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 increments
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="Mikecr" data-source="post: 1306113" data-attributes="member: 1521"><p>My full seating gets me to a ~15thou rough CBTO.</p><p>In each case, final tweaking of seating shapes grouping. This would be within a +/- 5thou window(or less). </p><p></p><p>A long time ago I figured out that seating is the single biggest adjustment to great results.</p><p>I have yet to figure out why.</p><p>But this is what I've observed, and each has been observed by others here & there:</p><p>-If you were to do full seating testing at a mid charge, picking your rough best, and then load develop with that, repeating full seating testing would get you right back to the same CBTO.</p><p>-If you did the same again, but with different powder, faster or slower, you would still end up at the same rough CBTO. </p><p>-If you did the same again, but for a different node, lower or higher, you would still end up at the same rough CBTO. </p><p>-If you did it again, but 1500 rounds later on the barrel, you would still end up at the same rough CBTO.</p><p>With all this, seating seems more of a prerequisite than a broad 'tuning aid'.</p><p>For PB BR shooters with razor edge tunes, fine tweaking of seating provides for renewed group shaping, just like I see. This seems working around a detrimental trend in tune rather than actual tuning.</p><p>Or is it?</p><p></p><p>Passing more tests then I've seen otherwise is the notion that seating most affects pressure peak TIMING. That is, timing of the ping which travels back & forth the length of the barrel (OBT folks understand). This makes sense as there are multiple seating nodes, regardless of MV.</p><p></p><p>A powder tune is built of all things affecting burn rates, which vary as the bullet travels. This eventually gets you to where a gun/barrel is pointed on bullet release, and how consistent this ends up, but it's an averaging sum of many things. It is finely adjusted, right to the kernel of powder if desired(applied to the entire chamber/bore length area), and so this adjustment manifests as FINE.</p><p>If powder is not enough result-wise to overcome bad pressure peak timing, then seating raises it's head as prerequisite to best results. This passes tests. </p><p></p><p>I refer to seating as the COARSE adjustment, and all my life I've calibrated equipment, coarse, then fine. Meet that seating prereq, then very precisely dial powder into the best with it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mikecr, post: 1306113, member: 1521"] My full seating gets me to a ~15thou rough CBTO. In each case, final tweaking of seating shapes grouping. This would be within a +/- 5thou window(or less). A long time ago I figured out that seating is the single biggest adjustment to great results. I have yet to figure out why. But this is what I've observed, and each has been observed by others here & there: -If you were to do full seating testing at a mid charge, picking your rough best, and then load develop with that, repeating full seating testing would get you right back to the same CBTO. -If you did the same again, but with different powder, faster or slower, you would still end up at the same rough CBTO. -If you did the same again, but for a different node, lower or higher, you would still end up at the same rough CBTO. -If you did it again, but 1500 rounds later on the barrel, you would still end up at the same rough CBTO. With all this, seating seems more of a prerequisite than a broad 'tuning aid'. For PB BR shooters with razor edge tunes, fine tweaking of seating provides for renewed group shaping, just like I see. This seems working around a detrimental trend in tune rather than actual tuning. Or is it? Passing more tests then I've seen otherwise is the notion that seating most affects pressure peak TIMING. That is, timing of the ping which travels back & forth the length of the barrel (OBT folks understand). This makes sense as there are multiple seating nodes, regardless of MV. A powder tune is built of all things affecting burn rates, which vary as the bullet travels. This eventually gets you to where a gun/barrel is pointed on bullet release, and how consistent this ends up, but it's an averaging sum of many things. It is finely adjusted, right to the kernel of powder if desired(applied to the entire chamber/bore length area), and so this adjustment manifests as FINE. If powder is not enough result-wise to overcome bad pressure peak timing, then seating raises it's head as prerequisite to best results. This passes tests. I refer to seating as the COARSE adjustment, and all my life I've calibrated equipment, coarse, then fine. Meet that seating prereq, then very precisely dial powder into the best with it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
seating depth increments
Top