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
Rem 700 vs load dev .308
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="benchracer" data-source="post: 1200911" data-attributes="member: 22069"><p>I just recently started shooting my .308 @ 1000 yards at Ben Avery Shooting Facility near Phoenix. I had done a quick and dirty load development with 155 SMK Palmas just to get started. I thought I had a stable load that would work, but found out otherwise when I was all over the paper during my third practice session. When I re-checked my loads @ 200 yards, the groups had gone from about MOA to 3+ MOA.</p><p> </p><p>After carefully going over my rifle and giving it a thorough cleaning, I base-lined it with a box of 175 FGMM, which confirmed that I had a problem with my loads, not my rifle or scope.</p><p> </p><p>Today, I completed seating depth tests using Varget and 155 SMK Palma, 175 TMK, and Berger 185 Juggernaut bullets, generally following the methodology of the Berger Seating Depth Test.</p><p> </p><p>I modified the test for the 155 Palma bullets because the bullet itself is too short to get anywhere near the lands. Because of that, I shortened the test increment from .040 to .030 and worked forward from the standard mag length of 2.8.</p><p> </p><p>The Palma bullets did their best work .130 off the lands, which doesn't leave a lot of bullet shank in the case. If I were to build a rifle specifically for these bullets, I would go with a longer barrel and shorter chamber throat.</p><p> </p><p>Both the 175 TMK and the 185 Jugg did their best work at .080 and .120 off the lands. The TMK shot very well and the Jugg was spectacular. What surprised me about the Jugg is that it delivered good results with 3 of the 4 seating depths tested, which seems to run contrary to the reputation Berger bullets have for being sensitive to seating depth.</p><p> </p><p>Here are the results of the seating depth tests:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="benchracer, post: 1200911, member: 22069"] I just recently started shooting my .308 @ 1000 yards at Ben Avery Shooting Facility near Phoenix. I had done a quick and dirty load development with 155 SMK Palmas just to get started. I thought I had a stable load that would work, but found out otherwise when I was all over the paper during my third practice session. When I re-checked my loads @ 200 yards, the groups had gone from about MOA to 3+ MOA. After carefully going over my rifle and giving it a thorough cleaning, I base-lined it with a box of 175 FGMM, which confirmed that I had a problem with my loads, not my rifle or scope. Today, I completed seating depth tests using Varget and 155 SMK Palma, 175 TMK, and Berger 185 Juggernaut bullets, generally following the methodology of the Berger Seating Depth Test. I modified the test for the 155 Palma bullets because the bullet itself is too short to get anywhere near the lands. Because of that, I shortened the test increment from .040 to .030 and worked forward from the standard mag length of 2.8. The Palma bullets did their best work .130 off the lands, which doesn't leave a lot of bullet shank in the case. If I were to build a rifle specifically for these bullets, I would go with a longer barrel and shorter chamber throat. Both the 175 TMK and the 185 Jugg did their best work at .080 and .120 off the lands. The TMK shot very well and the Jugg was spectacular. What surprised me about the Jugg is that it delivered good results with 3 of the 4 seating depths tested, which seems to run contrary to the reputation Berger bullets have for being sensitive to seating depth. Here are the results of the seating depth tests: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Rem 700 vs load dev .308
Top