I've tried this method, twice, on 2 different rifles. The problem I ran into, is that both rifles liked the bullet seated somewhere between their recommended seating depths. All the group sizes sucked at .010, .050, .090 and .130 off the lands. It didn't tell me anything except that I needed to be somewhere in between one of those seating depths. Which ones? Who knew at that point? What I did find out is that I needed to load more ammo between those seating depths and make another trip to the range. Both times with each rifle, those loads got me closer to something that looked promising but not exactly what I expected accuracy wise. So, multiple more trips to the range with more ammo, and more components used up as well as barrel life. Then once I hit a spot that I thought looked good, more trips to the range to do more load tweaking. To me, it's a chase your tail method and Berger is in business to sell bullets. Hundreds of rounds later, Eventually I got an epiphany to try seating depths toward the lands instead of away. BINGO! The groups shrank considerably. I keep my barrels clean, use .002 neck tension, and have never had a bullet pull that was .010 or less into the lands. On a new barrel, I start powder development with the bullet .010 into the lands, find the best charge weight, then tweak seating depth, then re-tweak the powder in tenths of a grain. Then, I run the load over the chrono to make sure the numbers are good (which they usually are) and to get a velocity average for a drop chart. It works for me. Your mileage may vary.
