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
Mixing Different Lots Same Powder
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="J E Custom" data-source="post: 1694214" data-attributes="member: 2736"><p>Very well said !!! Now that is a real word smith.</p><p></p><p>Some say that they cant tell/see any difference in accuracy or results in many of the things we talk about. And it is very hard sometimes to measure these results. Many times it is only thousandths of an inch improvements that results from the change. To some, that is not enough to take the time to do something if it doesn't net a 1/4 MOA change.</p><p></p><p>I have personally gone from being happy with a 1 MOA accuracy standard to sub 1/10th MOA. Of coarse you don't always reach these goals, but some of us try. (Its our thing).</p><p></p><p>It is relatively easy to reach 1 MOA with good equipment. It is much harder to reach 1/2 MOA and requires great detail in all of the things we discuss. If you are looking for 1/4 MOA it is another world and you can leave no stone un turned.</p><p></p><p>Beyond 1/4 MOA is where the little changes of .020 thousandths more or less start to add up, and the term Anal comes into play. Buy being open to change and testing the change I have improved consistent accuracy from 1/10th MOA to less. Is it worth the effort ? to me it is the satisfaction that I learned something and improved a .091 5 shot group to .073 and in one case the average group size of .072 went to</p><p>.054. That is only around a .020 thousandths improvement but it is also almost a 30% improvement.</p><p></p><p>So as in many things we talk/discuss on this site. the elimination of any variable can improve consistency in performance to some degree.</p><p>The man that started me down the road of being finicky would go to a bench rest match and use one case for the whole match. when ask why, he said whats more consistent that One case. He never mixed powder, and used out of one container, he measured every bullet diameter, he weighed every bullet, measured the meplat and tested 5 or more cases to find the one that gave him the best group and that is the case he would use in the match. To his way of thinking, everything could be improved if he could just figure out what change to make.</p><p></p><p>Most of us are not bench rest shooters, But long range requires the same Dedication to accuracy and details, and in some instances different philosophies and equipment for the extreme range.</p><p></p><p>J E CUSTOM</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J E Custom, post: 1694214, member: 2736"] Very well said !!! Now that is a real word smith. Some say that they cant tell/see any difference in accuracy or results in many of the things we talk about. And it is very hard sometimes to measure these results. Many times it is only thousandths of an inch improvements that results from the change. To some, that is not enough to take the time to do something if it doesn't net a 1/4 MOA change. I have personally gone from being happy with a 1 MOA accuracy standard to sub 1/10th MOA. Of coarse you don't always reach these goals, but some of us try. (Its our thing). It is relatively easy to reach 1 MOA with good equipment. It is much harder to reach 1/2 MOA and requires great detail in all of the things we discuss. If you are looking for 1/4 MOA it is another world and you can leave no stone un turned. Beyond 1/4 MOA is where the little changes of .020 thousandths more or less start to add up, and the term Anal comes into play. Buy being open to change and testing the change I have improved consistent accuracy from 1/10th MOA to less. Is it worth the effort ? to me it is the satisfaction that I learned something and improved a .091 5 shot group to .073 and in one case the average group size of .072 went to .054. That is only around a .020 thousandths improvement but it is also almost a 30% improvement. So as in many things we talk/discuss on this site. the elimination of any variable can improve consistency in performance to some degree. The man that started me down the road of being finicky would go to a bench rest match and use one case for the whole match. when ask why, he said whats more consistent that One case. He never mixed powder, and used out of one container, he measured every bullet diameter, he weighed every bullet, measured the meplat and tested 5 or more cases to find the one that gave him the best group and that is the case he would use in the match. To his way of thinking, everything could be improved if he could just figure out what change to make. Most of us are not bench rest shooters, But long range requires the same Dedication to accuracy and details, and in some instances different philosophies and equipment for the extreme range. J E CUSTOM [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Mixing Different Lots Same Powder
Top