Consistency, or lack thereof

[CK1.0]

Yes indeed. I can't imagine trying to begin reloading, and learning precision fundamentals with the rifle, at the same time. One variable at a time.

My thoughts on learning the reloading process -- it depends on your temperament (tool user or not), your instinctive attention to detail, your observational skills, and your understanding of combustion mechanics. All of these are important factors. I wonder how many understand combustion mechanics, or basic inorganic chemistry. You can reload w/o knowing such things but IMO understanding them will help you understand the whole process and the end result cartridge you've loaded.

I get you, and agree, mostly…

Hate to be a “reloading heretic” some more (actually, that’s not true, and is kinda my whole vibe here lol), but IMHO the only combustion mechanics reloaders really need to be aware of is doing it like NASA does it: more fuel (powder) = more speed/pressure/recoil, less fuel = less speed/pressure/recoil, and that the less case fill you have, the more important it is that every charge is the same to the nearest kernel or your SDs will get shitty (probably loosely related to something like a race car’s carburetor or fuel injection: run it too lean and it’ll stall more easily and get erratic if shit isn’t dialed in, running it lean means it becomes more important that the fuel delivery is consistent and precise).

When they all come out the same, they all tend to want to go through the same hole. Getting there, and doing it batch after batch is the hard part.

 

[Josh Umsted]

If you’re winning NRL22 matches you’re doing pretty damn good lol.

And that’s a perfect example of a load only mattering so much, because everyone’s rimfire ammo comes out of a box!

That said, .22LR = no recoil, and it’s not the same thing.

Sounds like you’re on the road to gaining better recoil-management… and when you get it dialed in fully, I know your groups will shrink and become more consistent, regardless of what happens in the reloading room (as long as the stuff is consistent… think boxes of Lapua Center X or whatever the hot shit is for rimfire, not the shit you used to be able to buy at Walmart lol).

Yup. The factory .308 with no muzzle brake let me know right away. Still working on it, but I can spot my impacts/misses. Big improvement.

My .22 likes Lapua Long Range at the moment and groups about .36” @ 50 yds. For .25” targets at 50 yards, group size matters. I cleaned that stage today, another first. Yay me.

 

[flogxal]

CK -- I actually sent an email to Jeff Siewert asking a few questions, using my knowledge of combustion in V8 engines. He quickly and politely told me the rifle cartridge isn't reliant on outside air and fuel so be careful with what I assumed I understood about internal ballistics.

 

[carbonbased]

I do think your sliding and bouncing front rest (and maybe your rear one) are definitely adding massive noise to your reloading analysis.

This is what I do to counter shitty range benches that don’t allow me to get square behind the rifle:

Rotate them 180°. Use a good bipod, and do what Frank and Mark teach at their classes: clamp a piece of wood down to get your bipod some purchase.

The Phil Velayo vid above has that exercise to teach you how to not overly load your bipod, and that comes in handy when you have a solid setup to push against. Don’t overdo it.

I now also use a piece of tough welcome mat to better replicate dirt (deaden bounce). It seems the vast majority of PRS shooters use the stock rubber feet, according to that PRS blog “What the pros use”.

I use Frank’s bench method of leaning in at the hips and squaring up, all the better to replicate prone (which I cannot actually do due to my neck).

1) square up, do Phil’s bridge technique
2) hands off gun, aim gun with body, notice if bipod is binding. If so, re-square bipod to target.
3) add grip hand, pull back into shoulder
4) breathe; see up/down reticle movement (Phil)
5) if ret movement isn’t plumb, you’re not square
6) slide rear bag in, pull up slightly and squeeze to limit reticle heartbeat bounce
7) shoot

Early in my journey, I tried a Bald Eagle front rest with a Protektor front bag and a Protektor 13b rabbit ear rear bag. Hated it. Felt like I was in a box, not connected to the gun or to shooting. Felt like the setup was trying to get the human less involved (not more) in the event. Yuk.

But maybe you’ll find that’s your thing. You’ll just have to experiment. If you do go squeeze bag, get a Mark Taylor one @Enough Said. Best one I’ve run across (tried Tab and Precision Underground). I can’t quite tell what kind of rear bag you’re using.

 

[CK1.0]

CK -- I actually sent an email to Jeff Siewert asking a few questions, using my knowledge of combustion in V8 engines. He quickly and politely told me the rifle cartridge isn't reliant on outside air and fuel so be careful with what I assumed I understood about internal ballistics.

I wouldn't be careful or be worried about shit because I never load even close to the line where anything to worry about starts. None of that "did a ladder up to signs of pressure and backed off a .5 grain" BS here lol. And, who the fuck is Jeff Siewert and why would we give a shit about what he thinks? Is he the new reloading Jesus or something?

Unless someone's got a name that's hard to pronounce and a degree from MIT, and launches rockets, spaceships, and satellites for a living, IDK if we should care about what they have to say about combustion at all or even think that what they have to say relates to what we do unless they've done it too.

If they've written a book about ballistics and/or reloading for rifles and are selling it as though they've got it all figured out, I'd be especially skeptical.

 

[Mean_Man]

Didn’t read the whole thread. CCi 210? Did you mean Federal?

 

[Josh Umsted]

I do think your sliding and bouncing front rest (and maybe your rear one) are definitely adding massive noise to your reloading analysis.

This is what I do to counter shitty range benches that don’t allow me to get square behind the rifle:

View attachment 8722501
Rotate them 180°. Use a good bipod, and do what Frank and Mark teach at their classes: clamp a piece of wood down to get your bipod some purchase.

The Phil Velayo vid above has that exercise to teach you how to not overly load your bipod, and that comes in handy when you have a solid setup to push against. Don’t overdo it.

I now also use a piece of tough welcome mat to better replicate dirt (deaden bounce). It seems the vast majority of PRS shooters use the stock rubber feet, according to that PRS blog “What the pros use”.
View attachment 8722504

I use Frank’s bench method of leaning in at the hips and squaring up, all the better to replicate prone (which I cannot actually do due to my neck).

1) square up, do Phil’s bridge technique
2) hands off gun, aim gun with body, notice if bipod is binding. If so, re-square bipod to target.
3) add grip hand, pull back into shoulder
4) breathe; see up/down reticle movement (Phil)
5) if ret movement isn’t plumb, you’re not square
6) slide rear bag in, pull up slightly and squeeze to limit reticle heartbeat bounce
7) shoot

Early in my journey, I tried a Bald Eagle front rest with a Protektor front bag and a Protektor 13b rabbit ear rear bag. Hated it. Felt like I was in a box, not connected to the gun or to shooting. Felt like the setup was trying to get the human less involved (not more) in the event. Yuk.

But maybe you’ll find that’s your thing. You’ll just have to experiment. If you do go squeeze bag, get a Mark Taylor one @Enough Said. Best one I’ve run across (tried Tab and Precision Underground). I can’t quite tell what kind of rear bag you’re using.

Thanks!

Rear bag is a pint sized game changer. I squeeze it with support hand, supporting rifle with the web of my hand, as Valeo teaches. That imparts a little wobble, though minute, it’s there. I prefer the bipod, though not sure I’m applying the right amount of pressure. Doing it right is less important than doing the same thing every time, so I’ll pick what works best for me and stick with it and test under the same conditions, and eliminate as many variables as possible. Real load development and testing won’t start until fresh components arrive in a week. I’ll check out Frank’s video and apply what makes sense.

 

[flogxal]

CK, his book is not a snake oil sales pitch, you should read it. Maybe it will be dull old hat to you, maybe not. It's more an explanatory book than a book where he pitches himself as Ultimate Guru. I didn't get any Guru hints at all from the book.

And the reason I emailed him is, he wrote the book and I had Qs about things in there.

But I get your point, there are a lot of folks carving a niche on the internet with mediocre or worse wisdom/skill level, trying to be Wizards of this or that subject. A naive internet user could easily be fooled.

 

[Josh Umsted]

Regarding the mechanics of reloading and my original question, I came to grips last night with the fact my trimmer is inadequate. It’s a Lee “deluxe,” recommended by my misguided mentor.

Measuring brass last night, was surprised to find case length very inconsistent with a few approaching max length and a few a little short.

Ran them through the trimmer. Results were still inconsistent. I got most cases trimmed to spec, but the last piece refused to be trimmed. I’m ditching the Lee trimmer and ordering one from little crow.

Seems to me consistent case volume is key, so why not trim every time to be sure?

 

[flogxal]

It's the volume sitting beneath the butt of the projectile that needs to be consistent, as I understand it, and not so much the free brass length at case mouth, which only creates issues if that mouth / neck is too long for the chamber. Am I correct here?

 

[WeR0206]

It's the volume sitting beneath the butt of the projectile that needs to be consistent, as I understand it, and not so much the free brass length at case mouth, which only creates issues if that mouth / neck is too long for the chamber. Am I correct here?

Yes you’re correct on that but also, If you have variation in case length or bullet length it causes variation in the seating depth in the neck which causes variation in pressures/velocity. More depth = more pressure.

I never realized this connection before playing around with gordons reloading tool and learning the different relationships between all the different inputs and outputs. IMO the scientific fields that would help one best understand reloading and precision shooting would be systems engineer & statistics.

 

[flogxal]

Might be I didn't say things as clearly as I could have. What I mean is, case trimmers cut the mouth/neck down to a length sufficient that when the shoulder/neck/mouth blow forward, they are not kept back by the chamber's depth. The neck needs to blow forward w/o hindrance, and this is why we trim cases. To shorten them enough that when the neck blows forward it isn't stopped by the mouth hitting the chamber-end.

As I understand it, they only need to be "short enough" and they do not have to have the same exact length... i.e., if the shoulders all index on the same spot but the mouth is a bit longer on a few in a batch of, say, 30 rds loaded, the difference in neck/mouth length will not significantly affect performance on target.

But the depth of projectile changing interior volume, yes for sure. That's what I meant about projo butt extending into the case.

Can't you have cases which all index the same at the shoulder, but have different lengths of neck, while all being same COAL in a caliper measurement?

 

[WeR0206]

Might be I didn't say things as clearly as I could have. What I mean is, case trimmers cut the mouth/neck down to a length sufficient that when the shoulder/neck/mouth blow forward, they are not kept back by the chamber's depth. The neck needs to blow forward w/o hindrance, and this is why we trim cases. To shorten them enough that when the neck blows forward it isn't stopped by the mouth hitting the chamber-end.

As I understand it, they only need to be "short enough" and they do not have to have the same exact length... i.e., if the shoulders all index on the same spot but the mouth is a bit longer on a few in a batch of, say, 30 rds loaded, the difference in neck/mouth length will not significantly affect performance on target.

But the depth of projectile changing interior volume, yes for sure. That's what I meant about projo butt extending into the case.

Can't you have cases which all index the same at the shoulder, but have different lengths of neck, while all being same COAL in a caliper measurement?

Yes you can have cases that index to the same point on the shoulder and have different lengths of neck and same COAL in calipers….but if they do have different lengths of neck they would have to have different overall case length measurements. Note that cartridge OAL and case (brass) OAL are two different things. Variation in neck length causes variation in case OAL & seating depth which is what Im focusing on.

Its the same concept of bullets having the same base to ogive measurement but different overall lengths.

For example you can have two pieces of brass that have the same shoulder measurement and COAL but due to different neck lengths more or less of the bullet is covered by the neck (seating depth) when it’s seated. You probably wouldn’t notice a difference at short range but at long range the variance in pressure (due to different neck lengths/seating depth) could potentially cause vertical stringing.

In Gordons tool for a 6 arc case increasing the case length by 4 thou changed the seating depth from 0.4765 to 0.4800. This in turn changed the output pressure from 53,475 to 53,675. A swing of a couple hundred psi.

It also changes the case fill % among a few other things

 

[flogxal]

If I had art skills I would draw what I'm trying to say. It would be easier I think.

Two loaded cartridges sitting on a bench top. Same Base-to-Ogive.

One has a longer NECK, not base-to-shoulder, than the other.

That extra length of neck does not affect amount of projo sitting in the case. It affects the length of brass forward of the shoulder, and thus only covers more of the projo shank.

The distance from the lip of the case mouth to the ogive will be different between the two, but the volume of case beneath the butt of the projo will be the same, because you measured from the base/case head to the ogive.

 

[WeR0206]

The distance from the lip of the case mouth to the ogive will be different between the two, but the volume of case beneath the butt of the projo will be the same, because you measured from the base/case head to the ogive.

Yes and this difference would result in the cartridge with the longer neck having slightly more pressure/velocity compared to the other one. You could have two cartridges with the same CBTO but the butt of the bullet could be higher or lower due to differences in bullet overall length. CBTO measures to the ogive not the butt of the bullet. This is why a lot of ELR shooters are more worried about sorting by bullet length not bullet base to ogive. Also everything I just said about variances in case/neck length would also apply to variances in bullet overall length (it changes the volume in the case etc).

CBTO is not the same length/measurement as cartridge base to base of the bullet. Cartridge base to base of bullet is what determines the volume of the case under the bullet as you said previously.

 

[JerkyFreak]

Everything makes a difference; some a lot, others not so much. Case neck lengths are in the category of "not so much".

 

[WeR0206]

Everything makes a difference; some a lot, others not so much. Case neck lengths are in the category of "not so much".

Agreed. Unless you are shooting benchrest, f-class, ELR, etc it’s probably negligible as I said upstream. These variances can cause a swing of a few hundred PSI which for 6 arc equates to like 5-10 fps (within a single std deviation) so not a giant swing and Im sure the same applies to other cartridges.

 

[flogxal]

Yes and this difference would result in the cartridge with the longer neck having slightly more pressure/velocity compared to the other one.

The reason for the pressure/velocity increase would be what? The extra mechanical grip of the slightly longer neck?

 

[WeR0206]

The reason for the pressure/velocity increase would be what? The extra mechanical grip of the slightly longer neck?

If you really want detailed explanation, you have to talk to the people that did the coding for modeling software like Gordon’s reloading tool and quick load, etc. from what I understand it could mostly be related to the difference in volume beneath the butt of the bullet. As that volume fluctuates your fill percent, % powder burned, etc., would also vary slightly and yes, I would also imagine the extra friction of more brass holding onto the bullet would come in to play. It’s a longer gripping surface.

This is why Gordons tool places a big emphasis on getting accurate measurements for certain inputs like volume of fired brass, bullet length, case length, etc.. a bullet overall length having a swing of +/- .005” could really fuck up your day if you’re trying to shoot over a mile, benchrest and so forth

 

[flogxal]

I think the reason I wasn't tracking clear is that even though I mentioned GRT upthread, in this talk on neck length/case trimming, I meant functionally -- rather than how GRT is written or what GRT assumes.

For sure in GRT if you make the case shorter it makes your combustion chamber smaller. At least that is what I have noticed as well. GRT doesn't seem to consider what I was talking about with the point that the neck being longer doesn't have to mean the case combustion chamber is bigger.

 

[WeR0206]

I think the reason I wasn't tracking clear is that even though I mentioned GRT upthread, in this talk on neck length/case trimming, I meant functionally -- rather than how GRT is written or what GRT assumes.

For sure in GRT if you make the case shorter it makes your combustion chamber smaller. At least that is what I have noticed as well. GRT doesn't seem to consider what I was talking about with the point that the neck being longer doesn't have to mean the case combustion chamber is bigger.

All good. We’re on the same page. In the real world if there is a difference im not a good enough shooter to see it but id be curious if any of the f-class or benchrest dudes here or at accurate shooter worry about variances in bullet overall length, case neck length, etc

I guess if one was inclined, they could test it out. You could sort bullets by overall length and into maybe three or four buckets and then shoot groups and see if there’s any meaningful difference between the groups probably have to do at least 10 to 20 round groups for each of them so you need a lot of bullets, but it would be interesting. I would then do a separate round of testing but this time sorting/grouping based on bullet base to ogive.

 

[flogxal]

The neck length thing was something I noticed because 1x fired brass and 2x fired brass sometimes measured differently, suggesting full expansion to my rifle's chamber didn't happen at 1x every time.

I use a Frankford Arsenal multi-station brass prep machine with a trimmer that adjusts off the shoulder for depth. The post-trimming left me with strange results, consistency wise. Some cases the trimmer barely grazed the case mouth. Some cases it trimmed up quickly. Some, it took extra attention. These were all Hornady 1x fired 6.5 Grendel, shot from the same barrel.

Next batch I did not trim after 1x but waited for 2x firing on the cases. Then the trimmer's work, per case, was more consistent. This made me wonder about neck length as well as shoulder bump requirements and I guess I still wonder about them. And that's why my comments upthread.

 

[WeR0206]

The neck length thing was something I noticed because 1x fired brass and 2x fired brass sometimes measured differently, suggesting full expansion to my rifle's chamber didn't happen at 1x every time.

I use a Frankford Arsenal multi-station brass prep machine with a trimmer that adjusts off the shoulder for depth. The post-trimming left me with strange results, consistency wise. Some cases the trimmer barely grazed the case mouth. Some cases it trimmed up quickly. Some, it took extra attention. These were all Hornady 1x fired 6.5 Grendel, shot from the same barrel.

Next batch I did not trim after 1x but waited for 2x firing on the cases. Then the trimmer's work, per case, was more consistent. This made me wonder about neck length as well as shoulder bump requirements and I guess I still wonder about them. And that's why my comments upthread.

This is why I use trimmers that index off the bottom of the case (I use the cheap lee cutter with case holder and gauge) instead of the shoulder. There are others that index off the case head besides the lee (most micrometer trimmers, henderson 3 in 1) but I dont shoot enough to justify the spend

 

[memilanuk]

id be curious if any of the f-class or benchrest dudes here or at accurate shooter worry about variances in bullet overall length, case neck length, etc

Bullet OAL, yes. Easy way to reduce BC variability.

Case neck length... yes, but mainly out of OCD

 

[WeR0206]

Bullet OAL, yes. Easy way to reduce BC variability.

Case neck length... yes, but mainly out of OCD

Thanks. Yep, I completely forgot to mention BC variability from different bullet OAL. That’s probably up there with bullet weight sorting maybe even more important?

I was curious if bullet base to ogive or bullet OAL would be better indicators of BC so I threw it at AI expecting it to say OAL but here’s what it spit out, pretty much said both are important but BTO is a better indicator…
————————————-
You're absolutely right to point out that longer bullets generally tend to have higher ballistic coefficients (BCs). This is because a longer, more streamlined bullet, especially one with a tapered nose (ogive) and possibly a boat tail, will cut through the air more efficiently and experience less drag.

However, simply relying on the bullet's overall length (OAL) as the sole or best indicator of its BC can be misleading for a couple of key reasons:

1. OAL includes the tip: The OAL measurement goes from the bullet's base to its very tip. Bullet tips, especially those with small meplats (the flat area at the very tip), can have slight variations in size or shape that affect the OAL without necessarily reflecting the bullet's ogive shape.
2. Ogive is the primary aerodynamic factor:The ogive, the curved portion of the bullet's nose, is what primarily determines how well it cuts through the air. A bullet's length is relevant to BC because longer bullets tend to have a more elongated and aerodynamic ogive.
3. CBTO reflects the ogive more directly:Measuring the distance from the bullet's base to a consistent point on the ogive (CBTO) provides a more reliable assessment of the bullet's aerodynamic efficiency than the OAL measurement.

In short:

• Longer bullets tend to have higher BCs because of their shape, particularly their ogive.
• CBTO is a more accurate indicator of a bullet's BC because it focuses on the critical ogive shape.
• OAL can be affected by tip variations that may not have a significant impact on BC.

So while there's a strong correlation between bullet length and BC, CBTO is the more direct and reliable measurement when trying to assess the potential for consistent ballistic performance, especially at longer ranges.

 

[memilanuk]

Bullet weight sorting is next to useless IMO, outside of finding the odd bullet of the completely wrong caliber / weight class. Assuming of course, *good* bullets ie Berger

 

[memilanuk]

Is bullet BTO 'better' than OAL, in a purely technical sense? Probably. That's been hashed out many times, years ago. Go search some of Litz's posts on AccurateShooter.com. If you have unlimited time, and patience, go for it.

Back when, I used to have a set of digital calipers paired with a phone app that made it relatively easy to 'bin' bullets by multiple measurements. The traditional way would be to sort all the bullets by one metric, say, bins of 0.003" for OAL, and then go back and measure all of those batches again and sort them by BTO of say, 0.001". With the fancy calipers and app, you set those parameters, measure a bullet once for OAL, tap the button on the screen, measure it again for BTO, tap the screen again, and it tells you which bin to stick it in ("B", for example). Rinse and repeat. I could do a few hundred at a time before my fingers would get raw from the calipers, so it took a few days to do a seasons worth of bullets eg 2-3k. At the end, you had a bunch of nicely binned projectiles, all uniformly sorted by BTO and OAL. I'd use the outliers for things like load development, sighters, foulers, and save the bigger batches near the middle for serious matches - there were usually a number of batches in there that were plenty big enough for a bigger tournament like FCNC or SWN, or at least big enough to put all the same 'bin' into one ammo box. Worst case, I could just run them consecutively, from one ammo box into the next, and use them up accordingly - there really wasn't enough difference from one bin to the next to worry about, since the outliers were already gotten rid of.

Sadly, that device/app went the way of the dodo. Very very few people actually used it. An enterprising individual could probably cobble something together that would do much the same thing, between a set of nice (ie expensive) Mitutoyo calipers with a data cable and a laptop running Excel. Take a reading, tap the switch to enter it into the cell, take another reading, etc. and have the formulae set to compare against some pre-set parameters (bin size, etc.) and spit out a result/recommendation in another cell. Rinse and repeat.

Or... just sort by OAL into bins of 0.003-0.005" with a set of calipers. It's the cheap, quick and easy way to get 90% of the benefit
for the least amount of work. I gave up on 'perfect' as opposed to 'better' a while ago. I have a limited amount of give-a-shit when it comes to sorting components. 'Perfect' isn't going to perform enough better that 'pretty good' to fix a shitty wind call. It's a sliding scale though, and entirely up to you where that thresh hold is. Are you happy running AeroMatch bullets out of the box as 'good enough'? Then go forth and do. Do you want a little better, out of the box? Run Bergers. If you want even less variability, either sort / point the Bergers or find some full custom projectiles that meet your requirements. At the end of the day, it's your time and money.

 

[Josh Umsted]

Went with bipod and 2x2 clamped to the bench, lowered the comb and extended the bipod another notch.

Read the target. 4 consecutive groups with .30” average vertical dispersion and consistent point of impact. Group 5 is good. POI shift and vertical spread opened up, and there was one heavy bolt lift at max charge, so we don’t care about group 5.

2700 fps looks good.

Thanks for all the help.

 

[WeR0206]

Is bullet BTO 'better' than OAL, in a purely technical sense? Probably. That's been hashed out many times, years ago. Go search some of Litz's posts on AccurateShooter.com. If you have unlimited time, and patience, go for it.

Back when, I used to have a set of digital calipers paired with a phone app that made it relatively easy to 'bin' bullets by multiple measurements. The traditional way would be to sort all the bullets by one metric, say, bins of 0.003" for OAL, and then go back and measure all of those batches again and sort them by BTO of say, 0.001". With the fancy calipers and app, you set those parameters, measure a bullet once for OAL, tap the button on the screen, measure it again for BTO, tap the screen again, and it tells you which bin to stick it in ("B", for example). Rinse and repeat. I could do a few hundred at a time before my fingers would get raw from the calipers, so it took a few days to do a seasons worth of bullets eg 2-3k. At the end, you had a bunch of nicely binned projectiles, all uniformly sorted by BTO and OAL. I'd use the outliers for things like load development, sighters, foulers, and save the bigger batches near the middle for serious matches - there were usually a number of batches in there that were plenty big enough for a bigger tournament like FCNC or SWN, or at least big enough to put all the same 'bin' into one ammo box. Worst case, I could just run them consecutively, from one ammo box into the next, and use them up accordingly - there really wasn't enough difference from one bin to the next to worry about, since the outliers were already gotten rid of.

Sadly, that device/app went the way of the dodo. Very very few people actually used it. An enterprising individual could probably cobble something together that would do much the same thing, between a set of nice (ie expensive) Mitutoyo calipers with a data cable and a laptop running Excel. Take a reading, tap the switch to enter it into the cell, take another reading, etc. and have the formulae set to compare against some pre-set parameters (bin size, etc.) and spit out a result/recommendation in another cell. Rinse and repeat.

Or... just sort by OAL into bins of 0.003-0.005" with a set of calipers. It's the cheap, quick and easy way to get 90% of the benefit
for the least amount of work. I gave up on 'perfect' as opposed to 'better' a while ago. I have a limited amount of give-a-shit when it comes to sorting components. 'Perfect' isn't going to perform enough better that 'pretty good' to fix a shitty wind call. It's a sliding scale though, and entirely up to you where that thresh hold is. Are you happy running AeroMatch bullets out of the box as 'good enough'? Then go forth and do. Do you want a little better, out of the box? Run Bergers. If you want even less variability, either sort / point the Bergers or find some full custom projectiles that meet your requirements. At the end of the day, it's your time and money.

Funny that you mention accurateshooter as I just stumbled across this article:

https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2019/01/bullet-bell-curve-sorting-by-oal-and-other-means

Cool pic showing the normal distribution (use outliers for foulers etc) of bullet measurements

 

[Josh Umsted]

.

Better?

 

[flogxal]

Looks pretty good to me but I have very little time watching others and probably don't know enough to see little things, only big ones.

How did things look through the scope with this setup? How far did the reticle move and did it return to relatively the same spot?

 

[flogxal]

memilanuk, you ever shoot any matches at Deep Creek Range in western MT?

 

[CK1.0]

I wouldn't be careful or be worried about shit because I never load even close to the line where anything to worry about starts. None of that "did a ladder up to signs of pressure and backed off a .5 grain" BS here lol. And, who the fuck is Jeff Siewert and why would we give a shit about what he thinks? Is he the new reloading Jesus or something?

Unless someone's got a name that's hard to pronounce and a degree from MIT, and launches rockets, spaceships, and satellites for a living, IDK if we should care about what they have to say about combustion at all or even think that what they have to say relates to what we do unless they've done it too.

CK, his book is not a snake oil sales pitch, you should read it. Maybe it will be dull old hat to you, maybe not. It's more an explanatory book than a book where he pitches himself as Ultimate Guru. I didn't get any Guru hints at all from the book.

And the reason I emailed him is, he wrote the book and I had Qs about things in there.

But I get your point, there are a lot of folks carving a niche on the internet with mediocre or worse wisdom/skill level, trying to be Wizards of this or that subject. A naive internet user could easily be fooled.

I’m sorry I cussed so much but you hit a nerve when it comes to the “but this guy says…” stuff. Still mean what I said though.

Again, I’ll take it back to guitar, YT is filled with liars who don’t know what they don’t know, or are over impressed with themselves, and people write BS books about stuff that is completely wrong, same forum heresy stuff, things even get similarly religious (guys paying $5k for a pedal that had a certain mythical chip in the circuit, when they can readily buy something sonically identical for $50 and maybe practice a little more) etc.

Yes, some guys are on point to a degree, but mostly it comes down to guys saying “this worked for me therefore it confirms my theories, so this works, this is how you do it, and this will work for you”. Again, caveat emptor.

Meanwhile, a guy like Austin Buschman who says he thinks seating depth doesn’t even really matter (I agree) wins golden bullets and world championships, using the same load for years over many barrels, finishing at the top most of the time lol:

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2023/06/25/the-prs-champs-load-data-reloading-process-austin-buschman-shooter-spotlight-part-3/

For me, as I explained earlier, I’ve just turned a corner where I just try to be the best ammo factory I can be, I pick a speed, pick a CBTO, and whether you grab round #1 or round #300, they’re nearly identical and perform nearly identically downrange and over the chrono. This always leaves me with a load that’ll will group with all 5 touching on good days (and I’m not that good).

Seriously, I think people make this stuff more complicated than it really is.

 

[CK1.0]

Regarding the mechanics of reloading and my original question, I came to grips last night with the fact my trimmer is inadequate. It’s a Lee “deluxe,” recommended by my misguided mentor.

Measuring brass last night, was surprised to find case length very inconsistent with a few approaching max length and a few a little short.

Ran them through the trimmer. Results were still inconsistent. I got most cases trimmed to spec, but the last piece refused to be trimmed. I’m ditching the Lee trimmer and ordering one from little crow.

Seems to me consistent case volume is key, so why not trim every time to be sure?

You don’t need to trim every time, trim them back once, so they’re consistent and maybe once a barrel (or never if you end up tossing the brass or it’s a new same lot of Lapua/Alpha).

Find the shortest one or one that’s SAAMI minimum and trim all of them to the same as that and then forget about it for a long time.

If the brass is all the same lot they should all grow at relatively the same rate of super snail speed and they will take care of themselves, one would truly have to be a moron to not notice them getting too long. That, and most of the nonsense about necks being too short causing any issues are myths (just look at a Dasher). During covid lockdown when we couldn’t get shit I turned Lapua 22-250 into short-necked 6CM and burned out 3 barrels and like 22 firings on that brass and it’s still going strong, I think I trimmed it once. Muy bueno.

Get a drill mounted trimmer like a WFT or the Frankford Arsenal one that indexes off the shoulder and attach it to a DeWalt/Milwaukee, fastest speed, like a hot knife through butter, then put it on a shelf.

 

[Josh Umsted]

I’m sorry I cussed so much but you hit a nerve when it comes to the “but this guy says…” stuff. Still mean what I said though.

Again, I’ll take it back to guitar, YT is filled with liars who don’t know what they don’t know, or are over impressed with themselves, and people write BS books about stuff that is completely wrong, same forum heresy stuff, things even get similarly religious (guys paying $5k for a pedal that had a certain mythical chip in the circuit, when they can readily buy something sonically identical for $50 and maybe practice a little more) etc.

Yes, some guys are on point to a degree, but mostly it comes down to guys saying “this worked for me therefore it confirms my theories, so this works, this is how you do it, and this will work for you”. Again, caveat emptor.

Meanwhile, a guy like Austin Buschman who says he thinks seating depth doesn’t even really matter (I agree) wins golden bullets and world championships, using the same load for years over many barrels, finishing at the top most of the time lol:

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2023/06/25/the-prs-champs-load-data-reloading-process-austin-buschman-shooter-spotlight-part-3/

For me, as I explained earlier, I’ve just turned a corner where I just try to be the best ammo factory I can be, I pick a speed, pick a CBTO, and whether you grab round #1 or round #300, they’re nearly identical and perform nearly identically downrange and over the chrono. This always leaves me with a load that’ll will group with all 5 touching on good days (and I’m not that good).

Seriously, I think people make this stuff more complicated than it really is.

Tone comes from the fingers, not a new pedal. Some pedals are useful. I’d like a pussy melter.

Maybe seating depth doesn’t matter if you have a working load. Consistent seating depth matters, as pressure changes with case volume. GRT will help me reduce COAL to magazine length. I started at .020 off the lands because I wasn’t thinking. If I didn’t know better and seated the bullet ..O20” deeper without adjusting the powder charge, I’d be into a potential overpressure territory. I’ll do a seating depth test, but will focus on what already worked with these bullets and go from there, and it won’t take long.

 

[Josh Umsted]

You don’t need to trim every time, trim them back once, so they’re consistent and maybe once a barrel (or never if you end up tossing the brass or it’s a new same lot of Lapua/Alpha).

Find the shortest one or one that’s SAAMI minimum and trim all of them to the same as that and then forget about it for a long time.

If the brass is all the same lot they should all grow at relatively the same rate of super snail speed and they will take care of themselves, one would truly have to be a moron to not notice them getting too long. That, and most of the nonsense about necks being too short causing any issues are myths (just look at a Dasher). During covid lockdown when we couldn’t get shit I turned Lapua 22-250 into short-necked 6CM and burned out 3 barrels and like 22 firings on that brass and it’s still going strong, I think I trimmed it once. Muy bueno.

Get a drill mounted trimmer like a WFT or the Frankford Arsenal one that indexes off the shoulder and attach it to a DeWalt/Milwaukee, fastest speed, like a hot knife through butter, then put it on a shelf.

Cool. I got most cases trimmed to 2.005 which seemed ro help. Ordered the WFT and hand tool this morning.

 

[flogxal]

CK, I am completely with you on the frustration with fakers, on YT or elsewhere on the internet, selling themselves way above their actual knowledge/skill/experience.

Really, Siewert's book isn't anywhere along those "I have the magic knowledge" sorts of books. It is just an in depth look at how ammunition works, external ballistics and internal ballistics alike. I've read excerpts of Litz's books and Siewert's style is different. For each chapter's topic, the chapter closes with a "war story" containing examples of the topic that chapter covered, examples of real-world tests & results.

He's been a guest on Hornady's podcasts a few times. I found him pretty interesting and that's how I ended up with his book.

I agree that it seems many overthink reloading. I would go back to my summary of what themes recur in reloading, when you are learning it. I mentioned combustion mechanics, and basic chemistry. My guess is that the folks who overthink reloading, they are lacking on one of those two areas, combustion mechanics or chemistry. They also may not be accustomed to thinking spatially and thinking about combustion as a spatial thing, at the same time.