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
What’s up with Hornady’s reloading podcast?
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="Huntnful" data-source="post: 3079025" data-attributes="member: 116563"><p>I think the biggest flaw in Hornady's stated testing, is that I haven't heard about any of it being done at extended range. I wouldn't consider anything at 100 yards as slam dunk data. 600-800 yards is where that .1 difference at 100 may actually turn into a .5 difference. But a .1 difference at 100 yards is somewhat meaningless, and very hard to be certain that is a true difference because of a tune. But at long range, and you cut the group size in half, that can be significant and noticeable. </p><p></p><p>I think they are right and wrong at the same time I guess. </p><p></p><p>Super CONSISTENT loading techniques, a charge 1gr. below pressure signs, and a bullet seated .020 off the lands is going to give you probably 80% of the potential accuracy you'll ever see from that bullet/powder/primer combo. In a well built rifle with premium components. I've shot countless 5 shot 1/2 MOA groups at 300 yards doing that exact thing, with several different bullets and powders. If you need your groups smaller than that, you got some work ahead of you. But I think it can be done. Just whether or not it's worth it for your application <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🤷🏽♂️" title="Man shrugging: medium skin tone :man_shrugging_tone3:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-1f3fd-2642.png" data-shortname=":man_shrugging_tone3:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Huntnful, post: 3079025, member: 116563"] I think the biggest flaw in Hornady’s stated testing, is that I haven’t heard about any of it being done at extended range. I wouldn’t consider anything at 100 yards as slam dunk data. 600-800 yards is where that .1 difference at 100 may actually turn into a .5 difference. But a .1 difference at 100 yards is somewhat meaningless, and very hard to be certain that is a true difference because of a tune. But at long range, and you cut the group size in half, that can be significant and noticeable. I think they are right and wrong at the same time I guess. Super CONSISTENT loading techniques, a charge 1gr. below pressure signs, and a bullet seated .020 off the lands is going to give you probably 80% of the potential accuracy you’ll ever see from that bullet/powder/primer combo. In a well built rifle with premium components. I’ve shot countless 5 shot 1/2 MOA groups at 300 yards doing that exact thing, with several different bullets and powders. If you need your groups smaller than that, you got some work ahead of you. But I think it can be done. Just whether or not it’s worth it for your application 🤷🏽♂️ [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
What’s up with Hornady’s reloading podcast?
Top