Question for the more experienced shooters: When we as reloaders strive to tailor the loading for our rifle, bullet and powder...searching hard to find the OCW where .3 grs +/- (in the .308 and +/- .5 gr in a bigger hammer), so that the variation of all rounds fired hit in the same vertical plane out to 600 or 800 yards...what possible benefit can loading to a weighed 1 or 2 kernels of powder have in the results on target? Have any of you ever tried to do a blind testing on target of the above? How about a couple of you Master shooters try grouping (20 rounds) your certified OCW load with weighed charges v/s measured (dropped) charges at 600 yards, with an impartial observer passing out the loaded rounds and NO peeking at the target until a group of 20 rounds has been fired? Report back here. JMHO
- Thread starter former naval person
- Start date
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
I have. LR is the place where extra effort pays off, as you mentioned, in reduced vertical spread.
I have determined that case volume consistency, precise charge weight, and some manner of neck tension management will deliver the greatest advantage for the least effort expended.
I measure case volume by overcharging each case after the first firing with the powder I'll be using, then sorting cases by the resulting charge weights. IMHO, this is the only truly direct method of measuring case capacity, all other methods are indirect.
I overcharge each case by about a grain, dump to the scale tray, pinch out and trickle back kernels until the proper weight is attained, and recharge each case using a drop tube. Excess powder gets returned to the hopper.
I manage neck tension with my F/L dies by backing off the die until only the end portion of the neck is actually resized smaller. I reestablish this length each reloading cycle by seating a bullet in a dummy case and attempting to rotate the bullet in the neck using only a thumb and forefinger. I start with too little tension, and stop whan I have increased the resized neck length so the rotation does not occur. I have determined that less neck tension is better, and have arbitrarily decided on a way to determine it's minimum acceptable value. This method is an approach, but still pays no attention to individual case/bullet variations.
I am a minimalist handloader, and have determined that perfection is not a reasonable goal, but some extra measures are worth the effort.
Greg
I have. LR is the place where extra effort pays off, as you mentioned, in reduced vertical spread.
I have determined that case volume consistency, precise charge weight, and some manner of neck tension management will deliver the greatest advantage for the least effort expended.
I measure case volume by overcharging each case after the first firing with the powder I'll be using, then sorting cases by the resulting charge weights. IMHO, this is the only truly direct method of measuring case capacity, all other methods are indirect.
I overcharge each case by about a grain, dump to the scale tray, pinch out and trickle back kernels until the proper weight is attained, and recharge each case using a drop tube. Excess powder gets returned to the hopper.
I manage neck tension with my F/L dies by backing off the die until only the end portion of the neck is actually resized smaller. I reestablish this length each reloading cycle by seating a bullet in a dummy case and attempting to rotate the bullet in the neck using only a thumb and forefinger. I start with too little tension, and stop whan I have increased the resized neck length so the rotation does not occur. I have determined that less neck tension is better, and have arbitrarily decided on a way to determine it's minimum acceptable value. This method is an approach, but still pays no attention to individual case/bullet variations.
I am a minimalist handloader, and have determined that perfection is not a reasonable goal, but some extra measures are worth the effort.
Greg
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Sorry Greg. But do I try for perfect. But I'll accept close. When I go to shoot, I want to eliminate everything but my inadequacies. Whether its plinking at 100 yards, shooting game at any range or punching paper at longer ranges. Anything over 300 yards I'll be weighing every charge. ALMOST everything 300 yards and under, I can throw with my Harrell's powder measure.
But then everybody is basically a little different. No matter how alike we are. We can still agree to disagree.
Sorry Greg. But do I try for perfect. But I'll accept close. When I go to shoot, I want to eliminate everything but my inadequacies. Whether its plinking at 100 yards, shooting game at any range or punching paper at longer ranges. Anything over 300 yards I'll be weighing every charge. ALMOST everything 300 yards and under, I can throw with my Harrell's powder measure.
But then everybody is basically a little different. No matter how alike we are. We can still agree to disagree.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Victor;
I'm not at all sure we're in disagreement. My only real quibble with perfection is that I honestly don't believe it's truly attainable; and like you, I'm willing to settle for some lesser imperfection.
For time and treasure implications; I am rather starkly forced to draw some lines. I chose to draw them in a manner which marginalizes methods which deliver less return on investment. I understand that some of the reasons this is so is that I plainly suck at them. But whatever the reason, it's a matter of affording, rather than any kind of whimsical volition.
With all due respect, my own shortcomings are such that even choirs of angels bearing gilded lillies couldn't help me anyway.
Carry on regardless...!
Greg
Victor;
I'm not at all sure we're in disagreement. My only real quibble with perfection is that I honestly don't believe it's truly attainable; and like you, I'm willing to settle for some lesser imperfection.
For time and treasure implications; I am rather starkly forced to draw some lines. I chose to draw them in a manner which marginalizes methods which deliver less return on investment. I understand that some of the reasons this is so is that I plainly suck at them. But whatever the reason, it's a matter of affording, rather than any kind of whimsical volition.
With all due respect, my own shortcomings are such that even choirs of angels bearing gilded lillies couldn't help me anyway.
Carry on regardless...!
Greg
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Then we, in fact, do agree. How about that?
Then we, in fact, do agree. How about that?
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
...like I said...
...like I said...
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
For me at least, there comes a time when the money or time involved has to be weighed against any improvement real or imagined. I'm at the point in my life that I'll accept a .090" 5 shot group at 100 yards instead of .060"
For me at least, there comes a time when the money or time involved has to be weighed against any improvement real or imagined. I'm at the point in my life that I'll accept a .090" 5 shot group at 100 yards instead of .060"
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
The next time I see either will be my first. On <span style="font-style: italic">my</span> target anyway.
For F Class, I consider 1/2MOA at 100yd, 1MOA at 200yd, and 2MOA at 1000yd to be doing good, for my part, and better than I usually do.
I despair of achieving true BR accuracy standards.
This, however, should be of no consequence to the OP.
Nits are made for the picking, and it's all a matter of pick and choose.
Greg
The next time I see either will be my first. On <span style="font-style: italic">my</span> target anyway.
For F Class, I consider 1/2MOA at 100yd, 1MOA at 200yd, and 2MOA at 1000yd to be doing good, for my part, and better than I usually do.
I despair of achieving true BR accuracy standards.
This, however, should be of no consequence to the OP.
Nits are made for the picking, and it's all a matter of pick and choose.
Greg
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
I've tested this at 600yd. It's powder dependent in my experience.
With thrown charges of BLC-2 under a 75 Amax, my 223 will hold about 3.5" vertical. With trickled charges I get right about 3.5" vertical.
I did it again with H3335 and some 55 Blitzkings, 4.0" trickled, 4.5" thrown. The 0.5" difference is not significant in the load, IMO, it was the shooter chunking out a different group more than anything.
If I do the same with IMR4064, I get 6-7" vertical on the thrown loads and 3-3.5" with trickled loads.
I attribute this, and then tested the theory, by throwing 20 charges of BLC-2 with the thrower set at my 26.0gr sweet spot load. The BLC-2 ranged from 25.95-26.05gr (I can only read to +/-.05gr on my balance).
The trickled charges are obviously all dialed as close to 26.0 as I can get.
With the IMR4064 that ES of thrown weights is 25.6-26.3gr. Those big linkin' logs don't meter well.
I tried this again with RL-22 loads in my 30-06. Again, similar results, the rifle shot 4.5" vertical with thrown charges and 2.0" with trickled charges. RL-22 is a chunky powder as well. Not what I4064 or I4350 are, but you get the idea.
Last batch I tried this with was the 260 Rem shooting 45.4gr of IMR4350 under a 123 Amax. I only did it at 300yd because the mirage was terrible that day and I was having a hard time resolving my 1" orange target paster past 400y.
Thrown charges, 10 rounds shot 3.5" vertical. Trickled loads shot 1.25" vertical.
What I've taken from this is that I trickle stick powders and throw ball powders.
I've tested this at 600yd. It's powder dependent in my experience.
With thrown charges of BLC-2 under a 75 Amax, my 223 will hold about 3.5" vertical. With trickled charges I get right about 3.5" vertical.
I did it again with H3335 and some 55 Blitzkings, 4.0" trickled, 4.5" thrown. The 0.5" difference is not significant in the load, IMO, it was the shooter chunking out a different group more than anything.
If I do the same with IMR4064, I get 6-7" vertical on the thrown loads and 3-3.5" with trickled loads.
I attribute this, and then tested the theory, by throwing 20 charges of BLC-2 with the thrower set at my 26.0gr sweet spot load. The BLC-2 ranged from 25.95-26.05gr (I can only read to +/-.05gr on my balance).
The trickled charges are obviously all dialed as close to 26.0 as I can get.
With the IMR4064 that ES of thrown weights is 25.6-26.3gr. Those big linkin' logs don't meter well.
I tried this again with RL-22 loads in my 30-06. Again, similar results, the rifle shot 4.5" vertical with thrown charges and 2.0" with trickled charges. RL-22 is a chunky powder as well. Not what I4064 or I4350 are, but you get the idea.
Last batch I tried this with was the 260 Rem shooting 45.4gr of IMR4350 under a 123 Amax. I only did it at 300yd because the mirage was terrible that day and I was having a hard time resolving my 1" orange target paster past 400y.
Thrown charges, 10 rounds shot 3.5" vertical. Trickled loads shot 1.25" vertical.
What I've taken from this is that I trickle stick powders and throw ball powders.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
I read a fairly interesting article in Precision Shooting I think. They tested weighed charges against dropped charges. The weighed charges were of course more uniform. The suprising thing was the dropped charges shot better. Came down to the more uniform placement of powder in the case as I recall. I now drop all mine through a long drop tube from the Chargemaster, Harrel or Promethius depending on powder.
I read a fairly interesting article in Precision Shooting I think. They tested weighed charges against dropped charges. The weighed charges were of course more uniform. The suprising thing was the dropped charges shot better. Came down to the more uniform placement of powder in the case as I recall. I now drop all mine through a long drop tube from the Chargemaster, Harrel or Promethius depending on powder.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
A few months back, I went down to Douglas Ridge Rifle Range for some LR practice with friends and did some testing along the way. Target was a LR-FC @ 1k, pulled and marked every shot. I started out trying to plot as I shot, but it was just pissing down rain (even a Sharpie wouldn't write) so I just kept shooting, trying to keep a mental image of what worked and what didn't. Took a couple breaks so another person could shoot their gun. When we were done, I found that the target puller had numbered each paster as he put them on, and when he brought the target center back we were able to see which shots were whose, and from what string. I took the target home, and back-plotted each string (of mine) onto a plot sheet, scanned the images and reversed the images (negative) to make them more easily readable, and finally exported them as PDFs for emailing.
Here are some links to the plots:
Plot #1 - Control rounds + unsorted bullets + Chargemaster
Plot #2 - Charges +/-0.01gr + bullets sorted by bearing surface, meplat uniformed then pointed
Plot #3 - Charges +/- 0.01gr + bullets sorted by bearing surface, pointed then meplat uniformed
Actually, I think the plotting afterwards like this is more accurate than plotting during the string... less likely to be overly 'optimistic' about where the shot actually landed.
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you like.
A few months back, I went down to Douglas Ridge Rifle Range for some LR practice with friends and did some testing along the way. Target was a LR-FC @ 1k, pulled and marked every shot. I started out trying to plot as I shot, but it was just pissing down rain (even a Sharpie wouldn't write) so I just kept shooting, trying to keep a mental image of what worked and what didn't. Took a couple breaks so another person could shoot their gun. When we were done, I found that the target puller had numbered each paster as he put them on, and when he brought the target center back we were able to see which shots were whose, and from what string. I took the target home, and back-plotted each string (of mine) onto a plot sheet, scanned the images and reversed the images (negative) to make them more easily readable, and finally exported them as PDFs for emailing.
Here are some links to the plots:
Plot #1 - Control rounds + unsorted bullets + Chargemaster
Plot #2 - Charges +/-0.01gr + bullets sorted by bearing surface, meplat uniformed then pointed
Plot #3 - Charges +/- 0.01gr + bullets sorted by bearing surface, pointed then meplat uniformed
Actually, I think the plotting afterwards like this is more accurate than plotting during the string... less likely to be overly 'optimistic' about where the shot actually landed.
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you like.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
I posted in a thread over a year ago about an experiment that I did to find out if I was wasting my time weighing every charge as carefully as I possibly could. After my test I came to the conclusion that if your load has charge weight tolerance then squabbling over a couple of kernels is a waste of time.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">A copy and paste from my post from a year and a half ago:</span></span>
As an experiment for my own curiosity, I CAREFULLY loaded 10 rounds with my load of 46.1 grains of Varget behind 155 Scenars. I then PURPOSELY loaded 15 rounds with 46.0gr (marked the cases with a - symbol), and then 10 rounds of 46.2gr (marked the cases with a + symbol). Went to the range the next day to test them across the Chrony and on paper at 1000 yards. All charges were dispensed on my RCBS charge master and then double checked on my RCBS 505 before they were dumped into the case.
I first fired 2 5 shot groups with the "carefully" loaded rounds and made notes in log book about velocity, ES, SD, and what they did on paper (focusing on vertical spread). I then sent 5, five shot groups with the sloppy loaded rounds firing a + bullet and a - bullet while logging the velocity of each round in my log book (so each group would have looked like this -,+,-,+,- or +,-,+,-,+).
Not only was there no noticeable difference in velocity between the + and - rounds, but the Velocity, ES, and SD was the same as the "carefully" loaded rounds. Also, the groups from the "sloppy" loads were identical in size and vertical spread at 1000 yards to the "carefully" loaded rounds.
Basically getting to .001 of a grain is going to be more time consuming than anything else and will most likely make no difference on paper or across the chrony. According to my scale 4 to 5 kernels of varget makes .1 grain.
I posted in a thread over a year ago about an experiment that I did to find out if I was wasting my time weighing every charge as carefully as I possibly could. After my test I came to the conclusion that if your load has charge weight tolerance then squabbling over a couple of kernels is a waste of time.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">A copy and paste from my post from a year and a half ago:</span></span>
As an experiment for my own curiosity, I CAREFULLY loaded 10 rounds with my load of 46.1 grains of Varget behind 155 Scenars. I then PURPOSELY loaded 15 rounds with 46.0gr (marked the cases with a - symbol), and then 10 rounds of 46.2gr (marked the cases with a + symbol). Went to the range the next day to test them across the Chrony and on paper at 1000 yards. All charges were dispensed on my RCBS charge master and then double checked on my RCBS 505 before they were dumped into the case.
I first fired 2 5 shot groups with the "carefully" loaded rounds and made notes in log book about velocity, ES, SD, and what they did on paper (focusing on vertical spread). I then sent 5, five shot groups with the sloppy loaded rounds firing a + bullet and a - bullet while logging the velocity of each round in my log book (so each group would have looked like this -,+,-,+,- or +,-,+,-,+).
Not only was there no noticeable difference in velocity between the + and - rounds, but the Velocity, ES, and SD was the same as the "carefully" loaded rounds. Also, the groups from the "sloppy" loads were identical in size and vertical spread at 1000 yards to the "carefully" loaded rounds.
Basically getting to .001 of a grain is going to be more time consuming than anything else and will most likely make no difference on paper or across the chrony. According to my scale 4 to 5 kernels of varget makes .1 grain.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
/awaits the response from Prometheus owners.
/awaits the response from Prometheus owners.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Hate to break it to ya... but after weighing a few thousand rounds thrown by a Chargemaster 1500 across first an Acculab MX-123 (advertised +/- 0.02, if you buy that) and then later a Sartorius GD-503 (advertised +/-0.01, reads out to 0.005gn)... your Chargemaster results probably +/- 0.1gn about 95% of the time (+/- 2 std dev) and +/- .12gn if you wanted to get real picky (+/- 3 SD, or 99.7%). So your carefully weighed charges that are + 0.1gn or -0.1gn may or may not actually be plus or minus anything compared to the 'control' load.
Add to that most consumer grade chronographs are not even close to as accurate as the consumer grade scales are... and the whole thing becomes somewhat of a crap shoot. Trust me, I wish it were otherwise.
I would be interested in the actual vertical dispersion numbers, though. I know I'd wondered after the test I described above if the results would have been different if the test had been performed as the OP described - truly 'double blind' where the shooter was just handed rounds of ammo to fire in a random order, and the person handing him the ammo only knew that these were batch 'A', 'B', 'C', etc. but had no idea which batch was the control lot and which batches were testing which variables until after the data collection was complete. Anything else leaves some room for questions of external influence.
Monte
Hate to break it to ya... but after weighing a few thousand rounds thrown by a Chargemaster 1500 across first an Acculab MX-123 (advertised +/- 0.02, if you buy that) and then later a Sartorius GD-503 (advertised +/-0.01, reads out to 0.005gn)... your Chargemaster results probably +/- 0.1gn about 95% of the time (+/- 2 std dev) and +/- .12gn if you wanted to get real picky (+/- 3 SD, or 99.7%). So your carefully weighed charges that are + 0.1gn or -0.1gn may or may not actually be plus or minus anything compared to the 'control' load.
Add to that most consumer grade chronographs are not even close to as accurate as the consumer grade scales are... and the whole thing becomes somewhat of a crap shoot. Trust me, I wish it were otherwise.
I would be interested in the actual vertical dispersion numbers, though. I know I'd wondered after the test I described above if the results would have been different if the test had been performed as the OP described - truly 'double blind' where the shooter was just handed rounds of ammo to fire in a random order, and the person handing him the ammo only knew that these were batch 'A', 'B', 'C', etc. but had no idea which batch was the control lot and which batches were testing which variables until after the data collection was complete. Anything else leaves some room for questions of external influence.
Monte
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Exactly.
Exactly.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Invariably the weather conditions conspire against such a test... crappy conditions make it very difficult to shoot accurately to begin with, and you'd probably have to have an even larger sample size 'n' for each lot to be able to (hopefully) drop the outliers as most likely being environmentally skewed... and do some prior planning so as to randomize the order in which rounds were fired so as to spread out the effects of barrel heating and fouling... but if you had someone handy with DOE (design of experiment) software you might be able to knock down the sample sizes considerably...
Invariably the weather conditions conspire against such a test... crappy conditions make it very difficult to shoot accurately to begin with, and you'd probably have to have an even larger sample size 'n' for each lot to be able to (hopefully) drop the outliers as most likely being environmentally skewed... and do some prior planning so as to randomize the order in which rounds were fired so as to spread out the effects of barrel heating and fouling... but if you had someone handy with DOE (design of experiment) software you might be able to knock down the sample sizes considerably...
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
You mean spending 5k on a scale isn't going to make me shoot any better?
/sarcasm
You mean spending 5k on a scale isn't going to make me shoot any better?
/sarcasm
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Quick observation from limited experience. It seems to me that lighter bullets are more sensative to powder weight variations. Loading with a Pact dispenser and scale so I expect 25.0 grains can be 24.9 to 25.1. Loading 52's with H335 gave me 3046 to 3146 fps, 100 fps spread. Loading 77's with Varget (24 gn) 2686 to 2738, 52 fps spread. Surprisingly the Black Hills Match ammo ran 43 fps spread and 2830 average. (Federal XM193 ran 70 FPS spread and 3404 average.) I haven't compared the Pact to my 505 yet but I expect them to be similar in error.
Also all groups for the day were similar size, about 1 1/2" but changed Point Of Impact, 77's up an inch and left an inch.
This tells me a) I need to shoot beter from a rest, and b) with basic brass prep my first rifle loads and first reloading in 9 years is equivalent to factory ammo. After all this typing maybe not so quick of an observation.
Quick observation from limited experience. It seems to me that lighter bullets are more sensative to powder weight variations. Loading with a Pact dispenser and scale so I expect 25.0 grains can be 24.9 to 25.1. Loading 52's with H335 gave me 3046 to 3146 fps, 100 fps spread. Loading 77's with Varget (24 gn) 2686 to 2738, 52 fps spread. Surprisingly the Black Hills Match ammo ran 43 fps spread and 2830 average. (Federal XM193 ran 70 FPS spread and 3404 average.) I haven't compared the Pact to my 505 yet but I expect them to be similar in error.
Also all groups for the day were similar size, about 1 1/2" but changed Point Of Impact, 77's up an inch and left an inch.
This tells me a) I need to shoot beter from a rest, and b) with basic brass prep my first rifle loads and first reloading in 9 years is equivalent to factory ammo. After all this typing maybe not so quick of an observation.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Monte, I see your point, and I've never had much faith in the accuracy of my chargemaster anyway. If you double check above, you'll see that I not only weighed them with the Chargemaster but, I double checked them om my RCBS 505 scale (not that it really matters b/c I am sure that the RCBS 505 is only going to be so accurate anyway).
My test method definitely would mot pass any "scientific theory" test. I know there are a lot of holes in my test. I did the test for my own benefit, I was not trying to prove anything to anybody only trying to learn something in the process. With my test results I personally do not feel that I need to worry about less than .1gr difference in charge weight. And after reading your information on the accuracy of that scale, it seems that even if I did try to load to that degree of accuracy, it would be pointless with the equipment that I have...............
The good news is that I'm not trying to set any world records or win any bench-rest matches or shoot for record groups. I'm only trying to hit what I am aiming at. My ammo is more than accurate enough to do that, its me that is the weak link.
For the vertical dispersion numbers I'll have to dig up my notes. Off the top of my head though I remember all of the groups I shot that day were holding about the same amount (about 3/4MOA to 1MOA vertical dispersion). The Carefully weighed charged ammo had the same size groups and VD as the sloppier weighed charges though. This was with a GAP built .308 using 155gr lapua Scenars. The conditions that day were not perfect, but they weren't terrible either.
BTW, with my new rifle (Jon Beanland 6.5x47), even with my less than perfect powder charge method (which has gotten even sloppier recently), a couple of weekends ago the guys working the pit for me on the 1000yard line say that I was holding about 4" of vertical. I can live with that!
Monte, I see your point, and I've never had much faith in the accuracy of my chargemaster anyway. If you double check above, you'll see that I not only weighed them with the Chargemaster but, I double checked them om my RCBS 505 scale (not that it really matters b/c I am sure that the RCBS 505 is only going to be so accurate anyway).
My test method definitely would mot pass any "scientific theory" test. I know there are a lot of holes in my test. I did the test for my own benefit, I was not trying to prove anything to anybody only trying to learn something in the process. With my test results I personally do not feel that I need to worry about less than .1gr difference in charge weight. And after reading your information on the accuracy of that scale, it seems that even if I did try to load to that degree of accuracy, it would be pointless with the equipment that I have...............
The good news is that I'm not trying to set any world records or win any bench-rest matches or shoot for record groups. I'm only trying to hit what I am aiming at. My ammo is more than accurate enough to do that, its me that is the weak link.
For the vertical dispersion numbers I'll have to dig up my notes. Off the top of my head though I remember all of the groups I shot that day were holding about the same amount (about 3/4MOA to 1MOA vertical dispersion). The Carefully weighed charged ammo had the same size groups and VD as the sloppier weighed charges though. This was with a GAP built .308 using 155gr lapua Scenars. The conditions that day were not perfect, but they weren't terrible either.
BTW, with my new rifle (Jon Beanland 6.5x47), even with my less than perfect powder charge method (which has gotten even sloppier recently), a couple of weekends ago the guys working the pit for me on the 1000yard line say that I was holding about 4" of vertical. I can live with that!
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
I have that shooting at 1k shows up any weakness in the gun, ammo, optics, and shooter that exist. I think many of us do what we do in reloading so that we are confident when we pull that trigger. To raise my confidence I have always trickled each and every charge and recently I have gone back to neck turning. My guns are chambered with my own reamers the necks are not tight but I like to clean up the high spots on the brass. Next I will probably sort bullets for ogive length and weight, and sort cases for volume or weight.
Do these additional steps make for better rounds at 1k maybe not but the full combinations is probably going to catch a bad bullet or case that could cost me a match. Am I shooting better, yes, but is that becasue I have more practice, confidence, better ammo, and/or better equipment I do not know. I do know that when I step to the line I have done a pretty good job of preparing for the match and that helps my confidence and that helps my shooting.
My two cents,
wade
I have that shooting at 1k shows up any weakness in the gun, ammo, optics, and shooter that exist. I think many of us do what we do in reloading so that we are confident when we pull that trigger. To raise my confidence I have always trickled each and every charge and recently I have gone back to neck turning. My guns are chambered with my own reamers the necks are not tight but I like to clean up the high spots on the brass. Next I will probably sort bullets for ogive length and weight, and sort cases for volume or weight.
Do these additional steps make for better rounds at 1k maybe not but the full combinations is probably going to catch a bad bullet or case that could cost me a match. Am I shooting better, yes, but is that becasue I have more practice, confidence, better ammo, and/or better equipment I do not know. I do know that when I step to the line I have done a pretty good job of preparing for the match and that helps my confidence and that helps my shooting.
My two cents,
wade
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">/awaits the response from Prometheus owners.
</div></div>
Speed was my goal, the fact that its one kernal accurite every 20 seconds is a plus.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">/awaits the response from Prometheus owners.
</div></div>
Speed was my goal, the fact that its one kernal accurite every 20 seconds is a plus.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Mel- You hit on an excellent point with the vertical dispersion numbers since those are what actually matter.
Shadow brings up a good point that I strive to hit on my rifles: Having a little wiggle room in your charge weight for the MV results is good. The more important thing though is not what the numbers say on the electronic do dads. It's what the target print says.
If you can throw a charge and have 1/2 MOA or less vertical dispersion groups then I think you're doing something successful. This is assuming that the load and the rifle and the driver are capable of such repeatable accuracy.
Minimum populations for these types of tests is really 20 rounds, I did some lazy testing with only 10 rounds as I mentioned above.
If the sweet load on your rifle needs to be within 0.1gr total variance for good groups then you're probably not going to get away with throwing loads from a manual charge thrower. I try to find loads in my rifles that shoot over a little broader range so that I can try to throw the ammo if need be.
Some powders fight you on it, especially the long stick powders like the IMR series adn some of the Reloaders make that a little more difficult.
Mel- You hit on an excellent point with the vertical dispersion numbers since those are what actually matter.
Shadow brings up a good point that I strive to hit on my rifles: Having a little wiggle room in your charge weight for the MV results is good. The more important thing though is not what the numbers say on the electronic do dads. It's what the target print says.
If you can throw a charge and have 1/2 MOA or less vertical dispersion groups then I think you're doing something successful. This is assuming that the load and the rifle and the driver are capable of such repeatable accuracy.
Minimum populations for these types of tests is really 20 rounds, I did some lazy testing with only 10 rounds as I mentioned above.
If the sweet load on your rifle needs to be within 0.1gr total variance for good groups then you're probably not going to get away with throwing loads from a manual charge thrower. I try to find loads in my rifles that shoot over a little broader range so that I can try to throw the ammo if need be.
Some powders fight you on it, especially the long stick powders like the IMR series adn some of the Reloaders make that a little more difficult.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Greg...Having tried most things over the last 55 years of reloading...I still hadn't done it your way...I tried it yesterday. Haven't shot them yet...weather not permitting, but it reduced my bullet measured run out from +/- .003 to +/- .001. Good trick. FNP
Greg...Having tried most things over the last 55 years of reloading...I still hadn't done it your way...I tried it yesterday. Haven't shot them yet...weather not permitting, but it reduced my bullet measured run out from +/- .003 to +/- .001. Good trick. FNP
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Shot them yesterday. 10 each of full neck resizing with a bushing and mouth resizing as you described. Despite the increase in concentricity, the full neck resized group was about half the size of the mouth resized. Evidently, something about the starting pressure curve means more to my rifle than the incremental decrease in runout. Good thought, though. May work better in a different rifle.
Shot them yesterday. 10 each of full neck resizing with a bushing and mouth resizing as you described. Despite the increase in concentricity, the full neck resized group was about half the size of the mouth resized. Evidently, something about the starting pressure curve means more to my rifle than the incremental decrease in runout. Good thought, though. May work better in a different rifle.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
I think the difference in thrown weight/weighed weight is why a true OCW load is so important. This load will not be swayed by 0.2+/-g and will contact with the same POI at long distance due to similar velocities.
I think the difference in thrown weight/weighed weight is why a true OCW load is so important. This load will not be swayed by 0.2+/-g and will contact with the same POI at long distance due to similar velocities.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
I've seen .2 grain difference on the scale but haven't seen the difference on paper. What has made a huge difference for me was attention to neck tension. Getting the tension correct made a big difference on my fps and resultant accuracy. It still amazes me to see some of the factory loads vary in fps but still shoot very well.
I've seen .2 grain difference on the scale but haven't seen the difference on paper. What has made a huge difference for me was attention to neck tension. Getting the tension correct made a big difference on my fps and resultant accuracy. It still amazes me to see some of the factory loads vary in fps but still shoot very well.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: former naval person</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shot them yesterday. 10 each of full neck resizing with a bushing and mouth resizing as you described. Despite the increase in concentricity, the full neck resized group was about half the size of the mouth resized. Evidently, something about the starting pressure curve means more to my rifle than the incremental decrease in runout. Good thought, though. May work better in a different rifle. </div></div>
Different powders will ignite in different ways. But the starting pressures will have a specific effect on the burn of the powder column. Also a lot is dependent on the geometry of the inside of the case. That's why you may have 2 cartridges of equal length and case volume. But the taper of the case and the angle of the shoulder can make a great big difference in accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: former naval person</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shot them yesterday. 10 each of full neck resizing with a bushing and mouth resizing as you described. Despite the increase in concentricity, the full neck resized group was about half the size of the mouth resized. Evidently, something about the starting pressure curve means more to my rifle than the incremental decrease in runout. Good thought, though. May work better in a different rifle. </div></div>
Different powders will ignite in different ways. But the starting pressures will have a specific effect on the burn of the powder column. Also a lot is dependent on the geometry of the inside of the case. That's why you may have 2 cartridges of equal length and case volume. But the taper of the case and the angle of the shoulder can make a great big difference in accuracy.
Re: Long range loading nitpickers
Some may have missed this but it is a great read. It touches on charge weight.
Secrets of the Houston Warehouse.
http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/max357/houston.html
Some may have missed this but it is a great read. It touches on charge weight.
Secrets of the Houston Warehouse.
http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/max357/houston.html
