Bullet Seating

[Joe Woosman]

Not in my eyes.
Great. You seat the bullet with the brass and the rifling.
How do you know how much of the bullet is pulled out of the case on extraction?

For what it's worth, this is my method of making a dummy round. I start with a good fitting fired case. I lightly pinch the neck to oval it somewhat so it will hold the bullet lightly. I blacken a bullet with a marker. I carefully seat the bullet in the chamber, firing pin removed for feel. Carefully remove the cartridge and check overall length to the point. I inspect the marks made on the bullet by the lands to be sure there is proper contact. I repeat this a few times to be sure I get the exact same measurement. I then neck size and seat the same bullet with the die, adjusting until I reach that same overall length number.

I feel if the bullet is sticking and pulling out at all, your numbers will not be repeatable.

 

[ekp]

I tried a different method but did not work out to well. I drilled out the primer hole in the case , loosely fitted a bullet in the neck, hand fed the shell into the chamber and seated it by hand then took a cleaning rod and tap the bullet out until it touched the rifling. The problem with that method was I could not extract the shell without loosing the bullet. Seating the bullet into a sized neck upon chambering never occurred to me that the bullet may have been moved within the resized neck.

 

[Boyd Allen]

Using the amount of neck tension that I generally do, I have very seldom pulled a bullet when seating long to determine jam. When I have had it happen, there has been a different feel when raising the bolt handle, because of the bullet being turned in the case neck. Because it can happen, I usually only use jam as a starting point. If I want to be near jam, I usually use a seating depth that is about .003 off. That, has never caused a bullet to stick. I generally use at least .002 neck tension. If one wanted to check to see if a bullet had been partially pulled as a loaded or dummy round was being unchambered, I would think that he could color the bullet and and very end of the neck with a marker.

 

[Al Nyhus]

On second thought, Al might have meant I.P.T., (inches per turn). That is more less correct.

Joe, you're right, I should have said I.P.T.

I should know better than to post before I've finished my second cup of cowboy coffee.........

Good shootin'. -Al

 

[JRB]

I tried a different method but did not work out to well. I drilled out the primer hole in the case , loosely fitted a bullet in the neck, hand fed the shell into the chamber and seated it by hand then took a cleaning rod and tap the bullet out until it touched the rifling. The problem with that method was I could not extract the shell without loosing the bullet. Seating the bullet into a sized neck upon chambering never occurred to me that the bullet may have been moved within the resized neck.

epk
You need a little more precision when getting your jamb lenght, you just need to modify your method, so you are able to replicate the results 'exactly'! a second time.
There are two forms of 'reference' you can use when finding a seating depth, a touch or kiss, or a jamb lenght. Either will be sufficent in a hunting rifle, but in a BR rifle the jamb method will give you a more consistant reference.
What you need to understand is getting a 'correct' and 'meaningful' jamb measurement will take time and be painful, the first few times you do it. The sole purpose of achieving a jamb lenght and using this to futher tune your barrel, so you can reduce verticle and then as the throat wears you can keep your barrel in tune.
This can we wrought with error, when you first attempt this method, as mentioned above. Some things i have found useful, first remove your firing pin, then I use .003" neck tension, this can be duplicated later, even if is not your preferred tension. Do not reuse the same case over, as when a bullet has been fitted and removed from a case a few times, it can effect the available neck tension and vary your results. Once you think you have achieved the result, test it with 3x futher new cases to see if it duplicates. If it does not you may have gone in too far. Be aware, when a bullet is seated out to far, it can be pushed in, and also slip back out when the case is removed, if gripped temporarily by the lands. Take time and you will see good results
Start at the touch mark and go in .003" each time, and see when the OAL changes.
Good shooting!
Jim

 

[alinwa]

I.P.T huhh... I like it! I've never seen the term

 

[Scott Fletcher]

I was reluctant to post to this thread. I am a successful long range benchrester, but am likely considered highly suspect of not truly understanding short range accuracy. However, accuracy is accuracy, be it long range or short. What finally "pushed my button" was FBecigneul's caustic (and totally inappropriate) post denigrating ekp and what I thought was a very relevant question/concept. The helpful, appropriate responses from what I believe are some very knowledgeable folks centered on only one basic accuracy concept: arbitrarily assume that some "jam" length is the most accurate seating depth, then adjust the powder to tune the system. There is no doubt that this approach can and does work for achieving highly successful competitive accuracy at both long and short range. However, there is another approach that has achieved equally successful competitve accuracy at long range: hold the powder charge at or near peak system pressure, and strategically adjust the seating depth to tune the system. As Wilbur correctly inferred, this approach can cause "caliper callouses" and is one of the (minor) annoyances associated with this approach. Joe Salt, another accomplished long range benchrester, kept politely dropping hints about how to mitigate "smoking callipers" during the seating depth measuring process. The objective of my response is to describe the "hold the powder and adjust the seating depth" approach, as I believe it could be a valuable tool in achieving competitve success in the short range venue. Viable choices are a good thing.

The short range game is apparently evolving to the realization that weighing powder instead of throwing it has merit. Weighing powder should be considered mandatory for this approach because of the burn rate of the powders used, their (typical) temperature sensitivity, the relatively small case volume of the PPC, and the likelihood that the selected seating depth will be "somewhere" into the lands. Translation: the intent of precisely determining powder charge is to reduce the prospect of rapid pressure spikes that ruin brass, pitch shots, and interfere with return to battery (bolt wrestling).

I would hope that most folks will agree that the best accuracy is found at or near maximum pressure. There are exceptions, I know, but I consider an "at-or-near max pressure" scenario to be more likely than not in achieving optimal accuracy. Thus, the first task is to determine the maximum pressure in the system. This is easily accomplished by measuring the extractor groove diameter to determine at what powder charge the brass begins to yield (grow). I would suggest the following methodology for the PPC case:

- load brand new brass at powder charges that progress in 0.3 grain increments. The intent is to have at least one case loaded to the point where you believe you could achieve a noticeable/significant ejector mark on the rim/modest difficulty in lifting the bolt.

-seat the bullets at what you believe is an appropriate "jam". This can be considered conservative, as any subsequent seating further into the lands will only marginally increase pressure. Any subsequent seating off the lands will decrease pressure, sometimes significantly.

- record the base of the case to bullet ogive length as the "seating depth".

- measure the extractor groove diameter of each case to the nearest 1/2 thousanth. (0.0005). This will mean interpolating between dial marks in some instances. A surprising percentage of the extractor grooves are egg-shaped, and you need to make sure you are confindent of a max and min diameter. Expect several thousandths variation in readings.

- prepare a table of powder charge vs extractor groove diameter, arranged lowest powder charge to highest. Orient the loaded cases in the same powder progression, and fire them in sequence, lowest to highest powder charge.

- if you have a chronograph, rig it to record velocity. Record the temperature and humidity, preferably with your own portable (cheap) temperature/ humidity device available through such outlets as Fisher Scientific. These data will be the basis for strategic powder adjustments when weather conditions change. (this information could be the key for solving the "Friday Gun" syndrome)

- rig a target at 200 yards. Rig your wind flags. Progressively fire all rounds at the same target to record a group. (I know that this is uncomfortable for some of you, so take enough conventional sighters so that you feel "good" about shooting the test rounds at the same target).

- after each test round, measure the extractor groove diameter. Concurrently, plot a schematic in a notebook of where the bullet impacts are in relation to each other. The intent is to later actually mark on the target where each shot hit. I assign a number to my shots, with the number 1 associated with the first shot/lowest powder charge.

- keep firing the test rounds until you get a change (increase) in extractor groove diameter. When you identify the first extractor groove diameter increase, by definition, you have just identified the maximum powder charge/pressure in the system. The powder charge of interest (baseline) is the one 0.3 grains less than this maximum charge.

Some of you will have 3 to 4 shots before you discover the maximum powder charge. Others will know their system so well that they will determine it with only 2 shots. Actually, more shots are better. I have found that what prints on the target is validation of whether the system "likes" the powder its being fed or merely tolerates it. (That is a whole differnt topic that I won't go into in this respnse) It also can be a visual validation of what can happen to your groups when you "cross the line" into max pressure, as the chances are pretty good that the first shot at max pressure is significantly outside the group formed by the other shots with less pressure.

Through this testing process, we now know a powder charge is that is 0.3 grains less than maximum. This is the baseline powder charge at which subsequent load development through strategic seating depth adjustment will be performed. This is done by shooting 2-shot "groups" at 200 yds to identify which seating depths are obviously "bad", and focusing on those that appear to be "good". A suggested approach is as follows:

- using the 0.3 grns less-than-maximum powder charge, load test rounds to perform 2-shot groups to bracket the the previously determined "jam" seating depth by a total of 0.005 inches both further into and out of the lands. The 2-shot test rounds will be loaded at 0.001 inch increments to plus or minus 0.005 inches of "jam". The sequence would be, from longest to shortest seating depth, +5 (thousandths), +4, +3, +2, +1, "jam", -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, for a total of 22 loaded rounds.

-be anal with your seating depth measurements. 0.001 inch IS important, and has repeatedly turned target garbage into target gold for me. Expect seating depth variations of up to several thousandths with the same seater stem setting. Variations in neck thickness (yes, neck thickness, brass "flows" with repeated firings, and the flow is not uniform. I know some of you don't believe me; if so, re-turn some old brass and be prepared for some potentially ugly "different" results), neck cleanliness, and work hardening all contribute to the variability in seating depth. Invest in a kinetic bullet puller to tap bullets slightly back so that they can be precisely reseated.

- shoot each 2-shot group at a separate target at 200 yds. Rig your flags and sighter rounds. Shoot as if you are after bug holes, cause you are. The attached is a recent sequence of 2-shot groups at a baseline powder charge within 0.5 grains of max at seating depths from -18 to -24 off the lands. Target 8 is the -18 seating depth, and target 14 is the -24 seating depth. These were shot at 200 yds with my 338 heavy gun. Although flags were rigged, no sighters were shot. (the boy ain't right....)

- the resultant 2-shot groups are the basis for confirmation, 5 shot group testing at the selected seating depth and baseline powder charge. In the furnished example, I will subsequently focus on the seating depth associated with target 10. If there is any vertical to the 5-shot confirmation testing, I have 0.5 grains of powder to play with before I am at max pressure in my system. (in the PPC example there is 0.3 grains to play with). If I don't like the results at the seating depth associated with target 10, I have other promising seating depths to flesh out.

- record the velocity, temperature, and humidity of your load development testing. In my opinion, the only reason for a short range benchrester to record velocity is to help make strategic powder adjustments in different weather conditions, knowing that the velocity obtained during a satisfactory confirmation group is the baseline velocity. This baseline velocity is an indirect, but applicable, indicator of pressure in the system. I would not be the least concerned with ES or SD.

The foregoing assumes that the match load achieved at 200 yds will work at 100. Again, there are exceptions, but a successful 200 yard load will more likely than not work at 100 yards.

I will close with one final thought: accuracy is where you find it. That means you may have to look elsewhere, sometimes in counter intuitive areas, when canned recipes or "tried and true" approaches don't quite work. Strategically adjusting seating depth at a fixed powder charge is one way a short range benchrester could potentially turn a system that "refuses to shoot" into one that spits bug holes. The only way you'll know is to give it a go.

Scott

 

[alinwa]

I just printed this thread,

thanks Scott

al

 

[Joe Woosman]

Scott - Thank you very much for taking the time to share this with us.

 

[Boyd Allen]

Scott,
When working up a load with a new powder, I follow a procedure that is similar to yours, but there are some differences.

Short range rifles may not have an ejector, so obviously some other indicator is needed in those situations. Also the heads of Lapua .220 Russian brass are pretty hard. For my purposes I have found that simply using bolt lift as an indicator works pretty well, given that I FL size every time, and do not set up loads so that I have to wrestle the rifle to work the action. Using this approach, I have not seen problems with primer pocket enlargement, and although there is a tendency for hot loads to develop a click at the top of the bolts lift, I have the means to deal with that issue. For other calibers, I have used the indicators that you mentioned.

I look for a maximum load with bullets seated pretty much as you do, although with the combination of how little my bullets are in case necks at jam, and the available bullet grip using necks that are somewhere between .0086 and .008 I have found it prudent to do this at .003 off of jam, to avoid pulling bullets if I have to unchamber a loaded round.

As to seating depth, although most short range competitors are probably seating into the rifling, at at least one of the very top shooters generally jumps his bullets. Also, some of the best shooting that I have witnessed was done with loads that were much lighter than average. I say this in agreement with your point about looking in unexpected places.

I try to do my initial stepped. one shot per increment testing on a day and at a time of day when the wind is light and predictable, trying to shoot all shots as close as possible to the same condition, and holding center for all shots. By doing this, on a single target, I can see where small differences in charge weight show the least difference in bullet impact.

Overall, I think that many shooters do not take the methodical approach to tune that you outlined, and that they would benefit from doing so.

 

[Boyd Allen]

I think that the issue may be one of the muzzle's vibration pattern, and where within that pattern bullets exit, that seating depth may relate to timing in a way that is not a direct result of changes in velocity. This would probably be at one of a barrel's higner harmonics.

Putting a properly positioned weight at the muzzle has been reported by a top short range competitor as broadening tuning nodes. I think that this is because the weight reduces the amplitude of the higher harmonic, reducing the slope of the wave form. This may be a separate but related effect from what is done by moving the weight to tune a lower harmonic.

One may also take note that some very sucessful tuner designs incorporate materials that were selected for their vibration damping properties. It has been said that because of the speed with which vibrations travel in steel that vibrations that take place as the rifle is fired, that have mechanical origins, travel to the muzzle and back several times before a bullet exits. It has also been said that there is also a wave that is generated by the the pressure expanding the bore, that travels down the barrel independently of the bullet. It seems to me that getting all of these various factors into the most advantageous relationship is a problem that is complicated enough to challenge anyone, and that it can be attacked with more than one method.

With regard to your experiment, could it be that too small of a hole may be a problem because of the reason that you have postulated, but that enlarging the hole, while removing that issue may merely be letting something else that is not gas flow related show a positive effect. I will of course be interested in your results.

A friend, who does his own work, decided to develop his own muzzle brake design, took a rigorous approach, building and testing at least a half a dozen different designs. During that testing he noted that accuracy from the same barrel was different with different weight, and length tuners, and that this was probably very much like what is involved when configuring and adjusting a tuner. I think that it would be interesting to design a brake, for hunting applications, that had provision for adding small weights on the end.

 

[ekp]

I was reluctant to post to this thread. I am a successful long range benchrester, but am likely considered highly suspect of not truly understanding short range accuracy. However, accuracy is accuracy, be it long range or short. What finally "pushed my button" was FBecigneul's caustic (and totally inappropriate) post denigrating ekp and what I thought was a very relevant question/concept. The helpful, appropriate responses from what I believe are some very knowledgeable folks centered on only one basic accuracy concept: arbitrarily assume that some "jam" length is the most accurate seating depth, then adjust the powder to tune the system. There is no doubt that this approach can and does work for achieving highly successful competitive accuracy at both long and short range. However, there is another approach that has achieved equally successful competitve accuracy at long range: hold the powder charge at or near peak system pressure, and strategically adjust the seating depth to tune the system. As Wilbur correctly inferred, this approach can cause "caliper callouses" and is one of the (minor) annoyances associated with this approach. Joe Salt, another accomplished long range benchrester, kept politely dropping hints about how to mitigate "smoking callipers" during the seating depth measuring process. The objective of my response is to describe the "hold the powder and adjust the seating depth" approach, as I believe it could be a valuable tool in achieving competitve success in the short range venue. Viable choices are a good thing.

The short range game is apparently evolving to the realization that weighing powder instead of throwing it has merit. Weighing powder should be considered mandatory for this approach because of the burn rate of the powders used, their (typical) temperature sensitivity, the relatively small case volume of the PPC, and the likelihood that the selected seating depth will be "somewhere" into the lands. Translation: the intent of precisely determining powder charge is to reduce the prospect of rapid pressure spikes that ruin brass, pitch shots, and interfere with return to battery (bolt wrestling).

I would hope that most folks will agree that the best accuracy is found at or near maximum pressure. There are exceptions, I know, but I consider an "at-or-near max pressure" scenario to be more likely than not in achieving optimal accuracy. Thus, the first task is to determine the maximum pressure in the system. This is easily accomplished by measuring the extractor groove diameter to determine at what powder charge the brass begins to yield (grow). I would suggest the following methodology for the PPC case:

- load brand new brass at powder charges that progress in 0.3 grain increments. The intent is to have at least one case loaded to the point where you believe you could achieve a noticeable/significant ejector mark on the rim/modest difficulty in lifting the bolt.

-seat the bullets at what you believe is an appropriate "jam". This can be considered conservative, as any subsequent seating further into the lands will only marginally increase pressure. Any subsequent seating off the lands will decrease pressure, sometimes significantly.

- record the base of the case to bullet ogive length as the "seating depth".

- measure the extractor groove diameter of each case to the nearest 1/2 thousanth. (0.0005). This will mean interpolating between dial marks in some instances. A surprising percentage of the extractor grooves are egg-shaped, and you need to make sure you are confindent of a max and min diameter. Expect several thousandths variation in readings.

- prepare a table of powder charge vs extractor groove diameter, arranged lowest powder charge to highest. Orient the loaded cases in the same powder progression, and fire them in sequence, lowest to highest powder charge.

- if you have a chronograph, rig it to record velocity. Record the temperature and humidity, preferably with your own portable (cheap) temperature/ humidity device available through such outlets as Fisher Scientific. These data will be the basis for strategic powder adjustments when weather conditions change. (this information could be the key for solving the "Friday Gun" syndrome)

- rig a target at 200 yards. Rig your wind flags. Progressively fire all rounds at the same target to record a group. (I know that this is uncomfortable for some of you, so take enough conventional sighters so that you feel "good" about shooting the test rounds at the same target).

- after each test round, measure the extractor groove diameter. Concurrently, plot a schematic in a notebook of where the bullet impacts are in relation to each other. The intent is to later actually mark on the target where each shot hit. I assign a number to my shots, with the number 1 associated with the first shot/lowest powder charge.

- keep firing the test rounds until you get a change (increase) in extractor groove diameter. When you identify the first extractor groove diameter increase, by definition, you have just identified the maximum powder charge/pressure in the system. The powder charge of interest (baseline) is the one 0.3 grains less than this maximum charge.

Some of you will have 3 to 4 shots before you discover the maximum powder charge. Others will know their system so well that they will determine it with only 2 shots. Actually, more shots are better. I have found that what prints on the target is validation of whether the system "likes" the powder its being fed or merely tolerates it. (That is a whole differnt topic that I won't go into in this respnse) It also can be a visual validation of what can happen to your groups when you "cross the line" into max pressure, as the chances are pretty good that the first shot at max pressure is significantly outside the group formed by the other shots with less pressure.

Through this testing process, we now know a powder charge is that is 0.3 grains less than maximum. This is the baseline powder charge at which subsequent load development through strategic seating depth adjustment will be performed. This is done by shooting 2-shot "groups" at 200 yds to identify which seating depths are obviously "bad", and focusing on those that appear to be "good". A suggested approach is as follows:

- using the 0.3 grns less-than-maximum powder charge, load test rounds to perform 2-shot groups to bracket the the previously determined "jam" seating depth by a total of 0.005 inches both further into and out of the lands. The 2-shot test rounds will be loaded at 0.001 inch increments to plus or minus 0.005 inches of "jam". The sequence would be, from longest to shortest seating depth, +5 (thousandths), +4, +3, +2, +1, "jam", -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, for a total of 22 loaded rounds.

-be anal with your seating depth measurements. 0.001 inch IS important, and has repeatedly turned target garbage into target gold for me. Expect seating depth variations of up to several thousandths with the same seater stem setting. Variations in neck thickness (yes, neck thickness, brass "flows" with repeated firings, and the flow is not uniform. I know some of you don't believe me; if so, re-turn some old brass and be prepared for some potentially ugly "different" results), neck cleanliness, and work hardening all contribute to the variability in seating depth. Invest in a kinetic bullet puller to tap bullets slightly back so that they can be precisely reseated.

- shoot each 2-shot group at a separate target at 200 yds. Rig your flags and sighter rounds. Shoot as if you are after bug holes, cause you are. The attached is a recent sequence of 2-shot groups at a baseline powder charge within 0.5 grains of max at seating depths from -18 to -24 off the lands. Target 8 is the -18 seating depth, and target 14 is the -24 seating depth. These were shot at 200 yds with my 338 heavy gun. Although flags were rigged, no sighters were shot. (the boy ain't right....)

- the resultant 2-shot groups are the basis for confirmation, 5 shot group testing at the selected seating depth and baseline powder charge. In the furnished example, I will subsequently focus on the seating depth associated with target 10. If there is any vertical to the 5-shot confirmation testing, I have 0.5 grains of powder to play with before I am at max pressure in my system. (in the PPC example there is 0.3 grains to play with). If I don't like the results at the seating depth associated with target 10, I have other promising seating depths to flesh out.

- record the velocity, temperature, and humidity of your load development testing. In my opinion, the only reason for a short range benchrester to record velocity is to help make strategic powder adjustments in different weather conditions, knowing that the velocity obtained during a satisfactory confirmation group is the baseline velocity. This baseline velocity is an indirect, but applicable, indicator of pressure in the system. I would not be the least concerned with ES or SD.

The foregoing assumes that the match load achieved at 200 yds will work at 100. Again, there are exceptions, but a successful 200 yard load will more likely than not work at 100 yards.

I will close with one final thought: accuracy is where you find it. That means you may have to look elsewhere, sometimes in counter intuitive areas, when canned recipes or "tried and true" approaches don't quite work. Strategically adjusting seating depth at a fixed powder charge is one way a short range benchrester could potentially turn a system that "refuses to shoot" into one that spits bug holes. The only way you'll know is to give it a go.

Scott

I am thrilled with the information I have gathered from this thread. I will be spending a lot of time in study. One thing that intrigues me about your method is that after establishing the max pressure I can load up a lot and go to the range and just adjust the seating depth for best group. My reloading equipment does not travel well. I do have an old Belding and Mull in line reloader that I inherited from my father that works pretty well.

I hope this does not stir the pot again but to return to my original question..is there ,as my intuition tells me, stored energy in the bullet when seating that continues to make the bullet travel in the seating die when the stem is home. All this dependent on all the variables mentioned in all the responses. Would seating in the die in stages or seating slower allow this built up energy be expended more in line with when the die is home.?

 

[Boyd Allen]

While the argument might be made that use of a mallet to seat bullet with an arbor press die might do exactly what you have reported, I do not think that the much slower velocity associated with the use of an arbor press, could cause seating past where the die is set. BTW, I forget, did you verify these variations by measurement off of the ogives of seated bullets?

As far as finding your top safe charge weight and doing all of your tuning with seating depth.....good luck. You will need it, or perhaps I misunderstood your plan.

 

[David Halblom]

if your equipment

I am thrilled with the information I have gathered from this thread. I will be spending a lot of time in study. One thing that intrigues me about your method is that after establishing the max pressure I can load up a lot and go to the range and just adjust the seating depth for best group. My reloading equipment does not travel well. I do have an old Belding and Mull in line reloader that I inherited from my father that works pretty well.

I hope this does not stir the pot again but to return to my original question..is there ,as my intuition tells me, stored energy in the bullet when seating that continues to make the bullet travel in the seating die when the stem is home. All this dependent on all the variables mentioned in all the responses. Would seating in the die in stages or seating slower allow this built up energy be expended more in line with when the die is home.?[/QUOTE

does not lend itself to travel to the range for testing, you are greatly limiting you time to skill acquisition. If you must do all your work at home then travel to the range to test, you will have a set a innate variables that are not apparent. Plus the time needed to even begin to approach optimum is increased to a factor that is an impediment. You are trying to achieve Super Shoot conditions using Stone Age equipment. Your equipment is good for minute of deer, not minute of angle.

 

[ekp]

I am thrilled with the information I have gathered from this thread. I will be spending a lot of time in study. One thing that intrigues me about your method is that after establishing the max pressure I can load up a lot and go to the range and just adjust the seating depth for best group. My reloading equipment does not travel well. I do have an old Belding and Mull in line reloader that I inherited from my father that works pretty well.

I hope this does not stir the pot again but to return to my original question..is there ,as my intuition tells me, stored energy in the bullet when seating that continues to make the bullet travel in the seating die when the stem is home. All this dependent on all the variables mentioned in all the responses. Would seating in the die in stages or seating slower allow this built up energy be expended more in line with when the die is home.?[/QUOTE

does not lend itself to travel to the range for testing, you are greatly limiting you time to skill acquisition. If you must do all your work at home then travel to the range to test, you will have a set a innate variables that are not apparent. Plus the time needed to even begin to approach optimum is increased to a factor that is an impediment. You are trying to achieve Super Shoot conditions using Stone Age equipment. Your equipment is good for minute of deer, not minute of angle.

you are probably correct. Will need to improve

 

[ekp]

While the argument might be made that use of a mallet to seat bullet with an arbor press die might do exactly what you have reported, I do not think that the much slower velocity associated with the use of an arbor press, could cause seating past where the die is set. BTW, I forget, did you verify these variations by measurement off of the ogives of seated bullets?

As far as finding your top safe charge weight and doing all of your tuning with seating depth.....good luck. You will need it, or perhaps I misunderstood your plan.

I did measure with comparometer and sort accordingly but the loads I have waiting to go to the range had already been reseated to try to get out the variance. The largest variance from the ogive was .005 and was put aside as foulers. The loads I am traveling with all have the same charge weight the only difference is the seating depth. It would be easier and more economical for me to change the seating depth at the range after seeing results in real time. I do realize that loading at the range is preferable but given the season it is more comfortable at home. My Belding and Mull may be stone age equipment but was highly thought of in their day. My powder measure is also a Belding and Mull and I believe to be very accurate and I do trickle up my loads. My regular press is a Rock Chucker and here again is not up to the standards that benchresters are comfortable with. I am aware of the shortcomings but if I can make things better using refined techniques that will be good for me. That is why I appreciate all the help I have received. All of my rifles are capable of sub MOA (strapped down in rest). The variable I thought I saw from the point of the bullet was the reason for the initial request for information and the information I received has corrected that opinion for which I am grateful.

When I received my Cooper I called them for the recipe they use to test fire the rifle. I was prepared to give them the serial number assuming that the recipe was particular to the rifle. Not so. All rifles of the same caliber use the same recipe. They test fire and if it does not meet there standard the work on the rifle. That seemed at odds to my way of doing things. I have worked up tons of loads looking for the right combination to optimize performance. Seating depth was not on my radar. I usually set the depth about .020 from the lands and just vary the charge weight. If I could go to the range with an optimal weight and bullets seated at the jam I could then just take shims out and check the results.

I apologize for lack of knowledge and therefore the stupid questions I asked and wish everyone the best in their upcoming events..

 

[Boyd Allen]

You have nothing at all to apologize for. We are all enjoying the same hobby, trying to learn something new where we can, and enjoying sharing what we have learned.

I started out with a 788 Remington chambered in .308, a Lee Loader, and a plastic mallet. At the time, there was no internet, and I didn't have any friends who reloaded, so it was all cut and try. Powder was measured with a dipper. The scope was the cheapest 4X that Tasco made at the time, I had no rest or bags, and I had to walk down range to see where my shots were hitting on the target. Some time after that, while at the range, I met a fellow who shot benchrest in formal competition. He was there with his whole loading and cleaning kit, shooting off of a real rest, probably a Hart, and making little tiny groups. Striking up a conversation, I found that he didn't mind telling me about what he was doing, and why. Later, after I had seen him at the range a couple of times, he invited me to his house, where he showed me an issue of Precision Shooting magazine. It was all fascinating to me. A few weeks later an older fellow, that I knew from the coffee shop that I frequented, told me that he wanted to sell his father's guns and reloading equipment, but did not want to advertise in the paper. He asked me if I knew anyone that would be interested. I was able to find him some buyers for the rifles, and he sold me the reloading stuff cheaply enough that I was able to sell off the surplus and keep what I needed as my profit. I ended up with a powder measure, press, some dies, a scale, one of the better Bushnell spotting scopes with a bench top tripod, and an Outers rifle rest and sand bag setup. With all of that, my shooting hobby took a "great leap forward". In the mean time , I had fitted a recoil pad, refinished the stock, floated the barrel, and bedded the action. At the time, with that cheap scope, my best five shot groups, wallet groups, were around 5/8 ". I had not a clue about the complexities of load tuning, and I was neck sizing with that plastic mallet and seating bullets the same way.

We all start at the beginning, and it is all about the journey. I had just as much fun then, as I do now, maybe more. It was all so new, with so much to learn. I hope that you enjoy your hobby as much as I have mine. There are no stupid questions, and if some of the answers are more abrasive than they need to be, it is because we may have forgotten where we started. Good shooting...Keep asking.

 

[Al Nyhus]

ekp:

My first 'real' accuracy handloading was for a 220 Swift. Like you, I started out with the basics. I was fortunate to have a friend that was an accuracy minded handloader and predator hunter. He took me under his wing and explained the basics to me. As I got more comfortable handloading, he guided me to the more advanced 'tweaks'. I followed his advice and bought good, reliable stuff...a Redding 3BR measure, Redding Deluxe 3 pc die set, an RCBS press and scale and a Dewey rid with a Sinclair rod guide. And he turned me on to Precision Shooting Magazine.

As I began to work on my rifle and spend time at the range, I found it to be a lot of fun. One day, a member who was active in our ranges HBR matches came over and politely suggested that if I wasn't using wind flags, I was wasting time, effort and components. I had seen an article on how to make windflags in PS, so I cobbled together a pretty rudimentary vane style flag and a whole new world opened up! Now things started to make sense! Fast forward 15 years and I'm making my own .30 cal. bullets, have four honest-to-gawd BR rigs in the gun safe and travel thousands of miles each year competing in registered IBS and NBRSA events.

In some ways, those early days of discovery and excitement were more fun. Make sure that whatever level you take this to, have fun doing it and keep it fun!

Good shootin'. -Al

 

[SGJennings]

EKP: a lot of good information here. I think that you will find most of it to be "down in the noise" for all but a "full race" context. By context, I mean purpose, rifle, rest, windflags, bench, et al. The whole enchilada.

You would be served best by using a published loading guide, starting low and progressing up in small increments till you find a powder charge that the rifle appears to like. Then, play with the seating depth to "fine tune".

Sure, there are more sophisticated ideas out there, but for what you're doing, applying it well will probably put you in the top few percentiles of all reloaders.

I grew up on a 220 Swift on a Mauser action. Hoke Kerns let me shoot his RF BR rifle when I lived in Montgomery, AL. Ruined me for life.

 

[ekp]

EKP: a lot of good information here. I think that you will find most of it to be "down in the noise" for all but a "full race" context. By context, I mean purpose, rifle, rest, windflags, bench, et al. The whole enchilada.

You would be served best by using a published loading guide, starting low and progressing up in small increments till you find a powder charge that the rifle appears to like. Then, play with the seating depth to "fine tune".

Sure, there are more sophisticated ideas out there, but for what you're doing, applying it well will probably put you in the top few percentiles of all reloaders.

I grew up on a 220 Swift on a Mauser action. Hoke Kerns let me shoot his RF BR rifle when I lived in Montgomery, AL. Ruined me for life.

I see that you hail from Ohio. My wife and I were just in Wellsville. My father and grandfather were on the PD there in the 20's and 30's. My father was on a posse who went after Pretty Boy Floyd. He was my mentor in the shooting and reloading area.

This photo of my father is in the library of congress. He is center front and the Krags pictured are in my safe.


Wellsville Posse