Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
How close is close enough?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mikecr" data-source="post: 686376" data-attributes="member: 1521"><p>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.</p><p></p><p> Mine do. I know because I verify every one.</p><p></p><p></p><p> 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. </p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p> I highly doubt the lands would produce more accurate seating than a Wilson seater plug.</p><p></p><p> This is managed by setting headspace to exactly the same values. Nothing new there.</p><p></p><p>Folks, reducing variables in reloading is much of what it's about.</p><p>If you produce high runout, you can generalize it away as not mattering, or you can determine the causes & fix it.</p><p>Same with variances in headspace, seating, every sizing, capacity, charging, etc.</p><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I had another gun throw shots a bit here & there. Again, I knew it was not MY ammo.</p><p>Turned out to be a slipping firing pin set screw..</p><p></p><p>So I say it's best to scratch as many variables off the list that you can -right up front.</p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mikecr, post: 686376, member: 1521"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
How close is close enough?
Top