• 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!

Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Something ain't right.

You guys can accept the results and "reinforce" the original target, or ascribe this to barrel whip or harmonics all you want, but I don't believe it. And, I'm surprised that some of you just shrug and recommend the low charge. How's that for intellectual curiosity?

The "incomplete burn" theory, at least has <span style="text-decoration: underline">some</span> validity, (if it's a slow powder) but I don't know jack about AA2520, never used it? I won't bother to lok it up. Assume it is spherical? Is it temperature sensitive @ 33degrees? BB
 
Re: Which Group Is Better ..... why do you think so???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

...if you'd like to discuss that with Dan Newberry himself, I can hook you up. </div></div>

Knowing...or even pretending to know the publisher of a theory does not make the theory more credible. However I am very impressed that you know Dan Newberry.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally seek out a load density that's as close to 100% as possible without compressing loads, but that's just the way I do it. Again, nothing at all to do with how OCW addresses barrel harmonics. Can't know where you came up with that. OCW is a good way to AVOID pushing a pressure limit, in more ways than one, such as developing a load that's universal between ambiant temperature differences. It's a shame you don't fully understand it as evident by your opinion of it.</div></div>

--Quote from "http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/#/ocw-instructions/4529817134" (OCW instructions)

4. Back away from the maximum charge by 7 to 10 percent, and load one test round with this charge. Add 2% to the charge weight, and load another cartridge with that charge. Load a third test cartridge with the next 2% graduation. You will use these three cartridges for sighters, and more importantly to determine pressure tolerance in your individual rifle.

5. Add another 2% or so to the charge level used in cartridge #3 of step 4, and load three rounds with this charge weight. Add .7% to 1% to this charge, and load three more. Add that same graduation again, and load three more. Continue adding the chosen graduation until you have moved ONE increment above your chosen maximum powder charge."

That's where I got it from...These instructions have you in the top end of your load ranges and then some....Or am I too unintelligent to correctly read them thar letter thingys?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> OCW suggests working up the load first, then fine tuning the load with seating depth, and there's solid physics behind that....and if you want to understand the exact function of seating depth in the OCW principles, then PM me, or talk to Dan himself, since apparently it's not appropriate for you here.</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...but for those who can understand it,... </div></div>

Stating there's "physics behind" it doesn't make it so. Working up a charge before seating depth is the whole point in contention.

But hey...you're the super genius with physics...tell me about your data then. What's the regression model look like that explains the relationship of bullet performance to seating depth and powder load? What's your R2 when attempting to model only powder load v.s. accuracy and what's the R2 modeling seating depth v.s. accuracy??? do you have it? I guess they both contribute to a better R2 when modeled together and the order may or may not be significant. But you're the super genius so I'll await your data....

Nobody was calling you an idiot so I suggest you watch who you call one because it's kinda like picking a fight with your eyes closed.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

AA2520 is a medium burning double based very tiny ball powder. It's got about the same burn rate as Varget or Reloader 15 or IMR 4064. It has been reported to be slightly temperature sensitive in hotter climates/high temps (over 95-100 degrees), which shouldn't be an issue here in Washington state unless I leave my ammo in the window in my car in the summer in Eastern Washington. It's supposed be work really well in the colder weather. I figure on doing this test again in the summer.

As far as seating length goes. I'm not even going to waste my time testing it. I have a new prduction Remington 700 and the throat is deep. If I were to load into the lands and all, I would be way above maximum magazine depth anyway. So, there's really no reason to even bother with with it. I have these particular bullets loaded to my magazine and figure that's good enough.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better ..... why do you think so???

Yeah beard, Dan's a friend, I live 20 minutes from him, and he told me today lunch is on him next go'round....can't care less if that impresses you or not, but if you want to argue with him about his theories then say the word. No more, no less, than that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wbeard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

That's where I got it from...These instructions have you in the top end of your load ranges and then some....Or am I too unintelligent to correctly read them thar letter thingys?</div></div>

If you get OCW telling you to use a high "load density" from that then you need to find out what load density means. Faster powders have a lower load density, slower powders have a higher load density. Load density relates to the ratio of propellant to air space within the cartridge, and nothing about OCW dictates that beyond the choice the reloader himself makes in burn rate for the application. Those numbers in those instructions are one method of coming up with even incremental increases in charge weight that facilitate the testing. No different than someone just backing off 10 or 20 percent and working up in .5 grain increments. OCW needs a finer increment to actually see the nodes on paper, so that's the way it's suggested done. Nothing to do with load density as load density is defined.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wbeard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Stating there's "physics behind" it doesn't make it so. Working up a charge before seating depth is the whole point in contention.</div></div>

There certainly is physics behind it...the whole world of reloading revolves around physics, action and reaction, it ain't voodoo partner.

Seating depth as it pertains to OCW is adjusting the timing of the bullet exit within the accuracy node to further increase the distance between the muzzle and the shockwave. It's a very small change to the actual time the bullet is in the barrel. A few thousands deeper seat will add barrel time, a few thousandths longer seat will decrease barrel time. Pretty simple concept really. You are doing the same exact thing but in reverse order, and in my opinion more crudely, using the charge weight to change the pressure to adjust the timing. OCW allows you to rough in the pressure zone by addressing the barrel harmonics first, and then refine the relationship with seating depth without changing the pressure zone to any significant degree.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wbeard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But hey...you're the super genius with physics...tell me about your data then. What's the regression model look like that explains the relationship of bullet performance to seating depth and powder load? What's your R2 when attempting to model only powder load v.s. accuracy and what's the R2 modeling seating depth v.s. accuracy??? do you have it? I guess they both contribute to a better R2 when modeled together and the order may or may not be significant. But you're the super genius so I'll await your data....</div></div>

From someone who doesn't understand OCW....that's ironic. Never said I was a physics whiz, far from it as a matter of fact, but I do understand THIS.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wbeard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Nobody was calling you an idiot so I suggest you watch who you call one because it's kinda like picking a fight with your eyes closed.
</div></div>

No one is calling you an idiot, either...........
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Muttt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

As far as seating length goes. I'm not even going to waste my time testing it. I have a new prduction Remington 700 and the throat is deep. If I were to load into the lands and all, I would be way above maximum magazine depth anyway. So, there's really no reason to even bother with with it. I have these particular bullets loaded to my magazine and figure that's good enough. </div></div>

Don't write off seating depth adjustment so fast, touching the lands isn't all that it's cracked up to be. 190 gr SMK's in my 30-06 jump .020", 85 gr TSX's in my 234AI jump .055"....had a 270 win one time that the best load it shot, little tiny bugholes all day long, was with the short fat 90 gr Sierra HP, and the jump to lands was a HUGE .250"

Read what I wrote to beard about adjusting the timing of the bullet exit....mag box constraints and long throats are easily addressed with an OCW load, and refinement with seating depth adjustment.

Again, are you free recoiling that rifle?
 
Re: Which Group Is Better ..... why do you think so???

IMHO you have 1 good node (per OBT/OCW) on those targets but the problem with the vertical that you are having in the later groups is skewing your results. While those sleds are great for shooting things on a horizontal line they really suck when you have to depress or elevate the rifle. They cause you to hunch up and in general get uncomfortable. This is demonstrated in the large target rather clearly.

Take a look at 41 - 42gr, mebby a touch lower on the bottom side, 41.3 or 4 will probably net you a solid year round ....round.

Cheers,

Doc
 
Re: Which Group Is Better ..... why do you think so???

No, I'm not free recoiling the rifle. Been shooting about 30 years and have always used a hard hold. Actually, this rest is pretty decent. If you need to raise or lower the barrel, there is a small hand wheel that does it without the need for you to change position. I was pretty comfortable the whole time. Comfortable enough to know immediately when I caused a flyer.

I really like todays targets 1, 2 and 3 (40, 40.2 and 40.4) They show the same results as the first set of targets with the same load weights. I also like targets 6, 8 and 9 (41, 41.4 and 41.6) but they still don't group as well as the first three.

I suppose doing the same test .... but backwards (shoot heaviest charge weights first and lightest last) would confirm any results taken from these two tests. But, I'm pretty confident the larger groups are a product of the charge weight and not with either the shooting rest or the rifle/scope.

Why do they drop so low as the charge weight goes up ???? who knows? The range officers at the range have watched me shoot both set of targets and can't figure it out either.

For now, I've pretty much decided to go with 40.2 grains as my standard load with these bullets. I'll see what happens with accuracy down the road. If I get the groups I want, I could care less what charge weight I use. Who knows, might shoot like complete ass in the summer when things warm up.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better ..... why do you think so???

What problem? <shrug> Group hug. BB
 
Re: Which Group Is Better ..... why do you think so???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Muttt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I really like todays targets 1, 2 and 3 (40, 40.2 and 40.4) They show the same results as the first set of targets with the same load weights. I also like targets 6, 8 and 9 (41, 41.4 and 41.6) but they still don't group as well as the first three.

I suppose doing the same test .... but backwards (shoot heaviest charge weights first and lightest last) would confirm any results taken from these two tests. But, I'm pretty confident the larger groups are a product of the charge weight and not with either the shooting rest or the rifle/scope.

Why do they drop so low as the charge weight goes up ???? who knows? The range officers at the range have watched me shoot both set of targets and can't figure it out either.

For now, I've pretty much decided to go with 40.2 grains as my standard load with these bullets. I'll see what happens with accuracy down the road. If I get the groups I want, I could care less what charge weight I use. Who knows, might shoot like complete ass in the summer when things warm up. </div></div>
I personally believe more is being read into the lower POI for the heavier charges than is necessary. Ultimately you're looking for groups that would indicate harmony between gun, bullet, and charge. Stepping down to the .2 grain load increments was right. I do that and the first trip to the range is for finding harmony. The next test is with bullet seating depth. I normally begin all my testing with the cartridge design OAL and work from there seating longer and shorter from the initial test. When working up loads for the 175 SMK, I bought a box of Federal Match to shoot. As it turned out they were shooting great so I measured the cartridge length to the ogive and used that length as my starting point for load testing. The point I'm making is I don't care where they hit on the target, whether it's high or low. I am trying to attain accuracy, first on paper and then test to 1000 yards. This is just initial cause if the load won't perform downrange then I'm back to the drawing board.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

May I suggest, there is something fundamentally wrong with a rifle that shoots to such a radically different point of impact? You cannot just ignore a rifle that prints more than FIVE inches differently with what is, actually an <span style="text-decoration: underline">insignificant</span> increase in the amount of propellant. I have never heard of such a thing, and baby, I have been at this game since JC was a Corporal. I feel like I'm talking to myself! Doesn't anybody "get it"? BB
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

If you think there is something wrong with my rifle, please tell. Some similar instances or technical data would be helpful. The point of aim I am using was about 3/4 to an inch low using factory Hornady 168gr AMAX Match Grade ammo. If the groups that printed 4 inches low on the target were nice and tight. I would simply zero the scope to that area and run with it.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the rifle. It's holding zero with the first three targets on both test sets, so the scope has no issues. If there was something wrong with it, then the groups that dropped wouldn't still be groups. Accuracy as a whole would fall of if something were "broke". But, even my bad groups weren't that bad. None were over two inches. And, the loads that did shoot well were in the .6 MOA range. That's pretty decent accuracy.

I believe that the harmonics are causing the difference. I'll bet that if I were to just keep increasing the charge weight, it would eventually just pull back up closer to point of aim. But, I'm not going to prove it since it would be above max load and AMAX aren't cheap.

Now, having said all that. If I load up 50 rounds at the 40.2 charge weight and go out to shoot for accuracy, and the groups continue to drop off like they did on that last two sets of targets, then I would suspect it something wrong with the rifle or scope. But, if they all group the same and in the same place, at the same charge weight, then there's nothing wrong with the rifle. Well just have to weight and see. It snowed 6 inches over night and the wind is up around 10 mph. So, there won't be any shooting this week ..... LOL

"IF" I find that the groups start dropping off as I shoot the same load in all the bullets, then I will deffinitely post up pictures and we can discuss it further.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

I get it completely. He has a mechanical issue somewhere in my opinion. Also groups are getting progressively bigger as barrel fouls more. The only true test in my opinion is the barrel being the same for every group.

Load up 25 rounds all the same load. Start with totally clean barrel shoot one fouler then 3to5 shot group. Then clean totally until you see no copper. Foul shot then group again. If you still get crazy groups its the bedding or scope, or OP. If not you know it has to do with the barrel fouling really fast.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better ..... why do you think so???

Get the gun out of that stupid rest and shoot that last test over. I used to shoot out of one similar and always had bad vertical stringing. Starting shooting off bags and bipods and problem gone. Shoot loads 39.8-40.4 in .2 gr increments without that rest. No offense, but that $99 scope aint helping much either.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

LOL.
grin.gif
Don't sugar coat it, tell him what you really think!

I will say it again.

I don't have the answer but, as Charlie Chan once said: <span style="color: #FF0000"> SUM TING WONG </span>
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Muttt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I believe that the harmonics are causing the difference. I'll bet that if I were to just keep increasing the charge weight, it would eventually just pull back up closer to point of aim. But, I'm not going to prove it since it would be above max load and AMAX aren't cheap.</div></div>

I don't, because it contradicts everything I've ever seen, and barrel harmonics ARE what I pay the most attention to. <span style="font-style: italic">Usually</span>, what I see with a .1 or .2 grain incremental test, is first, a steady rise of the groupings, and second, a slight counterclockwise rotation of the groupings from POA. IOW, as the charges increase the groups move up and slightly to the left with each increment. The accuracy nodes stall out and solidify over a grain's worth of pressure increase, and the scatter nodes move quite a bit. Those things are just too constant to ignore. Something just isn't jiving with your rifle, or with you.

Amax's are dirt cheap, compared to bullets that aren't...........
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Personally I think target one is the best so far. When I get vertical stringing like this. I will back off my powder. Then work back up to that load with a hotter primer. Maybe a magnum primer. Sometimes that will give a better SD in velocity for said load. Better burn in your shorter barrel and a better pressure curve. If you try this make sure you back off and work back up. Checking for pressure signs along the way. This has helped me on several occasions when I get vertical stringing. Also a little more neck tension may help as well. That is if are using bushing type dies. Just my .02.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

I'm just about ready to bail on this TWILIGHT ZONE THREAD. How is it possible, that we can have so many otherwise helpful, sincere, but clueless people offer solutions and suggestions like seating depth and neck tension, etceteras, when there is an obvious and glaring problem with these targets? Riddle me this, Batman? BB
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BuzzBoss915</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm just about ready to bail on this TWILIGHT ZONE THREAD. How is it possible, that we can have so many otherwise helpful, sincere, but clueless people offer solutions and suggestions like seating depth and neck tension, etceteras, when there is an obvious and glaring problem with these targets? Riddle me this, Batman? BB </div></div>

Since I am clueless. What's up with the targets? The OP asked about which load was the best. I didn't know he wanted to know what the problems were with the targets. So I gave him an opinion on the group that I thought was best. Which I thought he wanted. I may have gave a opinion on the load that wasn't ask for. So riddle me this. How is that such a horrible thing?
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BuzzBoss915</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm just about ready to bail on this TWILIGHT ZONE THREAD. How is it possible, that we can have so many otherwise helpful, sincere, but clueless people offer solutions and suggestions like seating depth and neck tension, etceteras, when there is an obvious and glaring problem with these targets? Riddle me this, Batman? BB </div></div>

Bye.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Still waiting to hear what's wrong with the rifle?

It's not my shooting (well, some of it is). I shot the first set of targets off of a bipod. Some here suggested it's my shooting. So, the next set of targets I shoot off of a rest. Same results as the first test. I know how to shoot, and it's not an issue. Do I choke once and a while .... sure, but I even went as far as to lable where I fucked it up.

It's not because of the barrel getting dirty. I had shot over 150 rounds through the rifle (without cleaning the barrel) prior to shooting the first set of targets. Figured someone might say "your barrels dirty and your accuracy is falling off", so I decided to clean the barrel really well with copper solvent and hoppies prior to shooting the second group of targets. The second set of targets was shot from a clean barrel with 5 fouling shots using 147gr South African surplus FMJ. So, the accuracy is not falling off.

The scope ring was the only thing that I though might have mechanically effected the groups. But, it was still tight, just not "AS TIGHT" as when I started the first group of targets. So, kept checking the scope rings during the second test. The result were virtually the same as the first test. So, the scope was not an issue. Yes, the scope is a cheap scope. It's not the 99 dollar 1 inch version. It's the slightly higher cost 30mm version. But yes, it's a cheap scope. But, it's been holding zero so that's not an issue. The scope base is an EGW 20mm base which was torqued in and loctite was used. The screws are not loose and the base is solid. Also not an issue. I shot a box of factory Hornady 168gr AMAX Match Grade prior to the first test. It had the same zero (about an inch low) as I am shooting with my first three targets on both test groups. So, I don't see how the scope could be off. If the scope was the issue, the groups would continue to move farther and farther away form zero and would not return to zero for the second test group.

I've inspected the boor and chanber. There is no obvious damage, bur, crack, fouling or any other physical issue that I can find. It's not the barrel heating up and whipping wildly because I allowed it to cool down between targets and then for 15 minutes between each group of three targets. The barrel was cold to the touch using the underside of my wrist between each group of shots.

The only factor that changed during any of this testing is the powder charge (and the bipod to shooting rest). Even as bad as it got, my worst group was still only 1.613 MOA and was only about 4 iches off. You have to realize that this scope is zero'd to about and inch below point of aim to begin with. So, that worst group is now only 3 inches off. If this particular group would have been a tiny .25 MOA bughole, then I would have just rezero'd my scope to this group and went on from there.

Does it really matter why the groups are getting farther and farther away as the load changes?? If I were to keep all these results to myself and just rezero'd to the 40.2 charge. Then loaded 20 rounds and shot 4 targets with 5 shots each and all four groups were sub .5 MOA groups ..... what would you tell me?

The real test is for me to load up and do exactly that. Then, if my groups are all the same (using the same load), then I don't understand what the problem is. If my rifle don't like to shoot AA2520 with any more than 40.5 grains in it ..... then I won't. I really could care less about velocity as long as the bullets all hit the paper in the same hole.

I'm not trying to destroy my own thread by arguing, that's not my intent. I just don't understand why the result can't be accepted for what they are and why it has to me and my shooting (which it's not) or a broken rifle? There's nothing here to suggest malfunction. Now, if I couldn't keep zero'd and the groups varied wildly from target to target I'd be doing some trouble shooting to find what's wrong. But, if the results are repeatable then what's the issue here?

I can say without a fraction of a doubt that this thread shows what happens to the groups when changing loads of AA2520 while shooting a stock bolt, action and barrel Remington 700 SPS Tactical with a 20" bull barrel. I'd really like to see someone else with the same rifle shoot the same test to see what it does in thier rifle using AA2520 and 168gr AMAX.

ETA: It's not the torque on the action bolts either. Already check multiple times.


Now, don't get me wrong. I appreciate the loading length advice, the OCW advice and the other helpful comments. What I don't like is someone insinuating that what I am posting and providing pictures to prove, is somehow wrong or made up. The results are repeatable. I'm not going to continue shooting more rounds to do the same test over and over again just because someone doesn't like the results. The result are what they are. Nothing I can do about it.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BuzzBoss915</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm just about ready to bail on this TWILIGHT ZONE THREAD. How is it possible, that we can have so many otherwise helpful, sincere, but clueless people offer solutions and suggestions like seating depth and neck tension, etceteras, when there is an obvious and glaring problem with these targets? Riddle me this, Batman? BB </div></div>

Does this still apply?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BuzzBoss915</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't have the answer....

</div></div>

Run Forest, RUN................
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

I just would like to know how it is possible only for your scope and or rifle to have something wrong with it between shot strings. That is pretty cool that your rig breaks down exactly every 5 shots. Although I am clueless. One thing for sure you are correct. Once the group is achieved and the rifle zeroed. Who cares where each different load groups. I was working loads with my 260 yesterday. .5 grain more powder moved my impact 1/2 min high and 1 min left. Maybe BB can tell me what is the matter with my rig as well. I was just working groups. So it didn't cross my mind the least bit. Maybe I wasn't holding exactly the same POA as I was a few minutes earlier. Maybe i am just clueless. Again my .02

Back on topic. Have you decided which group to start working with?
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Yeah, I'm going to load a bunch to 40.2 and go for group size and see how tight it will print. I may still play around with up or down .2-.4 grains. But, I like the results.

Once I load up a bunch and shoot 4 targets with 5 round groups, I'll post up a pic of the targets. Might as well document from begining to end (although there really isn't an end). This thread will be a decent place to send people who ask about working up loads. They'd get a little input from all sides of the table about how best to work up loads. They can choose from there.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

It's discouraging to see the question. Makes me think you are incapable of understanding the problem, and you have an obvious problem, Amigo.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Muttt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

2012-01-17_16-28-30_808.jpg

</div></div>



Listen. a rifle does not shift the point of impact 5" lower when the only difference is a couple grains of powder.

REPEAT: Listen. a rifle does not shift the point of impact 5" lower when the only difference is a couple grains of powder!

Next we should be reading sage advice along the lines of: "It is what it is." Well, that's not good enough for this kid.

This is a damned curious problem and you ask, WHAT PROBLEM? A blind man can see the problem.

I'm out of ideas for the moment, but WAIT! .......perhaps, since you have tightened everything to a fair thee well, it might be time to take a look at that $99 scope. If you have another handy, we could eliminate one variable?

I don't think that you have to fire 50/60 rounds. Ten should be sufficient. 5@40 grains and [email protected] grains. When the weather clears, of course.

edit: noticing that the first group is now printing low, when before it was over an inch high, I assume you didn't move any adjustments? And, now it's not 5" difference but something less than that, but still wrong, according to the type of physics with which I am familiar, here in the Land of the Fruits and the Nuts. Better known as The People's Republik.

 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

A bunch of junk in this thread.
I would try "round robin" when testing the loads. Shoot one shoot from each load at each target then go back and do the same working your way around the target until all your rounds are fired. This takes away fouling, barrel heating, shooter fatige, ect, variables out of the picture.

The way the groups move I would guess it has to do with the gun warming up more and more as you shoot.

As per finding the perfect load. I stopped doing that a while ago. One day I may have a load shoot .25" then the next it would shoot 1". I was just wearing out barrels trying to make them shoot perfect. Now I find a load that shoots well and use it. Learn the rifle with that one load. You will learn more about shooting if that is your intent. Then again, I do have fun from time to time just playing with loads to see what happens.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

I would say you are on the right track. I liked the 40 grain group at the beginning of the thread and the 40.4 group on this second page look really good as well. How far are you going to be shooting with this load?
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Here's some important things to consider at this point in this discussion.

1. I don't care about where the scope is zero'd. I'm only concerned about groups.

2. I don't care what the point of impact is. I'm only concerned about groups.

3. I'm not concerned about why the groups are low with the higher loads. I'm only concerned about groups.

4. I'm not concerned how fast I'm pushing the bullet. There is a Min and Max in your reload manuals. Sometimes the Mininum works better (depending on your rifle). I'm only concerned with which load makes the smallest groups (the end game being accuracy).

5. I could give a shit what anyone thinks about my 99 dollar scope. And, I'm not going to replace it with a more expensive one because someone here don't like my scope. Grow up. I am only concerned about groups.

This is ultimately what I was conerned about when starting this test and sharing the results .............

Test Targets From Day 1 (40.0 to 40.5 sweet spot)......

small1.jpg



Test Target From Day 2 (40.0 to 40.4 sweet spot)......

small.jpg



The point of impact is different between the two pics because I went from a bipod to a shooting rest. And also because I removed the scope and then put it back on. This changes things ya know.


Repeatable Results. Test over. 40.2 gr is what was decided on due to the results of the two groups of test targets.

The OP was ..... which group is better and why do you think so.

All the OCW info and load length discussion was appreciated. But, this thread has gotten way off topic with the "your gear is broken" crap. If it's broken, explain what it wrong with it and back it up with something other than speculation.



Smith44699,

I'll shoot as far as I can. But, for now my local range only goes to 200 yards. I hope to get out to eastern Washinton this spring/summer and shoot at thier 400 yard range and get out in the middle of nowhere and see if we can stretch it out. Possible get a coyote or some ground squirrels.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Muttt, what does the rifle do with commercial match ammo?
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Here's a 10 shot group I shot with 168gr AMAX Match Grade. The only thing I did before shooting my test groups of test targets was an windage change. I figured it's close enough for shooting groups and I can rezero once I figure out what I'm loading. This was also off the bipod. But, I wasn't really putting any effort into the group. Just shooting to see if my rifle likes em.

2.116"

2012-01-10_13-43-48_835.jpg




Then I figured I'd roll some of my own and see if I can't get a little better accuracy.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Mutt,
I think 40.2 is where you want to be. The average POI for 40.0, 40.2 and 40.4 are pretty close and the 40.2 group isn't too bad.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bowslngr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mutt,
I think 40.2 is where you want to be. The average POI for 40.0, 40.2 and 40.4 are pretty close and the 40.2 group isn't too bad. </div></div>



+1 on this.

With the way your shooting. They won't have a chance at 400. Keep us posted on the finale load.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

I plan too. If for anything else .... to show my gun aint broke .... LOL. Also to show I can shoot decent groups.

But, since we just got 7 more inches of snow today and are supposed to get at least 4 more tomorrow, I don't think I'll be shootin for at least another week or so. But, I'll resurrect this thread if it comes to that.

I'm hoping to get them into the black dots once I get the scope dialed in. I'd rather shoot the hundreds of black dot's I have from my shoot-n-see targets than full sized targets.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

#1 I didn't realize that you removed the scope, which (I guess) could account for the different point of impact, from the first target to the second target?

I will grow up... at least try. Been working on it for quite some time. Your gun ain't broke, dude. Nothing's wrong. You asked for opinion and received more than you deserve. I give up. BB
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

I do have to amend one of my earlier comments. I stated that I don't care about velocity. I do care about velocity, but I just don't have the equipment to get into it. So, for this thread, velocity isn't going to factor in. I don't own a chrono and don't know anyone else that has one.

I'd be interested to know what the velocity is of the 40gr loads. Can't really run any kind of decent shot card without FPS. So, the only way I can really build up a shot card is to shoot at known distances, calculate the drop and then reverse engineer it and compare to other know velocities and thier drops at known length. Of course, this isn't really my preferred method. But, it's what I'm stuck with.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Your gun strung the 168 factory ammo pretty badly. I would suggest reading the thread on here about bedding a rifle and do it your self. It's very easy to do and should help your results. I would also suggest cleaning the rifle with powder and copper cleaner very well before load development.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

I mark the circles with a + so I have something to aim at with my reticle. But, the targets with squares make measuring (with my target plotting app) on my phone alot easier.


I shot the first set of targets without cleaning. But, I cleaned and used a copper solvent before shooting the second set. No appearent difference between the two sets of targets.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Mutt,
Once shooter input is reduced it is more likely a bedding issue. Epsecially since 308 is typically easy to load for and match factory ammo is usually very good.
Check
scope: mounts, mounting and rings for correct torque, barrel channel, bedding around the recoil lug and action. Any tension or torque caused by bedding issue usually cause wide groups, but upward preasure on the barrel can cuase verticle spreading. Just my 2 cents
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

The barrel is completely free floated in the B&C Tactical Medalist stock it's in. I can fold a dollar three time and it still slides through the entire length freely. I even tried squeezing the barrel to see if I could get it to touch anywhere and I doesn't.

When I shot that 10 round group with the Factory AMAX match ammo, I was using a bipod and wasn't holding that steady. I was shooting rather loosely and wasn't putting alot of effort into the group. If I were to shoot it again (and put more effort into it), I could probably get a better group.

If I still have issues with stringing after getting everything dailed in, I might go ahead and bed it anyway. I think some of the stringing you see in some of the groups shot were also part of the scatter node. Well see how they group once I load to one charge weight.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Mutt,
Stay confident in your shooting. See if you can run your loads in a buddies gun that you know can shoot tight groups. I've owned a few REM 700 varminters (not SPS) and 3 out of 4 of them shot .5 moa. The other one didn't. Running a gun that doesn't shoot is frustrating and not worth the hassle.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Before I do anything, I'm going to load up a bunch at 40.2 and run em. That load is already showing .6ish MOA in the test targets. I'm fairly happy with the accuracy so far, now that I've found a bullet and load it likes.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

I think the first thing you need to do is change the scope and see if the problem still exists. If it does then it's not the scope .
Then look at other potential problems ONE at a time untill you isolate the issue. I am putting my money on the $99 scope. As the powder load went up the recoil increased and the group moved and expanded in the same consistant direction down and right.
However who knows what is really happening . The only way to work it out is with meticulous checking of evry possible obvious reason and hope it is one of them. Also the shooter could be failing to control the recoil as it increased and allowing far too much free recoil movement , possibly , maybe .
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Finally, somebody is paying attention, since Mutt is in denial. "tell me what's wrong, I'm still waiting" See this type of rhetoric below. Sure, he's only concerned about GROUPS, but refuses to consider important factors that affect "groups".

1. I don't care about where the scope is zero'd. I'm only concerned about groups.

2. I don't care what the point of impact is. I'm only concerned about groups.

3. I'm not concerned about why the groups are low with the higher loads. I'm only concerned about groups.

4. I'm not concerned how fast I'm pushing the bullet. There is a Min and Max in your reload manuals. Sometimes the Mininum works better (depending on your rifle). I'm only concerned with which load makes the smallest groups (the end game being accuracy).

5. I could give a shit what anyone thinks about my 99 dollar scope. And, I'm not going to replace it with a more expensive one because someone here don't like my scope. Grow up. I am only concerned about groups.
[/quote

Then we find out that nothing has been done in pursuit of "groups" besides wasting time firing groups, and more groups. The barrel is free floated and the test loads were quite meticulously labeled. Essentially, this rifle is, "out of the box" stock without any fine tuning, no bedding and a $99 dollar scope, or am I wrong?

Anyway, he is tuning me out so I'm relieved that there is somebody out there with pity and a more gentle bedside manor than I. BB
smile.gif
Click to expand...
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

Sure, it's a stock Remington 700 SPS Tactical .308 with a new stock, rings and scope.


When working up a particular load, you keep all the other factors the same. You don't shoot a string of groups and keep adjusting the scope while shooting them. You leave it alone and see where they hit. If they all hit in the same place, then they are accurate regardless of where the scope is zero'd. You don't start changing things that would effect how the load performs. You keep all the factors the same until you are finished with the test. If you change the equipment while running a test it effects the results ..... chaning them. Then, some of your results are produced by equipment change and not by load changes. Now that I am done with the test (Shooting groups for the sake of shooting groups and only groups). I will make changes. I will rezero the scope to the particular load I am using. Then I will shoot more groups with an adjusted point of aim. From this point on, if there is a shift in point of impact, it is cause by the equipment and not by changing load weight. I don't understand why you just don't get that? It's a simple concept. Now, if point of impact changes when everthing else including load weight is the same, then that indicates an equipment problem.


If I load up two a bunch of rounds with 40.2 and go back to the range and zero the scope to that particular load. Then, shoot 4 five shot groups, and the groups are all the same, stay tight and don't move down the target, then there is NO problem with any of the equipment. If all the groups are the same. Then the equipment is not a problem.

If I go to the range with a bunch of round loaded to 40.2 and I shoot the targets and each target groups different and the groups move down the paper each time I shoot a group, then there is a problem.

When I shot bullets that were all the same and were factory loads, they all shot to the same point of aim. They all impacted the target in the same area. I haven't seen a "problem" yet. I've seen my groups move when using different loads ... that's not too suprising.

Please wait and see what happens when I shoot the next set of targets.

If the scope is broken and the groups move as I shoot. Then, how can it go back to the original point of aim?? If the scope was broken it would keep moving in that direction. If my second set of test targets where still hitting low and to the right (with the first group) and then continued moving farther down, I would agree that a problem exists. But, since the first targets in my second test group were right back to point of aim. There doesn't seem to be a problem. A broken scope doesn't fix itself between strings. It continues to be broke.


I'm not going to be able to shoot for at least another few days till the weather lets up. I'm hoping that this thread doesn't deteriorate as I wait to go shoot again. I don't want it to go Waayyyy off topic unneccessarily. I'd like to keep it on topic till then. IF ..... the same thing happens in the next string of targets (which will all be shot with the same load) then I will be the first to admit there is a problem. But, IF it doesn't happen then there nothing wrong with the equipment. Is that acceptable??
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

So, since every powder is marginally temp sensative AA2520 is more than marginally temp sensative. As soon as there is a variation on MV due to increased preasure you are going to be chasing your POI for as long as you own the rifle.
Or as was mentioned earlier the scope could very well be the issue.
Next time you get behind the rifle, get it nice and stable then mover your head so slightly that it doesn't disturb the lay of the weapon but moves your eye left and right, up and down. If the reticle moves the scope will never allow you to shoot solid groups. Good shooting requires good glass.
 
Re: Which Group Is Better .., why do you think so??

No problem mate you seem to know it all so I will not bother to try and help anymore. However if my guns shot like that I would definately think something is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Why is the 6mm Dasher so popular?
Replies
17
Views
629
BoilerUP
BoilerUP
locash78
OWC without chronograph?
Replies
7
Views
400
locash78
locash78
ZA206
77 TMK + XBR + varying brass testing…
Replies
0
Views
137
ZA206
ZA206
Cole440
Starting Load Workup With Factory Ammo?
Replies
39
Views
710
Cole440
Cole440
K
Ogive length or base to tip?
Replies
6
Views
200
kyotekiller25
K
Top Bottom
Back