Because I am noting a lot of Reloading questions

[pmclaine]

Ill post my current reloading adventure here. Ill appreciate the constructive criticism.

I reload on a S1050 in progressive and tend to create large batches of ammo.

I am generally happy with my production but each time I tool up I tend to tweak stuff just to get a little bit tighter quality.

The two major changes this time are I added a 21St Century turning mandrel die on my processing tool head and I own a Magnetospeed now to get numbers data.

In this reloading session Im using my old load as the median and trying to confirm the load.

Ive loaded 6 rounds at each loading and will fire in two batches of three rounds each loading. First is for group only. second will include the use of the Magnetospeed to get numbers data.

If the Magnetospeed shows acceptable numbers for the chosen best group I think Ill be good to go.

This is a post I made on another site where we get less into the intracacies of reloading but like to circle jerk about our USMC style clone rifles......


Starting to produce .308 again.

I feel that each time I go into production I make some little improvements and get better ammo.

This time I tweaked my headspace to be within +/-.001 of SAAMI standard. My last batch of ammo was about -.003. Im not neck sizing or going to size to each individual rifle.

Length to Ogive is a pretty consistent 2.26. I took this number from the average length to ogive for FGMM 168. When loading 168s for the two rifles I intend to use them in Im not going to tailor to the lands (yet).

The big improvement I think will come from using a 21st Century turning mandrel after the Dillon Rapid Trim/Size die. The Dillon makes the necks too tight and the mandrel die is showing me a consistent .002 tension now. I could notice seating the rounds was a bit more "consistent".

Starting on the M40 to develop a new load.

My old load was 42.1 of I 4064 with a 168 SMK or Nosler CC. This rifle likes 175s but Ill seldom shoot it beyond 600 yards and the 168s worked great 300 and in. Besides I got a ton of 168s and the light rifle/shooter will take slightly less of a beating at 168.

Todays target.

I was using 42.1 as the middle and going lower and higher. All groups are 3 shots. I screwed up and shot one of my 42.9 rounds into my sighter target Take the middle of the sighter group and move it over to 42.9.

Going to 42.9 was an afterthought. I only loaded them because I wanted to keep the shell plate full for consistency as I was loading the final 42.7s. 42.9 had a stiffer bolt lift and its not where I think this rifle wants to be.

Ill be investigating 42.3 a bit more.....

A gratuitous shot of rifle porn......

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I like what I see from the 41.9 and 42.3 loads. I have used 42.2 for the 175 for going on decades, so I think the 42.3 could be productive, and the 41.9 could be a great practice load. Clearly, that's a rough incrementation and the adjacent tenths, etc., would be worth exploration.

I'm going back to the 308 after a decade off that flavor, with 168's myself, and have tried 44.0 (44.5 listed max). I may not be staying up there, but it's something I felt needed trying (going for 2700fps, identical to my 30-06 168 Garand match loads). Primers/etc., were sorta wow, so this is probably not going to be used much beyond the initial test batch. Thinking..., maybe I'll just pull them and leave it at that, the cases reloaded OK, but I suspect they are getting a bit cross with me about now.

I'm working with a 24" Savage SAAMI barrel, which have some tendencies to be somewhat short throated for going on decades worth of savage 308 rifles I've loaded for. I needed to lower my seating stem after the first range day, and reseated the remainder of the existing test batch. Since I was simply looking to get the (remounted) scope zeroed, no accuracy groups were shot that time out.

I'm going to be using IMI 168 Auto Match as a baseline for accuracy, etc. I gave my Buddy five rounds to try in his new AR10, and they worked well, shot pretty accurately. It's rated at under 2650fps, so it'll be interesting.

Getting out to the range this past six months has not been fun. Temps have been running in the 100's/110's late June and all of July, and my range Buddy's been recovering from a C-1 Fracture acquired in a Jan 9 motorcycle crash. We are also in the middle of our Monsoon. Projects have been backing up and it's an exercise in self discipline to set the days up without getting ridiculous with the workload (with the heat, we need to be packed up and headed back by noon). The log jam is breaking and I figure another two weeks before conditions get better. What with a passel of scope remounts (scopes were shifting under recoil, I'm going to stop 178gr load development entirely), etc., as well as the load testing, the schedule is probably going to be chockablock full until the frosts arrive.

All things pass.

Greg

PS That rifle looks flat-out gorgeous.

 

[pmclaine]

Just to understand the baseline Im working from.

Some more info of my Magnetospeed data check of my 42.1 load compared to FGMM 168 and 175.

Wasnt really worried about impact. I was holding mildots as my 100 yard zero really seemed to "float" on this day...

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Looking at your velocities and considering the 44.0 load is within published limits, I'm changing my mind about pulling that test batch.

Great notes, BTW. I have to get my act back together.

I'd not be too troubled by the floating zero using the Magnetospeed. Now that your have your velocity data, taking it off should tighten up the zero again.

This thread is starting to cause me to hanker after the M-Speed. It's the final step to refining LR Trajectories/POI's.

Maybe I'm quaint, but I have been a longtime fan of factory rifles. I feel that folks can get overly dismissive of them, and that they do respond positively to a little bit of extra care (bedding, load development, etc.). It's probably a little along similar lines to your appreciation of classic rifles.

To each...

Greg

 

[918v]

42.2 IMR4064 works for both 168 and 175, although at different COALs, 2.800” and 2.830” respectively.

 

[BangBangBlatBlat]

My personal experience has been that people get way to far into the weeds on reload testing. My personal opinion so far is that most of these load testing methods at 100 yards do not really tell you a lot of what you need to know; sample size, shooter error, and just day to day jitters can have massive effects on what guys end up with as the "good load".

If you were to repeat this test on a different day, with a slightly dirtier barrel, in a slightly different temperature, would the results look identical? My experience has been that it is a solid "maybe not".

If anything, load testing at 100 yards verifies the process that you are taking produces consistent ammo. Chances are that if you have good tools and quality control, your ammo will shoot well.

On most of my rifles I shoot common powder and bullet combinations that fall within pretty much everyone's range of optimal. For example on the 6.5 Creedmoor I typically use 42.4 grains of H4350. The last time I shot it at 100 yards, the ammo produced groups in the .250-.350 range if I recall correctly. That was for my rifle and for my friends rifle on barrel break-in. I was also shit hot on group shooting that day, which I normally am not. If I shoot groups in the 2/3 MOA range from prone on more than a few days I am not surprised.

I do my short range testing at 100 yards just to see that the bullet and powder combination is workable, and that my rifle "likes" a certain bullet or powder. I stick with H4350 in 6.5, H1000 in 300WM, and H4895 or Varget in 308 because they are well known qualities. What I am looking for is a wide range of powder charges that produce acceptable groups. Anything around 1/2 MOA is what I consider good; slightly less might mean I am hot on the gun, and slightly more might mean I'm just sucking. With a small sample size there is bound to be a few that stand out. What I really don't want is to have huge groups sandwiched between smaller groups because it means that even if the small group wasn't a fluke, that there is something messed up in my reloading process.

A perfect example is when I was shooting 260 Remington and was getting horrible case neck donuts, and pushing bullets into them that created massive neck tension problems; I could shoot some groups at 100 that were really pretty and then some that were really ugly. It wasn't the load...it was a tooling problem that I solved by moving to 2 step sizing with an expander mandrel and shit canning my Lapua brass. And I could feel the difference on seating the bullet.

If anything, based on your setup, I would expect to see groups be improved by using a heavier filled front bag. It looks like your front rest is a pillow-type bag and they are not as easy to shoot well off of compared to a heavy filled sandbag.

40 to 42 grains of 4064, IMR 4895, H4895, and Varget are all generally great shooting loads with the old 300m 168gr bullet. I want to say the old 168gr load was 41.5 to 42 grains of 4064 behind a 168gr. I know I've used that combo for shooting Across the Course a long time ago.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Yes, 918v, I suspected that. I will be trying it with the 168, in addition to the 44.0 for 2700fps. Well report outcomes as things develop.

I agree BBBB, things will look different at 100 given different conditions day to day. It doesn't take much inconsistency to throw a group off at 100. We could assume that because the distance is so much less, errors will be small too, but I doubt that holds up under the magnifying glass. Sometimes those errors can make a group smaller when it shouldn't be, which is a good reason for larger sample data collections.

I usually finish off my load development/confirmation at 300, then develop JBM stock tables (trajectory spreadsheets) for application where/when longer distances become available/necessary.

1000yd is only available to me as an overnight expedition up to Ben Avery by Phoenix. My Brother lived the last of his life in Mesa and shot Ben Avery regularly. I'm only coming to appreciate him properly now that I've been there myself.

Greg

 

[pmclaine]

My personal experience has been that people get way to far into the weeds on reload testing. My personal opinion so far is that most of these load testing methods at 100 yards do not really tell you a lot of what you need to know; sample size, shooter error, and just day to day jitters can have massive effects on what guys end up with as the "good load".

If you were to repeat this test on a different day, with a slightly dirtier barrel, in a slightly different temperature, would the results look identical? My experience has been that it is a solid "maybe not".

If anything, load testing at 100 yards verifies the process that you are taking produces consistent ammo. Chances are that if you have good tools and quality control, your ammo will shoot well.

On most of my rifles I shoot common powder and bullet combinations that fall within pretty much everyone's range of optimal. For example on the 6.5 Creedmoor I typically use 42.4 grains of H4350. The last time I shot it at 100 yards, the ammo produced groups in the .250-.350 range if I recall correctly. That was for my rifle and for my friends rifle on barrel break-in. I was also shit hot on group shooting that day, which I normally am not. If I shoot groups in the 2/3 MOA range from prone on more than a few days I am not surprised.

I do my short range testing at 100 yards just to see that the bullet and powder combination is workable, and that my rifle "likes" a certain bullet or powder. I stick with H4350 in 6.5, H1000 in 300WM, and H4895 or Varget in 308 because they are well known qualities. What I am looking for is a wide range of powder charges that produce acceptable groups. Anything around 1/2 MOA is what I consider good; slightly less might mean I am hot on the gun, and slightly more might mean I'm just sucking. With a small sample size there is bound to be a few that stand out. What I really don't want is to have huge groups sandwiched between smaller groups because it means that even if the small group wasn't a fluke, that there is something messed up in my reloading process.

A perfect example is when I was shooting 260 Remington and was getting horrible case neck donuts, and pushing bullets into them that created massive neck tension problems; I could shoot some groups at 100 that were really pretty and then some that were really ugly. It wasn't the load...it was a tooling problem that I solved by moving to 2 step sizing with an expander mandrel and shit canning my Lapua brass. And I could feel the difference on seating the bullet.

If anything, based on your setup, I would expect to see groups be improved by using a heavier filled front bag. It looks like your front rest is a pillow-type bag and they are not as easy to shoot well off of compared to a heavy filled sandbag.

40 to 42 grains of 4064, IMR 4895, H4895, and Varget are all generally great shooting loads with the old 300m 168gr bullet. I want to say the old 168gr load was 41.5 to 42 grains of 4064 behind a 168gr. I know I've used that combo for shooting Across the Course a long time ago.

Agreed that any set of groups tells more about the shooter on that day than what the ammo is doing.

That's the hard part about this trying to balance what the results show.

I'm hoping the Mspeed will just further provide confirmation of what the initial assessment is.

If you look at my Mspeed shooting session I think the FGMM 168s should have performed better.

I think they performed as well as the shooter drove them.

I bet the 42.3 load that looks good to me yesterday ends up having the same Mspeed numbers as FGMM 168.

I shot the FGMM clone better yesterday than I shot the real ammo a week or so ago.

 

[BangBangBlatBlat]

Agreed that any set of groups tells more about the shooter on that day than what the ammo is doing.

That's the hard part about this trying to balance what the results show.

I'm hoping the Mspeed will just further provide confirmation of what the initial assessment is.

If you look at my Mspeed shooting session I think the FGMM 168s should have performed better.

I think they performed as well as the shooter drove them.

I bet the 42.3 load that looks good to me yesterday ends up having the same Mspeed numbers as FGMM 168.

I shot the FGMM clone better yesterday than I shot the real ammo a week or so ago.

I have a nagging suspicion that 90% of what we do for load development can be solved by improving the process and not the powder, bullet, and primer combinations. I don't really believe in a goldilocks combination as much as a goldilocks range, and the charges you are at are within what I would consider as being the known good load range for 308 Winchester.

For instance, I would suspect that you would get better ammo by using better brass, weighing charges more precisely, and using less neck tension.

And the reason I say that is because almost every time I have shot over a chronograph with my handloads, my extreme spreads are around 20 to 25fps and Standard Deviations right around 8fps with a wide variety of combinations. When I was shooting 260 Remington a good bit, the 130gr Berger Hybrid load I threw together had a SD of 6fps in Alpha 260 brass that I didn't even run through an expander mandrel.

The guys that I know that are claiming super duper SD numbers are using premium brass, lab scales, and annealing more often.

 

[918v]

OP,

Are you doing this in Lapua Brass? If so, do over in LC or FC brass. This load works better in heavier cases. Second, don’t set the bto by FGMM standard because FGMM is loaded to 2.800” regardless of bto. Just use 2.8” for the 168’s.

 

[pmclaine]

The brass is FGMM once fired.

I trickle everything to charge on a Dillon balance scale.

I think the he 21st Century die solves the neck tension issue.

I agree it's all a continuing path of improvement.

Tweak something here, tighten something there.

I'm pretty optimistic this production will be better than my last.

 

[pmclaine]

I am agreeing a heavier bag may provide better results.

I lightened the range bag about two years ago.

Any recommendations on a not ridiculous front bag?

I've been curious about the game changer.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I have a nagging suspicion that 90% of what we do for load development can be solved by improving the process and not the powder, bullet, and primer combinations. I don't really believe in a Goldilocks combination as much as a Goldilocks range, and the charges you are at are within what I would consider as being the known good load range for 308 Winchester.

For instance, I would suspect that you would get better ammo by using better brass, weighing charges more precisely, and using less neck tension.

And the reason I say that is because almost every time I have shot over a chronograph with my handloads, my extreme spreads are around 20 to 25fps and Standard Deviations right around 8fps with a wide variety of combinations. When I was shooting 260 Remington a good bit, the 130gr Berger Hybrid load I threw together had a SD of 6fps in Alpha 260 brass that I didn't even run through an expander mandrel.

The guys that I know that are claiming super duper SD numbers are using premium brass, lab scales, and annealing more often.

I agree. I believe that every time we introduce an additional new process to the handloading cycle, we also introduce a new opportunity to get it wrong.

I think that the simplest process possible, done with care to consistency, provides a close to perfectly consistent ammunition product. However accurate that is, it provides a stable foundation upon which to overlay marksmanship skills.

Only when those marksmanship skills fail to produce accuracy progress is it time to reinvestigate a better load. Until then, it becomes difficult to identify the cause of the inaccuracy as stemming from ammunition.

I believe that most accuracy problems have their origins in marksmanship inadequacies.

Greg

 

[pmclaine]

Same loads with a Magnetospeed under the bore.....

Data.

I dont know how statistically significant three rounds of data represents but Im feeling pretty good about 42.3.

Im guessing its a low node which for the intended use for that rifle probably wont hurt me too much.

 

[918v]

The high node for that combo is 43.6 but you’ll loosen FC primer pockets quickly and gain only 70 or so FPS.

 

[pmclaine]

The high node for that combo is 43.6 but you’ll loosen FC primer pockets quickly and gain only 70 or so FPS.

Yep no need to subject rifle or I to that.

What did you find for low node?

My next step will be to load 5 each of 42.2, 42.3, and 42.4 over a Magnetospeed and take the one with best numbers.

Guessing thats probably unnecessary as 42.3 looks better than I can shoot.

 

[918v]

42.2

 

[pmclaine]

Back at it tonight finishing up a load for my M40...

A picture with the target removed shows a better story....

42.4 has a group of eight and two flyers, the far right one which I called. 42.3 shows a four round group and a 6 round group.

Data looks good. for my sighters in the first picture 43.3 and 42.4 landed basically on top of each other. Prior data for 42.5 was decent and that three round group was nicely triangulated. I think 42.4 gets me in the middle of a good spot...

Next up the LMT MWS .308.

 

[918v]

Did you make sure your MS did not creep forward under recoil? If it did , it caused a poi shift which invalidates your accuracy assessment.

 

[pmclaine]

It creeps but initially I shoot without the bayonet for group and than go for numbers to confirm.

Besides based on those 8 together at 42.4 - Ill take that error.

Next time Im cutting out the second full examination of numbers.

Ill shoot a range of powder measurements for group than jump right to test up and down from best group.

Im already working from a load I knew to work decently in my rifles now just adding the confirmation of the MSpeed.

Next shoot with this rifle will be at 300 yards - limiting factor will be the scope - I hold mils. Perhaps Ill put a reference at 1.4 mils to holdover the center cross hairs.

This rifle is intended as a no fuss plus MOA target shooter.