- Thread starter Ndbowhunter
- Start date
Even if the data doesn’t support a correlation between es/sd and primer seating depth, the CPS is still to me far and away the easiest and most efficient priming method short of running the brass through a progressive press. I’ll take Litz’s word as final and conclusive until someone with more credentials tells me different.
Orkan is obviously living rent free in your head!
Really hope you got more out of that very long video other than what you posted.
Really hope you got more out of that very long video other than what you posted.
Last edited:
@Ndbowhunter what was so funny exactly?
I’m not convinced either way
Some say it doesn’t yet a few I trust say it does.
Well, TBH, Bryan just explained something very very obvious in retrospect that I had not figured out in years of thinking about it: the near wind is more important because the effect on the bullet is "inherited early in the trajectory" and it's carried all the way to the target.
Wow. You learn something every day.
Thanks Bryan and OP.
(Plus I love to imagine Orkan crying himself to sleep, LOL.)
Wow. You learn something every day.
Thanks Bryan and OP.
(Plus I love to imagine Orkan crying himself to sleep, LOL.)
Yea
An immediate divergence where small changes have big effects down range.
Oh, and even more delicious: Bryan is a fan of anti-cant device levels and contrary to others' (prominent) opinions, he says: a.) they're useful; and b.) the human ability is +/- 3 degrees not the commonly touted +/- 1 degree....the debate rages on....
ETA: at 12:45 and anti-cant device is "the most bang for the buck that there is" nuf said
ETA: at 12:45 and anti-cant device is "the most bang for the buck that there is" nuf said
^. I noticed that about the level also-- I didn't put one on my last setup and the last time I was long distance shooting had some "wind" changing problems. Not so sure it was wind at all after listening to the explanation. So- I will be installing another level- but even though it is something that I'm going to use-- never again will I get involved in the level debate..... don't care.
But it was a very interesting video that didn't seem as long as it was- and may be worth another viewing.
But it was a very interesting video that didn't seem as long as it was- and may be worth another viewing.
18:00 barrels are inconsistent in velocity the first 200 rounds and you need to clean with abrasives (JB bore paste) every 100 or so rounds to get the barrel "settled in"
I think this is very applicable in specific arenas, i.e. ELR, which is mostly the sandbox where Litz plays. The closer the range, the less cant has an effect on the bullet flight. In the aspect of the distances of a standard PRS match, cant is a minor variable compared to the other variables one is faced with (wobble, wind, etc.). It never hurts to be level for sure, but it's not going to significantly increase your hit percentage. At ELR distances, it could definitely make the difference between a podium finish and first loser. There's several stages I've shot in matches where cant is unavoidable; still made hits.
As far as the primer debate, I've rammed small pistol primers into 223 brass where I half crushed the primer cup because I didn't get the military crimp completely removed and shot sub minute groups. I've never been under the impression that seating depth made a tinker's damn, same with "clean" primer pockets compared to dirty.
Idgaf about primer depth but I love my CPS because it's fast, has perfect feel, and isn't a POS.
I took a precision shooting course roughly 8 years ago where the wind couch in the class said this. While trying to learn how to read wind prior not a single person ever mentioned this to me nor did it cross my mind but makes total sense!
43:00 Cleaning every 100 rounds means few/no chemicals; down and back 30 times each with JB bore paste abrasive cleaning; repeat; then wipe it out with KROIL or brake cleaner.
WOW.
WOW.
And here are Orkan tears at 45:30: "We've tried all the primer games." Sorry, Greg. The CPS is a cool expensive gizmo, but....
"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Last edited:
58:00 "Do I recommend neck turning brass? I don not."
Comports with my Reloading Rules for Long Range Shooting: "a tedious & time consuming task of uncertain benefit"
Comports with my Reloading Rules for Long Range Shooting: "a tedious & time consuming task of uncertain benefit"
I don’t run them on my 0-1200ish rifles
I absolutely run them on my ELR rifle.
If your having to load a ton of rounds for f class or another competition it absolutely makes sense just like Dillons with a autodrive, V3/V4, or a Prometheus.
You paying more for time savings I don’t fault anyone for doing so.
Last edited:
I agree. Majority of the high end reloading equipment i own is based on increasing reloading time not that I needed increased precision
As somebody who will pretty much buy anything reloading related, running an autodrive on a 650 is retarded, but doing it for F Class is next level silly.
Come on, man - that's Vector Calculus 101. Imparting an acceleration on a moving object at the start of its trajectory displaces it more from its initial path with less magnitude than imparting a stronger acceleration much later in the trajectory. This is why we want to nudge earth crossing asteroids decades before they arrive, not when they are 18 days away from impact.
Yep Doggie, yours is bigger than mine for sure. I should have instantly thought of nudging asteroids as an apt analogy
There’s no real argument that primer seating depth has an important roll in ignition timing. Bench rest guys know it. F-class guys know it. Any good custom rifle builder knows that ignition timing is paramount for consistency and consistency results in accuracy and precision. To say that the distance from the ignition source doesn’t play a roll in ignition timing is preposterous.
Bryan also believes barrel tuners can’t have an effect on barrel tuning. Putting your thumb on the side of your barrel has an effect on barrel tuning. The sooner you realize your rifle bares many similarities to a musical instrument, tuning makes a lot more sense. Put your finger on a guitar string and listen to the change in tone...
Bryan also believes barrel tuners can’t have an effect on barrel tuning. Putting your thumb on the side of your barrel has an effect on barrel tuning. The sooner you realize your rifle bares many similarities to a musical instrument, tuning makes a lot more sense. Put your finger on a guitar string and listen to the change in tone...
Last edited:
And on the other hand, I'm pretty sure that Frank Greene (Bartlein) doesn't like abrasives at all.
JB makes two products that I can see...one is "non-embedding bore cleaning compound and the other is Bore Bright finishing compound. Mr. Greene, as I recall, objects strongly to one of them but I can't remember which.
I thought Litz was an f-class or Palma shooter?? Maybe not??
Does he win very often?
Something like that, yeah. Or multiple championships. Or setting a world record.
"Bryan Litz has spent the majority of his shooting career in the Palma discipline where he’s won numerous regional, national and international level matches in addition to holding many national records. Most notable was winning the Queens Prize in Australia, 2010. As a firing member on 3 winning America’s Match US Palma Teams, Bryan is a seasoned team member and knows how a team needs to work in order to win at the highest levels."
Bryan Litz — US Rifle Team
www.usrifleteam.com
Just saying...he shoots far better than I! haha
Last edited:
Well, he won the F-TR nationals in 2015 and is a coach of the US Shooting team, so I am guessing he is considered to have had a good career at it.
More than that, the people in best position to judge how something like seating depth affects ignition, and thus performance, is somebody who 1) actually knows how to create a study, 2) has the means to test as stringently as possible, and 3) has the access to the most possible inputs. Litz would certainly have those when compared to any of the others being mentioned.
I have no idea if he is right, but he certainly isn't wrong because of his lack of creds.
If it has an influence on ignition timing, but ignition timing doesn't have an influence on SD/ES, then it is just another thing we can measure that doesn't matter.
Are you trying to say that SD/ES are all that matters?
No. I am saying that if we can measure something that has no measurable impact on performance, it is meaningless. So either it is going to impact sd/es, or it is going to impact precision. Does it impact precision? Has that ever even been claimed? Or is this another it shoots 105 prairie dogs for every 100 rounds?
But it does have a measurable impact on performance. ES/SD are not the only performance metrics. It absolutely impacts precision.
Ah, found it:
"I/we will only use the JB Bore Compound. Not the bore brite."
And with a whole lot of caveats like don't use a brush
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/how-and-when-to-utilize-abrasive-bore-cleaners.7094636/
Wanna ask that also lol
I was one of the first buyers of, and biggest supporters of, the CPS. I can tell you that I have never seen a difference in precision from primer seating depth. I also have never seen anything resembling a well set up test that has shown it. If it does, great, but that should be supportable, not just assertable. That is why there is so much pushback on this stuff, because you are required to take it on faith or be labelled a heathen.
Could you shoot the difference if there was a difference? Guys that can say there is.
It depends on the difference being claimed. If I can't shoot it, though, why do I care about it?
And "guys say there is" doesn't really mean anything. Guys say there is a difference between the powder thrown from an AT, and a Prometheus, and it is only measurable in prairie dogs.
If you can't then yes, you're absolutely right. You don't need to worry about it. That's a consensus, but saying that there isn't a difference is counter to those who can prove there is a difference.
Lol. Nobody has "proved" there is a difference. I think the issue here is the loose use of the word proof. That is why, when talking about Litz, I referenced an actual ability to test, and knowledge how to set up tests. With correct measurement data etc.
I don't really see a trend that I would bet money on just yet. I agree with his conclusion that .009" seating depth is better than the others in this data set, but with equal graduations being taken per step, simply having one dip down isn't necessarily kicking my "trend" button. I'm not saying it's not a thing, just that the above testing, even when you go a step further and correlate POI/POA for the various 5-shot groups isn't enough to convince me one way or the other. Interesting, though.
Before I get my shit jumped... Here's 100 shots of the same factory match ammo (Hornady 6mm ARC 108 ELDM). It is then broken down into 33x 3 shot groups, 20x 5 shot groups, 10x 10 shot groups, 5x 20 shot groups, and 3x 33 shot groups, with the same sequence of firing. The dots represent the average group size, and the 'wings' represent the total span of recorded group size. THIS IS WITH NO VARIABLES CHANGED-- The SAME ammo. Accuracy fixture, straight 1.25" no contour barrel, 200yd climate controlled indoor range. This also an excellent indicator to the level of trash "group size" is as a metric, but I digress... With this level of noise present in a "no" variable string, it makes a guy question what you're reading when you do change variables.
ETA: Important to note here that the 20-shot and 33-shot data is in itself small sample size data (only 3x or 5x of them), and would likely also grow a little with more testing-- however, with such large samples per test, the amount it would grow would be significantly less than 3-10 shot data sets.
ETA2.5: Okay, screwed myself with an F4 button in Excel, here's the corrected one.
Here is the same data analyzed with mean radius and SD on individual shot radii from the MPOI. This is 2*(mean rad + 2* SD) to generate an estimate of group size. I can explain this if you'd like but all of the data I've collected has shown 4-4.5x SD + 2*MR to be pretty close to inclusive of 50+ shot group size (diminishing returns on group size growth past 50 shots)... The resulting value is for "worst case" predictions on hit probability.
Note how much more even and expected the trend is of the averages (using more of the data from each shot, not just the 'worst' 2). Also note the wild variation that comes from trying to predict results with 3 and 5 shot groups. Wish the trend would die.
Another thing people like to try, is to average a boat load of small sample tests and say "Surely, this is as good as a single large sample test"... And you can see that the distribution obviously favors smaller group size with smaller sample size. Without a POA reference to tie multiple small sample tests together, you're operating with less data, even if the round counts are the same. Similar trends exist with ES/SD on MV.
The more you learn...
Last edited:
Similar threads
Reloading Equipment PRICE DROP - Large lot of dies - Redding, Lyman, RCBS, Lee, Hornady
