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 variables
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="dsculley" data-source="post: 1341855" data-attributes="member: 77514"><p>I recently worked up a new load for my 6.5x47 when I decided to try the Nosler RDF. Components: Fire formed cases (multiple firings, annealed), CCI 400, IMR 4350, Nosler RDF.</p><p></p><p>Seating depth test indicated -0.70 if I recall (don't have my data with me but that is close). In this test with a light load, largest group was about an inch at 100 yds and the best group had 3 touching.</p><p></p><p>Then proceeded to do OCW. Found a node where 2 loads were on the same horizontal plane with similar grouping. These groups were not as tight as the best group during seating depth testing. I ran another seating depth test using the selected load by moving seating depth in 0.005 increments from the -0.070 and wound up at -0.060.</p><p></p><p>In the past, I have always found the powder charge first then seating depth. Some research indicated that perhaps I should first test for seating depth. There was a lively discussion on this topic recently in the Accurate Shooter/Shooters Forum. There are those that say that without first testing for seating depth that testing for charge is not dependable (Seating depth course adjustment, powder charge fine adjustment).</p><p></p><p>I have gotten to this point with the seating depth vs charge weight debate: Ever since I started using Dan Newberry's OCW method of testing for charge weight I have been able to find an acceptable charge in a forgiving node. If the group was not as tight as I wanted, I have been able to test for seating depth and tighten the group. This may not be the smallest group that I shot during testing but is in a node where minor differences in charge weight, case volume, seating depth, etc do not dramatically affect the performance. I know we all try for perfection in our handloads but there will always be minor variations that we can't control. The proof is in the pudding. I took the 6.5x47 load above to the shooting school at BangSteel (Dan Newberry's school) this spring and used it for two days shooting from 600 to 1100 yds. It performed well. The second day as my wind reading skills were improving I made first round hits on small targets at 600, 660 (this was a groundhog plate that was 4" wide) & 890 yds. so I was very pleased with the performance of this load. For what it is worth, I did not have time to load as many rounds as i needed before I left for the school. I loaded 100 of the rounds that I shot on the second day in my motel room the night before with a Lee hand loader and they performed as well as those that were loaded on my bench press.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dsculley, post: 1341855, member: 77514"] I recently worked up a new load for my 6.5x47 when I decided to try the Nosler RDF. Components: Fire formed cases (multiple firings, annealed), CCI 400, IMR 4350, Nosler RDF. Seating depth test indicated -0.70 if I recall (don't have my data with me but that is close). In this test with a light load, largest group was about an inch at 100 yds and the best group had 3 touching. Then proceeded to do OCW. Found a node where 2 loads were on the same horizontal plane with similar grouping. These groups were not as tight as the best group during seating depth testing. I ran another seating depth test using the selected load by moving seating depth in 0.005 increments from the -0.070 and wound up at -0.060. In the past, I have always found the powder charge first then seating depth. Some research indicated that perhaps I should first test for seating depth. There was a lively discussion on this topic recently in the Accurate Shooter/Shooters Forum. There are those that say that without first testing for seating depth that testing for charge is not dependable (Seating depth course adjustment, powder charge fine adjustment). I have gotten to this point with the seating depth vs charge weight debate: Ever since I started using Dan Newberry's OCW method of testing for charge weight I have been able to find an acceptable charge in a forgiving node. If the group was not as tight as I wanted, I have been able to test for seating depth and tighten the group. This may not be the smallest group that I shot during testing but is in a node where minor differences in charge weight, case volume, seating depth, etc do not dramatically affect the performance. I know we all try for perfection in our handloads but there will always be minor variations that we can't control. The proof is in the pudding. I took the 6.5x47 load above to the shooting school at BangSteel (Dan Newberry's school) this spring and used it for two days shooting from 600 to 1100 yds. It performed well. The second day as my wind reading skills were improving I made first round hits on small targets at 600, 660 (this was a groundhog plate that was 4" wide) & 890 yds. so I was very pleased with the performance of this load. For what it is worth, I did not have time to load as many rounds as i needed before I left for the school. I loaded 100 of the rounds that I shot on the second day in my motel room the night before with a Lee hand loader and they performed as well as those that were loaded on my bench press. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Load development variables
Top