- Thread starter robdub
- Start date
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
I've started to do the same thing. But I don't have any solid results to share with you. My motivation is to try and get consistent velocity for long range shooting.
What kind of brass are you using and what spread in weight are you seeing?
I've started to do the same thing. But I don't have any solid results to share with you. My motivation is to try and get consistent velocity for long range shooting.
What kind of brass are you using and what spread in weight are you seeing?
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Wasting your time. This has been hashed and rehashed for decades.
Spend more time shooting. I have some LC 68 30-06 brass from pulled down M2 Ball. It shoots sub MOA at 1000yds. When you find the correct load with the correct bullet, your brass weight will not matter. If you need more accuracy you may need another rifle. Benchrest voodoo will not make a mediocre rifle shoot great....ever.
Wasting your time. This has been hashed and rehashed for decades.
Spend more time shooting. I have some LC 68 30-06 brass from pulled down M2 Ball. It shoots sub MOA at 1000yds. When you find the correct load with the correct bullet, your brass weight will not matter. If you need more accuracy you may need another rifle. Benchrest voodoo will not make a mediocre rifle shoot great....ever.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Case capacity will have more effect than your case weight....and weight doesn't alway correlate with your actual capacity.... Agree, I would rather turn my efforts else where for accuracy.... A proper load will negate brass weight variables and varying case capacity to an extent. Keep the same brass headstamps and lots together is he most I would do personally..
Case capacity will have more effect than your case weight....and weight doesn't alway correlate with your actual capacity.... Agree, I would rather turn my efforts else where for accuracy.... A proper load will negate brass weight variables and varying case capacity to an extent. Keep the same brass headstamps and lots together is he most I would do personally..
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
if you want to weigh something precisely, spend your money on a bad ass scale and weigh your charges to the kernel, weighing brass is a complete waste of time and energy, BTW stop wasting your money on Rem 260 brass, instead use Win 7-08.
if you want to weigh something precisely, spend your money on a bad ass scale and weigh your charges to the kernel, weighing brass is a complete waste of time and energy, BTW stop wasting your money on Rem 260 brass, instead use Win 7-08.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
If you really want to stop worrying about brass weight, I very much recommend Lapua. I weighed 100 .308 cases and didn't find enough difference to bother with. I think the max variation was .2 grains. I have not taken the time to weigh my new .260 Rem cases.
Richard
If you really want to stop worrying about brass weight, I very much recommend Lapua. I weighed 100 .308 cases and didn't find enough difference to bother with. I think the max variation was .2 grains. I have not taken the time to weigh my new .260 Rem cases.
Richard
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Too many 'just shoot more' Luddites.
These guys only have a few negative comments that they post over and over regardless of the request from the original poster (OP). IMHO they lack creativity, it would at least be interesting if they could come up with something new. I don't believe they actually reload, shoot or live in a world of continual improvement.
-----------
I just started weighing brass. First thing that happened when chronoing my loads is my SD dropped. My low fps load is now an SD of 4 on 5 shots and my high fps load is 5 on 5 shots.
A 1 grain difference in weight is a significant indicator of different case capacity but even a .1 in a small case will indicate a different case capacity leaving a variable air space. I use weight as an indicator of variance in case capacity. . Weighing the charge down to the kernel and not the case leaves an unaccounted for variable.
My Lapua, Nosler and Hornady brass seems to have the lowest spread weight. The 3 big American brands vary much more.
None of them is perfect. Weight sorting had a significant effect on my POI consistency. Example: 5 inch target at 700 yards. I had 5 impacts in a row on Monday, stopped and went home. Did not change the rifle other than to bore snake. Thursday, first shot, cold bore was on target and I did 4 more for a repeat of 5 in a row, stopped and changed rifles and once I got it on target, repeated.
Now on to what I am doing from a weight sorting point of view.
I just sort them in order to a .1 accuracy. I check, calibrate my scale often.
If I stop sorting a lot, when I resume I recheck one of each .1 grouping until I am satisfied that the scale is still on.
I box them in order low to high, load them in order and shoot them in order.
I sort the projectiles as well. If I have a mixed lot of projectiles by weight, I load them light to heavy in the sorted brass light to heavy.
YMMV but I'm happy and enjoying the process and results.
Too many 'just shoot more' Luddites.
These guys only have a few negative comments that they post over and over regardless of the request from the original poster (OP). IMHO they lack creativity, it would at least be interesting if they could come up with something new. I don't believe they actually reload, shoot or live in a world of continual improvement.
-----------
I just started weighing brass. First thing that happened when chronoing my loads is my SD dropped. My low fps load is now an SD of 4 on 5 shots and my high fps load is 5 on 5 shots.
A 1 grain difference in weight is a significant indicator of different case capacity but even a .1 in a small case will indicate a different case capacity leaving a variable air space. I use weight as an indicator of variance in case capacity. . Weighing the charge down to the kernel and not the case leaves an unaccounted for variable.
My Lapua, Nosler and Hornady brass seems to have the lowest spread weight. The 3 big American brands vary much more.
None of them is perfect. Weight sorting had a significant effect on my POI consistency. Example: 5 inch target at 700 yards. I had 5 impacts in a row on Monday, stopped and went home. Did not change the rifle other than to bore snake. Thursday, first shot, cold bore was on target and I did 4 more for a repeat of 5 in a row, stopped and changed rifles and once I got it on target, repeated.
Now on to what I am doing from a weight sorting point of view.
I just sort them in order to a .1 accuracy. I check, calibrate my scale often.
If I stop sorting a lot, when I resume I recheck one of each .1 grouping until I am satisfied that the scale is still on.
I box them in order low to high, load them in order and shoot them in order.
I sort the projectiles as well. If I have a mixed lot of projectiles by weight, I load them light to heavy in the sorted brass light to heavy.
YMMV but I'm happy and enjoying the process and results.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
I do weigh my bullets. Usually I find one or two per box that is wacky, sometimes as much as 2 grains less than what it's supposed to be. Match bullets tend to be more uniform but that isn't always the case....
However, with brass I've not found any correlation between weight and case capacity. Using lapua and Winchester brass I've found brass that weighs less than others have less capacity than the cases that were heavier...
To each their own.. I still stand by that proper charge weight will overshadow most of the weight variation in bullets and brass...
I do weigh my bullets. Usually I find one or two per box that is wacky, sometimes as much as 2 grains less than what it's supposed to be. Match bullets tend to be more uniform but that isn't always the case....
However, with brass I've not found any correlation between weight and case capacity. Using lapua and Winchester brass I've found brass that weighs less than others have less capacity than the cases that were heavier...
To each their own.. I still stand by that proper charge weight will overshadow most of the weight variation in bullets and brass...
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
I guess I need to Google Luddite. If .1 difference in brass weight matters it would show up in chronograph numbers, because according to you "indicator of different case capacity", which would mean a case that weighs .1 less than the next should have higher case pressure, which should show higher speeds thru the chronograph, so please post your honest chronograph numbers, because my unsorted Win 243 and Win 7-08 resized to 260Rem mixed together have a SD of 3, and a ES of 6, I already have a badass scale to load powder with, give me and the rest of us some proof that .1 of brass weight matters, my creative mind wants to see the proof.
I guess I need to Google Luddite. If .1 difference in brass weight matters it would show up in chronograph numbers, because according to you "indicator of different case capacity", which would mean a case that weighs .1 less than the next should have higher case pressure, which should show higher speeds thru the chronograph, so please post your honest chronograph numbers, because my unsorted Win 243 and Win 7-08 resized to 260Rem mixed together have a SD of 3, and a ES of 6, I already have a badass scale to load powder with, give me and the rest of us some proof that .1 of brass weight matters, my creative mind wants to see the proof.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred Seaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Too many 'just shoot more' Luddites.
These guys only have a few negative comments that they post over and over regardless of the request from the original poster (OP). IMHO they lack creativity, it would at least be interesting if they could come up with something new. I don't believe they actually reload, shoot or live in a world of continual improvement.
-----------
.</div></div>
You must be one of those people who has to hit themselves in the head with a hammer to see if it hurts instead of taking someone's word for it.
Glad to enjoy weighing brass but don't assume people who disregard the process havent tried it and found it not to matter. Those of use that shoot a lot don't like to waste time. What you described I can do with factory Hornady ammo. It's not exceptional or from weighing brass. As mentioned worry more about weighing the powder charge.
And to the OP, just shoot more.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred Seaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Too many 'just shoot more' Luddites.
These guys only have a few negative comments that they post over and over regardless of the request from the original poster (OP). IMHO they lack creativity, it would at least be interesting if they could come up with something new. I don't believe they actually reload, shoot or live in a world of continual improvement.
-----------
.</div></div>
You must be one of those people who has to hit themselves in the head with a hammer to see if it hurts instead of taking someone's word for it.
Glad to enjoy weighing brass but don't assume people who disregard the process havent tried it and found it not to matter. Those of use that shoot a lot don't like to waste time. What you described I can do with factory Hornady ammo. It's not exceptional or from weighing brass. As mentioned worry more about weighing the powder charge.
And to the OP, just shoot more.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
I have been rolling my own for over 30 years now. I started when I was about 13. I am, or have been an active shooter in IBS/1000yd BR, NRA High Power,NRA Silhouette including several disciplines from HPR to SB,IHMSA(2010 Region 2 Unlimited Standing Champion), Am currently RO and match director for 22TSC and TGAC at Catawba Valley R&P in Conover NC. I don't load as much as I would like but I do know what works and what IS a waste of time...I have to know. I simply have no time to waste.
I have greatly curtailed much of my posting, due to the fact that stupid can not, and will not be fixed. I have weighed brass, determined volumes, piddled, poked, cleaned, polished, sacrificed a live rooster. Nothing trumps safe, responsible,ordered handloading without frills and folly, then the majority of your time spent using those handloads in a determined, meaningful practice, using a PREMIUM weapon.
I have a rifle that others have said is a single digit SD machine, and it is, and yet despite all the internet cowboy hoopla to teh contary. This has been achieved with run of the mill military surplus brass that was born in 68...just like me. Unsorted, and after I fired it once, didn't clean the primer pockets. It shoots the same single digits with Lapua. I have weighed some of each, the differences are quite wide...and yet when I put 55gr of H4350 in either case, they spit out numbers even a cunt of a BR shooter would be proud of.
I could give you a few smarmy statements to think about Mr Semen but I have better things to do. I will say this, it is true some people don't want to do anything new and I have accused many of same. I usually tell them to get the fuck out of the 50's BR bullshit and quit weighing brass and neck sizing. That IS where this shit is coming from...it is NOTHING NEW.
Carry on weigh your dick...I don't care.
PS:I have told you who I am, where I am and where I shoot. I am not ashamed of these things because I am genuine. You haven't rvrn filled out your profile and you make ham handed jabs and our genuine status? I will give you this...you gots balls.
I have been rolling my own for over 30 years now. I started when I was about 13. I am, or have been an active shooter in IBS/1000yd BR, NRA High Power,NRA Silhouette including several disciplines from HPR to SB,IHMSA(2010 Region 2 Unlimited Standing Champion), Am currently RO and match director for 22TSC and TGAC at Catawba Valley R&P in Conover NC. I don't load as much as I would like but I do know what works and what IS a waste of time...I have to know. I simply have no time to waste.
I have greatly curtailed much of my posting, due to the fact that stupid can not, and will not be fixed. I have weighed brass, determined volumes, piddled, poked, cleaned, polished, sacrificed a live rooster. Nothing trumps safe, responsible,ordered handloading without frills and folly, then the majority of your time spent using those handloads in a determined, meaningful practice, using a PREMIUM weapon.
I have a rifle that others have said is a single digit SD machine, and it is, and yet despite all the internet cowboy hoopla to teh contary. This has been achieved with run of the mill military surplus brass that was born in 68...just like me. Unsorted, and after I fired it once, didn't clean the primer pockets. It shoots the same single digits with Lapua. I have weighed some of each, the differences are quite wide...and yet when I put 55gr of H4350 in either case, they spit out numbers even a cunt of a BR shooter would be proud of.
I could give you a few smarmy statements to think about Mr Semen but I have better things to do. I will say this, it is true some people don't want to do anything new and I have accused many of same. I usually tell them to get the fuck out of the 50's BR bullshit and quit weighing brass and neck sizing. That IS where this shit is coming from...it is NOTHING NEW.
Carry on weigh your dick...I don't care.
PS:I have told you who I am, where I am and where I shoot. I am not ashamed of these things because I am genuine. You haven't rvrn filled out your profile and you make ham handed jabs and our genuine status? I will give you this...you gots balls.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Quite predictable who would respond without contributing.
Criticism that I've not filled out my profile is pretty weak. You are better than I am because you filled out your profile. I'm good with that.
I weight my brass, I weigh my projectiles, I weigh my charges. I don't weigh my primers. It works for my, what right do you have to tell me whether I should or not. It's my life, if you want to run it for me, please fill out an application and get in line. Obama is ahead of you in the queue.
BTW: I have no respect for, regardless of years in an activity, those that believe they deserve respect because of years in the activity.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Your message has been lost in your method.
Quite predictable who would respond without contributing.
Criticism that I've not filled out my profile is pretty weak. You are better than I am because you filled out your profile. I'm good with that.
I weight my brass, I weigh my projectiles, I weigh my charges. I don't weigh my primers. It works for my, what right do you have to tell me whether I should or not. It's my life, if you want to run it for me, please fill out an application and get in line. Obama is ahead of you in the queue.
BTW: I have no respect for, regardless of years in an activity, those that believe they deserve respect because of years in the activity.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Your message has been lost in your method.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Indeed, and it is predictable that you would bring nothing to the discussion beyond "I do it". It is also predicatable that you would sling accusations of lack of real experience and then, make comments indicating my proof of same is of no consequence anyway. You sir are a grand prick.
I have done it, as well as many others who no longer feel the need, due to emperical evidence that indicates it is a waste of time.
AS I HAVESAID MANY TIMES I DON"T CARE! Weigh your brass, I didn't tell you not to, said its a waste of time, EVERY time I have used the method. You get it? I was giving good advice. The fact that you don't think it is good advice means nothing.
You besmirch my methods of writing after being the first yourself to claim everyone that doesn't agree with your method is a throwback to a bygone era. Sorry but if you would do your own due dilligence of research you will find that weighing brass is as old as balance beam scales. So in fact telling people they don't need to do that anymore, would be cutting edge, and YOU the Luddite. Thanks for playing prick.
Indeed, and it is predictable that you would bring nothing to the discussion beyond "I do it". It is also predicatable that you would sling accusations of lack of real experience and then, make comments indicating my proof of same is of no consequence anyway. You sir are a grand prick.
I have done it, as well as many others who no longer feel the need, due to emperical evidence that indicates it is a waste of time.
AS I HAVESAID MANY TIMES I DON"T CARE! Weigh your brass, I didn't tell you not to, said its a waste of time, EVERY time I have used the method. You get it? I was giving good advice. The fact that you don't think it is good advice means nothing.
You besmirch my methods of writing after being the first yourself to claim everyone that doesn't agree with your method is a throwback to a bygone era. Sorry but if you would do your own due dilligence of research you will find that weighing brass is as old as balance beam scales. So in fact telling people they don't need to do that anymore, would be cutting edge, and YOU the Luddite. Thanks for playing prick.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Calling Milo ........ This has got you written all over it.
Calling Milo ........ This has got you written all over it.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Weighting cases on the assumption that there is a constant correlation between case weight and internal volume is a complete waste of time that is based on an erroneous assumption. Others factors such as dimension of base and extractor groove are significant confounding variables.
With new brass, I expand necks to uniform size, turn them for uniform thickness, trim to uniform length, chamfer, clean primer pockets and deburr primer holes. After fireforming, I routinely measure internal volume of 30 cases in order to adjust Quickload parameters to customize it my firearm. I have done hundreds of these measurements and I have found that even with the best of brass (Lapua), the correlation between case weight and internal volume is extremely weak and typically less than 50% valid.
Nothing like a little data to illustrate the point. Here's a sample of 30 fireformed Remington cases in my 338 Edge. All cases have been prepped as described above. The empty and water-filled cases were weighted on an Acculab VIC 303 that is accurate within .001 gram or .02 grain. A drop of dishwashing soap was mixed with the water used for the tests to reduce surface tension and ensure consistency from case to case.
#.....Case weight (grs)……Var. %……..Water weight (grs)….Var. %
1…….272.68……………………-1.19%.............116.66…………….-0.04%
2…….276.74……………………+0.28%............117.00…………….+0 .25%
3…….272.68……………………-1.19%.............117.10…………….+0.34%
4…….267.24……………………-3.16%.............117.48…………….+0.66%
5…….278.84……………………+1.04%............116.18…………….-0.45%
6…….276.24……………………+0.10%............116.62…………….-0.07%
7…….278.14……………………+0.79%............116.12…………….-0.50%
8…….276.22……………………+0.09%............116.56…………….-0.13%
9…….280.58……………………+1.67%............116.24…………….-0.40%
10…..276.48……………………+0.19%............116.40…………….-0.26%
11…..276.58……………………+0.22%............116.50…………….-0.18%
12…..276.76……………………+0.29%............116.64…………….-0.06%
13…..279.64……………………+1.33%............116.64…………….-0.06%
14…..278.16……………………+0.80%............116.80……………+0 .08%
15…..277.18……………………+0.44%............116.78……………+0 .06%
16…..277.60……………………+0.59%............116.64…………….-0.06%
17…..275.82……………………-0.05%.............116.82……………+0.10%
18…..271.74……………………-1.53%.............117.20……………+0.42%
19…..276.40……………………+0.16%............116.72……………+0 .01%
20…..271.68……………………-1.55%.............116.86……………+0.13%
21…..275.62……………………-0.12%.............116.94……………+0.20%
22…..276.32……………………+0.13%............117.22……………+0 .44%
23…..276.00……………………+0.01%............116.96…………... .+0.22%
24…..278.02……………………+0.75%............116.74……………+0 .03%
25…..273.90……………………-0.75%.............116.54…………….-0.14%
26…..278.00…………………..+0.74%............116.52…………….-0.16%
27…..275.60……………………-0.13%.............116.10…………….-0.52%
28…..276.62……………………+0.24%............116.74……………+0 .03%
29…..275.44……………………-0.19%.............116.74……………+0.03%
30…..275.94……………………-0.01%.............116.72……………+0.01%
Ave..275.96………………………..…………………....116.71
Using the 0.5% variation standard normally advocated (+ or - 0.25% from average), one would have selected 13 of the 30 weighted cases. Selecting by internal volume would have resulted in 20 retained cases. Moreover, 3 of the cases selected by weight would have been rejected by volume (#10, 22 and 27). Consequently, selecting by weight would have resulted in the identification of 10 of the 20 cases that had relatively uniform internal volume.
If one looks at the validity of the assumption of case weight as an indicator of internal volume within a 0.5% variation, it would appear that the assumption is dubious at best. For example, you would expect case #1 which weights 1.19% less than the average of 30 cases to have approximately 1.2% greater internal volume than the average volume for the same cases. Instead, that case is almost perfectly on the mark for case volume (-0.04%). Indeed the correlation is valid only for 11 of 30 cases (#6, 8, 10-12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 29 and 30) or 36.7%.
Another interesting observation from the table above, is that the weight variation among cases is quite large (-3.16% to + 1.67% = 4.83%), whereas the internal volume is relatively constant (+0.66% to -0.52% = 1.18%).
I and 2 of my shooting buddies have run this same experiment independently with hundreds of cases, using 5 different brands of brass (WW, RP nickel, RP, Hor., Lapua and FC) and 6 calibers (223 Rem, 6.5x284, 308 Win. 300 WM, 338 WM,338 Edge) and have come to the same conclusion. That is, if you wish to sort brass for consistency, do it by measuring internal volume.
I apologize for the long post.
Weighting cases on the assumption that there is a constant correlation between case weight and internal volume is a complete waste of time that is based on an erroneous assumption. Others factors such as dimension of base and extractor groove are significant confounding variables.
With new brass, I expand necks to uniform size, turn them for uniform thickness, trim to uniform length, chamfer, clean primer pockets and deburr primer holes. After fireforming, I routinely measure internal volume of 30 cases in order to adjust Quickload parameters to customize it my firearm. I have done hundreds of these measurements and I have found that even with the best of brass (Lapua), the correlation between case weight and internal volume is extremely weak and typically less than 50% valid.
Nothing like a little data to illustrate the point. Here's a sample of 30 fireformed Remington cases in my 338 Edge. All cases have been prepped as described above. The empty and water-filled cases were weighted on an Acculab VIC 303 that is accurate within .001 gram or .02 grain. A drop of dishwashing soap was mixed with the water used for the tests to reduce surface tension and ensure consistency from case to case.
#.....Case weight (grs)……Var. %……..Water weight (grs)….Var. %
1…….272.68……………………-1.19%.............116.66…………….-0.04%
2…….276.74……………………+0.28%............117.00…………….+0 .25%
3…….272.68……………………-1.19%.............117.10…………….+0.34%
4…….267.24……………………-3.16%.............117.48…………….+0.66%
5…….278.84……………………+1.04%............116.18…………….-0.45%
6…….276.24……………………+0.10%............116.62…………….-0.07%
7…….278.14……………………+0.79%............116.12…………….-0.50%
8…….276.22……………………+0.09%............116.56…………….-0.13%
9…….280.58……………………+1.67%............116.24…………….-0.40%
10…..276.48……………………+0.19%............116.40…………….-0.26%
11…..276.58……………………+0.22%............116.50…………….-0.18%
12…..276.76……………………+0.29%............116.64…………….-0.06%
13…..279.64……………………+1.33%............116.64…………….-0.06%
14…..278.16……………………+0.80%............116.80……………+0 .08%
15…..277.18……………………+0.44%............116.78……………+0 .06%
16…..277.60……………………+0.59%............116.64…………….-0.06%
17…..275.82……………………-0.05%.............116.82……………+0.10%
18…..271.74……………………-1.53%.............117.20……………+0.42%
19…..276.40……………………+0.16%............116.72……………+0 .01%
20…..271.68……………………-1.55%.............116.86……………+0.13%
21…..275.62……………………-0.12%.............116.94……………+0.20%
22…..276.32……………………+0.13%............117.22……………+0 .44%
23…..276.00……………………+0.01%............116.96…………... .+0.22%
24…..278.02……………………+0.75%............116.74……………+0 .03%
25…..273.90……………………-0.75%.............116.54…………….-0.14%
26…..278.00…………………..+0.74%............116.52…………….-0.16%
27…..275.60……………………-0.13%.............116.10…………….-0.52%
28…..276.62……………………+0.24%............116.74……………+0 .03%
29…..275.44……………………-0.19%.............116.74……………+0.03%
30…..275.94……………………-0.01%.............116.72……………+0.01%
Ave..275.96………………………..…………………....116.71
Using the 0.5% variation standard normally advocated (+ or - 0.25% from average), one would have selected 13 of the 30 weighted cases. Selecting by internal volume would have resulted in 20 retained cases. Moreover, 3 of the cases selected by weight would have been rejected by volume (#10, 22 and 27). Consequently, selecting by weight would have resulted in the identification of 10 of the 20 cases that had relatively uniform internal volume.
If one looks at the validity of the assumption of case weight as an indicator of internal volume within a 0.5% variation, it would appear that the assumption is dubious at best. For example, you would expect case #1 which weights 1.19% less than the average of 30 cases to have approximately 1.2% greater internal volume than the average volume for the same cases. Instead, that case is almost perfectly on the mark for case volume (-0.04%). Indeed the correlation is valid only for 11 of 30 cases (#6, 8, 10-12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 29 and 30) or 36.7%.
Another interesting observation from the table above, is that the weight variation among cases is quite large (-3.16% to + 1.67% = 4.83%), whereas the internal volume is relatively constant (+0.66% to -0.52% = 1.18%).
I and 2 of my shooting buddies have run this same experiment independently with hundreds of cases, using 5 different brands of brass (WW, RP nickel, RP, Hor., Lapua and FC) and 6 calibers (223 Rem, 6.5x284, 308 Win. 300 WM, 338 WM,338 Edge) and have come to the same conclusion. That is, if you wish to sort brass for consistency, do it by measuring internal volume.
I apologize for the long post.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Ooh, scientific data, this Luddite likes real world data, after the Holidays(the world of aircraft maintenance is extremely busy this time of year) I will video my chrono results between brass weighed with a 15k lab scale, and my mixed up 243 7-08 brass, if there is a difference Fred will I bow to you.
Ooh, scientific data, this Luddite likes real world data, after the Holidays(the world of aircraft maintenance is extremely busy this time of year) I will video my chrono results between brass weighed with a 15k lab scale, and my mixed up 243 7-08 brass, if there is a difference Fred will I bow to you.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Oh this prick uses a 3 thousand dollar scale to ensure what IMHO really matters is an exact powder charge, it's a old school balance beam hand made by Brand Cole, it's called a Prometheus Gen 2, but I didn't get it because its accurate to less than 1/3 of a kernel of H4350 accurate, I got it because it will dispense that accuracy every 8-10 seconds, like this Luddite/Prick said, I will bow/kiss your ass/crown you a reloading GOD if what you say is true, the chronograph doesn't lie even with it's inherent inaccuracy.
Oh this prick uses a 3 thousand dollar scale to ensure what IMHO really matters is an exact powder charge, it's a old school balance beam hand made by Brand Cole, it's called a Prometheus Gen 2, but I didn't get it because its accurate to less than 1/3 of a kernel of H4350 accurate, I got it because it will dispense that accuracy every 8-10 seconds, like this Luddite/Prick said, I will bow/kiss your ass/crown you a reloading GOD if what you say is true, the chronograph doesn't lie even with it's inherent inaccuracy.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Apparently this simple question has caused some hard feelings. The rife is shooting less than 1/2 MOA at 100yds. 1/4" at 100w/suppressor. The rifle and the ammo are both good. I just wanted to know what the spread in grains should be in this process.
Apparently this simple question has caused some hard feelings. The rife is shooting less than 1/2 MOA at 100yds. 1/4" at 100w/suppressor. The rifle and the ammo are both good. I just wanted to know what the spread in grains should be in this process.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Thanks Moosetracker! You have helped a great deal. The rifle and my reloads are shooting less than 1/2" at 100yds and 1/4" with a suppressor. I was just looking for some way of improving. I think I'll pursue some other avenues in my quest for more accuracy. Merry Christmas!
Thanks Moosetracker! You have helped a great deal. The rifle and my reloads are shooting less than 1/2" at 100yds and 1/4" with a suppressor. I was just looking for some way of improving. I think I'll pursue some other avenues in my quest for more accuracy. Merry Christmas!
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Thanks for the data Moosetracker. I have seen numerous tableslike this over the years and is why I simply tell people they are wasting their time.
Cobra I wasn't calling you a prick brother. You and I are on the very same page on this.
I see where my post may have been abit confusing there at the end. Those of us that are advocating to shoot instead of weighing brass are the ones on the cutting edge so to speak.
Thanks for the data Moosetracker. I have seen numerous tableslike this over the years and is why I simply tell people they are wasting their time.
Cobra I wasn't calling you a prick brother. You and I are on the very same page on this.
I see where my post may have been abit confusing there at the end. Those of us that are advocating to shoot instead of weighing brass are the ones on the cutting edge so to speak.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
I would be curious of testing results, and look forward to my info. As for me I have found much benefit in weight sorting high quality brass like Lapua but found some benefit in sorting Winchester brass. And when I say benefit I mean at further distances pass 1000 yards and not for closer distances.
I would be curious of testing results, and look forward to my info. As for me I have found much benefit in weight sorting high quality brass like Lapua but found some benefit in sorting Winchester brass. And when I say benefit I mean at further distances pass 1000 yards and not for closer distances.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred Seaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quite predictable who would respond without contributing.
Criticism that I've not filled out my profile is pretty weak. You are better than I am because you filled out your profile. I'm good with that.
I weight my brass, I weigh my projectiles, I weigh my charges. I don't weigh my primers. It works for my, what right do you have to tell me whether I should or not. It's my life, if you want to run it for me, please fill out an application and get in line. Obama is ahead of you in the queue.
BTW: I have no respect for, regardless of years in an activity, those that believe they deserve respect because of years in the activity.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Your message has been lost in your method. </div></div>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...000#Post3723000
Indeed...a fast learner...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred Seaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quite predictable who would respond without contributing.
Criticism that I've not filled out my profile is pretty weak. You are better than I am because you filled out your profile. I'm good with that.
I weight my brass, I weigh my projectiles, I weigh my charges. I don't weigh my primers. It works for my, what right do you have to tell me whether I should or not. It's my life, if you want to run it for me, please fill out an application and get in line. Obama is ahead of you in the queue.
BTW: I have no respect for, regardless of years in an activity, those that believe they deserve respect because of years in the activity.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Your message has been lost in your method. </div></div>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...000#Post3723000
Indeed...a fast learner...
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
I think the easiest way is to prove this to your self. I have weighed brass. Doing load development I weigh out 5pc that weigh within 0.1gr. I weigh each load of powder exactly. But I have also weighed brass and purposely got 2 that weighed more, 2 that weighed less and 1 on the money. Powder chg that is 0.2gr heavy and 0.2gr light. My rifle blisters them all. It just aint worth the time and hassle if I can't see some obvious results. Try this yourself and see. krw
I think the easiest way is to prove this to your self. I have weighed brass. Doing load development I weigh out 5pc that weigh within 0.1gr. I weigh each load of powder exactly. But I have also weighed brass and purposely got 2 that weighed more, 2 that weighed less and 1 on the money. Powder chg that is 0.2gr heavy and 0.2gr light. My rifle blisters them all. It just aint worth the time and hassle if I can't see some obvious results. Try this yourself and see. krw
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<span style="text-decoration: line-through">I've posted my thoughts and procedures here many times. I am probably one of those folks who fit under the label 'Luddite'.
I've tried most of the extra special steps and done honest to goodness blind testing to find out if any or all of them have a directly predictable effect on my accuracy.
I have found that in order to get the benefit, severe diligence must be paid to all the other aspects of what I'm doing as well, and that each technique must be compared against a benchmark that allows no other extra efforts. They all have some benefit. Taken separately, they often do not provide enough benefit to justify the extra effort (In My Humble Opinion...). When combined, I strongly suspect one could wear out at least one, maybe several, barrels before figuring out which discrete combination works truly harmoniously.
That pl8td chicken reflects my views. Do it simple, do it right, and you're probably ahead of the curve. The best you can get out of this all is a definite 'maybe'.
Stop lining up angels to dance on the heads of pins. Forget about the calculator as your primary accuracy tool. You can neither compute nor predetermine your way into the x-ring. Marksmanship skills count most, and environmental factors can and often will negate even the most elegant handloading voodoo.
If you're going to use a tool, make certain you understand what it does, how it works, and take the time to learn how to use it best. Accept from the get-go that where more than one variable interacts, some negation/cancellation of benefit is assured.
Nothing outweighs/disqualifies range time in the basic order of things related to everyday consistent accuracy.</span>
I'm sorry, I hadn't realized I had joined the topic in the midst of a pissing contest. Please disregard my input.
Greg
<span style="text-decoration: line-through">I've posted my thoughts and procedures here many times. I am probably one of those folks who fit under the label 'Luddite'.
I've tried most of the extra special steps and done honest to goodness blind testing to find out if any or all of them have a directly predictable effect on my accuracy.
I have found that in order to get the benefit, severe diligence must be paid to all the other aspects of what I'm doing as well, and that each technique must be compared against a benchmark that allows no other extra efforts. They all have some benefit. Taken separately, they often do not provide enough benefit to justify the extra effort (In My Humble Opinion...). When combined, I strongly suspect one could wear out at least one, maybe several, barrels before figuring out which discrete combination works truly harmoniously.
That pl8td chicken reflects my views. Do it simple, do it right, and you're probably ahead of the curve. The best you can get out of this all is a definite 'maybe'.
Stop lining up angels to dance on the heads of pins. Forget about the calculator as your primary accuracy tool. You can neither compute nor predetermine your way into the x-ring. Marksmanship skills count most, and environmental factors can and often will negate even the most elegant handloading voodoo.
If you're going to use a tool, make certain you understand what it does, how it works, and take the time to learn how to use it best. Accept from the get-go that where more than one variable interacts, some negation/cancellation of benefit is assured.
Nothing outweighs/disqualifies range time in the basic order of things related to everyday consistent accuracy.</span>
I'm sorry, I hadn't realized I had joined the topic in the midst of a pissing contest. Please disregard my input.
Greg
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armorpl8chikn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Indeed, and it is predictable that you would bring nothing to the discussion beyond "I do it". It is also predicatable that you would sling accusations of lack of real experience and then, make comments indicating my proof of same is of no consequence anyway. You sir are a grand prick.
I have done it, as well as many others who no longer feel the need, due to emperical evidence that indicates it is a waste of time.
AS I HAVESAID MANY TIMES I DON"T CARE! Weigh your brass, I didn't tell you not to, said its a waste of time, EVERY time I have used the method. You get it? I was giving good advice. The fact that you don't think it is good advice means nothing.
You besmirch my methods of writing after being the first yourself to claim everyone that doesn't agree with your method is a throwback to a bygone era. Sorry but if you would do your own due dilligence of research you will find that weighing brass is as old as balance beam scales. So in fact telling people they don't need to do that anymore, would be cutting edge, and YOU the Luddite. Thanks for playing prick. </div></div>I'm not a prick I'm an ass.
You sir are gullible and easily manipulated into a foaming at the mouth manic, raving lunatic. From that standpoint If you didn't 'care' you would not have responded. I win as I have no emotion involved and don't call others juvenile names.
There is a difference in your pedantic answers vs. data and observations provided by later posters. Their contribution was useful.
Us newbies don't have to listen and act on your every word just because you are old, closed minded and of the belief that you deserve respect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armorpl8chikn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Indeed, and it is predictable that you would bring nothing to the discussion beyond "I do it". It is also predicatable that you would sling accusations of lack of real experience and then, make comments indicating my proof of same is of no consequence anyway. You sir are a grand prick.
I have done it, as well as many others who no longer feel the need, due to emperical evidence that indicates it is a waste of time.
AS I HAVESAID MANY TIMES I DON"T CARE! Weigh your brass, I didn't tell you not to, said its a waste of time, EVERY time I have used the method. You get it? I was giving good advice. The fact that you don't think it is good advice means nothing.
You besmirch my methods of writing after being the first yourself to claim everyone that doesn't agree with your method is a throwback to a bygone era. Sorry but if you would do your own due dilligence of research you will find that weighing brass is as old as balance beam scales. So in fact telling people they don't need to do that anymore, would be cutting edge, and YOU the Luddite. Thanks for playing prick. </div></div>I'm not a prick I'm an ass.
You sir are gullible and easily manipulated into a foaming at the mouth manic, raving lunatic. From that standpoint If you didn't 'care' you would not have responded. I win as I have no emotion involved and don't call others juvenile names.
There is a difference in your pedantic answers vs. data and observations provided by later posters. Their contribution was useful.
Us newbies don't have to listen and act on your every word just because you are old, closed minded and of the belief that you deserve respect.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've posted my thoughts and procedures here many times. I am probably one of those folks who fit under the label 'Luddite'.
I've tried most of the extra special steps and done honest to goodness blind testing to find out of any or all of them have a directly predictable effect on my accuracy.
I have found that in order to get the benefit, severe diligence must be paid to all the aspects of what I'm doing, and that each technique must be compared against a benchmark that allows no other extra efforts. They all have some benefit. Taken separately, they often do not provide enough benefit to justify the extra effort (In My Humble Opinion...), when combined, I strongly suspect one could wear out at least one, maybe several, barrels before figuring out which discrete combination works truly harmoniously.
That pl8td chicken reflects my views. Do it simple, do it right, and you're probably ahead of the curve. The best you can get out of this all is a definite 'maybe'.
Stop lining up angels to dance on the heads of pins. Forget about the calculator as your primary accuracy tool. You can neither compute nor predetermine your way into the x-ring. Marksmanship skills count most, and environmental factors can and often will negate even the most elegant handloading voodoo.
Nothing outweighs/disqualifies range time in the basic order of things related to everyday consistent accuracy.
Greg </div></div>
Hi Greg,
After an initial 'off to a bad start' exchange, I have come to respect your contributions. You are not in the class the I applied to others.
I concede that the value of weight sorting the brass may be minimal. It is conceivable my success is only an artifact of my lot of brass. In 'Preparing Cases for Long-Range Accuracy' http://www.6mmbr.com/jgcaseprep.html Jacob Gottfredson disagrees with the no weight sorting crowd.
All the best
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've posted my thoughts and procedures here many times. I am probably one of those folks who fit under the label 'Luddite'.
I've tried most of the extra special steps and done honest to goodness blind testing to find out of any or all of them have a directly predictable effect on my accuracy.
I have found that in order to get the benefit, severe diligence must be paid to all the aspects of what I'm doing, and that each technique must be compared against a benchmark that allows no other extra efforts. They all have some benefit. Taken separately, they often do not provide enough benefit to justify the extra effort (In My Humble Opinion...), when combined, I strongly suspect one could wear out at least one, maybe several, barrels before figuring out which discrete combination works truly harmoniously.
That pl8td chicken reflects my views. Do it simple, do it right, and you're probably ahead of the curve. The best you can get out of this all is a definite 'maybe'.
Stop lining up angels to dance on the heads of pins. Forget about the calculator as your primary accuracy tool. You can neither compute nor predetermine your way into the x-ring. Marksmanship skills count most, and environmental factors can and often will negate even the most elegant handloading voodoo.
Nothing outweighs/disqualifies range time in the basic order of things related to everyday consistent accuracy.
Greg </div></div>
Hi Greg,
After an initial 'off to a bad start' exchange, I have come to respect your contributions. You are not in the class the I applied to others.
I concede that the value of weight sorting the brass may be minimal. It is conceivable my success is only an artifact of my lot of brass. In 'Preparing Cases for Long-Range Accuracy' http://www.6mmbr.com/jgcaseprep.html Jacob Gottfredson disagrees with the no weight sorting crowd.
All the best
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred Seaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not a prick I'm an ass.
You sir are gullible and easily manipulated into a foaming at the mouth manic, raving lunatic. </div></div>
Guys don't sweat it and feed the troll any longer. Self admitted troll activity.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred Seaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not a prick I'm an ass.
You sir are gullible and easily manipulated into a foaming at the mouth manic, raving lunatic. </div></div>
Guys don't sweat it and feed the troll any longer. Self admitted troll activity.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
there is correlation between case weight and volume but you have to vary the weight by about 5 grains in a 308 case before it becomes distinct - most folks who try this want to correlate .1 gr weight with volume - that is has been proven many times to not work
of course there is good reason folks want to weigh (use the easy way) to determine internal volume - because the alternative that gives real results is a nit picky pain in the ass
I did not keep track of each pc of brass but I recently measured the water volume of several hundred carefully prepared cases - the weights varied by 3 gr total and the water volume varied by 2.5 gr total, but 60 % fell in a .4 gr spread with the other 40% making up the high and low outliers
my conclusion:
weighing is a useful tool for separating range pickup brass into batches for bulk blasting loads and as a first step before internal water volume for precision loads - but if you skip the 2nd step you are pissing in the wind
there is correlation between case weight and volume but you have to vary the weight by about 5 grains in a 308 case before it becomes distinct - most folks who try this want to correlate .1 gr weight with volume - that is has been proven many times to not work
of course there is good reason folks want to weigh (use the easy way) to determine internal volume - because the alternative that gives real results is a nit picky pain in the ass
I did not keep track of each pc of brass but I recently measured the water volume of several hundred carefully prepared cases - the weights varied by 3 gr total and the water volume varied by 2.5 gr total, but 60 % fell in a .4 gr spread with the other 40% making up the high and low outliers
my conclusion:
weighing is a useful tool for separating range pickup brass into batches for bulk blasting loads and as a first step before internal water volume for precision loads - but if you skip the 2nd step you are pissing in the wind
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
At this point I think the statement made in a "Bud Lite" commercial is real appropriate.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">"It isn't weird if it works"</span>.</span>
At this point I think the statement made in a "Bud Lite" commercial is real appropriate.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">"It isn't weird if it works"</span>.</span>
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: robdub</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've decided to start weighing my .260 Rem. brass in an attempt to get more accuracy. What should the maximum weight spread be for a batch? </div></div>
so the answer to the OP, since I take it your goal is precision - sort into 5 gr batch - as preparation for water volume testing of internal volume
also for the water volume testing to be of full usefulness:
1) the brass is as least once fired in the chosen rifle ( I fire the new brass, FL resize, and fire again)
2) trimmed to uniformed length
3) necks checked for uniform thickness/ sorted or turned
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: robdub</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've decided to start weighing my .260 Rem. brass in an attempt to get more accuracy. What should the maximum weight spread be for a batch? </div></div>
so the answer to the OP, since I take it your goal is precision - sort into 5 gr batch - as preparation for water volume testing of internal volume
also for the water volume testing to be of full usefulness:
1) the brass is as least once fired in the chosen rifle ( I fire the new brass, FL resize, and fire again)
2) trimmed to uniformed length
3) necks checked for uniform thickness/ sorted or turned
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
You done screwed up "big time" Fred and in one fell swoop I might add!!!!
Possibly?? if you happen to be one of the TOP 1000Y benchrest shooters in the world could you have any credence in what you've stated even if one were to disregard your insulting and haughty manner. Tom Sarver please comment.
BTW I pride myself in having some of the most stringently prepped reloads on the planet along with it being weight sorted but the truth is all that doesn't matter when a better shot comes along
You done screwed up "big time" Fred and in one fell swoop I might add!!!!
Possibly?? if you happen to be one of the TOP 1000Y benchrest shooters in the world could you have any credence in what you've stated even if one were to disregard your insulting and haughty manner. Tom Sarver please comment.
BTW I pride myself in having some of the most stringently prepped reloads on the planet along with it being weight sorted but the truth is all that doesn't matter when a better shot comes along
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
I haven't met Jacob and consider that one of the greater failings of a lifetime. I have met Frank and know him well enough to consider myself in his debt, and to express more then mild surprise that he has been tolerant enough that I still remain a member or this forum.
I approach neck tension along a different axis. Rather than dealing in diameters, I deal in lengths. Simpest terms, I use the partial neck length resizing method to manage neck tension, and I perform a pass/fail test that may be more closely related to actual neck tension.
Backing off the die until it does not resize any portion of the neck, I then advance it until it's about a turn or two into the die height area where neck sizing occurs. Seating a bullet, I then grasp the bullet with thumb and forefinger and attempt to turn it in the case neck.
If it turns under any pressure I can manage with thumb and forefinger, the neck needs more length resized, and the die is adjusted downward in small increments until finger pressure cannot turn it in the neck. I can't tell you what that tension measures in numeric values, but I can say that it's repeatable, and can be adjusted accordingly as work hardening affects neck tension.
I am rather less concerned with what that tension measures out at as I am about being able to keep it within a ballpark value with some consistency.
Also, that lower portion of the neck, the unsized part, can help to hold the case neck closer to concentric with the chamber/bore axis. IMHO, it matters not so much that a bullet is concentric within a case neck unless that case neck is also concentric within the chamber.
Too many loaders completely miss the importance of that relationship.
Greg
I haven't met Jacob and consider that one of the greater failings of a lifetime. I have met Frank and know him well enough to consider myself in his debt, and to express more then mild surprise that he has been tolerant enough that I still remain a member or this forum.
I approach neck tension along a different axis. Rather than dealing in diameters, I deal in lengths. Simpest terms, I use the partial neck length resizing method to manage neck tension, and I perform a pass/fail test that may be more closely related to actual neck tension.
Backing off the die until it does not resize any portion of the neck, I then advance it until it's about a turn or two into the die height area where neck sizing occurs. Seating a bullet, I then grasp the bullet with thumb and forefinger and attempt to turn it in the case neck.
If it turns under any pressure I can manage with thumb and forefinger, the neck needs more length resized, and the die is adjusted downward in small increments until finger pressure cannot turn it in the neck. I can't tell you what that tension measures in numeric values, but I can say that it's repeatable, and can be adjusted accordingly as work hardening affects neck tension.
I am rather less concerned with what that tension measures out at as I am about being able to keep it within a ballpark value with some consistency.
Also, that lower portion of the neck, the unsized part, can help to hold the case neck closer to concentric with the chamber/bore axis. IMHO, it matters not so much that a bullet is concentric within a case neck unless that case neck is also concentric within the chamber.
Too many loaders completely miss the importance of that relationship.
Greg
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
i think weigh sorting cases is pretty pointless , i still do it anyways.
as for the OP's question , your going do the best you can , any case that is to heavy or light , will have to be separated from the batch.
i think weigh sorting cases is pretty pointless , i still do it anyways.
as for the OP's question , your going do the best you can , any case that is to heavy or light , will have to be separated from the batch.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred Seaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Us newbies don't have to listen and act on your every word just because you are old, closed minded and of the belief that you deserve respect. </div></div>
Idon't care if you respect me or not. I do not desire the repect of fools. I will cordially invite you to one of the matches that I shoot and run. You can decide for yourself if I am full of shit. You would be the first internet cowboy yet to show up.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred Seaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Us newbies don't have to listen and act on your every word just because you are old, closed minded and of the belief that you deserve respect. </div></div>
Idon't care if you respect me or not. I do not desire the repect of fools. I will cordially invite you to one of the matches that I shoot and run. You can decide for yourself if I am full of shit. You would be the first internet cowboy yet to show up.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Like the data provided, I have found that internal volume does not vary directly with case weight. I mark cases from errant shots or shots with a larger change in velocity and check those later against established norms. My evidence could support or refute sorting.
I still check the internal capacity. Periodically, as a self soothing device.
Like the data provided, I have found that internal volume does not vary directly with case weight. I mark cases from errant shots or shots with a larger change in velocity and check those later against established norms. My evidence could support or refute sorting.
I still check the internal capacity. Periodically, as a self soothing device.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Moderators...this is an embarrassment to all members. Kill this thread. I'm so sick of internet wars. Got a plausible and informative topic....post ..... Readers... think, critique, even oppose but these " Big dick wars" need to stop. I admit I've been in some out of anger, but I was wrong to say some of the things I said. I guess Im trying to say get your fucking egos in
check bc opinions are like assholes.... You know the rest
Moderators...this is an embarrassment to all members. Kill this thread. I'm so sick of internet wars. Got a plausible and informative topic....post ..... Readers... think, critique, even oppose but these " Big dick wars" need to stop. I admit I've been in some out of anger, but I was wrong to say some of the things I said. I guess Im trying to say get your fucking egos in
check bc opinions are like assholes.... You know the rest
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I mark cases from errant shots or shots with a larger change in velocity and check those later against established norms.</div></div>
Now that's a good idea and I almost allowed it to slip past me. I will try this.
Greg
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I mark cases from errant shots or shots with a larger change in velocity and check those later against established norms.</div></div>
Now that's a good idea and I almost allowed it to slip past me. I will try this.
Greg
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
Weigh brass/bullets/primers
Ck bullets for concentric balance
Test primers
Do whatever makes ya happy
I simply stuff brass with powder, seat bullet and shoot
Each to their own method of madness
Weigh brass/bullets/primers
Ck bullets for concentric balance
Test primers
Do whatever makes ya happy
I simply stuff brass with powder, seat bullet and shoot
Each to their own method of madness
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moosetracker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Weighting cases on the assumption that there is a constant correlation between case weight and internal volume is a complete waste of time that is based on an erroneous assumption. Others factors such as dimension of base and extractor groove are significant confounding variables....
</div></div>
Really great post. All valid points. Just to be pedantic, I said 'indicator' not a direct correlation. Yup, lots of other factors.
But now what I'm interested in is dynamic volume vs. static volume.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moosetracker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Weighting cases on the assumption that there is a constant correlation between case weight and internal volume is a complete waste of time that is based on an erroneous assumption. Others factors such as dimension of base and extractor groove are significant confounding variables....
</div></div>
Really great post. All valid points. Just to be pedantic, I said 'indicator' not a direct correlation. Yup, lots of other factors.
But now what I'm interested in is dynamic volume vs. static volume.
Re: Weighing brass--searching for accuracy.
I think that dynamic volume can be approached most closely by gauging capacity before resizing the once-fired case. Understood, it does not represent the case at full pressure, but I think that after springback, the first firing exhibits the least brass working, and therefore the best near-equivalency.
Personally, I believe that if one wants to measure capacity, one needs to measure capacity. But not water capacity. Water has nothing to do with gunpowder. We really need to know <span style="font-style: italic">powder</span> capacity, and not <span style="font-style: italic">water</span> capacity. I measure by taking an overcharge and filling the case with a drop tube. Whatever remains after the case neck has been screed off level is the case's true static <span style="font-style: italic">powder</span> capacity. and there are no issues about wetting or meniscus.
Personally, dynamic case capacity is what's truly important IMHO, and NO method will give you a true value, because no testing method can be conducted at chamber pressure.
Greg
I think that dynamic volume can be approached most closely by gauging capacity before resizing the once-fired case. Understood, it does not represent the case at full pressure, but I think that after springback, the first firing exhibits the least brass working, and therefore the best near-equivalency.
Personally, I believe that if one wants to measure capacity, one needs to measure capacity. But not water capacity. Water has nothing to do with gunpowder. We really need to know <span style="font-style: italic">powder</span> capacity, and not <span style="font-style: italic">water</span> capacity. I measure by taking an overcharge and filling the case with a drop tube. Whatever remains after the case neck has been screed off level is the case's true static <span style="font-style: italic">powder</span> capacity. and there are no issues about wetting or meniscus.
Personally, dynamic case capacity is what's truly important IMHO, and NO method will give you a true value, because no testing method can be conducted at chamber pressure.
Greg
