OAL too long for magazine?

Discussion in 'Reloading' started by sanjuanfly, Sep 23, 2011.

  1. sanjuanfly

    sanjuanfly Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Well I finally received some brass for my 338 RUM. So now I can start reloading. This is my first time reloading. If I'm doing anything wrong please let me know.

    So I took my Hornady OAL gauge with modified case and a Nosler 250 AB. So when I measure the OAL (end to end) I get an average of 3.872" and 3.215" to the ogive. When I use the method of putting a bullet in the neck and close the bolt I get a OAL of 3.878". So if I want the bullet 0.010" off the lands I the bullet will still be 3.862" OAL. My problem is that my magazine (standard Rem 700 BDL) has a max length of 3.610. To get a round to fit in the magazine the bullet will be 0.252" off the lands...that seems to be very high.

    Is it possible that I'm measuring OAL wrong? Is there something wrong with my barrel (Rem XCR standard barrel)?

    Will I have to use this rifle as a single shot?

    Thanks,
    Scott
     
  2. boomtube

    boomtube Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,595
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    No matter how you measure it won't change the differences. Your cartridges must fit the magazine or be fired as a single shot; most of us would prefer to use the magazine.

    You have a factory sporting rifle and cartridge, not a BR rig. Why do you feel that being some .25" off the lands is bad?
     

  3. Kevin Thomas

    Kevin Thomas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,256
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Scott,

    Can't be specific about the measurements without seeing the rifle and ammo themselves, but yes, the notion of having chamber length ammo not being able to fit a magazine is nothing new. Some combinations work pretty closely, while others will be off quite a bit. Sounds like yours is one of the latter.

    In some cases, such as the 223 in an AR-15 for most applications, you have some very hard guidelines that have to be followed. There, your OAL is 2.260" and not a bit longer if you're going to feed from a magazine. If you're going to single-load (as with long range or 600 yard stages) then the throat is what sets the dimensions. I load all my magazine ammo in this combination at around 2.250"-2.255" just to make sure there's no hang ups, but then load my 82 grain LR loads out to around 2.440" in my Wylde chambers.

    Before you start sweating this too much, try them at a length that will function in the magazine and see how it shoots. Many will ldo a lot better than most would assume, so this could be a moot point. If they don't shoot, you can either load them out and single load when shooting, or see about lengthening the magazine box to accomodate the longer OAL.
     
  4. sanjuanfly

    sanjuanfly Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Basically with reviewing reloading forumns and literature it seems that 0.005" to 0.010" off the lands is "standard" for accuracy. I know I'm not shooting BR, but I want to get as much accuracy as possible. And as you say I would prefer to use the magazine (primarily a hunting gun).

    I guess I will work up some rounds that fit in the magazine and maybe a few that need to be one at a time...to see if there is any difference in accuracy.
     
  5. youngbuck

    youngbuck Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    340
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    I start all my load development with a COAL that will work in the magazine. I have yet to use any of my riffles as a single shot. Certain bullets are picky about jumps (VLDs) there are plenty of other bullets that aren't so picky. I'm working on load for my 338LM right now, that will fit in the mag. Broz had posted that he didn't think the Berger Hybrids are nearly as picky as the VLDs.
     
  6. sanjuanfly

    sanjuanfly Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Have you heard anything about Accubonds or TTSXs? Either of those are great hunting rounds with good accuracy.

    Thanks,
    Scott
     
  7. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,262
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Yeah, there is something wrong with the gun, it's a Remington.
    Providing gunsmithing business since 1816..

    Sorry. But it's Just too hard to resist & Remington deserves it.
    Consider how tiny the efforts they put into your gun's design..
    How little they cared about the gun's performance..
    It's really really your opportunity to notice this.

    Fewer shooters here, and at other long range shooting sites, walk into gunshops & buy the first visible guns. And of those that did, they followed up with mods to it (planned or not). Many were donor guns that would be immediately rebarreled.
    You missed this in forum reading as it was rarely mentioned in context of seating for accuracy.

    But there are plenty of options if you find that longer seating is more accurate.
     
  8. woods

    woods Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    965
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Agree with Mikecr about Remingtons. IMO the gun manufacturers know that seating FARTHER from the land DECREASES pressure, so that is an additional safety margin to keep someone from blowing their guns up. Also the increased distance to the lands INCREASES the combustion chamber size which also slightly DECREASE pressure. It is a win-win for the gun manufacturers since they really don't care if you have a tack driver or not.

    You can swith bullets and get a little closer to the lands. Generally speaking a bullet with a tip or a long nose will have to be seated farther from the lands and on the other end a round nose would enable you to seat closest to the lands.

    Now you can pick a monolithic bullet like the TSX or TTSX and they seem to prefer to be seated at a further distance. Barnes recommends starting seating depth at .050". Also I would have to take issue with the general consensus of .005" to .010" as being the best seating depth for accuracy. IMO it is hard to get a seating depth variation less than .005" from load to load so if you are trying to hit that seating depth, you will have some that are getting too close. IME when you approach touching the lands then things get squirrelly and can go to hell quick.

    I have had great accuracy from the 225 gr TTSX's in my 338RUM seated .050" off with a less than max load of 94 gr RL25. But my 338RUM is a custom rebarrel where I had the throat set much shorter than yours.

    You might also try a Wyatt's box

    Wyatt's Extended Window Magazine Box Remington 700 BDL Long Action for Ultra Magnum - MidwayUSA

    minor gunsmiffing so shouldn't cost too much to install. Make sure it will fit your gun before purchasing, I don't know about the XCR
     
  9. boomtube

    boomtube Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,595
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    "Barnes recommends starting seating depth at .050" (and backing off) . Also I would have to take issue with the general consensus of .005" to .010" as being the best "


    Exactly so. Most of what we read about seating that long is BS, based on a little bit of knowledge of what BR shooters do with a near total lack of understanding WHY they do it, therefore with a near total lack of understanding that it rarely applies to those of us using factory rigs with common cases and hunting bullets.

    Reminton's hunting rifles are made for hunting, not target shooting. It's often possible to get very good HUNTING accuracy from them but it's rare any factory rifle will consistantly beat MOA by much. No matter the chamber and throat, the quality of the barrels simply isn't all that great; not bad, just not great. A lot more fabulous sub-MOA rifles exist on the web than on the range!

    I usually find best accuracy seating from at least .025" off the lands to as much as four times that much, sometimes more. There is a LOT more to obtaining good hunting rifle accuracy than pointless attempts to match BR seating depths, we live with what we have or get them rebarreled ... and that's no guarantee of high precision, every barrel is different.
     
  10. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,262
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Boomtube, you must be of the same mind as Remington's management!
    I agree that benchrest is completly different than hunting. I don't really see cross application between the two.
    But I do not subscribe to defeated notions that 'hunting accuracy' should be accepted as lesser than 'target accuracy'.
    I see it just opposite.

    For one thing, accuracy and cold bore accuracy, are different and seperate from hot grouping/score.
    Accuracy is defined with any single shot, which in hunting, IS the first shot.
    With this, guns that could never fare well in competition, are often very accurate still..
    Many make fantastic hunting guns because they are accurate.
    It just has to be tested and recognized for it's real world potential in the field.

    I'm a walking varmint hunter, and my carry rifles have to be at least 1/2moa cold barrel accurate to 500yds, off Harris bipods. No fixed ranges, sighters, benches, benchrests, or wind flags.
    IMO, this would not be one bit easier with benchrest guns. Nor do I believe they would perform better under the same conditions. I think it would take as much work to get a BR gun shooting accurately enough for the real world, as with a decent factory gun(such as Savage) to hold it's own in competition.

    But factory guns can be made to shoot, and I would NOT hold an ~1MOA gun for long. What the hell good would it do me?
    And, I'm tellin you, there ain't no way MY guns could be relied on for <1/2moa if not for specific seating. Every gun I have ever load developed for dialed in greatly with seating adjustments.
    I see far off seating as holding the same potential as closer seating, but I wouldn't put it there merely out of magazine length limit. I would only put it where the barrel/bullet combo shoots best. Nor would I understand that terrible shooting bullets when seated close to the lands -that shoot better with a run at the lands(solids), are the most accurate bullets to use given a magzine limit.
    I see that just as ridiculous as a 1MOA expectation of hunting guns.