Load Development Ruger Precision Rifle .243

[RonS]

Agreed.

RPR (243) will not consistently produce much better than MOA (5 shot groups) in mine as well. In terms of accuracy, just about any budget gun in 243 with a tupperware stock, including their own American will keep up or outshoot my RPR. I'll hand it to Ruger though, they are consistent. Of the last several Rugers I've had, they've all had lackluster accuracy despite Herculean efforts in load development. Very reliable and nice looking guns though. Given the unpredictable accuracy potential one can get from a RPR, I'd factor in the cost and time of a new barrel to the purchase price if having a decent "precision" rifle is your goal.

I've got the 30 inch 308 barrel shooting now. Went with 215 heavies as I was having some trouble with the 230's. Was having trouble with the 215's as well but they have a bit less bearing surface so the hope was higher velocities. I was beginning to wonder if this barrel would shoot. My best load was shooting about an 1 MOA. Not good enough for competition. Then a friend of mine texted me on the way to the range to do some final testing. He was having the same trouble shooting 210's in a custom built Pierce action rifle. He talked to another guy who has been successfully shooting heavies for a while. Found out that the secret was free recoil (shooting off an F Class bipod with a quality rear bag). He tried it and was shocked. I tried it and I was shocked. From 1 MOA to a 1/2 MOA one hole group. Repeated it several times. Running at 2524 fps it'll have roughly the wind drift of a 6.5. I'm ready for the 1000 yard match this coming weekend.

Sometimes it is the arrow, sometimes it is the Indian. This time it was the Indian and this Indian has no problem shooting other calibers without free recoil into 1/4 MOA but these heavies are a different animal.

As far as the 243 barrel, it's sitting in a locker in my shop. I may pull it out again someday but I've always had trouble getting 6mm's to shoot worth a darn and I'm a bit put off by them. I will say that the RPR 243 barrel shot way better than a Remington 700 SPS Varmint in 243 that I sent down the road a couple of years ago. That thing would not shoot better than 2 MOA with factory loads. I called Remington and asked them what kind of varmints the rifle was designed to shoot, horses inside 200 yards? After 6 months of load development, a new trigger, a new stock, bedding the action and lapping the barrel I got it to shoot 1 MOA. I hear that the guy who bought from the pawn shop I traded it to thinks it's a tack driver with the 50 dollar Simmons scope he mounted on it. We all have different standards.

 

[jdmecomber]

Good luck in your shoot.

 

[Mike 338]

I've got the 30 inch 308 barrel shooting now. Went with 215 heavies as I was having some trouble with the 230's. Was having trouble with the 215's as well but they have a bit less bearing surface so the hope was higher velocities. I was beginning to wonder if this barrel would shoot. My best load was shooting about an 1 MOA. Not good enough for competition. Then a friend of mine texted me on the way to the range to do some final testing. He was having the same trouble shooting 210's in a custom built Pierce action rifle. He talked to another guy who has been successfully shooting heavies for a while. Found out that the secret was free recoil (shooting off an F Class bipod with a quality rear bag). He tried it and was shocked. I tried it and I was shocked. From 1 MOA to a 1/2 MOA one hole group. Repeated it several times. Running at 2524 fps it'll have roughly the wind drift of a 6.5. I'm ready for the 1000 yard match this coming weekend.

Sometimes it is the arrow, sometimes it is the Indian. This time it was the Indian and this Indian has no problem shooting other calibers without free recoil into 1/4 MOA but these heavies are a different animal.

As far as the 243 barrel, it's sitting in a locker in my shop. I may pull it out again someday but I've always had trouble getting 6mm's to shoot worth a darn and I'm a bit put off by them. I will say that the RPR 243 barrel shot way better than a Remington 700 SPS Varmint in 243 that I sent down the road a couple of years ago. That thing would not shoot better than 2 MOA with factory loads. I called Remington and asked them what kind of varmints the rifle was designed to shoot, horses inside 200 yards? After 6 months of load development, a new trigger, a new stock, bedding the action and lapping the barrel I got it to shoot 1 MOA. I hear that the guy who bought from the pawn shop I traded it to thinks it's a tack driver with the 50 dollar Simmons scope he mounted on it. We all have different standards.

My range time varies but I like to experiment with technique. I see a lot about "cheek weld". I see a lot of guys lay into their stocks pretty hard. IMO, based on my experiments, hard cheek weld induces stress into the machine. If you watch a pro level golfer, he has a set up routine. It works for him. IMO, a hard weld es no bueno. I usually set up in steps. These aren't the steps. Sometimes, range trips are so far between that I almost forget my steps. I get a "cheek weld" as a point of reference on the stock but consciously relieve my cheek pressure so only face-flab in in contact so the gun can recoil without my mug pushing the butt stock around. In terms of shoulder pressure, I don't pull into my shoulder at the time of firing. I try to create a pocket with my shoulder, snug the butt up into my shoulder and release that tension and allow my toes to slightly push forward so the forward pressure holds the butt where it needs to be instead of pulling hard into my shoulder. To create consistency, I tension my pec muscle so recoil against my body is a little more consistent and sort'a hard. A flabbly/loose shoulder pocket allows the butt to swing anywhere. A hard shoulder pocket... not so much.

In short, I let the rifle do what it does freely, as you suggested. I just sort'a try to eliminate body nuances that cause torque through recoil. IMO, your on the right track. Then again, I'm just a dude who can't even get a Ruger Precision Rifle in 243 to do the Do.

 

[buckfvr]

We all know all production rifles dont shoot the same, and certainly wouldnt conclude a poor shooting box rifle is on the shooter with out visible evidence of some sort.

Each shooter has to discover his own technique based on his own results. Theres plenty of suggestions and guidelines to follow from accomplished shooters and you guys are certainly in understanding of it.

I did a great deal of the original shooting of Joes RPR .243 as he works and Im retired and can shoot out to 300 yards from inside my shop on a bench rest through a shooting port......warm and dry inside while loading and shooting when it was nasty outside.

So I shoot from the bench almost entirely and Joe shoots prone almost entirely......you can guess how that might make for some arguments )... SO I will say at first, we did struggle a bit with the .243 at just sub moa but doggedly kept after it and adopted full brass uniforming and neck turning to get it below 1/2 moa. We even shot some 1/4 moa groups ( all 5 shot ), but actually had most of the groups under 1/2, which we settled for. We figured the difference between 1/2 and 1/4 could be on we the shooters, so called it good. So for our 200 yard zeros, 1/2 moa is still the rule. We are just a couple guys who spend a lot of time trying things that "may " make a differnce....or not. All time well spent for sure. R

 

[RonS]

My range time varies but I like to experiment with technique. I see a lot about "cheek weld". I see a lot of guys lay into their stocks pretty hard. IMO, based on my experiments, hard cheek weld induces stress into the machine. If you watch a pro level golfer, he has a set up routine. It works for him. IMO, a hard weld es no bueno. I usually set up in steps. These aren't the steps. Sometimes, range trips are so far between that I almost forget my steps. I get a "cheek weld" as a point of reference on the stock but consciously relieve my cheek pressure so only face-flab in in contact so the gun can recoil without my mug pushing the butt stock around. In terms of shoulder pressure, I don't pull into my shoulder at the time of firing. I try to create a pocket with my shoulder, snug the butt up into my shoulder and release that tension and allow my toes to slightly push forward so the forward pressure holds the butt where it needs to be instead of pulling hard into my shoulder. To create consistency, I tension my pec muscle so recoil against my body is a little more consistent and sort'a hard. A flabbly/loose shoulder pocket allows the butt to swing anywhere. A hard shoulder pocket... not so much.

In short, I let the rifle do what it does freely, as you suggested. I just sort'a try to eliminate body nuances that cause torque through recoil. IMO, your on the right track. Then again, I'm just a dude who can't even get a Ruger Precision Rifle in 243 to do the Do.

Yeah, that is essentially the technique. I've shot free recoil before but I've been shooting lighter calibers and essentially forgot about it. With the correct positioning and proper tracking of the rifle, the bullet leaves the barrel before undue forces are applied to the gun that would throw the bullet off. It's not really free but more as you describe, a light touch.

 

[jdmecomber]

So I opened a new 8lb keg of H4831sc, spent hours prepping and reloading 90 rounds.
Used my powder charge that I have been using since I purchased this Reaper. I took my time with the Gem Pro Scale. I have been doing a lot of research on the subject of scales. I realize now the Gem Pro is a strain gauge which floats a little but can be minimized. It appears the next step up is a monolithic force type scale The minimum price is about 1000$. I think the Gem Pro floated a little but my Tare always zeroed.

I forgot to check the speed of the new powder before I reloaded 90 rounds !!!!!!

I put 5 over the Magnetto which is not a lot of rounds but we have lots of data already and I was way out of my node I had developed. So now I have 90 rounds that are 79 fps on average faster then my 2920 fps node. Sucks but oh well.

First shot out of the barrel was
3016
Then
2996
3005
2986
2996.

Overall was 30 fps. Which it's not my node so I expect it wouldn't be as stable. I always had usually one hot round during my testing.

Not sure yet what the answer is if a guy didn't want to spend 1000$ to get the next tier of results. If you throw out the high one, the spread is 19 fps. Seems pretty reasonable for a 120$ scale. Is knocking another 10 fps worth getting that fps into possible single digits or maybe never having that one hot round? Probably is for guys shooting x's on paper and I doubt the serious guys are using Gem Pros.

Russ bought a 10-10 beam scale and recently did a test against the Gem Pro. He takes more time with the powder and had really good results against not using the beam scale. He will post his results soon

 

[buckfvr]

So.....Like Joe says, I bought a used RCBS 10-10. I dont know if it was made in Mexico or not because it had no box, but it did say all the OHaus stuff alll over it. It is in very good condition and I spent a few hours making sure knive edges were clean and sharp and agates were clean and relatively alighned. I played with the ballast in the sub pan and got it to repeatably read zero while perfectly level. I tested it against known weights and verified it against the GemPro.

So, in a never ending quest to achieve greater results, my research led me to a great deal about the accuracy of the older beam scales being notably better than the digital scales. Both instruments in the same price range seem to boast .10 grain accuracy. However.......there is a lot of meaningful research done to indicate the balance beam scales are more precise than the digitals and its pretty convincing. Me being me, I had to make an effort to convince myself I was doing it as well as I could with what I had, or needed to change to an old balance beam. Next came paragraph one...........

So I decided on a simple quick test that would give me a clue to base any further actions on. 5 rounds with the beam scale and 5 rounds with the GemPro 250. All shot under the same load development protocal as we always use, and from the relatively controlled environ of my shop. Basically rifle and ammo out of direct sunlight and at the same temperature with the same amount of timed intervals for relative cool down. Not overly scientific at all but some sense of uniformity. A magneto Sport was used to conduct the test.

So I was convinced I was doing a great job with the beam scale, as it approached desired charge weight the sensitivity was good enough to show movement for each of the last few kernels of powder. That led me to think I was on to something......Well as I usually do if necessary, I use the tweazers to add or subtract a kernel or two to get the lines to match up to what appears to be perfect to me. Same as adding one more kernel to the pan with the digital. I did what I could to be as exacting as possible with both scales.

So for results, the beam scale netted me an ES of 29, not so good, but if you took away the cold shot it was 15. Now the GemPro, for the 5 shots, gave me an ES of 17, much better, and if you take away the hot shot, it was 8. Not iron clad convincing, but for me, the results will keep me on course with the digital, maybe some day stepping up to a serious scale.

I will add that my opinion is certainly a guy can do better with the beam than I did because I honestly believe there is a small amount of learned skill in using them. Constant and continued use will have the user seeing them more precisely and allow for him to be more in tune with any nuances of a particular scale. I will opt to read the screen on a digital for the forseeable. Now I will point out there is much difference in the low end digitals and the 150$ digitals. 50 dollar digitals wont make the team. So thats about it on another small scale simple test that may or may not make a person do something differently.....for the time being I wont. R

 

[jdmecomber]

Ballistics programs. Trasol/Ballisitics AE/Applied Ballsiitcs I purchased all for my IPhone to figure out which one is better

The outputs are very close with all three unless you have some decent wind.
If you believe in aerodynamic jump then AB is the only one of the three that solve for it

I was running the AE and AB head to head and I couldn't figure out why with 10 mph wind why AB was an moa more then AE at a rock at 1300 yards
I did some digging

AE has on option which asks if your windage is zeroed at your zero, I check that box because I zero at farther ranges and shoot in the middle

AB doesn't appear to have this option, so the wind corrections are different unless I am missing something.

I will keep playing with these and see if I can find some more stuff

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Ballistics programs. Trasol/Ballisitics AE/Applied Ballsiitcs I purchased all for my IPhone to figure out which one is better

The outputs are very close with all three unless you have some decent wind.
If you believe in aerodynamic jump then AB is the only one of the three that solve for it

I was running the AE and AB head to head and I couldn't figure out why with 10 mph wind why AB was an moa more then AE at a rock at 1300 yards
I did some digging

AE has on option which asks if your windage is zeroed at your zero, I check that box because I zero at farther ranges and shoot in the middle

AB doesn't appear to have this option, so the wind corrections are different unless I am missing something.

I will keep playing with these and see if I can find some more stuff

When you zeroed the rifle did you have a crosswind? If you did, then you could have easily biased AJ in to the rifles zero.

 

[jdmecomber]

I always zero with no wind.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

I always zero with no wind.

Every single time you zero there is absolutely no wind?

 

[jdmecomber]

Yes. I try to zero early morning or late afternoon when everything is calm and don't zero that often so it's easy to find days with no wind

 

[jdmecomber]

Doc

let's say I zero at 300 yards are your spin/coriolis starting from the muzzle and I can't correct it to start at 300???

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Did you place wind markers between yourself and the target? Did you place a wind marker at say 10 feet in front of the firing line? How much of the wind between yourself and target were you 100% certain of?

Spin Drift and Coriolis at 300 yards would be minimal. But they do exist. 1/10th of an MOA of Spin Drift, 1/20th of an MOA of Coriolis.

What did you use to measure MV by the way? What was the variation? How many shots?

There is the ability in the standard mobile app to enter zero atmosphere. You can also turn it on and off after you enter the variables.