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
berger vld 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="benchracer" data-source="post: 972250" data-attributes="member: 22069"><p>When I first started testing for seating depth during load development, I tried it both ways. I have used it as the final step in load development and I have used it as the initial step in load development. I ended up at the same place, regardless of which way I tried it.</p><p> </p><p>Once I proved to myself that the Berger seating depth test worked, I started using it as a standard part of my load development. It was an eye opener for me when I started load development for my 22-250 with the Hornady 52 AMAX, several different powders, and both standard and magnum primers. Regardless of the other components used, the preferred seating depth came out the same every time over the course of multiple shooting sessions.</p><p> </p><p>I have also found that the preferred seating depth of similar bullets tends to be very close to one another when measured with a comparator. I found that to be true in my 6.5x55 when testing Berger 140 VLD's and Hornady 140 AMAX's side by side. The same proved to be true with the 50 VMAX and 52 AMAX in my 22-250. Though both rifles showed a distinct preference for a specific bullet, the preferred seating depth for the types tested proved to be the same for similar bullets.</p><p> </p><p>I have since begun my load development by testing seating depth and never had to tweak it to obtain the desired accuracy following the powder charge runup in any of my rifles.</p><p> </p><p>When it comes to handloading, there are a lot of ideas promoted as internet gospel that I have proved to my own satisfaction to be complete horse puckey. I see a lot of people who seem to believe that the more complicated their loading methods, the higher their accuracy potential. Many seem to believe that every little tweak and ritual raindance used by benchrest shooters will make their factory rifle shoot bugholes. My own experience tells me otherwise.</p><p> </p><p>In the end, the only truly hard and fast rule is that every rifle is a law unto itself. I believe in keeping things simple, only making changes when the simplest method is proven to be inadequate to reach the desired goal. Everyone has opinions. Hard data trumps anyone's opinion any time, mine included. The only way to truly know if something works in a given rifle is to try it and let the results speak for themselves.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="benchracer, post: 972250, member: 22069"] When I first started testing for seating depth during load development, I tried it both ways. I have used it as the final step in load development and I have used it as the initial step in load development. I ended up at the same place, regardless of which way I tried it. Once I proved to myself that the Berger seating depth test worked, I started using it as a standard part of my load development. It was an eye opener for me when I started load development for my 22-250 with the Hornady 52 AMAX, several different powders, and both standard and magnum primers. Regardless of the other components used, the preferred seating depth came out the same every time over the course of multiple shooting sessions. I have also found that the preferred seating depth of similar bullets tends to be very close to one another when measured with a comparator. I found that to be true in my 6.5x55 when testing Berger 140 VLD's and Hornady 140 AMAX's side by side. The same proved to be true with the 50 VMAX and 52 AMAX in my 22-250. Though both rifles showed a distinct preference for a specific bullet, the preferred seating depth for the types tested proved to be the same for similar bullets. I have since begun my load development by testing seating depth and never had to tweak it to obtain the desired accuracy following the powder charge runup in any of my rifles. When it comes to handloading, there are a lot of ideas promoted as internet gospel that I have proved to my own satisfaction to be complete horse puckey. I see a lot of people who seem to believe that the more complicated their loading methods, the higher their accuracy potential. Many seem to believe that every little tweak and ritual raindance used by benchrest shooters will make their factory rifle shoot bugholes. My own experience tells me otherwise. In the end, the only truly hard and fast rule is that every rifle is a law unto itself. I believe in keeping things simple, only making changes when the simplest method is proven to be inadequate to reach the desired goal. Everyone has opinions. Hard data trumps anyone's opinion any time, mine included. The only way to truly know if something works in a given rifle is to try it and let the results speak for themselves. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
berger vld seating depth
Top