• Watch Out for Scammers!

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

  • The site has been updated!

    If you notice any issues, please let us know below!

    VIEW THREAD

Eric cortina seating depth

mitchparker6

Private
Minuteman
Jun 12, 2018
25
7
I have been reloading for 5-6 years and have just reloaded for fun and to have good quality hunting bullets. Usually find the lands put the bullet a determined length away from the lands and then shoot powder charges in increments of 3-5 bullets. It's been so long since I have found enough time/components to remember the powder charge increments. Finally I have stocked up on enough components that I want to start up again. Watchd Eric cortinas video on seating depth determining the accuracy node and just going off of that. Curious about your guys thoughts? Sounds easier than doing powder charges? Also if anyone has done this do you just choose a powder charge and go with it? Obviously work up to it looking for pressure signs. Looking to find an accurate load for my 300 prc with this method. Thanks!
 
I know nothing about Mr. Cortina

I do know that every time someone tells me they have discovered the “one secret” to any activity or challenge they are always wrong. Optimum performance in any skilled endeavor results from getting many small things correct and consistent.

Only the clueless think they have discovered the clue to solve the riddle that the rest of the world has overlooked.

Again, I have no idea what Mr. Cortina has said or done so not slighting him in any way.
 
I tried it with a new 6x47 barrel, 1000 rds in and haven't had to change anything.
So far so good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonp
I have been reloading for 5-6 years and have just reloaded for fun and to have good quality hunting bullets. Usually find the lands put the bullet a determined length away from the lands and then shoot powder charges in increments of 3-5 bullets. It's been so long since I have found enough time/components to remember the powder charge increments. Finally I have stocked up on enough components that I want to start up again. Watchd Eric cortinas video on seating depth determining the accuracy node and just going off of that. Curious about your guys thoughts? Sounds easier than doing powder charges? Also if anyone has done this do you just choose a powder charge and go with it? Obviously work up to it looking for pressure signs. Looking to find an accurate load for my 300 prc with this method. Thanks!
If you go to 10:35 in the video, you hear him say a powder charge has already been found and he's only dealing with seating depth. You find a powder charge first, then work on seating depths. Accordingly, I like to find a good powder charge first, then work on seating depths. And I like to start somewhere off the lands, though it's not important how far (as Cortina points out that many shooters do very well loading to mag length, whatever that might be).
 
That guy is a joke , and an asshole .
Really, never thought so.. He’s also very good, could that have something to do with your dislike..👍

 
That guy is a joke , and a asshole .
Please elaborate ?
Sounds like he has a new challenger, what are the terms of the challenge ?
1681992664715.png
 
Last edited:
I have found that most times “he’s an asshole” is just code for “He’s smart and I’m stupid.”

Can Eric be annoying? Sure. Is he “wicked smart”? Sure seems that way. I take what I think is relevant and leave the rest. One thing is for sure, he knows more about shooting than I do.

 
That guy is a joke , and a asshole .
He's always been nice to me. Yes, he can be direct, and yes he doesn't accept everyone's theories without challenge, but that is in no way indicative of 'being an asshole'.

He's the guy that you say 'this is how you do XYZ' and he says 'why?'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Speed and Tx_Aggie
I have found that most times “he’s an asshole” is just code for “He’s smart and I’m stupid.”

Can Eric be annoying? Sure. Is he “wicked smart”? Sure seems that way. I take what I think is relevant and leave the rest. One thing is for sure, he knows more about shooting than I do.


But does he like apples?

Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chargerguy
He's always been nice to me. Yes, he can be direct, and yes he doesn't accept everyone's theories without challenge, but that is in no way indicative of 'being an asshole'.

He's the guy that you say 'this is how you do XYZ' and he says 'why?'.
I have allways found i get along better with people that are blunt and direct or an asshole as some would call them.
Theres no bullshit or pussy footing around and you allways know were you stand.
 
Eric obviously know his stuff and not just in a theoretical sense but in a practical sense that can be put to use. Never met the guy but he seems very straightforward and willing to share his knowledge. Most notable he gives others credit for teaching him as well, not trying to puff himself up.

Envy is often the impetus for feeling of self doubt when comparing oneself to highly successful individuals. I say give credit where it is due.
 
I stumbled on his methods when i was trying to figure out precision reloading. It gave me a process to follow that has worked every time ive used it. If also never had to retune a load until i switched barrels. The guys literally just telling everyone what he does to win and people with zero accomplishments want to argue...ok
 
Eric obviously know his stuff and not just in a theoretical sense but in a practical sense that can be put to use. Never met the guy but he seems very straightforward and willing to share his knowledge. Most notable he gives others credit for teaching him as well, not trying to puff himself up.

Envy is often the impetus for feeling of self doubt when comparing oneself to highly successful individuals. I say give credit where it is due.
So another words put up or shut up, if you want to call someone out or make un substantiated claims.
Makes sense to me 👍
 
I stumbled on his methods when i was trying to figure out precision reloading. It gave me a process to follow that has worked every time ive used it. If also never had to retune a load until i switched barrels. The guys literally just telling everyone what he does to win and people with zero accomplishments want to argue...ok
He is very forthcoming but I would imagine he is holding some "secret sauce" for himself. For the level of precision the rest of us need his information is incredibly valuable.
 
He is very forthcoming but I would imagine he is holding some "secret sauce" for himself. For the level of precision the rest of us need his information is incredibly valuable.
The more i climb the ladder of shooting matches the less i think anyone is holding back. With prs i can tell someone exactly how to shoot the stage and give them wind calls and most times they wont clean it. Its the mental game that separates the field not load development or gunsmithing. You talk to any pro level shooter and theyll tell you all you want to know about their process. At least thats been my experience.
 
Erik's method for this works. I have tried all the bullshit everyone spews. I learned a method very similar to Erik's when I started reloading almost 20 years ago from Dan Newberry's forum. It worked well for me. When I got into long range shooting and prs matches I thought there were better ways and chased my tail for a long time trying all the cockamamie bullshit everyone likes to crow about. I finally decided to go back to the old way and within a few months came across Erik's video.

People like to make this seem really complicated and claim to have the secret. It makes them feel better if it requires great skill and black magic. The reality is, a lot of people have had this stuff figured out for a long time. There are some things that got held back, but that seems to be changing. Guys like Erik have decided to mentor publicly rather than in the back corner of a dark room in a hush hush manner. Try what people suggest and take what works and win. Ignore what doesn't work.

We like to discuss shooting and reloading on the internet because it takes less time, money, and effort than actually doing it. To get to the top level you need to spend sums of time, money, and effort that are completely irresponsible unless you are independently wealthy and have no family. For those reasons I still like to discuss it on the internet, but in the times when I have decided to be completely irresponsible with my time and money, I have learned a great deal about what works and what doesn't.
 
His process works. It brakes it down into a systematic approach that makes it difficult to mess up.
He's got more videos out there explaining load development. Watch them all. I have modified his method a bit and it's working for me.

I have seen him get pissy when confronted with new information or techniques that contradict what he says.
His attitude definitely comes out from time to time
Also a bit full of himself but he's got a lot more medals than most.
 
Really, never thought so.. He’s also very good, could that have something to do with your dislike..👍

He gets his shit pushed in at PRS matches by garbage men and people who shoot 1/100th as much as he does.
 
The most important thing about reloading if you want results is to use top quality components (such as Lapua and Berger), using reloading components that produce consistent results, and generally trying to be as consistent as possible.

There's no black magic to reloading. There's no magical powder charge or magical bullet seating depth. For the most parts, so-called "nodes" are a myth. The more I reload and shoot, the more BS and lore I realize there is around reloading.

Use high quality components. Use good reloading gear. Be consistent in your process and techniques.
 
The most important thing about reloading if you want results is to use top quality components (such as Lapua and Berger), using reloading components that produce consistent results, and generally trying to be as consistent as possible.

There's no black magic to reloading. There's no magical powder charge or magical bullet seating depth. For the most parts, so-called "nodes" are a myth. The more I reload and shoot, the more BS and lore I realize there is around reloading.

Use high quality components. Use good reloading gear. Be consistent in your process and techniques.
I came to the same conclusion.
 
Seem apparent you are a coward , and little fanboy of that poser .
If you were to contribute something substantive to the conversation, other than an opinion, I’d give you consideration for same, in spite of a difference of views. Coward?…Nah.
 
Consistency in reloading is as important as Consistency in shooting fundamentals if you're chasing small groups, especially at distance. That being said; there are some reloading practices that have obviously helped some shooters that already had consistency.

20 years ago, I never knew my distance to the lands on any of my "precision rifles". I just arbitrarily loaded SMKs .020/.030 COL over what the reloading manuals said (.308/.223) and got surprisingly good results playing with charge weights only. * I will caveat here and say that my definition of "surprisingly good" was consistent .5 MOA performance with factory barreled actions at 100 and 200 yards.

Now, I develop loads in a similar process to Erik's by chance. Why? Because I'm after group aggregates that are better than what I used to consider good ^. Not because I'm a competitor of any kind. I appreciate each of the competitive disciplines for different reasons.

I just have the means and the time to screw around with reloading practices, and have found *for me* that there are things like seating depth windows where groups tighten up. Is the tenth or two worth it to you and your discipline? YMMV.
 
Consistency in reloading is as important as Consistency in shooting fundamentals if you're chasing small groups, especially at distance. That being said; there are some reloading practices that have obviously helped some shooters that already had consistency.

20 years ago, I never knew my distance to the lands on any of my "precision rifles". I just arbitrarily loaded SMKs .020/.030 COL over what the reloading manuals said (.308/.223) and got surprisingly good results playing with charge weights only. * I will caveat here and say that my definition of "surprisingly good" was consistent .5 MOA performance with factory barreled actions at 100 and 200 yards.

Now, I develop loads in a similar process to Erik's by chance. Why? Because I'm after group aggregates that are better than what I used to consider good ^. Not because I'm a competitor of any kind. I appreciate each of the competitive disciplines for different reasons.

I just have the means and the time to screw around with reloading practices, and have found *for me* that there are things like seating depth windows where groups tighten up. Is the tenth or two worth it to you and your discipline? YMMV.

Each individual should develop their own processes and procedures that work for them.

I too thought seating depth made a big difference, and that there is magical seating depth nodes where the rifle will shoot better. I don't chase lands and I find that my rifle shoots every bit as good as it did on day 1.

The more I reload and shoot the less convinced that there is any exact depth that a bullet shoots best. I don't believe that you will tighten up your aggregate groups by adjusting the seating depth by a few thou. However, there may be big swings in seating depth that produces pretty different results.

I don't chase lands, so my seating depth has technically changed by a few thou when in relation to the lands. Still shoots great. Maybe it's because they are Berger Hybrids, and other projectiles like SMK's would be much loss tolerant of land erosion.
 
Mr Cortina’s equipment and trigger pulling experience allows him to see variance in different load configurations that me as a Factory rifle shooter just can’t see .
Much of the discontent that comes his way is from people that don’t have the skills and equipment to replicate his findings so they immediately declare it Cow excrement.
So with that in mind I have to remind myself often that he and I are playing different games and often what he is aiming to achieve is unrelated/ unattainable for my setup/ requirements .
If I can get a Factory Howa/ Tikka consistently shooting 0.5 moa then I’ve really achieved something , most of the time 0.75 moa is a more realistic and truthful outcome.
What I’m trying to say is the vast majority of people here don’t have the skills and equipment to verify or disclaim his findings , they would be better off sifting through his information and trying to find a couple of Gems that relate to their own situation rather than dismissing it entirely.
 
Mr Cortina’s equipment and trigger pulling experience allows him to see variance in different load configurations that me as a Factory rifle shooter just can’t see .
Much of the discontent that comes his way is from people that don’t have the skills and equipment to replicate his findings so they immediately declare it Cow excrement.
So with that in mind I have to remind myself often that he and I are playing different games and often what he is aiming to achieve is unrelated/ unattainable for my setup/ requirements .
If I can get a Factory Howa/ Tikka consistently shooting 0.5 moa then I’ve really achieved something , most of the time 0.75 moa is a more realistic and truthful outcome.
What I’m trying to say is the vast majority of people here don’t have the skills and equipment to verify or disclaim his findings , they would be better off sifting through his information and trying to find a couple of Gems that relate to their own situation.

While I agree with some of the sentiments of this post, I also think people assign too much value at times to other people's opinions just because they are better trigger pullers.

I love that Erik Cortina willingly shares his knowledge, I think as a community we are better off for it. He's obviously a very talented shooter, and has learned many things on his journey as a shooter that he shares with the shooting community. I'm grateful that we have people like Erik Cortina who participate in the shooting sports.

That said, much of the opinions that are formed by Erik Cortina and pretty much everyone else in this sport is based off of low quality observational data (not an insult at anyone, its just a fact that all of us shooters and reloaders are contending with). Yes, some shooters have the skillset and equipment to reduce variables more so than other shooters, but the data we are all working off of (including EC) is very much incomplete and prone to biases and flaws. Working off of such incomplete data encourages us to form conclusions that may not actually be true.

So while EC has a lot of experience and is very knowledgeable, I don't think anything he's determined through his own experience and testing is dispositive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AFancyPenguin
Each individual should develop their own processes and procedures that work for them.

I too thought seating depth made a big difference, and that there is magical seating depth nodes where the rifle will shoot better. I don't chase lands and I find that my rifle shoots every bit as good as it did on day 1.

The more I reload and shoot the less convinced that there is any exact depth that a bullet shoots best. I don't believe that you will tighten up your aggregate groups by adjusting the seating depth by a few thou. However, there may be big swings in seating depth that produces pretty different results.

I don't chase lands, so my seating depth has technically changed by a few thou when in relation to the lands. Still shoots great. Maybe it's because they are Berger Hybrids, and other projectiles like SMK's would be much loss tolerant of land erosion.

I definitely don't chase lands either, however my experience has been that there are definitely seating depths that work better for each bullet/cartridge that I've ever experimented with.

Sometimes there are big windows of consistency as you note...sometimes not. My latest 6.5x47 is unfortunately the latter. It has a window about .005 wide (long) with the 120gr Scenar-L where it throws consistent .4s, and the occasional .3 after I got my charge weight figured out. Going above or below that window by just a couple thousandths and the rifle becomes 3/4 MOA.

To the guys who shoot consistent groups across .025 of seating depth...I'm jealous.
 
I definitely don't chase lands either, however my experience has been that there are definitely seating depths that work better for each bullet/cartridge that I've ever experimented with.

Sometimes there are big windows of consistency as you note...sometimes not. My latest 6.5x47 is unfortunately the latter. It has a window about .005 wide with the 120gr Scenar-L where it throws consistent .4s, and the occasional .3 after I got my charge weight figured out. Going above or below that window by just a couple thousandths and the rifle becomes 3/4 MOA.

To the guys who shoot consistent groups across .025 of seating depth...I'm jealous.

The problem with bullet seating depth tests like what you've attached is that such tests have statistically insignificant sample sizes. You can't draw dispositive conclusions from such small sample sizes.

I used to do such bullet seating depth testing all the time. Then I purchased the first generation of RDF projectiles and those bullets illuminated to me how useless such tests can be. I would shoot 3 shot groups testing each bullet seating depth, and shoot some ridiculously small groups. Under 1/10 MOA. I thought I had a winner. Loaded up a bunch of ammo to that specific bullet seating depth and couldn't get a 5 round group under 0.75 MOA. That bullet seating depth was in reality was 1+ MOA, not 1/10 MOA like the bullet seating depth indicated.
 
That said, there probably is something to seating depths and how they influence precision. I just think the windows are much wider than some proclaim them to be.

I've learned that I don't have to test seating depths with Berger Hybrids. I load them 10 thou off the lands and maintain that COAL throughout the life of the barrel. I aim to produce as consistent ammo as possible, I don't ever really think how far the ogive is to the lands.
 
The problem with bullet seating depth tests like what you've attached is that such tests have statistically insignificant sample sizes. You can't draw dispositive conclusions from such small sample sizes.

I used to do such bullet seating depth testing all the time. Then I purchased the first generation of RDF projectiles and those bullets illuminated to me how useless such tests can be. I would shoot 3 shot groups testing each bullet seating depth, and shoot some ridiculously small groups. Under 1/10 MOA. I thought I had a winner. Loaded up a bunch of ammo to that specific bullet seating depth and couldn't get a 5 round group under 0.75 MOA. That bullet seating depth was in reality was 1+ MOA, not 1/10 MOA like the bullet seating depth indicated.

Please don't assume everyone shoots three shots and calls it good. I learned the hard way like you did that three-shot groups aren't statistically significant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas