probably .4 MOA - all without any bullet sorting.

One of the rifles that I regularly shoot is a Howa 1500 in .308, which is basically the exact same rifle as a Vanguard. I wonder if it has something to do with being a "hotter" round, like a short, fat cartridge such as your 270 WSM.

Another possibility is a "perceived" benefit to sorting the bullets. When I first started handloading I would try to work up a load for a new rifle. I would load up about 9 rounds of each load/bullet/seating depth, so that I could shoot 3 separate 3 shot groups. If I noticed that I shot a great group the first time around, I would subconsciously put more effort into that particular load the next time (controlling breathing, trigger control, natural POA, etc.) to try to shoot the best possible group. I wasn't giving them all equal effort is what I'm saying. Maybe you do the same with cases you know you have loaded with sorted bullets?

The way I solved this (and I know it's elaborate, and it only works on guns with magazines), is that I label several magazines with a number. Then I number each "load" that I want to test. I use a random number generator online to give me random numbers. Then I load the magazines in order, but in an order that I don't remember. I keep all of this information on a spreadsheet, so I will know which loads shot what groups afterwards. When I shoot, I keep track of which magazine I am shooting, and shoot my targets in a systematic way so that I know which groups go where from each magazine. Afterwards, I average the group sizes of each load to see which one REALLY shoots the best, without any of my preconceived ideas effecting the outcome. Hopefully that made some sense...

 

[MajorHeadTrauma]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Very Interesting thread! Thanks

 

[Nukes]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Darrell Buell</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...A lot of top reloaders have gone to more precise (generally digital) scales. With errors in the range of 1/100th or 2/100th of a grain, Acculab, Sartorius are good examples of their type.

</div></div>

FYI

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Acculab has cease business operations effective January 2011. Acculab was part of the Sartorius Group and victim of the deleveraging strategy for Sartorius' reorganization in 2010. Acculab offered low cost inexpensive weighing scales like the PP pocket scales and Econ digital scales for the elementary science classroom have been totally eliminate from the Sartorius scale portfolio. Acculab Vicon electronic scales have cease production and replaced with the Sartorius AY Series. Acculab SVI bench scales have no direct replacement. ECL Excelleron light industrial weighing scales can be substituted with the higher quality Sartorius Midrics. Also, Acculab ALC and Atilon lab balance equivalent cross reference is the Sartorius AZ and ED series respectively. </div></div>

 

[scaxeman]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nukes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
FYI

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Acculab has cease business operations effective January 2011. Acculab was part of the Sartorius Group and victim of the deleveraging strategy for Sartorius' reorganization in 2010. Acculab offered low cost inexpensive weighing scales like the PP pocket scales and Econ digital scales for the elementary science classroom have been totally eliminate from the Sartorius scale portfolio. Acculab Vicon electronic scales have cease production and replaced with the Sartorius AY Series. Acculab SVI bench scales have no direct replacement. ECL Excelleron light industrial weighing scales can be substituted with the higher quality Sartorius Midrics. Also, Acculab ALC and Atilon lab balance equivalent cross reference is the Sartorius AZ and ED series respectively. </div></div> </div></div>

Yes, tis true. The Acculab name is one that a good number of shooters will recognize though, even ones that haven't gone in for the 'hyper-accurate' powder loading technique.

 

[stranded]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

firestorm, you maybe right. if i feel ambious i will try test again. i ussually don't weigh cases as i don't like to keep track of so many different lots. maybe my loads aren't at a node making variation show more. more to think about. thanks

 

[DustyJacket]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Maybe they save their good bullets for their match ammo.

I no longer reload. Hornady Match 168gr A-max is the most accurate round in my Remington, regardless of the weight.

(FGMM is a close second)

 

[thommaz]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

Interesting

 

[sumbeach75]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

interesting post, thanks

 

[aku]

Re: "168gr" Hornady AMAX.... Not quite.

it paid off?

 

[gaintwist]

I have only had luck with 223 Amax. Sierra and Berger work better

 

[darkarcher]

I have that scale. It is a cheap ass POS. If you are using it to weigh your powder, I would guess that is your problem.

 

[bohem]

If you want to compare the change in mass to an idealized change in velocity you need to use conservation of momentum (since conservation of energy doesn't exist here).

M1/M2 = V2/V1

Say nominally 168gr @ 2700fps
Conservation of Momentum would give

168*2700 = 167.2*V2
168*2700/167.2 = V2
V2 = 2712.9fps
|V1-V2| ~ 13fps
%Variance = 13/2700*100 ~ 0.48%

This again is only an idealized case of one variable, but as you can see it's a very small difference. It is one of the components that factors into the chasing of ES, SD, and %Variance with ammo.

The variation in seating depth, powder charge, base to ogive, and very importantly functional case capacity after bullet seating has a lot to do with it. I have some Rem 300WM brass that goes 91.2gr overflow water capacity. The Winchester stuff that I plan to shoot goes 93.3gr average. All other factors being the same that difference alone changes my load by almost 1gr of H4831sc.

 

[Riksors]

Interesting.

 

[Sharpsman]

I made custom .30 caliber match grade VLD bullets (for NRA HP events) for years and during testing stints where loads were intermingled. Over a period of two years I shot groups from 300 yards with a very accurate rifle and varied weights ranging up to 5 grains using same load! They all shot knot-hole sized groups from the distance posted!

 

[meathunter1]

A friend and I did the same kind of weigh test for shits a giggles. We noticed the same spreads. It equated to jack shit in accuracy. After load development his best group was .... .227 worst was .385. Not to shabby!

 

[longun83]

I agree, the scales are fairly rubbish, they came with the Hornady kit that was a present a while back... I've switched over to manual scales, I'd rather go by physics visual than reading an LCD.

I'll have a look into your stratifying process and see how that turns out from now on.

This was more of an observation than a concern for me and my shooting, generally it's off a tripod on the side of steep hills in the high country around here so there's always a lot of negative effects playing their part already.

I find the same when I use my Hornady scale. I wish I had the money right now to get a decent beam scale but for now I am using the well known but very rudimentary Lee safety scale. SOme people complain about calibrating it and keeping it calibrated. I find it difficult but managable to use as I am new to reloading.