Just a quicky, as I am running out the door to shoot.

I was reading through the Lyman reloading manual last night in the chapter on accuracy.

It clearly states that once the optimal bullet seating depth is found for a particular bullet, it will never change no matter what other load variables are changed.

This was my theory and I stated it way back when on this forum.

I will scan a copy for the forum on Monday.

Been following this with interest. Have always seated to -020 and have just resently finished a new rifle and when the scope arrives I can get to some fine tune testing. Have done some preliminary with small scope and aperture sight to check vel and pressure signs. Have found the velocity window I want to work in has the groups opened right up from the .84o that a lower velocity load gave, with all loads at touch length minus .010. This is with the Berger VLD and have loaded 6 of each at -050, 6 @ -090 and 6 @ -.125 because that is the deepest that the Wilson dies will seat without shiming the base. Have similar result with the sst I will run as general hunting load as far as low veloctiy and best accuracy so will try the veocity window I want with seating depth in .02 increments. The Woodleigh load for heavy game (PG after lotto win) gave good velocity and accuracy at -.020 so will leave it as is.

Von Gruff

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Just a quicky, as I am running out the door to shoot.

I was reading through the Lyman reloading manual last night in the chapter on accuracy.

It clearly states that once the optimal bullet seating depth is found for a particular bullet, it will never change no matter what other load variables are changed.

This was my theory and I stated it way back when on this forum.

I will scan a copy for the forum on Monday.

I was once told the distance from the lands that works with one bullet should work with all bullets by a Sierra tech, not just with different loads (powder charges).
Example; If a 0.015" jump works best in your when loading a 180 gr 30 cal Sierra SP in your `06, it probably will work very well if not best when useing a 150 gr Hornady SPBT too.
I`ve been useing that for years and it has for the most part held true in my experiance. I`ve found a time or two where +/- 0.005" change might tighen things up but the general distance is very close.
I`ve seen lots of thoughts on this and most disagree from one poster to the next on any rule of thumb in reloading period.

Well what I can tell you ABSOLUTELY is
Hell to the N O if one of the bullets you are throwing in the mix is a Barnes XXX, tipped or not!

I've got a load that is virtually identical except for bullet and seating depth, and for the XXX to shoot equal to the NBT it is seated .030 deeper. That's a bunch in my book!

OK then, so here's a 'something something' in the wood pile. The 6.5 Swede! It is supposed to be accurate with a wide range of bullets and the original loading was a 160gr RN loaded with only the bullet base in the neck so it stuck out real far. That means that any lighter bullet has one helluva jump. Yet it is supposed to be accurate! So how much of the bullet jump thing is to do with the actual throat geometry? I have discovered that my Lee Enfield has a tapered and long throat. (That from cast bullet experimenting). Now I do know that my Lee Enfield will not shoot a bullet that is too short worth a damn. What I did was seat the bullets out as far as the magazine would allow and found the max load without being reduculous and sighted it in - done! It shot pretty good just like that. I did try changing loads and seating depth but didn't improve anything so I just stayed at not too hot a load. Velocity was pretty consistant too - more or less within the resolution of my chronogragh. (Good powder - MR200).

Ok, here it is.......

This is a direct quote from the Lyman 47th Reloading Handbook, New Edition, copyright 1992.

Chapter 11
Accuracy and Evaluating Reloads

Page 97, Bullets and Accuracy

"Good bullets are essential to accuracy. The reloader should test a number of different types in the quest for precision shooting. It is essential that the bullet seating depths be varied when testing for accuracy. A bullet jump of .005" to .020" will most often deliver the best accuracy.

When first testing a bullet use seating depths of .005" to .020" (the amount of "jump" of the bullet from its loaded length to when it first engages the rifling) in .005" increments. Once the best bullet seating depth is established for a specific bullet it will remain constant no matter what other load variations are tested."

I know that most of you will have this manual so you can look at it instead of me trying to figure out how to scan the pages and post them here.

Don't worry, I won't ask all of you who poo poo'ed my "EPIPHANY" for an apology like you said you would be owed to you from me after I found out that it was bull. You'll remember that I posted that I believed you should find the optimal bullet seating depth for the bullet first, then charge weight.

Here is the pic of the actual page for you to read for yourself........







Regards...

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
This is a direct quote from the Lyman 47th Reloading Handbook, New Edition, copyright 1992.
... Once the best bullet seating depth is established for a specific bullet it will remain constant no matter what other load variations are tested. ...

I did not respond to the other thread, because I thought you would eventually figure it out and not need some ancient old guy correcting your incorrect thought process.

But, I'll be glad to respond to that quote - it is Full-of-Beans.

I can't imagine why anyone with even a modicum of firearm experience would put that in print. Nor why I never noticed it in a Lyman Manual. Don't know, perhaps I skipped over it or thought it was a simple typo.

Here is "why" it is Full-of-Beans, it does not take into account the Throat Moving Forward from normal Firing created Throat Errosion. And every Bullet is different, there is no universal distance from the Lands.

The more you shoot, this will eventually become apparent. It takes constant effort(each new 100 count box) chasing the Throat to keep the best accuracy possible.

Best of luck to you and don't give up trying new things simply because you were "mislead" on this one.

Hot Core,

You'll notice the posted pic of the actual page says that minor adjustments in OAL will have to be made as throat errosion occurs.

But you are misunderstanding, I believe.

I did not nor does the manual say there is a universal seating distance from the lands FOR ALL BULLETS TESTED NO MATTER THE BRAND OR WEIGHT. I said and the manual says that for EACH PARTICULAR BULLET the optimal seating depth will remain constant no matter what other load variables are changed.

ie. for the 165 gr Gameking....it likes .040" off
for the 180 gr Accubond....It likes .020" off

BUT THESE WILL REMAIN A CONSTANT

Also Hot Core,

If you have to adjust your bullet seating depth for each 100 count box of bullets you load because the throat of your rifle is erroding, there's something wrong with your rifle.

How much Throat Errosion do you see after 100 shots in your A-OK rifles?

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Here is "why" it is Full-of-Beans, it does not take into account the Throat Moving Forward from normal Firing created Throat Erosion. And every Bullet is different, there is no universal distance from the Lands.

Actually, it means that as the throat erodes, the seating depth must be decreased (OAL increased) to maintain the jump.

Further, the distance (jump) varies for each bullet type fired.

And, the powder charge must be increased as barrel wear causes falloff in velocity.

There's this real picky dude who says that when powder has been increased by a couple of grains or throat erosion has reached 0.200", the barrel needs replacing. It's all explained in the current issue of RifleShooter.

From a Sinclair site blog

quote:

Finding the best bullet seating depth for a specific bullet to be used in an individual rifle is critical to the accuracy level that you are trying to attain. A huge benefit of handloading over factory loads is that you can change the overall length of your loaded rounds. The impact on accuracy can be very significant, probably more so than anything else you can do other than choosing the right bullet and powder combination.

Or this article in Shooting Software

quote:

Increase the charge a few tenths of a grain and shoot 3 to 5 more. If you shoot a good group, record the velocity and deviation and load 3 to 5 more to confirm the results. Before changing the powder measure after a good group load a sample round so you can verify the charge weight and seating depth later. Continue this process until you see signs of high pressure or reach maximum velocity indicated in your load manual...............................(further down the page)........................Further experimentation with component selection, seating depth and/or crimp MAY produce still greater accuracy. This is due to small changes to the load's pressure curve and timing.

If you can believe Chuck Hawkes here and part 2 here then they say to work on powder charge first and don't even really address seating depth.

And from Z-hat

quote:

Do some shooting to find your most accurate powder and charge. Once you have located a good load varying the seating depth will help tighten the groups.

Also Dan Newberry's OCW (settle down HC) method here says

quote:

2. Choose a powder.......................(much further down the page............................6. The seating depth for all test loads should of course be the same. I normally seat the bullet a caliber's depth into the case, or to magazine length--whichever is shorter. I don't believe loading to approach the lands is necessary, or even desirable in most situations. So long as the bullets are seated straight, with as little runout as possible, the advantages of loading close to the lands are largely over-stated. This said, be certain that the seating depth you choose does not cram the bullet into the lands. Stay at least .020" or so off the lands for these excercises.

The point I am making is that for every reference you can find for seating depth first I could probably find 3 or 4 who reference powder charge first. And you still have not told me what good it would do me to pick a seating depth and have a velocity that is way too low or too high.

And in my 280AI my throat receded .027" in 100 rounds between 1/11/07 and 3/31/07. It does have to be taken into account and measured each and every time.

quote:

If you have to adjust your bullet seating depth for each 100 count box of bullets you load because the throat of your rifle is erroding, there's something wrong with your rifle.

Ha ha! He got got you there Hot Core! Tee Hee!

quote:

And in my 280AI my throat receded .027" in 100 rounds between 1/11/07 and 3/31/07. It does have to be taken into account and measured each and every time.

Oops! Spoke too soon!

Just one question, is the Lyman manual talking 'bullets' or 'cast bullets'? (Not a trick question - I don't have one and had always thought Lyman were the cast bullet people).

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
Just one question, is the Lyman manual talking 'bullets' or 'cast bullets'? (Not a trick question - I don't have one and had always thought Lyman were the cast bullet people).

This is their standard reloading manual, not specifically for cast bullets. They have a separate manual for cast, although cast is not excluded from this one.

Actually, if you're shooting cast, what difference does it make?

No one's suggested the necessity for, you know, one of those. I'm waiting for the shoe to drop.

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
And in my 280AI my throat receded .027" in 100 rounds between 1/11/07 and 3/31/07. It does have to be taken into account and measured each and every time.

I've missed that. Was it supposed to be here and got erased?

quote:

Just one question, is the Lyman manual talking 'bullets' or 'cast bullets'? .

That might be it - Cast Bullets normally run at much less Pressure and much less Powder. That would slow the Throat Errosion a bunch.

Easy to see in 45ACP Pistols that shoot primarily Lead in comparison with Jacketed Bullets. Barrels last 4x-5x as long with the Lead.

quote:

From our esteeeeeemed Mr. Woods:
Also Dan Newberry's OCW...

How in the world can people respect your opinion when you quote from a bunch of ignorance? rookie green is #2 in the line of people who are so clueless that they are a danger to themselves and others.

rookie green also believes there are Powder Loads which will shoot the most accurately in any rifle chambered for a specific cartridge. He used to tell people to just dump in xx.xgr of IMR-4350 with any 165gr Bullet in a 30-06 and it will ALWAYS be the most accurate Load possible. From a Safety Point that is as bad as the potential mankiller blue dot loads. rookie green was eventually laughed off this board, but does occasionally reappear like a case of the green apple quick step.
-----

quote:

From Win 69:
Actually, it means that as the throat erodes, the seating depth must be decreased (OAL increased) to maintain the jump. ... Further, the distance (jump) varies for each bullet type fired.

I agree with that.

quote:

And, the powder charge must be increased as barrel wear causes falloff in velocity.

Here I'm more concerned with the change in the Harmonic than a few fps, but that is also true.

quote:

There's this real picky dude who says that when powder has been increased by a couple of grains or throat erosion has reached 0.200", the barrel needs replacing.

Depending on the Cartridge and Load, that could be in only a few boxes of Bullets. But then the Pro Bench Rest and Position folks are cutting groups, at least, 50%-80% smaller than my best groups.
-----

The nice thing about all of this is that rcamuglia will eventually discover this "concept" is not as good as convential reloading methods and wisdom. I do not blaim him, he has apparently been mislead by the Lyman Manual. At least he is trying and not quoting rookie green.

Hey guys,

I haven't been "mislead" by anything. I have always loaded conventionally till I discovered this problem with "conventional wisdom reloading".

As I've posted before to the great dismay of many here that if you happen to pick a seating depth for your test load bullets that is not optimal for that specific bullet the results of the test loads will be poor. Possibly poor enough that you would reject the bullet/powder combo.

I didn't read this anywhere or just dream it up. I experienced it.

I loaded some test loads at a predetermined seating depth and they all shot like shit. Luckily I remembered a load with a similar bullet and its depth, tweaked the loads that shot poorly to the proper depth and they changed dramatically; as some of you would say, turned a load that was a dog into a gem.

So from this experience, and now reading in the Lyman Manual which backs up what I found out on my own, from now on during load development I will first find the best seating depth, then tweak the charge to tune the load. The OAL has just as much effect on accuracy in my opinion as does level of charge, maybe more. I've randomly picked charge weights and have been able to tune an accurate load with seating depth alone. I've done it 3 times in the last 2 months.

I really don't know why many of you are so against this method. It makes so much more sense to load this way. What could it hurt to first find the seating depth range that the specific bullet likes in your gun before you work on tuning (if any more is even needed) with charge weight?

With the 95 gr Berger VLD load I worked up the best seating depth was .080" off the lands! If I had done the conventional method and seated say, .020" off for the test loads and just varied the charge, the results of the test would have sucked. I would never have guessed that the best depth would have been so far off of the lands. Every bullet is different and will want to be seated at a different distance from the lands. If you don't find out what this distance is first, you will be messing with charge weight forever.

I think eliminating factors that effect accuracy in this order results in finding the best load faster. The Berger website says to do it this way and now I have found the Lyman Manual says that the best seating depth for each specific bullet will remain a constant no matter what other load variables you change. The Berger site also states that many are happy with the seating depth test alone and end up with a great load. It's worked for me.

I posted this on the Forum to first see if anyone else had experienced this and second to share what I had found with the other posters because I thought it was a better way and help somebody. That's what the mission statement of the Accurate Reloading Forum states. If you don't want to do it this way, it won't hurt my feelings. My goal was not to force everybody to conform.

Heck, some people still use two cans and a string as a phone and are happy as hell with it.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
... I discovered this problem with "conventional wisdom reloading".

Hey rc, I applaud your spunk. Wish we had another 100 like you on the Board. No doubt there are HUGE amounts of Reloading Knowledge that you younger folks can teach us guys that only have 4-6 decades of Reloading Experience. Bartsche, Vapo and especially Woods need all the help they can get.

quote:

I didn't read this anywhere or just dream it up. I experienced it.

I believe strongly in first-hand experience, even if you mislead yourself. Eventually, with enough Trigger Time, the incorrect concepts have a way of sorting themselves out.

quote:

The OAL has just as much effect on accuracy in my opinion as does level of charge, maybe more. I've randomly picked charge weights and have been able to tune an accurate load with seating depth alone. I've done it 3 times in the last 2 months.

Oh my gosh, 3 whole times. I'd agree Seating Depth can make a difference in accuracy. However, unless your incorrect Method blunders into a good Harmonic Node, your accuracy will tend to shift from session to session.

quote:

I really don't know why many of you are so against this method.

I can help you with that - because it is Full-of-Beans.

quote:

Every bullet is different and will want to be seated at a different distance from the lands.

You have accidentally tripped onto a Fact. I agree.

quote:

If you don't find out what this distance is first, you will be messing with charge weight forever.

Not hardly.

quote:

...now I have found the Lyman Manual says that the best seating depth for each specific bullet will remain a constant no matter what other load variables you change.

I've missed your response to my question about how much your Throat Errodes in 100 shots????? Does your Method account for Throat Errosion?

quote:

I posted this on the Forum to first see if anyone else had experienced this and second to share what I had found with the other posters because I thought it was a better way and help somebody.

Sounds like the thing to do to me. However, don't be surprised when people disagree with you on this Board - especially when you are wrong.

A lot of folks here actually know what Reloading is all about.

Rumor has it someone disagreed with me "once upon a time", but they were crazy and soon ended up in the Looney Bin.

And DO NOT get discouraged if ANYONE does disagree. It happens from time to time.

Hey hc

read my pm to you and multiply it by 2 for your reply here.....

Also hc,

I'm sure I can't teach you or your buddies here on the forum anything about reloading since you guys are the self-appointed grand poobahs of reloading and the Accurate Reloading Forums.

But I'm sure I could teach you all something about manners. Not here on the Forum though. With people like you it needs to be in person.

I'm quite sure you would not speak to me in person the way you "speak to me" here on the forum. I'd really like to let loose a "Varmint Guy" type response to your input on all my posts thus far but I'm far above that.

It seems to me that you are not.

You are just like the Varmint Guy in your method of posting, except different. Your vulgarity comes via belittlement, arrogance, and sarcasm.

I think you should be banned like the Varmint Guy because your intent is identical to his.

This is unfortunate for everybody who visits the Forum because a person with the experience that you possess should share it with others articulately and respectfully with those like me who are lacking in it....................

Hey rc

I don't see what HC posted that is bad enough to warrant such a caustic response. So he said your method was "full of beans". So what.

If you get pissed off because someone disagrees with you then you will not make much headway here.

You ain't seen nothin' yet, R-

Wait until woods and Hot Core go at it!

Mainly, we send out for Pizza and settle back with popcorn and a few refreshments for a regular 12 Round knock-down drag-out.

Mainly, though... these relationships have been nurtured over years, there is more than a fair amount of mutual respect, and most are dedicated and accomplished shooters.

So take it easy.

Most, I'd guess, have appreciated your quest for accuracy.

Keep at it, try not to rub folks the wrong way--I don't think you have, much--and let us know how your research progresses.

flaco

Woods,

If you fully read his reply it's full of veiled insults pointed at my inexperience, sarcasm, and downright condemnation.

I would think that folks with the grand knowledge you possess would be willing to share it without lording it over others for your own amusement.

It's pathetic

If you guys can't give a cogent argument on a subject without sarcasm, belittlement and a holier-than-thou attitude, then all the knowledge that you have gathered in 6 decades is for not. Do you all really need to respond this way to pump yourselves up and feel good about yourselves when someone like me has a different idea?

Do something positive to promote these Forums instead of driving people off of them. Guys like you give certain sports and activities a bad name.

When I first joined I viewed others posts who feel the same as I but didn't understand till now.

There's no question about all of your guys' knowledge, but please share it without being, excuse my French, A-holes.

hc has had a grudge against me since I first posted that I shot a coyote at 930 yards. He brought it up when I PM'd him. Jealousy I suppose.

Flaco, thanks for the kind words and trying to keep me in 'the game'.

I do have a quest and if I rub someone the wrong way, it won't be with veiled sarcasm. I'm a staight-forward guy who doesn't mince words.

I'm not a "wordsmith" like others here trying to hit folks backhandedly. I guess these folks are like computer Geeks with nothing better to do than to surf these forums and impose their "Dominance". Sad. Wish they would share willingly, not only to those who bow to them, but to those like me who like to stir it up in search of a better, easier way.


I want my loading and rifle shooting to improve and that's why I frequent these Forums.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Woods,

I would think that folks with the grand knowledge you possess would be willing to share it without lording it over others for your own amusement.

It's pathetic.

If you guys can't give a cogent argument on a subject without sarcasm, belittlement and a holier-than-thou attitude, then all the knowledge that you have gathered in 6 decades is for not. Do you all really need to respond this way to pump yourselves up and feel good about yourselves when someone like me has a different idea?

Do something positive to promote these Forums instead of driving people off of them. Guys like you give certain sports and activities a bad name.

When I first joined I viewed others posts who feel the same as I but didn't understand till now.

There's no question about all of your guys' knowledge, but please share it without being, excuse my French, A-holes.

hc has had a grudge against me since I first posted that I shot a coyote at 930 yards. He brought it up when I PM'd him. Jealousy I suppose.

So lets see; I've been accused of

• lording it over others for my amusement
  
• being pathetic
  
• can't give a cogent argument
  
• having a holier than thou attitude
  
• pumping myself up to feel good about myself
  
• giving certain sports and activities a bad name
  
• being an asshole

all in one post! That's pretty impressive.

And why? Because I give you 5 other references that disagree with your opinion? Give me a break! You have been far more egregious in your replies than any others here.

I suppose we should all just let you post your opinion and either not respond or prop you up and say "That's right!". No No, not gonna happen here. I have the right to disagree and have given many arguments both on this post and the previous one. Calm, sane and cogent (yes, cogent) arguments.

Stick to developing loads with seating depth only. Good for you. Pardon me while I find the right velocity first with the appropriate powder and the powder that gives me the best accuracy and then vary the seating depth.

quote:

If you have to adjust your bullet seating depth for each 100 count box of bullets you load because the throat of your rifle is erroding, there's something wrong with your rifle.

BTW, that statement you made was absolutely dead wrong. I have a spreadsheet with over 40 different rifles I reload for on it and gave you only one example of something I keep track of and have documented many times.

Do you think you could be wrong about something?

quote:

Easy to see in 45ACP Pistols that shoot primarily Lead in comparison with Jacketed Bullets. Barrels last 4x-5x as long with the Lead.

Interesting! Throat wear is supposed to be a function of the amount of powder! Mmmm...

quote:

The nice thing about all of this is that rcamuglia will eventually discover this "concept" is not as good as convential reloading methods and wisdom.

Hey, I don't know so much! I think that with all the variables, there is going to be a point where RC's principle will not work but I do think it is a very logical first step. Thinking about it, it is the first step I have always taken but with a slight variation. I have tried to maintain a minimum of one bullet diameter seating depth and definately zero protrusion into the powder 'space'.

quote:

As I've posted before to the great dismay of many here that if you happen to pick a seating depth for your test load bullets that is not optimal for that specific bullet the results of the test loads will be poor. Possibly poor enough that you would reject the bullet/powder combo.

I didn't read this anywhere or just dream it up. I experienced it.

That makes complete sense to me!

Mind you, I should add that I have never had a rifle that could be loaded anywhere near the lands!

I start off developing a load by finding a charge that produces sufficient pressure to burn the powder consistantly. Then I play around with the other variables.

quote:

What could it hurt to first find the seating depth range that the specific bullet likes in your gun before you work on tuning (if any more is even needed) with charge weight?

I'm with RC here! It does make sense!

Personally if at all possible I always set my dies to put me either touching the lands, or else just far enough off of them that they stop leaving marks on a magic marker covered bullet.
Pretty scientific I know..
But then I am a hunter, not a paper puncher and it works for me, been doing it for 30 years and along with bedded actions, floated barrels, and sweet triggers I do not own a bolt action that won't shoot moa or better.
Most will shoot much better.
Although honestly I attribute that to having good barrels.

And yes this stays constant no matter if I change bullets or powder charge.
The only reason that I don't like to be actually touching the lands is that I also often am shooting compressed loads and if one 'grows' just a tad on a hunt I want to lessen the odds of sticking a bullet in the lands and spilling powder in my action. Been there and done that and it is a real pain in the ass whn your in the bush.

RC, I read once where all that it takes to be an expert is to know one ounce more than the person your talking too.
Don't sweat these jokers, they just apparently believe that story.
Your spot on with your assessment of many of them in my opinion, more time spent looking in a mirror and less time looking down their nose at people would be time well spent..

Kinda reminds me of a time an old cowboy gave me an opinion of a particular girl that we both knew, he told that the only problem she had was someone told her that she was pretty once, and she believed it.

It didn't mean that you would kick her out of bed,, you just didnt want to spend much time visiting with her...

Hey rc, If you really want to toss mud, the folks around here are pretty good about letting me defend myself. Your impression of my response to "your Concept" is so off base that you have now made a complete fool of yourself. It was not intended as a put-down, simply disagreeing with your WRONG ideas.

However, I can put you down if that is what you want this to degrade into. I much prefer being able to disagree and remain civil.

quote:

Originally posted by woods:
...So lets see; I've been accused of

• lording it over others for my amusement
  
• being pathetic
  
• can't give a cogent argument
  
• having a holier than thou attitude
  
• pumping myself up to feel good about myself
  
• giving certain sports and activities a bad name
  
• being an asshole

all in one post! That's pretty impressive...

And he didn't even include you being a "Thingy" user. Sure glad I didn't get him upset.
-----

I find it ill manered to discuss stuff from PMs, but since rc thinks it is OK:

quote:

hc has had a grudge against me since I first posted that I shot a coyote at 930 yards. He brought it up when I PM'd him. Jealousy I suppose.

I initially congratulated rc on the shot because I know how difficult it is to make a clean Kill at distance.

quote:

Here is rc's initial post:
I already love the .243 wssm. I used it to qualify on our club's 1000 yard range using 70 gr ballistic tips going 3750fps. We had a 20 to 25 mile an hour wind that day and the gun qualified. Some guys couldn't do it with their .300 wsm's

Well I'm really sold now! I killed a coyote yesterday at 930 yards! My data is good and all the work up to this point obviously paid off.

Come to find out rc's definition of "Kill" is quite different than mine.

Then as the thread progressed, rc FINALLY told the truth. rc had only WOUNDED the coyote - not Killed it. So, I withdrew my congratulations and told him that I just didn't see Wounding as Braggable. Eventually I just deleted my posts because it was very apparent rc wanted pats on the back for WOUNDING.

Seemed to upset rc that anyone would think he did ANYTHING wrong. Even had his close and personal buddy bucko, as well as others, support his Bragging on WOUNDING. Totally pitiful and pathetic!

Jealous of WOUNDING - looks like rc is wrong again WRONG as usual. All of you that think Bragging on WOUNDING is OK, please jump in and support rc & bocko, so we know who all of you are.
-----

Anyone care to speculate on why rc won't answer the question about Throat Errosion?

I think this would be true, but only if the various bullets had identical ogives. So the distance from the lands to the point on the bullet that strikes the rifling first is the critical measurement, and not how far the bullet base is inserted into the case neck.

Rc,I have had a lot of these experiances in my life.
Take what you need or want but don't expect to have a decent conversation afterwards.

Just don't take anything she says to heart, your out there doing it, living it.
She hates people like you, almost as much as she hates herself.

I get to New Mexico pretty regularly, shoot me a pm if you ever want to get together and call a few coyotes, I have a lot of friends in that state that have cattle ranches that I have access to.

Only one thing though, if you shoot another one at 900+ yards I am not walking over with you to get it.
But I assure you if can just get a bullet in one of those calf killing suckers the rancher won't care if you do or not as long as you take him out of action.

I think it would be fun, I kind of like your style.

Woods,

Sorry if you thought my posts were referring to you in any way. They were not at all. I just got to the computer this a.m. to see your post.

In fact, your post was a great example of what I was looking for in one that disagreed. It was well written and made arguments that were supported by outside sources of information that I, and I'm sure others here, find useful.

It was a grade 'A' composition.

It's hc that I have a problem with. He obviously has a problem with me as well.

His post would be graded 'F' by any high school writing teacher on the basis of making claims without referencing support. He just went line by line of my posts and made fun of them to make himself feel good with generally sarcastic, childish one-liners. He must be a member of PETA or something because this 930 yard coyote (which was anchored with the first shot and dispatched when I got to her) really has his bloomers in a bunch. Either that or he has some kind of envy of being able to hit something at that range.

I have no problem with disagreement at all as long as it is done respectfully and with some informational sources quoted.

I began these threads by asking the question (hypothesis), experimentation, and analyzing results. The scientific method.

I then found through research on the subject, sources that confirmed my hypothesis (Berger's website, The Lyman Reloading Manual). Also, a few posters here in the past say the method I am persuing is the method they always use.

As for throat errosion, I'm obviously not an expert as this is the first I've heard it can happen in as little as 100 rounds. If you look at the picture of the Lyman book, it says "as the throat of the gun wears over the firing of a great many rounds it may become necessary to increase the overall cartridge length by .005". This makes sense to me. 100 rounds doesn't that's why I said there must be a problem with the gun.

Okay

Essentially what you are doing by either varying the seating depth or varying the powder charge is affecting the pressure and thus the velocity. Velocity is not a 100% correlation with pressure but velocity is a good indication of pressure as long as you take several readings of velocity to disallow anomalies. When you are varying velocity you are trying to find the best timing for bullet exit and barrel harmonics.

When you seat the bullet substantially deeper then you are reducing velocity. The reason I say this is experience with a couple of 300 win mags and a 300 Wtby where I could not seat close the lands and had to seat .250"+ to fit the mags. Velocity was terrible compared to loading singly and seating close to the lands. For example on one 300 win mag

180 gr bullet 75.5 gr RL22 loaded .250" off - 2981 fps
180 gr bullet 75.5 gr RL22 loaded .020" off - 3080 fps

Now in your example in the previous thread (if I recall correctly) you were talking about several seating depths that take it out to .125" or so. To me that would mean you are probably varying your velocity ~50 fps or so. You are doing the same thing as varying the powder by 1.5 gr or so. So I would agree that one of those velocities would give you better groups.

But, IMO, you could accomplish the same thing and have a wider range of possibilities by picking a static seating depth, say .030", and running the powder charge up to find the "sweetest" spot and then tweak the seating depth by a much smaller amount to fine tune. In a powder ladder you could start in the middle range given by a manual and running the charge up by as much as 5 or 6 grains or more in small steps. You should be able to see groups shrink and expand (nothing is absolute in reloading) and can pick a powder charge that delivers close to the velocity you want and is as far as possible from any scatter groups. That would reduce the possibity of dropping a small amount of velocity from temperature or charge variance and landing square in the middle of a velocity that delivers poor accuracy.

That would give you a much larger range of velocities to choose from than a range of velocities from a seating depth change.

Did you ever stop to think that possibly Berger or Lyman kinda assumed that you already knew of a powder charge that would give you the proper velocity or that you were not concerned with the velocity at all? I think the Berger quote (I can't seem to find it right now) did not specifically say to find the right seating depth first, could be wrong.

Take HC with a dose of good humor, it works much better that way. We are actually good friends although we don't always agree.

Hey Woods, I had an interesting discussion on the phone last night. Seems that one of my REALLY ANCIENT OLD(he will love that) Elders called(Mr. Hale of local Wildcat fame) and gave me down-the-road. He said, "Don't you remember we went over this 40-45 years ago with old "300Mags" advice?"

Nearly fell over because I'd just hung up from talking to a good buddy about that.

Way back then, a GunRag writer who we refered to as "300Mag" wrote an article about using Seating Depth to get good accuracy. He had gone somewhere to visit a relative and apparently the Powders available there were very limited. They got to doing some reloading and the accuracy was not all that good. Then 300Mag decided to "Vary the Seating Depth" and he got acceptable accuracy.

That was no surprise to my Elders, because they ALWAYS said that should be done as a Final Fine Tuning step. So, Mr. Hale worked me over for not having mentioned it to rc.

He also asked if I remembered who beat Throat Errosion into my head? THANK YOU Mr. Hale and the other Elders of my youth.
-----

300Mag was one of those writers who skewed data to make the 300WinMag look far superior to anything he ever tested it against. If it was against a 7mmRemMag, you would think the people who got a 7Mag were severely handicapped. Or if against a 300WbyMag, how close the 300WinMag came and howmuch more efficient it was. He even showed some 300WinMag Loads exceeding the 300WbyMags.

Anyway, there is no doubt Seating Depth does need to be included in a Load Development process. Howver, it needs to be done after a Safe MAX is determined and where the best Harmonic Cluster is located nearest the Safe MAX. It is a Fianl Fine Tuning step that helps stabalize the Harmonic - when done at the proper time.

And as those of us who have a good bit of Trigger Time, Chasing-the-Throat is important if you want to maintain the best possible accuracy.
-----

On the other hand, if "WOUNDING" is perfectly acceptable to you, then none of this matters and you can name yourself rc or bucko.

Great post Woods and hc,

I appreciate the additions to the thread.

I have been thinking about this subject constantly, it seems. I've thought about the things in your post even before I read it just now. I'm sure the problem I encountered was due to arbitrarily picking seating depths way to close to the lands (actually on them in some cases) to give meaningful results from any type of charge weight ladder test. I think you are correct in saying a depth of at least .030" off for the tests, then running charge ladders is the way to go. I like the OCW method. I also like how he picks test depths (at least on caliber off the lands).

But take the example of the Berger VLD that I found the best depth to be .080" off the lands. If I had simply run the test by seating one caliber off of them (.0243".....is this correct for 6mm?), I would have been a long way off.

I'm going to try this next time, which will probably be this weekend. I have a gun, bullet and powder that is brand new to me. It's a Winchester model 70 in 300 WinMag. Heavy bull barrel; set up for a 1000 yard gun. Burris signature 8-32X scope, nice trigger. I think it's out of the Winchester custom shop. It has "Classic Sharpshooter" stamped on the heavy stainless barrel. I believe it has an H-S precision stock. I'm loading W780 Supreme, 190 gr Sierra HPBT's.

I'm first going to find the best seating depth with my start load. I'll load 12, 3@each depth, shoot'em and then start working the charge as you and the literature suggest. Mind you, I've always done the charge work up in the past, just without finding an appropriate depth first.

Woods, on one of the webpages you cited, the folks worked up their load from a start to max of about 1.5 grains. They sure had it narrowed down before they started. To avoid actually shooting MORE loads with the method I'm going to try, I'll try to narrow down the start and max load to the upper end of the data. It shows 70.5 gr to start and a max of 75. Do you have a suggestion for starting and Max? The data from the Hodgdon site has proven to me to be very conservative. I'm planning on a max that may be around 76-77 grains. The powder shows 60k cups at the max load and I think 64k for the Win Mag is acceptable.

As for the errosion in the throat of my rifle.......I measured it this morning.

It actually SHRANK! ha ha ha! I guess my method is too crude to be precise; the cleaning rod with stops. I measured it 4 times with 3 different bullets of the batch I had measured before and the measurement had shrunk in one case by .015" and .005" in most others. My initial measurement must have been wrong.

As for WOUNDING coyotes at 900 yards plus.........

If somebody told me that I was guaranteed to shoot 100 coyotes a day at 930 yards for the rest of my life EXACTLY THE WAY I SHOT THE LAST ONE, I'd quit my job and hunt coyotes every day! It was awesome to say the least. I may never get that lucky again. Sorry hc, I'd like to have been able to hit it between the eyes too.

Hey RC,

I think if you re-read Dans method you will see he seats a caliber depth INTO THE CASE, and not a caliber off the lands, all other conditions permitting. This is how I seat my bullets in my .308 brush rifle, I really couldn't tell you how far off the lands they are.

BTW, the OCW for this rifle was about 1 grain below what was predicted by the guys on Dans site using IMR 4895, but in their defense it only has an 18" bbl and most of their work was done on 24-26" bbls.

Thanks JTPinTX

You're right, thanks for the clarification.

With the differences in throat lengths, I'm now not sure that Dan's method makes any sense in choosing seating depth.

I didn't realize the site had predictions for OCW in different rifles. I'll check it out.

Edit..

I just checked the site and can't find a page for predictions for OCW. Do you know the guys and they predicted for you?

There is a forum, you can post up on there... Scan back through alot of the old topics and find what you want.

As far as the seating depth making sense, just think of it this way. This will generally get the bullet far enough off the lands to reduce the influence of being to close, then after you find the right charge weight you can play with depth.

Hey rc, I think I can help you with measuring the Throat, with one small "Trick" - use "one specific Bullet", color it Red or any color you like and retain it inside your Die Box. There is too much variance between the point where the Ogive touches the Lands and the Tip between different Bullets - even in the same box. Switching Bullets will cause a lot of confusion. Keep it in the Die box and use that same exact Bullet just for Chasing the Throat as long as you have the rifle. I also use the Cleaning Rod Method and find it more accurate for me than wrestling with a Thingy.

If you decide you need a Thingy, my buddy Woods is the King of Thingys. If you are uncertain about getting one, you can duplicate the feeling you get after using one by standing in the bed of a pick-up, cram your hands into your pockets and dive head first onto pavement.

"ocw" leaves a good bit to be desired. Plus the originator plagerized the best load development method created and "de-tuned it considerably". And, rookiegreen used to have a lot of Safety Issues. If you think ocw meets your needs, then you should use it. However, you might also want to try the never improved upon Creighton Audette Load Development Method.

Regardless, you should use what "you like", not what someone else likes. But, just remember some of these other ways automatically compensate for things that you might not be aware of as yet, like the Throat Errosion.
-----

I still don't think I could have even seen the coyote at 930yds. Vision gets shorter as we age. Just the way it works.

Thank you HC,

I did that just this morning. I didn't color it red, but I left it in my die box with the couple of dummy loads that I use. I wallered out a case neck a while ago and drilled out the primer pocket so's I could poke a metal rod of the right diameter up into the base of the bullet to make it tight in the lands; kinda like the Hornady "thingy". I've found now just to drop a bullet into the chamber and hold it tight with a the eraser end of a pencil works easier.

The Audette test is what I was using when I discovered the problem. The seating depth screws it up. You have to have a good one for the bullet in question to have good, meaningful results........thus the Quest.

I think you need to revisit Dan's method. I think with a little tweaking (finding a best seat depth before the test), it will be awesome. Like I said, I'll be trying it soon, I thought this weekend but my buddy may be installing a muzzle break on the Beast first. I've basically done what he says all my life except for the "round robin" firing order. Just started that recently.

Believe me, I'm aware of the barrel whip and the nodes that must be found for an accurate load. I've frequented Varmint Al's website for a long time...since I got into calling coyotes. He is an amazing engineer and has more knowledge than we will ever accumulate about things like this. Have you been to his site and been able to follow most of his tests? It's mostly over my head, but I'll believe him and be in awe of his skills on the computer, calculator, and anywhere else he resides. He's a good guy too; always answers my mail and is willing to help. If you go to his site you'll see a pic of me with a coyote. I built a e-caller as per his instructions and was successful......he thought it was noteworthy. It's on the "coyote hunting" page.

Thanks for the info on the errosion. I really never thought it could be an issue in so few rounds. If I have a rifle that won't shoot its load (sorry) anymore, I'll be sure to adjust the depth to compensate.

Did you get the "sorry"?

About the dog.

My buddy spotted it and if he hadn't, I'm sure it would still be eating the rancher's calves today. He spotted it because he has Leicas.........but let's save that for another thread!

Varmint Al's is one of the best sites on the net. Plus he is able to explain things exceptionally well.

One of his Tools is a small Cup with Steel Wool inside it to polish the end of a Case Mouth. The "concept" is excellent about Polishing the ends of the Case. No slight on VA, but I found that I could simply wrap a wad of 0000SteelWool around an old worn out 22 Bore Brush. stick it into an RCBS Plastic Handle and give it a few twists inside the Case Mouth to accomplish the same thing. The Brush allows me to slightly readjust the SteelWool from Case to Case and Pinch it against the outside. My "fliers" at longer distances have been reduced by VA"s Tip.

Best of luck to you.