Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Reloading

Reloading Techniques For Reloading


Reply

How close is close enough?

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #15  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:22 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NC, oceanfront
Posts: 3,367
Re: How close is close enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart B View Post
All the jackets used in making a batch of bullets don't get shaped to identical dimenions in the final stage of manufacture where the front part's sized to a point
This is ogive radius variance, and yes it does affect our measurement datums. D.ID, unless you qualified your ogives for radius first, further measurements were meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart B View Post
All the bottleneck cases headspacing on their shoulders don't have the same head-to-shoulder dimension
Mine do. I know because I verify every one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart B View Post
All bottleneck cases headspacing on their shoulders have their shoulder set back a thousandth or so by firing pin impact; that changes the bullet's jump-to-rifling distance when the round fires.
You'd have a hard time proving this, and end up with qualifiers to the contention, I'm sure. While lower shoulder angle cartridges might exhibit some wedging on firing, higher shoulder angle cartridges do not. My headspace holds, that is, measures same before & after, on primer firing with 223Rem, 6BR norma, 6XC, and 6.5wssm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart B View Post
When all these variables add up, they'll make the bullet's jump to the rifling vary a few to several thousandths.
You sound defeated. But I assure it is very possible to make ammo to exact dimensions, with no generalizations needed for it. I also think you'll be hard pressed to prove that doing so is a bad approach in reloading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart B View Post
The only way anyone (in my opinion) will get zero spread in bullet jump distance is to use a light neck tension on bullets then seat 'em out far enough to be pushed back into the case neck when chambered and fired. Regardless of all the other tolerances in places mentioned earlier, this method eliminates all of them.
I highly doubt the lands would produce more accurate seating than a Wilson seater plug.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart B View Post
Too bad there's no bullet seating die for rimless bottleneck cases that uses the case shoulder as a reference instead of the case head. That would remove one of the variables.
This is managed by setting headspace to exactly the same values. Nothing new there.

Folks, reducing variables in reloading is much of what it's about.
If you produce high runout, you can generalize it away as not mattering, or you can determine the causes & fix it.
Same with variances in headspace, seating, every sizing, capacity, charging, etc.
And while shortcut sloppy ammo may shoot well enough for you, it doesn't hurt a thing to make it as good as you can.
It helps me, because when I'm wondering about getting more from a gun, removing errant shots, lowering ES, better load development, etc, I hold a far smaller list of variables to consider.

I had a gun I thought should have shot better. It was barely 1/2moa, yet my ammo was perfect for sure & I believed my load was perfect. It had to be the gun itself. Weeks of chasing a very tough intermittent problem led to concluding that it's NF NXS scope had an internal issue. NF tested it, found a lens issue, fixed it, and the gun finally went to shooting 1/4moa solid. Without confidence in my ammo, I could have chased this one forever.

I had another gun throw shots a bit here & there. Again, I knew it was not MY ammo.
Turned out to be a slipping firing pin set screw..

So I say it's best to scratch as many variables off the list that you can -right up front.
If you believe seating is an uncontrolled variable as Bart suggests, well, at least you can get it right on the bench. This much I know.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:35 AM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boise IDAHO
Posts: 838
Re: How close is close enough?

I sort bullets and brass first but have found some bullets to be less symmetrical than others at the ogive. That is all I meant. Of course we should be aiming for 0 discrepancies but if our components are not perfect loading to perfection with those components is by definition impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:42 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,114
Re: How close is close enough?

If anyone reloading ammo to zero tolerances (or as close as humanly possible) in every dimensional and mass aspect and get 20 shots in a group better than the one below I get with reloading ammo to the tolerances I mentioned earlier, then so be it.

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:45 AM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boise IDAHO
Posts: 838
Re: How close is close enough?

Why aint you got that group framed?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:52 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The cold part of Montana
Posts: 1,390
Re: How close is close enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecr View Post
this is ogive radius variance, and yes it does affect our measurement datums. D.id, unless you qualified your ogives for radius first, further measurements were meaningless.

Mine do. I know because i verify every one.


You'd have a hard time proving this, and end up with qualifiers to the contention, i'm sure. While lower shoulder angle cartridges might exhibit some wedging on firing, higher shoulder angle cartridges do not. My headspace holds, that is, measures same before & after, on primer firing with 223rem, 6br norma, 6xc, and 6.5wssm.

You sound defeated. But i assure it is very possible to make ammo to exact dimensions, with no generalizations needed for it. I also think you'll be hard pressed to prove that doing so is a bad approach in reloading.

I highly doubt the lands would produce more accurate seating than a wilson seater plug.

This is managed by setting headspace to exactly the same values. Nothing new there.

Folks, reducing variables in reloading is much of what it's about.
If you produce high runout, you can generalize it away as not mattering, or you can determine the causes & fix it.
Same with variances in headspace, seating, every sizing, capacity, charging, etc.
And while shortcut sloppy ammo may shoot well enough for you, it doesn't hurt a thing to make it as good as you can.
It helps me, because when i'm wondering about getting more from a gun, removing errant shots, lowering es, better load development, etc, i hold a far smaller list of variables to consider.

I had a gun i thought should have shot better. It was barely 1/2moa, yet my ammo was perfect for sure & i believed my load was perfect. It had to be the gun itself. Weeks of chasing a very tough intermittent problem led to concluding that it's nf nxs scope had an internal issue. Nf tested it, found a lens issue, fixed it, and the gun finally went to shooting 1/4moa solid. Without confidence in my ammo, i could have chased this one forever.

I had another gun throw shots a bit here & there. Again, i knew it was not my ammo.
Turned out to be a slipping firing pin set screw..

So i say it's best to scratch as many variables off the list that you can -right up front.
If you believe seating is an uncontrolled variable as bart suggests, well, at least you can get it right on the bench. This much i know.

+1000
__________________
Keep in mind the animals we shoot for food and display are not bullet proof. Contrary to popular belief, they bleed and die just like they did a hundred years ago. Being competent with a given rifle is far more important than impressive ballistics and poor shootability. High velocity misses never put a steak in the freezer.

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:54 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The cold part of Montana
Posts: 1,390
Re: How close is close enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.ID View Post
I sort bullets and brass first but have found some bullets to be less symmetrical than others at the ogive. That is all I meant. Of course we should be aiming for 0 discrepancies but if our components are not perfect loading to perfection with those components is by definition impossible.

yup your right but that's point! to strive for better
__________________
Keep in mind the animals we shoot for food and display are not bullet proof. Contrary to popular belief, they bleed and die just like they did a hundred years ago. Being competent with a given rifle is far more important than impressive ballistics and poor shootability. High velocity misses never put a steak in the freezer.

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-19-2012, 01:37 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,114
Re: How close is close enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.ID View Post
Why aint you got that group framed?
'Cause there's nothing special about it. Folks have been doing that well at long range since Sierra Bullets started making hollow point match bullets. Using proper full length sizing dies correctly on fired cases then seating bullets atop powder charges to the tolerances I mentioned earlier. 'Tain't rocket science. Just basic stuff.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: How close is close enough?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
close range hunting,way too close uncleB Long Range Hunting & Shooting 12 05-21-2012 05:57 PM
Close one Jinx Hog Hunting 15 01-21-2010 02:01 AM
Elk comes CLOSE! bwaites Elk Hunting 11 11-28-2008 09:40 PM
.338 AM So Close Yet So Far joecool Equipment Discussions 13 11-30-2006 09:26 PM
Getting Close TOM H Long Range Hunting & Shooting 0 10-02-2004 04:59 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC