In the long run which is more precise or accurate on target

have you shot as small as 0.116 ?? its been seen by both the 'smith that chambered for me and the bullet maker(bib). i have beaten 6ppc's with my 308 win br in club matches.
still not good enough for me, so i'm still working on my matell toys.....you are not the only br rifle owner in the workd...i would say most are plastic stocks,,,not wood, tho yes some wood is still used, but guess what?? they make wood stocks for the ar family! and my 6 beggs does nto have a gas port....so do some reading on these forums about MY rifles before making ASSumptions about my rifles.
keep trying........
mike in co
MarkR said:
Once again mike, I didn't "imply" anything. It simply asks what the short range record holders used......thrown or weighed.
If you prefer to weigh your charges to the inth degree....by all means do so. Although...please don't act pompous about your BR knowledge....which is obviously quite minimal. By the way my rifles are laminated wood and steel and don't have gas ports and really will shoot very tiny groups...not just BS'ing about them on the internet.
Click to expand...
 
Well Mike, when you shoot one of those .116's in a regestered match BR oe not, we'll have something to talk about. By the way, I plan on commng to Ault, Co this fall for the BR match, maybe you can come on down and shoot with us.
 
i hope to shoot at ault one of these days.. work/lack of income has stopped work on the guns. its the loading sequence in 7 mins that is the issue, not the accuracy of the rifles.
like i have said, i have stuff to try..no time or money right now.
mike in co
MarkR said:
Well Mike, when you shoot one of those .116's in a regestered match BR oe not, we'll have something to talk about. By the way, I plan on commng to Ault, Co this fall for the BR match, maybe you can come on down and shoot with us.
Click to expand...
 
K Hope said:
I do not disagree; however, if I want to add more weight to a full case I need to increase the volumetric density. I think Charles is correct; there are numerous mechanisms that affect Burn Rates.

Ken
Click to expand...

OK Ken, since Charles seems to have his tail in a crack maybe you can help me.....

I shoot thousands of rounds over the chrono. I load for factory and wildcat, small to large, mundane to weird. From shortened PPC-based rounds to blown out cases that swallow well over 100 grains of powder per gulp.

I run through more than a few "variables," for instance I've currently 7 different 6BR chambers of different sizes, fatnesses and longnesses. Like Charles I buy my reamers throatless and routinely change throats thereby fiddling with volumetric efficiencies.......

Yes, "there are numerous mechanisms that affect Burn Rates." I think we agree here, but there is NOTHING that compensates for varying charge weights, acting to counter Extreme Spread. Adding that some setups will compensate for differences in velocity (an effect commonly referred to as "tuning") such that groups on target don't reflect the variations in velocity is irrelevant.

UNLESS............ and this is a big UNLESS.......... but it's out there right now.

UNLESS there are those who contend that because "some winning groups are produced by thrown loads" and "some loads with higher ES are more accurate than the loads fired that day which had low ES numbers" somehow thrown loads are "better...."

SOMEHOW thrown loads can be more accurate than weighed loads.

Some seem to be stating as provable fact that thrown loads can be "better" than weighed....all else being equal.

YES or NO?

Howsabout some reasonable explanations..... or even some anecdotal evidence that once you've got a good load (often found by throwing charges) you can screw that up by weighing powder. Somehow the act of weighing can make a load "worse."

????


There useta' be a lot of opinionated rhetoric about "volumetric charge variation" VS "weighed charge variation" but then ever'body and their mother's brothers got good scales and hmmmmmmmm......."ya add a liddle powder and the velocity goes up a liddle." Or doesn't. But the ES numbers are just REMARKABLE either way......

So I think we can argue about all kinds of "effects" but I stand by my statement, "the ONLY way you'll experience consistently low ES numbers is by weighing powder."

And we can argue 'til the cows come home about whether or not low ES is "needed..."

Or any other variable......BUT......

weighing=low ES

IME

al
 
Al,
As you know, I am not in the thrown loads are better camp, just in the matches are won with small aggs. shot with thrown charges camp. This is not subject to argument. The results have been there for all to see, for years......in short range benchrest. If your node in wide enough, and if your charge weight variance keeps you within it, yada yada yada. It works. There is also the bit about match conditions, and difference in ability. A while back there were several days of really good conditions at the nationals ( I believe) and ome shooters, who normally do not see these conditions, came away from that experience understanding that, to be competitive, at the top level, under those conditions, that they were going to have to have better equipment. Also, all of the fellows that shoot surplus 8208 are/were able to stay within a narrower band of charge weights with any given measure setting. Of course you know all of this. The simple truth is that winning matches is a weakest link thing, just like accuracy. And short range is quite a bit different than long range. They have a lot in common, but the differences, as you well know, are significant.

Years ago, this whole subject was discussed in length in an article in Precision Shooting. In it there was a picture of some fired cases that all had the same weight of ball powder in them and a bullet set on top of the powder. The case necks were loose enough so that the bullets were free to slide within them, so that the overall height was indicative of the differences in powder level. They were all over the place. The message was that there were significant differences in case volume, which controlling charge weight did not address.

I can turn neck to a total variance that exceed the requirements of short range accuracy. I worry about loaded round straightness to a level that I cannot prove makes a difference, and under most conditions, I cannot see the difference between well thrown charges, and those that have been weighed, at the distances that I shoot, with the powders that I use. If you need proof, look at the most recent unlimited agg. records (which I most certainly did not shoot). On the other hand, I can see no disadvantage in weighing charges, and I can see several advantages. As far as weighing equaling low ES, I think that you should point out that this depends on a lot of other factors having been well attended to. I think that we have all seen the fellow at the range who is worrying about small differences in charge weight while at the same time ignoring several more important variables.
Boyd
 
al and boyd..nice posts, but
boyd....
in the precision shooting article,
had the cases been weight sorted ?
or better yet, volume sorted ??
and what was the powder. we all know n133 is a mix of grain size...so easy for two 29gr loads to have different volume.
if done with volume sorted cases and oem 8208...i doubt one would see such issues....
maybe even with imr8208, even with its 15% larger grain size.
mike in co
 
Boyd, I agree, but the OP was specific, the heading is "In the long run which is more precise or accurate on target?"

I'm answering only to this question. I think we tend to get sidetracked with other issues...... like learning how to shoot. :)

Or what actually "works" (or has worked) in the real world. These are valid issues, valid points being made, but the question as posed is not in this vein.

Regarding other points, we could go all over the map here. For instance I disagree with mike about the importance of weight or volume sorting cases, even for long range. I'm not saying it's relevant to the OP, in fact my aim is to steer the thread back to the original question, but it is an interesting sidetrack, as are many of the other points that have been made. To stick with mike's latest post I again have opinions regarding the last part........
" we all know n133 is a mix of grain size...so easy for two 29gr loads to have different volume.
if done with volume sorted cases and oem 8208...i doubt one would see such issues....
maybe even with imr8208, even with its 15% larger grain size."
Click to expand...

I've found weighing to work in small cases too. I remember about a year ago Gene Beggs posted that he experienced something like 50fps spreads in the PPC (Beggs) sized cases and "couldn't get it down into single digits." I don't know where Gene stands on this today but my weighed charges EASILY achieve single digits in 220R cases. Even if perceived volumes vary.


All I ask is, let's all share our experiences and opinions freely. I'm not 'preaching' or trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just sharing my experiences and, yes, "arguing" or supporting my opinion. Currently I'm a "weighed charge apologist :) " I guess. I'm no expert, just an experimenter as you well know. But I remember when a certain fellow named Vaughn devoted tens of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours to the subject of accuracy and the response he got here was "who is this Vaughn guy? I ain't seen none a' HIS graveyards!" "He's not even a BR shooter".... never mind the fact that he enlisted some seriously heavy BR hitters to help him with perspective.

AND, this is the General Discussion Board. I see no reason to focus on, or stop at the fact that short-range BR doesn't show huge benefit from weighing charges. This is true. This has been established/hashed/discussed/diss'd and demonstrated to distraction. Which doesn't change the fact that a lot of shortrangers are convinced that there IS a place for weighed charges. Even in point blank BR. Also, I believe that statements like "a lot of records have been set with thrown charges" just clouds the issue. Unless there's reason to believe that those thrown charges were BETTER than if they'd been weighed, they're not pertinent to the original question.


opinionsby



al
 
BTW.... I missed a question.

Boyd, in the ref'd article did the weighed charges which varied so wildly also vary wildly in velocity?

I disremember

al
 
I have won a little and was back in the pack a lot useing weighed and thrown charges. But after watching the Boop's constantly weighing charges all through the day and adjusting their measure accordingly I now weigh every charge. It may not help but it gives me piece of mind that the charge weight is not my problem when I am not doing good.
Bob
 
Bob,
It seems to me that verifying the weight that results from a given measure setting is a very good idea, even if one does not weigh each charge. I think that we have very good evidence that powder changes density as ambient conditions change.
Al,
I guess that one of the main points that I was trying to make with my last post was that one can fall into traps of worrying about the wrong things too much just because we have the tools to measure and see them. For instance, at 1-200 yards, single digit ESs aren't particularly relavant. At 600 and particularly 1,000, they are. This all does go back to the original question, to which the answer is ....it depends. If you have limited time, because you are loading between matches, which most of the great short range shooters do, for good reason, time and energy spent on one thing, that may not matter, may have been better allocated to something that does. When you load at home (as is the practice when shooting longer distances) , and or have the freedom to choose when you will shoot so as not to have to contend with unfavorable conditions (as I think we all tend to when practicing) this is not so much an issue.....IMO.
Boyd
 
mike in co said:
i hope to shoot at ault one of these days.. work/lack of income has stopped work on the guns. its the loading sequence in 7 mins that is the issue, not the accuracy of the rifles.
like i have said, i have stuff to try..no time or money right now.
mike in co
Click to expand...

Hope I can make it and you too. If there's more than one relay, and there usually is, that seven minutes opens up quite nicely, if theres three relays you could count kernals of powder if you're so inclined. Don't think we'll see an AR compete with the benchrest guns though, no matter how you load it. :)
 
all else being equal

Like I said Al I do not disagree but I am not totally convinced yet……. But, you are doing a pretty good job!!!. I certainly do not have any hard data only empirical observations as a few others. Pete mentioned about seeing more and more shooters coming preloaded; I also have seen this. One other thing I have seen is that a couple of those real good shooters were bringing three different loads preloaded (as often seen at group shoots) Its that kind of thing that makes me wonder.

First; I apologize to all my friends for doing the theorizing and talking about things I know very little about. I really need to change…….

Ok Al this is one of those mechanisms; best I keep the others to myself….. And seeing as how I would like to keep all my body parts; go easy.

Yes energy of the powder is determined by its composition and is measured by weight or percentage of weight. It’s in the delivery where these mechanisms come into play. Powder manufacturers in developing burn rates do not base their results solely on calorimetric values they also measure the results (controlled environment). They do this because although linear there are variations; of which physical properties play a significant role. Two principal physical parameters are size and shape.

Burning mostly a surface phenomenon is key to the ballistic stability; and manufactures go to great lengths to control it. E.g. - Surface moderators to aid with flames that are not well localized and or with bad reproducibility. Size and shape control burning characteristics; shape determines the constancy and the actual time occupied depends on the grain dimensions. When temperature sensitivity is added to the equation initial pressurization can softened grains making them susceptible to deformation, possibly altering the effective web size (compressed load). This overall effect most likely alters flame spread and ballistics, reducing the efficiency of the burn and pressure generation. In other words changing of the peak pressure placement within the cycle.

As you know in Load Density there are two parts to the equation; (weight and volume) of which both have values. I am undecided as to what those values are because I believe both are variable.

Ken
 
you keep thinking that..like the guys that said 222 was king of the hill, or that a 30 would never out shoot a 6ppc. or the guys that say ar's can't shoot.....my 223 and 308 br both shoot low enogh to shoot against br guns. i shoot against 6ppc's and a couple of 6br nearly every year...and every year i beat most of them...so don't say can't just casue you have not seem it.
mike in co
MarkR said:
Hope I can make it and you too. If there's more than one relay, and there usually is, that seven minutes opens up quite nicely, if theres three relays you could count kernals of powder if you're so inclined. Don't think we'll see an AR compete with the benchrest guns though, no matter how you load it. :)
Click to expand...
 
Well, see here's the thing..... I fought and fought and FOUGHT the ES thing. I trimmed and weighed and blowed out and trimmed and weighed and chamfered and trimmed and measured and weighed and annealed and sieved and laid out powder on cardboard and picked individual kernels out and turned and lubed and moly'd and switched primers and adjusted primers and lined primers and weighed primers and bought more better primers and changed my seating depth and bought more tools and gages and measured and reset my dies and switched bullets and barrels and tried other stuff too but my little fingers get so tired....

and

I've tested 10 volumetric powder measures, my "best" being the Harrell's BR model.

I've tested 8 scales, ending up with deciding that the 123 model is adequate since it can consistently discern between individual kernels of stick powder.


and I found small ES



I mean if ONE (1) person, a solitary individual shtruggling in the wilderness would cry out "but, but, but I did, I DID weigh my charges to the kernel and I DID NOT get consistent ES...... I had to go BACK to throwing charges to get the necessary consistency...."

ONE person, PLEASE to step up and TEST THIS instead of telling and retelling ancient history, speculating and opining in this way and that.....

JUST TRY IT!

That's all I ask of the vocal unbelievers out there. TEST for volumetric VS weighed consistency....

And all the speculation just..... disappears into the dirt.

heeepers


al
 
Al,
I think that it is important that you shared the length to which you pursued lowering ES. For someone that is looking for answers, it is often hard to know how much weight to give to a particular opinion or piece of advice. By giving the details, you have given your advice the weight that it deserves.
Boyd
 
alinwa said:
Boyd, I agree, but the OP was specific, the heading is "In the long run which is more precise or accurate on target?"

I'm answering only to this question. (Many Thanks) I think we tend to get sidetracked with other issues...... like learning how to shoot. :)

Or what actually "works" (or has worked) in the real world. These are valid issues, valid points being made, but the question as posed is not in this vein.

Regarding other points, we could go all over the map here. For instance I disagree with mike about the importance of weight or volume sorting cases, even for long range. I'm not saying it's relevant to the OP, in fact my aim is to steer the thread back to the original question, but it is an interesting sidetrack, as are many of the other points that have been made. To stick with mike's latest post I again have opinions regarding the last part........

I've found weighing to work in small cases too. I remember about a year ago Gene Beggs posted that he experienced something like 50fps spreads in the PPC (Beggs) sized cases and "couldn't get it down into single digits." I don't know where Gene stands on this today but my weighed charges EASILY achieve single digits in 220R cases. Even if perceived volumes vary.


All I ask is, let's all share our experiences and opinions freely. I'm not 'preaching' or trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just sharing my experiences and, yes, "arguing" or supporting my opinion. Currently I'm a "weighed charge apologist :) " I guess. I'm no expert, just an experimenter as you well know. But I remember when a certain fellow named Vaughn devoted tens of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours to the subject of accuracy and the response he got here was "who is this Vaughn guy? I ain't seen none a' HIS graveyards!" "He's not even a BR shooter".... never mind the fact that he enlisted some seriously heavy BR hitters to help him with perspective.

AND, this is the General Discussion Board. I see no reason to focus on, or stop at the fact that short-range BR doesn't show huge benefit from weighing charges. This is true. This has been established/hashed/discussed/diss'd and demonstrated to distraction. Which doesn't change the fact that a lot of shortrangers are convinced that there IS a place for weighed charges. Even in point blank BR. Also, I believe that statements like "a lot of records have been set with thrown charges" just clouds the issue. Unless there's reason to believe that those thrown charges were BETTER than if they'd been weighed, they're not pertinent to the original question.


opinionsby



al
Click to expand...

Once again, many thanks... this has been a good exchange of both experience and knowledge... I have learned and gained by the responses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top