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
Seating depth advice
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="Veteran" data-source="post: 2226193" data-attributes="member: 118038"><p>There are many ways to skin a cat, and many calibers one can kill a deer or elk with, and many different grain bullets, and bullet types that will get the job done. Each person may find one method of another more suitable to their own preferences, and how they are wired. You can use the Dan Newbury OCW method, You can use the ladder test. You can use the Scott Satterlee velocity sill method,</p><p>or you can use all three in variants and combinations. Doing a Berger seating depth test may depend on whether you are using Berger VLD's or some similar type of secant point bullet vs. a short blunt bullet, or a regular tangent style shaped bullet. I believe Berger is recommending .04 jumps between bullet seating depths because the Secant style bullets like more jump, and can even work well out to .09, .15, or more jump as opposed to a more conventional .02-.03 kind of jump for other style bullets. Its all part of that </p><p>Secant, very long nosed design that cuts drag and makes the Berger VLD's good long range high BC bullets, but does call for more jump than normal bullets in general. In fact I think Berger says or has said in the past, their VLD's are almost insensitive to jump.</p><p>You can put'em anywhere you want them and they should still shoot well......not so sure, but I think that's what they have said.</p><p>In this case with 180 gr accubonds, a more conventional jump of say .015 to .035 might turn out to be better? So, the jump increments may need to be tuned to that sensitivity range? For hunting, most recommend at least a .02 jump and your magazine length may further dictate what range it has to be in.</p><p></p><p>I'm also not sure whether you can really home in on bullet seating or fine tune it without having a firm idea of your powder first? </p><p>I think selecting your powder and then making sure all the seating sensitivities are run using the same powder makes a lot of sense.</p><p>Comparing different seating depths when you are using different powders is like mixing apples and oranges, though there may be some correlation just because your chamber, and barrel, twist rate, and all are a big constant, and a big part of the equation too?</p><p></p><p>But as to the method you select and how you do it, there are many many ways to get the answer. I just think you have to be as consistent in how you do it as possible. You have to make sure the results are repeatable. </p><p></p><p>All methods are valid and have valid components that transfer into the other methods too.</p><p></p><p>Ideally, you'd like to see the OCW method give you the best groups, and show you a Scott Satterlee Velocity Sill at that same Charge Weight (or at the endpoint of the sill) and then run a longrange ladder test at 500 or 1000 yards, that confirms </p><p>the OCW and Satterlee sill results at long range. Many like working at 100 yards first just because the OCW and Satterlee tests at 100 yards gets rid of wind and other potential effects that you can see at longer distances. Ie, has a higher certainty. </p><p>You can start with the ladder test and work back too, but I sure would want a calm calm day with no wind. Best of Luck to you as you decide what works for you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Veteran, post: 2226193, member: 118038"] There are many ways to skin a cat, and many calibers one can kill a deer or elk with, and many different grain bullets, and bullet types that will get the job done. Each person may find one method of another more suitable to their own preferences, and how they are wired. You can use the Dan Newbury OCW method, You can use the ladder test. You can use the Scott Satterlee velocity sill method, or you can use all three in variants and combinations. Doing a Berger seating depth test may depend on whether you are using Berger VLD's or some similar type of secant point bullet vs. a short blunt bullet, or a regular tangent style shaped bullet. I believe Berger is recommending .04 jumps between bullet seating depths because the Secant style bullets like more jump, and can even work well out to .09, .15, or more jump as opposed to a more conventional .02-.03 kind of jump for other style bullets. Its all part of that Secant, very long nosed design that cuts drag and makes the Berger VLD's good long range high BC bullets, but does call for more jump than normal bullets in general. In fact I think Berger says or has said in the past, their VLD's are almost insensitive to jump. You can put'em anywhere you want them and they should still shoot well......not so sure, but I think that's what they have said. In this case with 180 gr accubonds, a more conventional jump of say .015 to .035 might turn out to be better? So, the jump increments may need to be tuned to that sensitivity range? For hunting, most recommend at least a .02 jump and your magazine length may further dictate what range it has to be in. I'm also not sure whether you can really home in on bullet seating or fine tune it without having a firm idea of your powder first? I think selecting your powder and then making sure all the seating sensitivities are run using the same powder makes a lot of sense. Comparing different seating depths when you are using different powders is like mixing apples and oranges, though there may be some correlation just because your chamber, and barrel, twist rate, and all are a big constant, and a big part of the equation too? But as to the method you select and how you do it, there are many many ways to get the answer. I just think you have to be as consistent in how you do it as possible. You have to make sure the results are repeatable. All methods are valid and have valid components that transfer into the other methods too. Ideally, you'd like to see the OCW method give you the best groups, and show you a Scott Satterlee Velocity Sill at that same Charge Weight (or at the endpoint of the sill) and then run a longrange ladder test at 500 or 1000 yards, that confirms the OCW and Satterlee sill results at long range. Many like working at 100 yards first just because the OCW and Satterlee tests at 100 yards gets rid of wind and other potential effects that you can see at longer distances. Ie, has a higher certainty. You can start with the ladder test and work back too, but I sure would want a calm calm day with no wind. Best of Luck to you as you decide what works for you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Seating depth advice
Top