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
Measuring CBTO - What is wrong with my approach?
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="epoletna" data-source="post: 2383144" data-attributes="member: 87371"><p>After reading that long article from Precision Rifle Blog, I will propose a perhaps radical approach to seating depth. </p><p></p><p>It is this: <strong>perhaps we don't need to measure the CBTO precisely to start</strong>. </p><p></p><p>We know a general seating depth for the caliber in question from published sources and measuring commercial rounds. And the PRB article makes it sound as if <strong>deeper</strong> seating depth generally is better, so why not start from the published data and seat shorter and shorter until we find the best ES? Of course this will vary from rifle to rifle, but for load development in an individual rifle this would seem like an acceptable way to start establishing seating depth in a specific cartridge for a specific rifle/barrel.</p><p></p><p>If I read the PRB article correctly, shorter (deeper) seating is generally better up to the point where the bearing surface goes below the case neck junction. So does it really matter where the rifling starts, or where the bullet meets the lands? As long as we start short of that point and continue going shorter until we find the best ES, we should be able to establish the best seating depth for that rifle/cartridge combination. If we load for more than one rifle in a specific caliber, we would want to repeat this for each rifle, but does it really matter where the lands start if we are looking to find a starting point for seating depth?</p><p></p><p>I think I am going to start seating shorter to see if that changes ES.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="epoletna, post: 2383144, member: 87371"] After reading that long article from Precision Rifle Blog, I will propose a perhaps radical approach to seating depth. It is this: [B]perhaps we don't need to measure the CBTO precisely to start[/B]. We know a general seating depth for the caliber in question from published sources and measuring commercial rounds. And the PRB article makes it sound as if [B]deeper[/B] seating depth generally is better, so why not start from the published data and seat shorter and shorter until we find the best ES? Of course this will vary from rifle to rifle, but for load development in an individual rifle this would seem like an acceptable way to start establishing seating depth in a specific cartridge for a specific rifle/barrel. If I read the PRB article correctly, shorter (deeper) seating is generally better up to the point where the bearing surface goes below the case neck junction. So does it really matter where the rifling starts, or where the bullet meets the lands? As long as we start short of that point and continue going shorter until we find the best ES, we should be able to establish the best seating depth for that rifle/cartridge combination. If we load for more than one rifle in a specific caliber, we would want to repeat this for each rifle, but does it really matter where the lands start if we are looking to find a starting point for seating depth? I think I am going to start seating shorter to see if that changes ES. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Measuring CBTO - What is wrong with my approach?
Top