That's the point I was getting at, I wouldn't worry about measuring any until you get to that stiff bolt. Then you'll have an accurate measurement to set your sizing die off of. You are definitely getting there
Concentricity Question
- Thread starter Deputy819
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
That's the point I was getting at, I wouldn't worry about measuring any until you get to that stiff bolt. Then you'll have an accurate measurement to set your sizing die off of. You are definitely getting there
Deputy819
Well-Known Member
Ahhhhhh. Okay, THAT was one of the questions I had. Absolute best point of reference is when the bolt gets stiff and THEN bump back by .002 (or so) until you get a "perfect fit".That's the point I was getting at, I wouldn't worry about measuring any until you get to that stiff bolt. Then you'll have an accurate measurement to set your sizing die off of. You are definitely getting there
jdmecomber
Official LRH Sponsor
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2016
- Messages
- 597
Here is a video you can check out. The factory ammo did not shoot very well out of the .243, but when the run out is very poor, you can easily see improvement when it is corrected. Federal ammunition runout was horrible and hornandy was very good.
barnjoer
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2015
- Messages
- 26
Deputy819
Well-Known Member
Hey Thanks! That was a pretty cool test. Makes me wonder whether or not neck tension was changed when the Federal ammo was "corrected" with that particular gauge. Interesting....
jdmecomber
Official LRH Sponsor
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2016
- Messages
- 597
jdmecomber
Official LRH Sponsor
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2016
- Messages
- 597
I guess when you move the bullet from .007 to .001/.0015 runout you would have to change some neck tension. I am not sure how to measure that?
barnjoer
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2015
- Messages
- 26
Thanks
I avoid concentricity issues by turning necks, and seating my bullets in stages. What I mean by that is I push the bullet in about half way, then rotate the case about half a turn, and seat the rest of the way, then rotate again, and verify seating depth. Annealing and case lube on the inside of the neck also helps this process. I get .001 or better consistently measured on the neck and bullet.
The only clocking of a round I've heard of was in relation to the case wall thickness, not the concentricity of the round. I guess if you were stuck with bad ammo, then clocking could help. For hunting, its almost impossible to get clocked rounds in the same spot every time loading out of a staggered magazine push feed system. Center feeds work to some extent and control round feeds work.
The only clocking of a round I've heard of was in relation to the case wall thickness, not the concentricity of the round. I guess if you were stuck with bad ammo, then clocking could help. For hunting, its almost impossible to get clocked rounds in the same spot every time loading out of a staggered magazine push feed system. Center feeds work to some extent and control round feeds work.
Interesting thread and one of many great benefits of this community for learning. I've been thru this same process with finicky rifles and driven myself crazy trying to nail down the variable causing the inconsistencies and learned a lot about reloading in the process. In the end both times it was either the scope or the bedding/shifting that was the culprit. Tagging in and very interested in the conclusion on this one. Best of luck and keep at it. There surely will be an aha moment in here soon.
Deputy819
Well-Known Member
Gonna go buy a box of Factory ammo and run the scope through a square test and see what happens...... if I can catch a break in the weather here that is. I already had the Smith check his skim-bed job and he said it was fine. We'll see.
Checking in on this one.
One of the things I've discovered through the reloading and shooting process is to test and verify the physical factors of the problem before I attempt at defining the problem. This means when I'm experiencing shooting inconsistencies, I look to the rifle first...well second actually, my first effort is in consciously repeating the inconsistent results. Once the inconsistent results are confirmed, then verify each component on the rifle. Make sure action screws are properly torqued, physically change out the rings, then change the scope, all one at a time. Usually I find that the inconsistency clears up after the ring/scope change. If it doesn't, then I go and reevaluate each step in my reloading process.
For reference, my first suggested steps here would be a ring/base change. I've experienced numerous inconsistencies with the base Leopold set-up as shown on the rifle pic. I no longer use that set up in any situation. Then, beg or borrow another scope to test out and confirm its either a scope issue or not. The problems you are presenting are very consistent with scope problems I've experienced in the past.
Just me .02 cents here, but I've been in your seat more than once.
(Cool looking rifle by the way.)
One of the things I've discovered through the reloading and shooting process is to test and verify the physical factors of the problem before I attempt at defining the problem. This means when I'm experiencing shooting inconsistencies, I look to the rifle first...well second actually, my first effort is in consciously repeating the inconsistent results. Once the inconsistent results are confirmed, then verify each component on the rifle. Make sure action screws are properly torqued, physically change out the rings, then change the scope, all one at a time. Usually I find that the inconsistency clears up after the ring/scope change. If it doesn't, then I go and reevaluate each step in my reloading process.
For reference, my first suggested steps here would be a ring/base change. I've experienced numerous inconsistencies with the base Leopold set-up as shown on the rifle pic. I no longer use that set up in any situation. Then, beg or borrow another scope to test out and confirm its either a scope issue or not. The problems you are presenting are very consistent with scope problems I've experienced in the past.
Just me .02 cents here, but I've been in your seat more than once.
(Cool looking rifle by the way.)
Deputy819
Well-Known Member
Thank you. It's my first "custom" rifle and it brought with it a good case of ulcers.
Other guys here have been suspicious of the ring/base combo I used as well. Definitely gonna be something I look into.Just to verify my point. My 22-250 has always been a very good shooter, I could put 20 rounds into .5 MOA consistently at a reasonable distances for the lightweight bullets. Then, sometimes, the groups would just open up, and I would have unexplained misses on what I thought for sure should have been dead ground squirrels. I switched scopes and the problem went away. I sent the scope back to Zeiss and this was their reply I received yesterday...
"We have completed the inspection on your 4.5-14X44 CONQUEST #20 RET, 3660435 and have determined that we are unable to complete the necessary repairs to restore your to our Zeiss standard. A replacement product of equal or greater value will be issued under your warranty."
It was nice to receive confirmation of my work, and props to Zeiss for their quality customer service.
"We have completed the inspection on your 4.5-14X44 CONQUEST #20 RET, 3660435 and have determined that we are unable to complete the necessary repairs to restore your to our Zeiss standard. A replacement product of equal or greater value will be issued under your warranty."
It was nice to receive confirmation of my work, and props to Zeiss for their quality customer service.
