Help: 300 win mag load development

stanley52

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
284
Location
Southeast Kansas
Ok team, i've been doing some load development. I conducted an OCW test and landed with 71gr H4831sc behind a 200gr Berger hybrid. Today I tested the loads stability. I shot x2 70.5gr, x4 71, x2 71.5gr (top 3 targets in the picture).

*for all the seating depth targets there are 4 shells too*

The wind was a full value 4-10mph variable. It seems the load is pretty stable except for some horizontal stringing with the 71gr. Coincidentally the POI seems to be in pairs, reflecting the 70.5 and 71.5 load POI's....my conclusion is the wind probably caused the horizontal "pairing". I think 71gr is a solid load. I'm open for advice or input about that though.


My real question is about all the horizontal stringing throughout the testing. I acknowledge the wind moved my POI between .25-.6" roughly, and total horizontal stringing was between .5-1.25". There is equal or less than .5" vertical stringing in every target shot today. Should I ignore the horizontal stringing? If you tighten them down horizontally by .25-.5" the groups become pretty solid. I just want to make sure it's ok to ignore the horizontal stringing since the vertical stringing is so consistent and relatively minor.


If the consensus is to ignore it, then which load should I choose from? The bottom 4 targets (including the black square) were varying seating depths (.002, .012, .020, and .030) with 71gr. I used the black square so that I didn't have to use the bottom targets which were not visible from my truck bed due to foliage.

Thanks for the help!
 

Attachments

  • 9478EECC-0BA7-4F70-A313-93F93F3FC076.jpeg
    9478EECC-0BA7-4F70-A313-93F93F3FC076.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 320
Is this at 100 yrds? I would load the .30 load and try some 5 shot groups it looks very promising. In a near perfect world we expect to see vertical strings due to deviations or as barrel heats up. Personally I like to see mine in a tight group that produces the triangle shape. That is just my feeble mind. There are many more on here with much more knowledge and experience

Thanks

Buck
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top