T
Tony Shankle
Guest
I recently switched over from the regular/thin jacketed (now called Hunting) Berger 210 VLD’s and wanted to see how the new Target/Thick jackets would sort. Here’s the data…
Started with 300 bullets. Lost two due to damage/sorting during the process so this is based on 298 bullets. Bullet prep before sorting was meplat trimming and hole uniforming (thank you Kevin Cram), pointing with a Whidden pointing die (thanks John), then moly coating. I used Acculab scales for the weight sorting and Shehane’s bearing surface tool (thanks Bill) for the second part of my sorting.
Weight- Count- Percent
209.7- 12- 4.03%
209.8- 39- 13.09%
209.9- 127- 42.62%
210.0- 95- 31.88%
210.1- 25- 8.39%
Notes:
* Scale reads to .02 but sorting was to .1 grains.
** Around 75% of the 209.9’s read 209.98 and a large portion of the 210.0’s read .02 and .04 which makes it possible to resort to .06 grains and have close to 56% in one group (thanks Berger).
For the second part of my sorting I used only the 127 bullets from the 209.9 group above.
Bearing Count Percent
.000- 1- .79% (I would call this one The ES Killer)
.002- 0- 0%
.004- 6- 4.72%
.006- 13- 10.24%
.008- 43- 33.86%
.010- 52- 40.94%
.012- 12- 9.45%
Notes:
* All bullets checked had a runout of .0005” or less.
**All bearing sorting was in groups of .002”
*** Two groups or 74.80% fell into a .004 variance.
All in all I see good improvements and “tip my hat to Berger”. While their stated purpose was to avoid bullet failure it appears to me that the consistency factor has also improved or at least for this one lot. Weight alone seemed to be a huge improvement since I used 3 less sorting boxes than normal.
Before you start… yes, I know that (rainy Saturday) x (way too much coffee) x (a Red Bull chaser) is not healthy but I hope this might help someone pondering the recent changes.
Started with 300 bullets. Lost two due to damage/sorting during the process so this is based on 298 bullets. Bullet prep before sorting was meplat trimming and hole uniforming (thank you Kevin Cram), pointing with a Whidden pointing die (thanks John), then moly coating. I used Acculab scales for the weight sorting and Shehane’s bearing surface tool (thanks Bill) for the second part of my sorting.
Weight- Count- Percent
209.7- 12- 4.03%
209.8- 39- 13.09%
209.9- 127- 42.62%
210.0- 95- 31.88%
210.1- 25- 8.39%
Notes:
* Scale reads to .02 but sorting was to .1 grains.
** Around 75% of the 209.9’s read 209.98 and a large portion of the 210.0’s read .02 and .04 which makes it possible to resort to .06 grains and have close to 56% in one group (thanks Berger).
For the second part of my sorting I used only the 127 bullets from the 209.9 group above.
Bearing Count Percent
.000- 1- .79% (I would call this one The ES Killer)
.002- 0- 0%
.004- 6- 4.72%
.006- 13- 10.24%
.008- 43- 33.86%
.010- 52- 40.94%
.012- 12- 9.45%
Notes:
* All bullets checked had a runout of .0005” or less.
**All bearing sorting was in groups of .002”
*** Two groups or 74.80% fell into a .004 variance.
All in all I see good improvements and “tip my hat to Berger”. While their stated purpose was to avoid bullet failure it appears to me that the consistency factor has also improved or at least for this one lot. Weight alone seemed to be a huge improvement since I used 3 less sorting boxes than normal.
Before you start… yes, I know that (rainy Saturday) x (way too much coffee) x (a Red Bull chaser) is not healthy but I hope this might help someone pondering the recent changes.
Last edited by a moderator: