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
Bullet jump vs throat erosion
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="Okanogan" data-source="post: 1909421" data-attributes="member: 90397"><p>The initial measurements were all taken before the barrel was shot for the first time. I was surprised at the initial measurements and the significant differences for each bullet. I'm pretty confident that the 156 EH initially had significantly shorter COAL to the lands than the 140 EH. I was kind of disappointed because I wanted to be able to seat the heavier bullet closer to mag length like the 140 EH. Could there have been some kind of initial imperfection in the new bore- sure but I would have thought the impact on measurement would have been roughly similar on all the bullets. The recent measurements taken for comparison where all taken at the same time yesterday.</p><p></p><p>In general when I am using the Wheeler method, I go at a fairly coarse 0.010 inch seating increment and then go back and pull the bullet and repeat at 0.002-0.003 increments. This speeds things up and kind of acts as a double check as well to avoid gross errors. I'm not saying it is impossible that I screwed up a measurement but I've been using the Wheeler method for some time and have found it to be pretty repeatable. Unlike the Hornady overall length gauge that I tested out, I think missing the COAL by 0.020-0.030 with the Wheeler method would be unlikely.</p><p></p><p>I am very surprised by the results I got. I was expecting all three incremental change values to be pretty close. I was hoping others might have similar info they could share or if not perform similar checks in the future to see if my results are an anomaly. My own next steps are to reload some 156 EH using the new and old COAL info and go out and shoot some more. When I get another couple hundred rounds through it, I'll check again to see how things have changed.</p><p></p><p>[USER=93895]@djfergus[/USER] I have been having better luck with Bergers than ELDM/ELDX in my load development. The GAP reamer vs profile of the Hornady bullets requires me to seat them much deeper than the Bergers as you can tell from the initial post. You may have better luck with the ELDMs than I did but I wouldn't recommend stocking up until you find out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Okanogan, post: 1909421, member: 90397"] The initial measurements were all taken before the barrel was shot for the first time. I was surprised at the initial measurements and the significant differences for each bullet. I'm pretty confident that the 156 EH initially had significantly shorter COAL to the lands than the 140 EH. I was kind of disappointed because I wanted to be able to seat the heavier bullet closer to mag length like the 140 EH. Could there have been some kind of initial imperfection in the new bore- sure but I would have thought the impact on measurement would have been roughly similar on all the bullets. The recent measurements taken for comparison where all taken at the same time yesterday. In general when I am using the Wheeler method, I go at a fairly coarse 0.010 inch seating increment and then go back and pull the bullet and repeat at 0.002-0.003 increments. This speeds things up and kind of acts as a double check as well to avoid gross errors. I'm not saying it is impossible that I screwed up a measurement but I've been using the Wheeler method for some time and have found it to be pretty repeatable. Unlike the Hornady overall length gauge that I tested out, I think missing the COAL by 0.020-0.030 with the Wheeler method would be unlikely. I am very surprised by the results I got. I was expecting all three incremental change values to be pretty close. I was hoping others might have similar info they could share or if not perform similar checks in the future to see if my results are an anomaly. My own next steps are to reload some 156 EH using the new and old COAL info and go out and shoot some more. When I get another couple hundred rounds through it, I'll check again to see how things have changed. [USER=93895]@djfergus[/USER] I have been having better luck with Bergers than ELDM/ELDX in my load development. The GAP reamer vs profile of the Hornady bullets requires me to seat them much deeper than the Bergers as you can tell from the initial post. You may have better luck with the ELDMs than I did but I wouldn't recommend stocking up until you find out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Bullet jump vs throat erosion
Top