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
Having Trouble with 200 gr ELD-X 300 RUM
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="charliewhisky" data-source="post: 1340556" data-attributes="member: 26716"><p>I'm coming late to this discussion late but it seems to be the one I need. I have just started the process of using a Hornady tool to determine the best seating for a 200gr ELD-X in 30-06.</p><p>I have only reloaded 150gr SP prior to this at the Hornady specs.</p><p>After several days of learning how to gain consistency in measuring with the tools I have reached some conclusions but, I'm not sure where they take me.</p><p>1. I used four methods to determine the distance to the lands.</p><p>a. Measurement using 200gr ELDX with Hornady tools, including COL tool.</p><p>b. Measurement useing 150gr SP.</p><p>c. Measurement usuing 200gr ELDX reversed (boatail slant too ogive is steeper).</p><p>d. Measurement using a reversed 150 gr SP (flat base)after insuring the bullet was well seated against the lands.</p><p></p><p>First conclusion: measurement "a" using the ELDX is consistently .008 longer than b, c, and d. b,c , and d measurements agree consistently.</p><p></p><p>2. Seated both a 150 And a 200 ELDX using the same setting. I assumed the distance from the brass base to the "ring" left by the press would be identical. This is not the case. The 200 ELDX measures .003 longer.</p><p></p><p>Second conclusion: something about the shape of the 200 ELDX creates a condition where both the hornady press and the hornady C.O.L. Tool both engage the bullet, or the lands, sooner than expected. </p><p></p><p>I had assumed prior to this that one good measurement of the distance to the lands was enough because the lands had to engage point "a" on the bullet at point "b" on the lands on every bullet the same way reguardless of the shape of the bullet.</p><p></p><p>Third conclusion: I am certain that the "slant" to the ogive of the 200 ELDX bullet creates a point of intersection with the lands that, in my case, creates an almost .01 additional "jump" to the lands and that during this "jump" the bullet is probably not going to be actually engaged with the lands mechanically.</p><p></p><p>Fourth conclusion: hornady recommends a minimum .02 jump to the lands for hunting and adjustment closer to the lands for added accuracy. If I am correct, an initial round development using the 200 ELDX to measure the distance to the lands would result in a .03 accuracy destroying initial jump to the lands.</p><p></p><p>Fifth conclusion: if I develop the ELDX round using the distance to lands measurement made by any method other than using the ELDX bullet I create a condition where the Round is at, or near what should be a .02 jump to the lands but is, instead, already engaged, or almost engaged with the lands due to the shallow slant to ogive.</p><p></p><p>QUESTION 1: does this make sense?</p><p></p><p>QUESTION 2: how should I proceed?</p><p></p><p>QUESTION 3: could the inaccuracy identified by 300ultra2016 be attributed to either a long jump to the lands or excessive pressure due to insufficient jump?</p><p></p><p>Writing this has been a way to clarify my thoughts and I think I will send it on to Hornady. I am very interested in learning everyone's thoughts on my efforts to date. Thanks in advance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="charliewhisky, post: 1340556, member: 26716"] I'm coming late to this discussion late but it seems to be the one I need. I have just started the process of using a Hornady tool to determine the best seating for a 200gr ELD-X in 30-06. I have only reloaded 150gr SP prior to this at the Hornady specs. After several days of learning how to gain consistency in measuring with the tools I have reached some conclusions but, I'm not sure where they take me. 1. I used four methods to determine the distance to the lands. a. Measurement using 200gr ELDX with Hornady tools, including COL tool. b. Measurement useing 150gr SP. c. Measurement usuing 200gr ELDX reversed (boatail slant too ogive is steeper). d. Measurement using a reversed 150 gr SP (flat base)after insuring the bullet was well seated against the lands. First conclusion: measurement "a" using the ELDX is consistently .008 longer than b, c, and d. b,c , and d measurements agree consistently. 2. Seated both a 150 And a 200 ELDX using the same setting. I assumed the distance from the brass base to the "ring" left by the press would be identical. This is not the case. The 200 ELDX measures .003 longer. Second conclusion: something about the shape of the 200 ELDX creates a condition where both the hornady press and the hornady C.O.L. Tool both engage the bullet, or the lands, sooner than expected. I had assumed prior to this that one good measurement of the distance to the lands was enough because the lands had to engage point "a" on the bullet at point "b" on the lands on every bullet the same way reguardless of the shape of the bullet. Third conclusion: I am certain that the "slant" to the ogive of the 200 ELDX bullet creates a point of intersection with the lands that, in my case, creates an almost .01 additional "jump" to the lands and that during this "jump" the bullet is probably not going to be actually engaged with the lands mechanically. Fourth conclusion: hornady recommends a minimum .02 jump to the lands for hunting and adjustment closer to the lands for added accuracy. If I am correct, an initial round development using the 200 ELDX to measure the distance to the lands would result in a .03 accuracy destroying initial jump to the lands. Fifth conclusion: if I develop the ELDX round using the distance to lands measurement made by any method other than using the ELDX bullet I create a condition where the Round is at, or near what should be a .02 jump to the lands but is, instead, already engaged, or almost engaged with the lands due to the shallow slant to ogive. QUESTION 1: does this make sense? QUESTION 2: how should I proceed? QUESTION 3: could the inaccuracy identified by 300ultra2016 be attributed to either a long jump to the lands or excessive pressure due to insufficient jump? Writing this has been a way to clarify my thoughts and I think I will send it on to Hornady. I am very interested in learning everyone's thoughts on my efforts to date. Thanks in advance. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Having Trouble with 200 gr ELD-X 300 RUM
Top