Saturday 4/14, I conducted a Fundamental Reloading Workshop at one of our ranges here in this locale. There was a healthy turnout with an audience of "no-one ever reloading before".

In this 4-hour session, I introduced everyone to the fundamentals of reloading and held a live lab in which everyone hand loaded a few rounds and then discharged those same rounds on the range with the club's firearms.

I discovered an interesting oddity. Probably nothing you all have not encountered at some time or another.

Essentially one of my core recommendations to the group during our session was: "Whenever an OAL was unknown, use the designated SAAMI standardized Cartridge Overall Lenth (COL) for the round to be loaded".

One participant had their firearm with them as opposed to using the clubs firearm. Naturally (as it were), it was a fine customized speciman - with apparent "tight tolerances".

In short, the round did not chamber properly and even jammed one round into it.

Well, we measured that cartridge with several calipers on hand and verified that it was to "specification". However it did not chamber. As you can probably surmise, the round was too long.

Well, I suggested the poor man's version of obtaining an OAL by utilizing the "insert the projectile into a properly prepared case and carefully chamber it and then measure and continue processing" suggestion if these participants did not choose to purchase specialized measuring implements.

Question: What do you all think the proper verbiage should have been on my part? It was an embarassing encounter on my part because thus far, my assertion of utilizing a correct C.O.L. has ALWAYS proven correct thus far.

Best regards,
Alex

[This message has been edited by DuaneinND (edited 04-24-2001).]

Yes, with out a doubt. If I can take a stab at recasting your reply to my question do you think it would be accurate to state:

"A firearms OAL must be known. Industry standards presented are only guidelines much akin to a recipe. Every firearm has its own unique characteristic. Therefore, if you do not know your OAL, obtain it first. This task can be accomplished in one of two fundamental ways. First with an specially designed measuring tool available from several vendors or by placing a projectile into a properly prepared case and then chamber the unprocessed round. Next measure the round and compare it to the C.O.L. presented in the load table. Use the metric which is less than the value obtained."

What do you think? (Please bear in mind that I am a process-driven individual and therefore require a definitive state to everything rather than always being open-ended.... ).

Best regards,
Alex

Please excuse my butting in here. As an introduction to your course of instruction on reloading, the paragraph you presented in your last post is appropriate. I assume that you will explain the use of the "measuring tool" and the intricities of using a cartridge case and bullet in lieu the the tool further along in the course.

However, the last sentence,"Use the metric which is less than the value obtained.", leaves me with some confusion. Also, it would seem to be more exact to put "cartridge" between "firearms" and "COL" in the first sentence.

I don't mean to be a gnit-picker here. If your inquiry was not directed generally, again I offer my apologies.

Good shooting.

Robert

Just wanted to toss a couple more things in for you. Another method to determine when the bullet is just Kissing-the-Lands is to use a cleaning rod with a flat tipped jag on it. I'm sure the bullet in the case method works just fine too. Perhaps it is just that I've used the cleaning rod method for so long that I'm just used to it. But, if you want a second method for the beginners, this one works well too.

Now, the "Overall Bullet Length" on the bullet you select out of the box can vary in relation to the rest of the bullets in the same box. Just set down with a set of 0.001" capable Calipers and a box of bullets and you can verify this for yourself (or your students).

Fortunately the distance from the point on the ogive where the Seating Stem touches to the Bullet Base is fairly consistent. That means the vast majority of the "variance" is in the final forming of the tip of the bullet.

There are a couple of ways to resolve this, but when I have a "beginner", I encourage them to just remeasure each time they go to load some more cartridges. Then use the exact same bullet they measured with, to set-up the Seating Die. It is good practice for them and eliminates the problem of not noticing the Bullet Maker has changed the ogive slightly on a new Lot of bullets.

That is another thing, each time they change Lots of bullets, even if it has the same Part# on the box, it is important to remeasure. As I teach them, they do it automatically.

Good luck with your students. You are forming our next generation of Reloaders, Shooters and hopefully Hunters. I wish you the best of luck with them.

------------------
Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills, Hot Core

[Doh!] Thank you for your question and pointing out my grammatical error.

To clarify, what I intended to state originally in that last sentence (through this iterative process) is "use the metric which is obtained through an actual measurement or inference that has the least value relative to the C.O.L.".

Of course this is academic mumbo-jumbo, but it is my way of learning to internalize the definition in order to speak to it correctly.

Does this sound better and more accurate gents?

Best regards,
Alex

An interesting approach. It makes sense in the way you presented it. The process is based upon taking the time to obtain metrics prior to the onset of the reloading process as well as demonstrating a select number of approaches to this issue to the prospective hand loader.

What was unclear to me however was when you utilize the cleaning rod method to pre-seat a projectile (bullet) onto the lands and grooves, what step(s) did you take after that?

Measuring a lot of cartridges is viable in the sense that we can reasonably calculate a median value when that process is complete. One question begged here is "what if only x% of the lot chambers and the rest does not?" Reason I ask, I actually seen this happen with factory rounds in this same instance and example that day.

Best regards,
Alex

As long as they understand about the bullets coming from the same box being different lengths, it will have more impact to why this is an important step "IF" they want repeatable accuracy.

Here is how I use the Clean Rod method:
1) Make sure the rifle is empty and close the bolt on an empty chamber.
2) Screw a Flat Tip Jag into the Cleaning Rod.
3) Slide the Cleaning Rod into the barrel from the muzzle until it touches the face of the Bolt.
4) Take a piece of tape and place across the Cleaning Rod as close to the muzzle as possible. Use "1-eyeball" to check that the tape is square to the muzzle(eliminates parallax).

This establishes where the Case Head will be setting in the chamber.

5) Remove the Cleaning Rod from the barrel.
6) Remove the Bolt (or open the bolt on semi-autos, lever actions, etc.).
7) Drop a "Test Bullet" into the Chamber and lay the rifle on it's side.
8) Place something behind the Bullet so it is held snug against the Lands.
9) Slide the Cleaning Rod into the barrel until the Jag touches the Bullet Tip.
10) Verify that you have not bumped the bullet away from the Lands by pushing against the Bullet Base.
11) Take a 0.001" capable Caliper and (using the set of jaws designed for inside measurements) measure from the Muzzle to the leading edge of the tape. That is the OAL for that one specific "Test Bullet" so it is just Kissing-the-Lands.

Now, you will just have to trust me that it takes less time to actually do this than it takes to read the above. But, once you get used to it, it goes REAL Fast.

A quick tool to do this with can be made from a Dowel Rod. Once you get it, most are long enough to allow cutting a piece of it off which you can use to hold against the Bullet Base. And, if you do use a Dowel Rod, you can take a knife and lightly score around the leading edge of the tape and never have to repeat steps 2, 3 and 4 again, for this rifle.

Now, once they Seat the "Test Bullet" to Kiss-the-Lands(of course they have to use the just measured OAL to know when they get there), they need to screw down the Seating Stem "Lock Nut" so all the remaining bullets are Seated to that same Depth. But, if they load 5-20 cartridges and begin comparing the OAL between each of them, they will think they have goofed up real bad. The OALs will vary all over the place because of the "varying Bullet length". (BarnesX are particularly bad about this.)

But, there is a realtively simple way around that. I convert them over to an Ogive-to-Case Head measurement. They will find this distance much more consistent.

Sinclair makes a tool called a Bullet Comparitor which is a Hex Nut with different size holes (for different calibers) drilled into each flat. You slide the correct hole over the Test Bullet (in a cartridge) until the Comparitor touches the Ogive. Then you measure across the Comparitor to the Case Head and record that number.

Not everyone has one of the Comparitors, but most everyone has a Tool Box with a "Socket Set". You just take the largest Socket you have that will not slip past the Ogive and use it for a Comparitor. You slip it over the bullet and let it rest against the Ogive. Then measure across the Socket to the Case Head and record that measurement.

The beauty of this Comparitor method is that once you know what the distance is for Kiss-the-Lands, (lets say it is 4.326") you can use that as a "Standard" for that box of bullets. (Remember that taking measurements from the Ogive is very consistent.) Now if you want to load some bullets 0.020" Off-the-Lands, you just Seat them until the "Comparitor distance" is 4.306".

Hey Alex, I know this has been a very long post. But, if it helps you teach the beginners anything at all about how tricky Seating Depths can be, then it was worth my time.

------------------
Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills, Hot Core

But, I sure do look forward to those same folks being able to help me when I get in a bind.

Am I missing something, or doesn't this Board just seem to draw a more "mature" group than most?

------------------
Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills, Hot Core

Once again, you have provided significant information which you are sharing with us. Essentially I have to fundamentally shift what I currently subscribe to. I shall look at your suggestion carefully and "give it a shot".

Up until now, I was attempting a pragmatic approach to introducing hand loaders to reloading based upon safety and a process-centric perspective. At this time I have to mull over your recommendations and see how to couch it if it were say, the "Best Practice" in reloading (which is another topic in and itself). Certainly your approach commands merit from that perspective alone.

Thank you for taking the time to carefully craft your reply with such detail and precision.

I would be glad to share my findings with the group - if you all want to hear them that is.

In terms of your subsequent feedback to Chainsaw, I would reply with a hearty, Welcome aboard! Just as we all leverage this forum and attain new friendships and a great deal of help, I trust that you too will find those same attributes here. I have enjoyed and benefited participating here thus far.

Best regards,
Alex

Forget COMPLETELY about overall length. If it fits in your mag and doesn't back out under recoil, that's all you need to know about overall length.

How far off the lands is the bullet seated? Not a simple subject. The Sinclair tool probably works well for a STARTING point in learning about seating depth, although actually jamming a bullet in while in a case MAY be better. The problem is what to use for a RELEVANT measuring device. I started out with a Sinclair comparator. Later, for convenience. I switched to Davidson. The two don't seem to correlate perfectly with different bullets. In other words, there is no constant [positive or negative] addend
to correct one comparator to the other. I think the reason is obvious (I hope it is, anyway, otherwise I'm probably full of it); the two comparators have different size holes, and neither may be the same as the
hole at the end of my chamber/beginning of my rifling. If the previous sentence is correct AND the bullets vary in shape, I'm in for a hard time getting repeatable distance (+,-, or zero) of bullet from lands. Also, if the seater doesn't effectively seat using the same datum as . . . as . . . well, as something, but which of the two or three? . . . AND the bullets vary in shape, I'm going to have a hard time. If the seater datum matches
the chamber, the bullets will all be seated right and measure as variably seated, if the comparator is not identical, effectively, to the chamber. If the seater matches one of the comparators, the loaded cartridges will all measure correctly with that comparator, everything else being ok, which it won't, but the loaded cartridges will be variable in their distance off the lands. If the seater matches neither, which seems most likely, good luck!

Cartridge overall length, to tip of bullet, has nothing to do with any of this.

Don't know whether SAAMI has specs on what diameter to measure "O"AL at, but I think your FIRST teaching on OAL was correct. SAAMI is OK. If someone has a non-SAAMI rifle, fine. He may have to make them shorter.

Hope this is of at least some help. I apologize if it was all stuff you already knew and had considered.

Thanks for taking on teaching!

Yes, "measuring what" it is the issue. Up until now, I have subscribed to the notion that the COL (defined as the preeminent measurement of the overall length of a cartridge - dictates the seating depth via inference) is the metric to apply and to be used to seat the bullet when no other measurement is known. Supposedly (according to ALL of my research), SAAMI dictated that value based upon input from each of the firearms manufacturers.

From the wealth of responses thus far, I am being quickly persuaded to take some additional steps when undertaking those series of tasks within the process.

At this time, I need to try the steps suggested by you and everyone and to experience its outcome before I can synthesize a generalized "rule of thumb" statement (I know, its the way I am...).

Thanks again Recono, Best regards,
Alex

I didn't even realize for many years that the Bullet length variance within a box was so large simply because of the way I was taught to do this. I was blessed with a very knowledgeable group of Elders who taught me.

About 30yrs ago I had a buddy who would shoot excellent groups at the Range one day and then a week later his groups were patterns. A bit embarrassing to say just how long it took us to figure out what was wrong. Each time he would start at "the beginning", everything went fine. Then his next trip was a waste of time. But we finally figured out he was using OAL from a randomly picked bullet to set-up his Seating Die on the second, third, etc. loadings.

I'd forgotten all about it until 3-4yrs ago and a hunting buddy called me in a complete panic. Said he couldn't get his bullets to Seat properly. He had loaded (I think) 40 rounds with BarnesX bullets. As an afterthought, he began checking OAL and they were all over the place. He "Pulled" all the bullets and went through the complete reloading process again. Then he began measuring OAL again. When he called me, I thought someone had gotten hurt because he was so upset. Once I explained about checking the Bullet Length Variance, he did just that. I saw him the next day and he had no more use for the BarnesX. I felt that was a bit drastic, but he was so hacked off that he has never said anything good about them since then. Darn shame, cause they are an excellent bullet on Game if your rifle likes them.

Anyway, thanks again and good luck with the Students.

------------------
Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills, Hot Core

As far as I can tell, one should FORGET ABOUT OVERALL LENGTH (but make sure all his rounds run through his mag) and, if he's worried about seating depth in relation to lands, BUY A COMPARATOR.

Am I wrong in part or all of this?

Recono: The point here is that overall length, from base of case to tip of bullet, is NOT IMPORTANT if you can get the cartridge into and out of the magazine.

HC: I agree that can be a significant decision factor in what the Seating Depth should be. However, if that is the only criteria used with the "Final Load", then the Barrel Harmonics for that Powder/Bullet combination(at that Seating Depth) might or might not give you good groups. In some situations, you may need to continue Seating deeper until the bullet is exiting the muzzle at one of the Harmonic Peaks.

Of course, you might never get that particular bullet to work well and have to use a different bullet(or Powder) all together. Changing to a different(lower BC) bullet may(or may not) allow the bullet's Ogive to make contact with the "Lead". If it does touch, then that can prevent chambering, even though the loaded cartridge will fit into the magazine.

If you are using really high BC bullets, then just getting them into the magazine will "normally" have them Seated deep enough to clear the Lead when chambered.

If you are lucky, the high BC bullet will shoot well in your situation. If you are not lucky, then I'd think it is just a guess on whether to keep Seating that specific bullet deeper or switch to a different bullet.

Recono: What might be important is the relationship between the nose of the bullet and the rear of the lands of the rifling.

HC: If by this you mean the Ogive-to-Lands distance, I completely agree. In conjunction with the case/primer/powderload, this distance what I use to fine tune the Barrel Harmonics for a specific Bullet.

Recono: I suspect that at short ranges (100-200 yd), they(damaged tipped bullets) would be as accurate as undamaged bullets. At long ranges, the altered BC might eventually have an effect.

HC: I agree it is difficult to detect the damaged tips at close range. Especially if the are deformed "straight back", I can't tell any difference at the distances you mention. But, once you get beyond 400-500yds, having a "clean, sharp profile" tip coupled with an undamaged Boat Tail made a significant difference in my groups.

I look forward to seeing what the other folks think about your questions.

------------------
Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills, Hot Core

I will re-read this several times as I wade through sorting it out for myself.

Since I instigated this thread for that sole purpose (internalize and document), would you be willing to help me do that off-line so that we could then repost those findings within this thread or perhaps a new one?

Best regards,
Alex

TERMINATOR

I was taught the rod method using an average of 5 different bullets of the same lot. The ballistic tips were within (if memory serves) 4thou. With this method you are using your rifle throat as the comparator and if the bullet tolerances are such that the lengths are similar don't you have the best of both worlds?

When I tried it on my pal's rifle which had 2,000 rounds more through it the lengths were more variable. I put it down to throat wear making a less steeply angled step which was more sensitive to the pressure one applied to the base of the bullet. We erred on the side of caution (hunting - don't want too near lands for safety etc)

This got me to thinking that ogive shape must play a part here. A round nose bullets ogive will move proportionately more in comparison to the lands for given difference in length between bullets than a long match type ogive? I would assume that a round nose is likely to have poorer tolerances than a longer ogive bullet (due to application) and that as round noses can give higher pressures in some applications (eg speer 105gr 6mm RN) more care is needed with these. Or is this reasoning flawed?

Regarding the closing the bolt on an overlenght dummy round method I have allways worried that if the neck tension is tight the bullet will be forced into the lands with enough force that the lands grip the bullet slightly and pulls out slightly on extraction (result overlong OAL)and if it's loose it will be gripped less by the lands but conversely be gripped less by the neck and still pull out slightly.

I'm getting brain fever. I am confident by my methods that bullets of a given lot aren't touching by a reasonable amount and they're accurate enough for me, will have to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Here is how I use the Clean Rod method:
1) Make sure the rifle is empty and close the bolt on an empty chamber.

---

One little thing: The rifle must be cocked, otherwise you will wind up 1 (one) FPP (Firing Pin Protrusion) from the lands at your "zero" mark...

-- Mats

This has proven to generate into a very healthy discussion far exceeding my expectations. Many of you have offered a variety of approaches.

To bring you all up to speed, Terminator (who has generously offered to contribute with his time), has agreed to help me coauthor a "Pattern" for the problem space of properly seating a bullet. We come from similar backgrounds and have similar interests vested in this collaboration.

Now you might say "big deal" or ask "what is a Pattern"? I am specifically referring the the concept developed by an architect called Christopher Alexander who was interested in finding way to build buildings, cities and towns and to also create beauty in what he defined as a "Quality without a name". Please feel free to visit my web site to learn more.

By close observation, this process can be "patterned" into a higher form communication to educe evolution. Because this hobby seems to have directed itself into a Delphi Approach wherein we have merely become an assemblage of wise and experienced individuals on this front, how can this evolve into a better form of communication?

Well essentially, I hypothecate that the use of a pattern carefully depicting the language affecting us and succinctly wording the solution set along with its associated external motivating forces will solve the specific problem associated with a number of variants and most importantly, level set the thinking space and playing field.

Well, we are now going to prove or disprove this theory. If it is successful, we shall have a centralized knowledge base capable of clearly demonstrating the problem space and it very targeted solution set. Worst case, we learn that this can not be "patterned".

Please let us not take this thread and make it into a pattern discussion thread. I would be happy to field any specific questions on a new thread however.

I shall keep you all posted on our progress and eventual findings. And by the way, if anyone else chooses to actively participate, please feel free to contact us.

I expect we may post additional questions to justify our account.

Best regards,
Alex

------------------
Best regards,
Alex

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alex Szabo, Information Technology Consultant
Voice: (904) 781-0502 Fax: (904) 781-0044

Web Presence: http://www.alex-szabo.com/

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - Benjamin Franklin 1759

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

As you may know, there is another Stoney Point gage one can use to measure the head space dimension (from the bolt's face to the shoulder right next to the neck). I use this gauge to measure new cases, and then remeasure the same cases after they have been fired. So far two firing from a case have resulted in 2.120", which is below the maximum length of 2.175" for the .338 Magnum.

I trim all my cases to 2.085" after resizing/decapping, but I already know that I could trim them up to 2.095" after using a tool my neighbor created in his garage. This tool is a .338 case (much like the Stoney Point case) that has been threaded at the primer pocket. He took a copper bolt and grounded the threads down to reduce the bolt's diameter to .338", and perfectly fit inside the case's neck with just a little grip. Then he rounded the bolt's head to the same outer diameter of the case's neck, and finally shaved the bolts head down to a thickness of a flat washer. He uses the tool as follows:

He threads the case to the Stoney Point tool and inserts it in the chamber, taps it a couple of times with a finger, then he pushes the rod forward (which in turn pushes the copper bolt ahead). When the bolt's head stops moving forwards, then he locks the rod in place with the rod's screw and removes the Stoney Point tool. With a caliper he measures the distance from the base of the case (bolt's face) to the top of the copper bolt inside the case. This distance is the maximum case length for his rifle. This dimension not important to me since I always trim the cases to specifications, but he is into that kind of stuff. He created the tool following the instructions provided in a hunting/reloading magazine.

***The following information has been published already. We can use it to learn from, but we must not assume any of us can be the author (or authors).

Adjusting Neck And Full Size Dies:

a. Lube a fired case, and then dip the mouth in powered graphite. Back the die off and run the case into it with the press. Now look a line the graphite has left on the neck. Adjust the die down in small increments, and keep on watching the line on the neck of the case each time it is run into the die. When the line just reaches the point where the neck and shoulder meet, adjust the die down one sixteenth of a turn.

b. To lock the die in place, take a small mechanic�s socket and place it between the shell holder and the bottom of the die. Keep the pressure applied, and lock the die in place with the lock ring. This procedure squares the die with the shell holder.

c. To align the expander/decaper assembly, back off the lock ring and run a case up in the die and until it punches out the primer. Now raise the handle until the expander pulls into the neck of the case, and hold it there. With the expander in the neck of the case, tighten the lock ring.

Developing An Accurate Hunting Load:

a. Load 9 rounds in sets of 3-rounds each, and each set with a different amount of powder in it. Make sure you keep each set separate from the other sets, and also keep track of the exact amount of powder used for each set of 3. From a clean and cold bore fire one set of 3, and clean the bore. Allow the barrel to cool before you fire the next set of 3, and clean the bore after. Allow the barrel to cool, and fire the last set of 3. Out of those 3 sets, select the most accurate one. The next step will require that you use the exact amount of powder from this "most accurate set of 3."

b. Now load 9 rounds in sets of 3-rounds each. All of the sets now should have the "most accurate" amount of powder from step "a" above. The difference here will be only on how you sit the bullets, because the powder drop will be the same for all the rounds. Again, separate each set of 3 from the rest, and sit three bullets .015" from the lands. Separate that set of 3 from the rest, and record all the information. Now sit 3 bullets .025" from the lands, and finally 3 more .035" off the lands. Now fire each set of 3 the same way you did on step "a" above (each from a clean and cold bore), and select the most accurate one.

Keep in mind that if you already have an accurate hunting load you can use this method to fine tune it. My rifle seems to shoot better when I sit the bullets at least .030" or more off the lands. I don't worry too much about load development anymore, but it is nice to know I can do it.

------------------
Load Hot, Shoot Straight
JoeM