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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet sorting - bearing length
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="LongBomber" data-source="post: 1984995" data-attributes="member: 14435"><p>I need to sit down and go through some groups and put the information together. Sorting by bearing length and weight has definitely reduced the fliers. It also reduced the vertical spread at 1000, although that may also be part of the reduction in fliers, consistency never hurts. Sorting by either weight or bearing length individually also seems to help but I was still seeing the odd shot where you asked yourself "how did that one go there??" With either method. </p><p></p><p>I think the basic quality of the bullet matters as well. I had a couple boxes of 338 230gr eld's they were not great, over 0.020" difference in bearing surface length was common and over 2gr of weight difference. They definitely mix production lines as I had two "nodes" that were roughly 1.5gr apart in weight and .010" apart in bearing surface length. But I just sorted 300 berger 144hyb and the grain spread was 0.4gr and the bearing surface was all within 0.005" for all bullets except 1. That bullet was out 1.5gr and had a slightly deformed tip. Really sorting will make next to no difference on those.</p><p></p><p>The one thing that did not seem to improve much was the es/sd of the load. If 20 shots unsorted was an es of 20 sd of 6 then sorted may have been 19/5, but you would need hundreds of shots to make that a valid result. Either I have something else in the process that is contributing to the es/sd in a larger way or sorting bullets really doesn't change the es/sd.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LongBomber, post: 1984995, member: 14435"] I need to sit down and go through some groups and put the information together. Sorting by bearing length and weight has definitely reduced the fliers. It also reduced the vertical spread at 1000, although that may also be part of the reduction in fliers, consistency never hurts. Sorting by either weight or bearing length individually also seems to help but I was still seeing the odd shot where you asked yourself “how did that one go there??” With either method. I think the basic quality of the bullet matters as well. I had a couple boxes of 338 230gr eld’s they were not great, over 0.020” difference in bearing surface length was common and over 2gr of weight difference. They definitely mix production lines as I had two “nodes” that were roughly 1.5gr apart in weight and .010” apart in bearing surface length. But I just sorted 300 berger 144hyb and the grain spread was 0.4gr and the bearing surface was all within 0.005” for all bullets except 1. That bullet was out 1.5gr and had a slightly deformed tip. Really sorting will make next to no difference on those. The one thing that did not seem to improve much was the es/sd of the load. If 20 shots unsorted was an es of 20 sd of 6 then sorted may have been 19/5, but you would need hundreds of shots to make that a valid result. Either I have something else in the process that is contributing to the es/sd in a larger way or sorting bullets really doesn’t change the es/sd. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet sorting - bearing length
Top