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
What first? Powder or seating depth?
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="Fitch" data-source="post: 557637" data-attributes="member: 19372"><p>I understand your point, and I agree that in theory the ring on the surface of the bullet where the lands will first contact should be the best place to both push on the bullet for seating and to use as a reference for measuring seating depth. In fact I said so in my post.</p><p> </p><p>But I don't do it that way because I have found no practical way to do it. </p><p> </p><p>To begin with, where do you find a die like that? One that has a ring of contact diameter approximating the contact diameter of the throat in your rifle chamber? </p><p> </p><p>I just went and examined all my rifle bullet seating dies and not one of them achieves the ideal of pushing on the bullet at the location where the lands would contact the bullet. All have an interior cone that pushes on the ogive well above the ring where the throat would contact it. None push on the meplat or polymer tip at varying distances above the ring which would define lands initial contact. None push on the meplat or polymer tip (if the bullet has one).</p><p> </p><p>I have a Redding competition micrometer adjust seating die for my .22-250 ammo that won't do that - in fact tomorrow I'll take a picture (using my Nikon 990 which is out in the shop at the moment - it can focus at a distance of ~3/4" in macro mode so you can see the marks clearly) of a bullet showing where it contacts the ogive and where the lands would contact the ogive which is ~0.148" farther down the bullet. To be clear, the die contacts the bullet 0.148" closer to the meplat from the contact ring with the lands. I defined the ring of land contact using a Sinclair tool that looks like a smooth bore Hexnut with different caliber throat size holes reamed in the six sides. </p><p> </p><p>My standard Rddding delux seating die (non micrometer) is actually better in this regard only contacting the ogive ~0.070" above the ring of contact. </p><p> </p><p>I have two RCBS micrometer adjust competition seating dies that also don't make contact anyplace close to the location where the throat would contact the ogive. Thinking about it, while there may be some company making them, I've never seen a rifle die (just examined RCBS, Lyman, and REdding that are on my loading bench) that pushes on the bullet for seating in the same contact ring that will first contact the lands. Pushing anyplace else allows ogive variation to affect the ogive to lands gap.</p><p> </p><p>The throat/lands contact ring is way down the bullet almost at the point where it is full diameter (actually to where it is within about ~.004 to .008" of full diameter - right where the bright spots appear if one jams the bullet into the lands and then pulls it back out - or where a tool like the Sinclair hex nut tools or other base of bullet to ogive contact measuring tools contact the bullet). </p><p> </p><p>To have such a seating stem on my .30-06, for example would require that the seating stem be more than 0.308" in OD to avoid a knife edge thin enough to distory with an ID ring contact diameter of ~0.299" to 0.300". </p><p> </p><p>Finally, if I did find such a seating stem I probably wouldn't use it because of the potential for damaging the rather soft exterior surface of the bullet with such a narrow ring of contact on such a shallow slope.</p><p> </p><p>To summarize, I don't use junk dies - at least I've never seen anybody call the dies I use junk, though you might be the exception. None of the seating stems in my rifle dies push on the meplat or touch the tip of tipped bullets. The seating stems all have a cone that pushes on the ogive but nowhere near far enough down the bullet to be touching the ring where the lands will first touch the bullet. And for calibers bigger than .224 they aren't big enough in diameter to make that practically possible even by reaming them.</p><p> </p><p>I shoot Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, Barnes, and Burger bullets. I would hope they aren't junk. I've had good luck with them on game. </p><p> </p><p>On straightening cartridges:</p><p> </p><p>The idea that straight ammo shoots better than ammo with bullet runout isn't new, or even controversial as far as I know. I've never heard of anybody sorting their ammo and picking the cartridges with the most runout as the best ones. If straight ammo shoots better, it is probably because the bullet is better aligned with the throat in the rifle. I doubt it cares how it got to be so aligned. </p><p> </p><p>The effect will probably be most pronounced in rifles with nicely concentric chambers and tight necks that tend to better center the bullet in the throat than the rather loose SAAMI chambers, but I don't have any rifles with tight necks. I also don't have any with unusually eccentric chambers with respect to the bore. I know because I've looked at them (I have access to a Hawkeye borescope anytime I want to use it).</p><p> </p><p>Why does this concern me? While I absolutely agree that making straight ammo is better than straightening crooked ammo, I have not been able to make consistantly straight cartridges for my 7mmMAG. That I can't mystifies me. I'm reasonbly handy. I am able to buy barrel blanks, thread them, chamber them, headspace them, and install them on my rifles - I have a machine shop in my back yard. I rebarreled my wife's sporterized Springfield '03 (a present from her dad when she was in highschool - late 1950's) last winter as a fun project. But for some reason getting 7mmMAG ammo that consistantly has less than 0.002" runout isn't something I've been able to accomplish. I've tried different sizing dies, different seating dies, seperately and in combination, but no joy. I do better with .243, .22-250, and .223, and somewhat better with ,30-06, but terrible with 7mmMAG.</p><p> </p><p>I have sorted the 7mmMAG ammo and find that the ammo that is straight (defined as measuring less than 0.002" runout measured on the Case Master) shoots better than the same load recipie ammo with 0.010" to 0.012" runout using the same easurement. It just does. I picked extremes on purpose to maximize the effect with respect to other variables like shooting the groups with 70 year old eyes (I did use a 32 power scope). </p><p> </p><p>So when I saw the article on straightening cartridges (I'll have to look for it tomorrow to give you a reference to it) using this tool, with some limited data by the author, I thought I'd try it and bought the tool. It was only $25.00 including shipping so I figured what the heck, I'll try it, if it works great, if it doesn't it can gather dust in a drawer. Using the tool it is remarkably easy to end up with all my cartridges having 0.002" or less runout measured on the CaseMaster. </p><p> </p><p>The CaseMaster showed me I had crooked ammo but gave me no way to fix it. Straightening it using the tool seems to work for me. Maybe it's an illusion, but I don't think so.</p><p> </p><p>Anyway, those folks who have proved conclusively that it doesn't work and isn't worth the time obviously shouldn't do it, but it works for me, so I'll continue do it. </p><p> </p><p>Fitch</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fitch, post: 557637, member: 19372"] I understand your point, and I agree that in theory the ring on the surface of the bullet where the lands will first contact should be the best place to both push on the bullet for seating and to use as a reference for measuring seating depth. In fact I said so in my post. But I don't do it that way because I have found no practical way to do it. To begin with, where do you find a die like that? One that has a ring of contact diameter approximating the contact diameter of the throat in your rifle chamber? I just went and examined all my rifle bullet seating dies and not one of them achieves the ideal of pushing on the bullet at the location where the lands would contact the bullet. All have an interior cone that pushes on the ogive well above the ring where the throat would contact it. None push on the meplat or polymer tip at varying distances above the ring which would define lands initial contact. None push on the meplat or polymer tip (if the bullet has one). I have a Redding competition micrometer adjust seating die for my .22-250 ammo that won't do that - in fact tomorrow I'll take a picture (using my Nikon 990 which is out in the shop at the moment - it can focus at a distance of ~3/4" in macro mode so you can see the marks clearly) of a bullet showing where it contacts the ogive and where the lands would contact the ogive which is ~0.148" farther down the bullet. To be clear, the die contacts the bullet 0.148" closer to the meplat from the contact ring with the lands. I defined the ring of land contact using a Sinclair tool that looks like a smooth bore Hexnut with different caliber throat size holes reamed in the six sides. My standard Rddding delux seating die (non micrometer) is actually better in this regard only contacting the ogive ~0.070" above the ring of contact. I have two RCBS micrometer adjust competition seating dies that also don't make contact anyplace close to the location where the throat would contact the ogive. Thinking about it, while there may be some company making them, I've never seen a rifle die (just examined RCBS, Lyman, and REdding that are on my loading bench) that pushes on the bullet for seating in the same contact ring that will first contact the lands. Pushing anyplace else allows ogive variation to affect the ogive to lands gap. The throat/lands contact ring is way down the bullet almost at the point where it is full diameter (actually to where it is within about ~.004 to .008" of full diameter - right where the bright spots appear if one jams the bullet into the lands and then pulls it back out - or where a tool like the Sinclair hex nut tools or other base of bullet to ogive contact measuring tools contact the bullet). To have such a seating stem on my .30-06, for example would require that the seating stem be more than 0.308" in OD to avoid a knife edge thin enough to distory with an ID ring contact diameter of ~0.299" to 0.300". Finally, if I did find such a seating stem I probably wouldn't use it because of the potential for damaging the rather soft exterior surface of the bullet with such a narrow ring of contact on such a shallow slope. To summarize, I don't use junk dies - at least I've never seen anybody call the dies I use junk, though you might be the exception. None of the seating stems in my rifle dies push on the meplat or touch the tip of tipped bullets. The seating stems all have a cone that pushes on the ogive but nowhere near far enough down the bullet to be touching the ring where the lands will first touch the bullet. And for calibers bigger than .224 they aren't big enough in diameter to make that practically possible even by reaming them. I shoot Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, Barnes, and Burger bullets. I would hope they aren't junk. I've had good luck with them on game. On straightening cartridges: The idea that straight ammo shoots better than ammo with bullet runout isn't new, or even controversial as far as I know. I've never heard of anybody sorting their ammo and picking the cartridges with the most runout as the best ones. If straight ammo shoots better, it is probably because the bullet is better aligned with the throat in the rifle. I doubt it cares how it got to be so aligned. The effect will probably be most pronounced in rifles with nicely concentric chambers and tight necks that tend to better center the bullet in the throat than the rather loose SAAMI chambers, but I don't have any rifles with tight necks. I also don't have any with unusually eccentric chambers with respect to the bore. I know because I've looked at them (I have access to a Hawkeye borescope anytime I want to use it). Why does this concern me? While I absolutely agree that making straight ammo is better than straightening crooked ammo, I have not been able to make consistantly straight cartridges for my 7mmMAG. That I can't mystifies me. I'm reasonbly handy. I am able to buy barrel blanks, thread them, chamber them, headspace them, and install them on my rifles - I have a machine shop in my back yard. I rebarreled my wife's sporterized Springfield '03 (a present from her dad when she was in highschool - late 1950's) last winter as a fun project. But for some reason getting 7mmMAG ammo that consistantly has less than 0.002" runout isn't something I've been able to accomplish. I've tried different sizing dies, different seating dies, seperately and in combination, but no joy. I do better with .243, .22-250, and .223, and somewhat better with ,30-06, but terrible with 7mmMAG. I have sorted the 7mmMAG ammo and find that the ammo that is straight (defined as measuring less than 0.002" runout measured on the Case Master) shoots better than the same load recipie ammo with 0.010" to 0.012" runout using the same easurement. It just does. I picked extremes on purpose to maximize the effect with respect to other variables like shooting the groups with 70 year old eyes (I did use a 32 power scope). So when I saw the article on straightening cartridges (I'll have to look for it tomorrow to give you a reference to it) using this tool, with some limited data by the author, I thought I'd try it and bought the tool. It was only $25.00 including shipping so I figured what the heck, I'll try it, if it works great, if it doesn't it can gather dust in a drawer. Using the tool it is remarkably easy to end up with all my cartridges having 0.002" or less runout measured on the CaseMaster. The CaseMaster showed me I had crooked ammo but gave me no way to fix it. Straightening it using the tool seems to work for me. Maybe it's an illusion, but I don't think so. Anyway, those folks who have proved conclusively that it doesn't work and isn't worth the time obviously shouldn't do it, but it works for me, so I'll continue do it. Fitch [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
What first? Powder or seating depth?
Top