My issues with the Berger method…..

[nksmfamjp]

Berger Method LINK


I have some small issues with the Berger method. It is contrary to my experiences and others test results.

So, Berger says to test VLD's from 0's through about 0.15". They recommend a method where one uses 0.030" or 0.040" increments. Many people get good results, but not everybod.

Long range benchrest folks were testing from jam to maybe 0.030" max and finding some great VLD loads.

The EC's interview with Lou Murdica suggests nodes to be about 0.006 - 0.012" wide.….as well as many other accuracy sources.

To add to that, I noticed using 0.03" increments that sometimes I found a node and sometimes I did not. I have modified my technique to start at my longest reasonable length and shorten 0.005"-0.010" increments. This has worked pretty well for me.

To me, it seems like it would be hard to find your true node with any consistency using the Berger method. I think you could shoot a lot of bullets looking for a node and still only find a 2nd or 3rd node.

What are your thoughts/experience on this?

 

[Taylorbok]

I also start long and work back in .003" increments. I haven't had any issues finding a node, mine are usually .006-9 wide or maybe a bit better.

I found using .005" you will likely find a load that shoots decent but you may be on the edge of a node or a very small node and hard to keep in tune.

 

[nealm66]

I'm pretty much the same. .005 ladder and then fine tune at 5-600 with powder and seating in smaller increments. Been very lucky to have them tune quickly but I can see where it could be helpful to jump further with some bullets.

 

[Ckleeves]

I agree, I think it's very easy to jump over a node with the big .030 or .040 changes in seating.

 

[MagnumManiac]

All of this depends on how long your throat is and the rifle in question.
Many factory guns are not within cooey of the rifling with a mag box restriction that does not allow a .005"-.030" off seating depth….hence the Berger seating depth method.
I have a few 300's that are limited to a max COAL of 3.39", in a 300WM SAAMI chamber, this is close to .150" jump.
So, your reasoning about where nodes are at is not a constant, nodes can appear at many different seating depths, not just those close to the rifling.
I have found several LR bullets that don't like to be close to the rifling, some Sierra, Nosler ABLR and Berger Hybrids.

Cheers.

 

[Plinker147]

Ive used Berger method with great results everytime. I don't think jumping a node is the right verbiage since adjusting the seating depth is finding the sweat spot for your bullet. .005 can maybe affect your node but I don't think so, maybe I wrong about that? Most bullets will have a .003-.005 error in ogive so each one isn't exactly the same. A competitive shooter might have higher standards and be able to tell the difference with .003-5 adjustments but I never have. Almost all Berger's I shoot shoot good at .020 off.

 

[Taylorbok]

So, your reasoning about where nodes are at is not a constant, nodes can appear at many different seating depths, not just those close to the rifling.
I have found several LR bullets that don't like to be close to the rifling, some Sierra, Nosler ABLR and Berger Hybrids.

I've found there is often several different seating depths where a load will tune. I have found that if I start at any arbitrary BTO I will find a node within .030" shortening by .003"

Ive used Berger method with great results everytime. I don't think jumping a node is the right verbiage since adjusting the seating depth is finding the sweat spot for your bullet. .005 can maybe affect your node but I don't think so, maybe I wrong about that? Most bullets will have a .003-.005 error in ogive so each one isn't exactly the same. A comparison shooter might have higher standards and be able to tell the difference with .003-5 adjustments but I never have. Almost all Berger's I shoot shoot good at .020 off.

It's pretty common for bullet seating depth to tune in a wider more forgiving "node" or often you can find a seating depth that shoots bug holes but +/-.003 it opens up.

 

[lancetkenyon]

Ive used Berger method with great results everytime. I don't think jumping a node is the right verbiage since adjusting the seating depth is finding the sweat spot for your bullet. .005 can maybe affect your node but I don't think so, maybe I wrong about that? Most bullets will have a .003-.005 error in ogive so each one isn't exactly the same. A competitive shooter might have higher standards and be able to tell the difference with .003-5 adjustments but I never have. Almost all Berger's I shoot shoot good at .020 off.

I have found Bergers to be within .0015" BTO across 100. If you want to talk about an ELD-X, then yes, .007 variation is definitely probable.

 

[RoccamenaMan]

Nice

 

[cjuve]

I have found that Berger's method works to find a decent load with not that much effort, I have used it on the 180's and on 210's. I also believe that there are other methods that will work also. In my testing seating depth nodes vary in width from .003 up to a maximum of .015 but the best accuracy is usually found in a range of .003-.006. I prefer to find the node with the widest range of acceptable accuracy and load to the longer end of that node to give me the most allowance for throat erosion. IME a change of .003 can most certainly be seen on a target.

 

[QuietTexan]

It's pretty common for bullet seating depth to tune in a wider more forgiving "node" or often you can find a seating depth that shoots bug holes but +/-.003 it opens up.

Exactly, there are competing concepts to be balanced - the accuracy and precision of any discrete seating depth, the average accuracy and precision of a range of seating depths aka a node, movement of the throat, and limitations in practical application.

If I'm taking a 500 round bulk box of Match Burners and want to find a seating depth to shoot 300 rounds over two days of a match with, then a deep seating depth in the middle of a wide node will be more consistent over those 300 rounds than a node that is very narrow, and I don't have to measure each individual load to make sure it's sat to +/-0.001". If the load only shoots 6" at 500 yards instead of 2" at 500 yards, that doesn't matter because the smaller target is 6".

If I'm going to sit around and sort bullet BTO and bearing surface length, trim the meplats, maybe even tip the bullets, and go out to shoot at most 35 shots in a match, then seating bullets into a 0.003" wide node might be worth it to get the absolutely smallest group because I don't have to make many and can check each load individually, there aren't enough shots for the load to move out of the node from throat erosion, and if I jam a bullet NBD, pop it out and blow the powder out of the action in down time before the next relay and move on. (This is where the EC Chasing the Lands is Stupid video comes in, btw. Nodes exist at a bunch of seating depths and some can be a lot wider than you expect, so don't get stuck on one super narrow node).

If I'm going hunting, maybe a load that shoots in the 2s running 0.020" jammed but it's single feed and I can't unload the rifle without pulling the bullet isn't as useful as a load that shoots in the 5s at 0.150" off the lands, fits in the mag box and but can be unloaded.

Think about a tripod - you can adjust the three legs in different ways to hit any particular overall height, and the top of it will always be the top even if the legs aren't the same length. You're just balancing different options based on what you need the output to be.

Also, I think Berger was a target bullet maker and wanted into the hunting crowd, so they re-wrote their advice of "jam the **** out of it" (paraphrased ) to "it'll be fine at mag length, promise".

 

[Muddyboots]

Also, I think Berger was a target bullet maker and wanted into the hunting crowd, so they re-wrote their advice of "jam the **** out of it" (paraphrased ) to "it'll be fine at mag length, promise".

I promise it will pull out too. I like Bergers but in today's component chase, I really don't want to burn up a lot of components to find a narrow node. Whatever my max magazine length is minus 0.020 to insure feed and then work back from there. If I find a decent node. Bang, done.

The real issue is do rifles have throat to match magazine length need for Bergers?

 

[Mikecr]

Berger's method takes you quickly to a best COARSE area (window).
THEN do powder development, THEN tweak seating in it's window for tightest group shaping.

And key to the whole thing is avoiding full seating testing -from a powder node.
Otherwise, your node will just collapse, masking seating results.
Same with primer testing. Don't do it from a powder node.

 

[Taylorbok]

Berger's method takes you quickly to a best COARSE area (window).
THEN do powder development, THEN tweak seating in it's window for tightest group shaping.

And key to the whole thing is avoiding full seating testing -from a powder node.
Otherwise, your node will just collapse, masking seating results.
Same with primer testing. Don't do it from a powder node.

I agree you have to test primers with your powder test. I always do powder first then seating depth. I've never done it the other way in my mind the seating depth is tuning the harmonics of the barrel to the release time of the bullet which will vary with different powder charges. Does your tune not fall apart if you adjust your powder charge after seating depth?

The other caveat to this is with wildcats or improved cartridges you simply have to preform a powder test first to even get in the ball park.