Getting the Best Precision and Accuracy from Berger VLD bullets in Your Rifle

[StanleyActual]

Greta info. Taggin in

 

[ratrod54]

So, for anyone trying this method... Is the idea is to start at a fixed seating depth and do a ladder test to determine the best charge. Then one there, begin to adjust the seating depth? There has to be a constant to begin with I am assuming. I am not a fan of jamming and I believe that bergers do better with jump, so I planned on starting at .020 and finding the best charge. Then adjust seating from there. This sound flawed?

 

[nksmfamjp]

So, for anyone trying this method... Is the idea is to start at a fixed seating depth and do a ladder test to determine the best charge. Then one there, begin to adjust the seating depth? There has to be a constant to begin with I am assuming. I am not a fan of jamming and I believe that bergers do better with jump, so I planned on starting at .020 and finding the best charge. Then adjust seating from there. This sound flawed?

Yea, often it is like book length, max length, mag length and find charge by OCW focusing on small Sd. Then dial CBTD back in 0.005" increments until your dial in group. Then run ocw again to tighten sd.

 

[Mikecr]

the idea is to start at a fixed seating depth and do a ladder test to determine the best charge. Then one there, begin to adjust the seating depth?

I know this is common, but it's also horribly backwards.
How are you going to interpret ladders if you're loaded with bad or worst seating? Maybe worst primers?
You could end up cherry picking from garbage..

New ideas:
1. Optimum seating is independent of powder.
2. Don't bother with a ladder until your brass is fire formed to stable dimensions.
3. So while fire forming, go ahead with FULL coarse seating testing to find apparent best.
4. Second fire forming is a good time to test for best primers as well.
5. With best coarse seating at least, -then move to powder testing.
6. After powder, go back to seating, but fine tweaking of it for tightest group shaping.

 

[ratrod54]

I know this is common, but it's also horribly backwards.
How are you going to interpret ladders if you're loaded with bad or worst seating? Maybe worst primers?
You could end up cherry picking from garbage..

New ideas:
1. Optimum seating is independent of powder.
2. Don't bother with a ladder until your brass is fire formed to stable dimensions.
3. So while fire forming, go ahead with FULL coarse seating testing to find apparent best.
4. Second fire forming is a good time to test for best primers as well.
5. With best coarse seating at least, -then move to powder testing.
6. After powder, go back to seating, but fine tweaking of it for tightest group shaping.

So I have heard this many times and makes complete sense as I have new brass that needs to be fire formed. What charge weight does someone use though for starters?

7/08 with 175gr bullets. Looking for H4350 data for a place to start. I was planning on running from 38.1 up to 41.8 at .3 grain increments (will likely find limit before get to 41.8). So just load 38.1, find best grouping and then build ladder test off of that?

 

[Mikecr]

So just load 38.1, find best grouping and then build ladder test off of that?

Yep

 

[ratrod54]

Yep

So this is the first time I've done a load work up like this. I don't feel like anything just jumped off the page. Curious, should I have seen 1/2-3/4 MOA at some point?

I am capable of shooting groups like that so I feel like my expectation isn't unrealistic.

 

[ShtrRdy]

I know this is common, but it's also horribly backwards.
How are you going to interpret ladders if you're loaded with bad or worst seating? Maybe worst primers?
You could end up cherry picking from garbage..

New ideas:
1. Optimum seating is independent of powder.
2. Don't bother with a ladder until your brass is fire formed to stable dimensions.
3. So while fire forming, go ahead with FULL coarse seating testing to find apparent best.
4. Second fire forming is a good time to test for best primers as well.
5. With best coarse seating at least, -then move to powder testing.
6. After powder, go back to seating, but fine tweaking of it for tightest group shaping.

This might be a good place to clarify a few of these.
-- on #3, how much do you change OAL between groups? Do you start at a certain distance off the lands?

-- on #4, are you just looking for a better group size while using the best seating depth and the starting powder charge?

-- On #6, how much do you change OAL between groups for fine adjustment?

 

[nksmfamjp]

This might be a good place to clarify a few of these.
-- on #3, how much do you change OAL between groups? Do you start at a certain distance off the lands?

-- on #4, are you just looking for a better group size while using the best seating depth and the starting powder charge?

-- On #6, how much do you change OAL between groups for fine adjustment?

#3…my biggest increments are 0.030", but I'm starting to change to more of a mindset of longest acceptable round and decrease in 0.003" increments until groups shrink. Remember the Houston warehouse….no accurate groups out of the lands. Doing this first is not a bad idea.

 

[L.Sherm]

Here is a good illustration of a seating depth test with a 300 saum imp that was shot. I know some really good 1000 yard BR shooters and all I know do powder ladders first then seating after the pick there powder charge from the powder ladder. Some guys shoot there ladders on white paper and overlay all there shots and will color there bullets to distinguish what groups.
Go over to accurateshooter.com and read the 17 page thread on the 300saum imp guys are starting to shoot at 1000 BR it will give you a great idea how some very good shooters do it.
This seating depth test was at 550 yards.
His seating depth changes were .002-.004 difference and notice what it did to his groups

 

[Mikecr]

That's NOT full seating testing. It's finer tweaking(group shaping), while at best staying within a powder node.
#6 on my list. Basically, what I've watched people do in the 70s, which was done the same in the 50s.

By far most competitive shooters HAVE NEVER done full seating testing, and could not even understand what I'm talking about.
Most [still] think seating is tuning, and the majority of BR shooters have assumed bullets needed to be into/near lands.
That's not all of them of course. I think more will come around to trying full seating testing eventually, and then logically.

 

[L.Sherm]

That's NOT full seating testing. It's finer tweaking(group shaping), while at best staying within a powder node.
#6 on my list. Basically, what I've watched people do in the 70s, which was done the same in the 50s.

By far most competitive shooters HAVE NEVER done full seating testing, and could not even understand what I'm talking about.
Most [still] think seating is tuning, and the majority of BR shooters have assumed bullets needed to be into/near lands.
That's not all of them of course. I think more will come around to trying full seating testing eventually, and then logically.

You obviously think your way is the only way.

 

[nksmfamjp]

That's NOT full seating testing. It's finer tweaking(group shaping), while at best staying within a powder node.
#6 on my list. Basically, what I've watched people do in the 70s, which was done the same in the 50s.

By far most competitive shooters HAVE NEVER done full seating testing, and could not even understand what I'm talking about.
Most [still] think seating is tuning, and the majority of BR shooters have assumed bullets needed to be into/near lands.
That's not all of them of course. I think more will come around to trying full seating testing eventually, and then logically.

Full testing is max length until the neck and bullet surface start to gap?

I'm not saying there isn't a tune or even a pretty good tune a ways back, but are you saying the best tune maybe 0.15" or something back?

Do you do wide increments like 0.050" and then narrow to 0.003"? Or just 100's of rounds in 0.003" increments?

 

[Mikecr]

Full testing is max length until the neck and bullet surface start to gap?

I'm not saying there isn't a tune or even a pretty good tune a ways back, but are you saying the best tune maybe 0.15" or something back?

Do you do wide increments like 0.050" and then narrow to 0.003"? Or just 100's of rounds in 0.003" increments?

Berger laid it out right here (go back to page 1).
I'm saying that best seating is different and independent of 'tune'. But full seating testing will collapse a powder tune, which is why you should never do this testing from a powder tune, so that you can see better what seating is doing.
I personally start ~5thou off and go 20thou increments to 125thou for coarse (full) seating testing. I don't bother with an in-the-land relationship as it's precarious and of no value unless I could not find best CBTO otherwise. Never happened yet.
So that's #3 on my list
Then last, after all else, I go back to determine my seating window and pick the CBTO within it that provides tightest grouping.
That's #6 on my list, and about as close to a 'tuning' affect as could be considered with seating. But the only reason it affects tuning is because it's being carried out from a powder tuned state at that point.

L.Sherm, obviously my way, and Berger's way, are not the only.
It's different, you gotta give it that.
There was another different once: Me trying, before Berger, for ~20yrs to convince people that VLDs did not have to be in or even near lands to shoot well. That all anybody needed to do was FULL SEATING TESTING to see this for themselves.
And back then to today 'some really good 1000 yard BR shooters' would not entertain the notion.
They are still not doing full seating testing.