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
Load development made easy.
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="Michael Eichele" data-source="post: 299850" data-attributes="member: 1007"><p>Yes. For the test in the picture I had already determined the jump to the lands from prior development. Typically, I look for the best charge weight THEN look for the OACL. It just happened to work out the opposite for this load. I had worked up the 178 prior and determined that .040" off the lands was best. I used the same OACL when I moved to the 168 AMAX. I dont know if it makes a difference or not between the 168 and 178 but I cannot imagine it impoving.</p><p></p><p>I tune it the same way Berger recomends.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Eichele, post: 299850, member: 1007"] Yes. For the test in the picture I had already determined the jump to the lands from prior development. Typically, I look for the best charge weight THEN look for the OACL. It just happened to work out the opposite for this load. I had worked up the 178 prior and determined that .040" off the lands was best. I used the same OACL when I moved to the 168 AMAX. I dont know if it makes a difference or not between the 168 and 178 but I cannot imagine it impoving. I tune it the same way Berger recomends. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Load development made easy.
Top