A good day at the range with the Savage's. Targets attached!

25 February 2003, 19:47

A little breezy but a nice cool day, working on loads. I think I found some winners. 100yds 1/2" circles. [Eek!]

web page

[ 02-25-2003, 11:01: Message edited by: Roddy ]

26 February 2003, 09:13

<PaulS>

Roddy,
You are shooting pretty good for "breezy" conditions. I want to know where you get those optically targeted bullets! Your targets show that the weapon, loads and shooter were all in tune and operating at peak performance.

PaulS

25 February 2003, 23:24

Brent Moffitt

Roddy, I'd say those were impressive, but I read it's a Savage and "they" all shoot that good. [Big Grin]

Nice job!

26 February 2003, 02:49

<green 788>

Roddy,

That's totally wicked... How did you arrive at that load recipe?

Thanks,

Dan

26 February 2003, 04:30

<Crusader>

Hey Roddy--can you provide a little more info. for me--what model is your .223, and what scope do you have on it?

Thanks!

26 February 2003, 06:57

Roddy

Dan,

I used the Audette method at 200 yds, found the rifle liked 25.0 25.3 range with the bullets into the lands about .005. I was reloading at the range by hand and seated bullets farther in by accident. I put them aside for foulers. It was cold and hand loading at the range with no press and I forgot my powder funnel(I had to pour the powder in the case from the scale pan) was no fun. I decided to shoot the foulers which were .030 of lands and got a better group.

At home later I decided to start the Audette method at 25.2 with the new seating depth in .2 increments 3 rounds each and groups shrank to the 1 hole you see at 25.8 which was my last loaded increment. I have a very slight crater at the primer so I am very close to max. A little by luck on seating depth, rest by Audette slightly modified.

Crusader,

Rifle is a 12FVSS-S which I bought the factory laminate for. Scope is a Tasco long range target 8x40x56 mil-dot base and rings by Ken Farrel with a 15 moa taper. I bedded the stock and all else is factory.

[ 02-25-2003, 21:58: Message edited by: Roddy ]

26 February 2003, 08:02

<green 788>

While I'm not generally an advocate of the Audette method, it's hard to argue with success like that! And a little "serendipity" with the seating depth is a good thing as well.

I've always had better luck with the deeper seated bullets in the factory chambered .223's, especially with light, thin-jacketed varmint bullets. These bullets seem to need more bearing surface to prevent deformation during the obturation (bulging, like a kicked soccer ball) upon firing.

Congratulations, and best of luck if you decide to go up against the custom rifles in a match. [Smile]

It seems that Savage has a lot of folks rethinking what it takes to make a rifle accurate.

Take care,

Dan

26 February 2003, 12:07

Hot Core

quote:
Originally posted by Roddy:
I used the Audette method ...

Imagine that! [Big Grin]

Hey Roddy, Excellent all the way around (Excellent load development method, excellent rifle and for darn sure the Trigger Yanker's concentration!).

Thanks for sharing it with everyone.

...

What was the Load Development Method AGAIN???

quote:
Originally posted by Roddy:
I used the Audette method ...

Oh yes, that's right. The never improved upon, non-Rookieized, original Creighton Audette Method (but shot at 200yds)! [Big Grin]

26 February 2003, 14:35

Nebraska

quote:
Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:
Originally posted by Roddy:
I used the Audette method ...
Oh yes, that's right. The never improved upon, non-Rookieized, original Creighton Audette Method (but shot at 200yds)! [/QB]

Hot Core,

Could you expand on that please. I'm new to reloading so this is interesting research. Details please!!!

26 February 2003, 19:38

<green 788>

I think I can help you out there, Nebraska... [Smile]

Hotcore believes that my load development method (The OCW or Optimal Charge Weight method) is not as likely to produce a good load as the Audette method.

For the reasons I state on my website, I believe that the Audette method is at times (in its unmodified form) precarious to execute well, and often impossible to glean useful information from. When the "stars are aligned," it can and does work, but I don't believe that it leads the shooter to the correct conclusions in all cases.

Nebraska, you can take a look at my reasoning, and post you dissent if you agree with Hotcore; here's the link to my site: http://home.earthlink.net/~dannewberry/index.html

There is an explanation there of the Audette method, as well as the OCW method. By the way, I'm in pretty good company, it seems, with my criticisms of the Audette method, read here for an article that appeared not so long ago in Precision Shooting magazine: http://www.windcharts.com/reality_based_load_development.htm

Anyway, the Optimal Charge Weight for the 69 grain SMK in the .223 should be 25.2 grains of W748. Oddly enough, Roddy did come to that conclusion with the first test.

Depth tuning in .003" increments would likely take the 25.2 grain charge to a friendly node of the barrel's whip, and the finished recipe should be more resilient--or "robust" as Denton says...

I will say, however, that if the 25.8 grain charge does not create pressure induced flyers, the load could perform well here. (Again, who can argue with success?) [Smile]

Take care guys,

Dan

26 February 2003, 20:43

BLR7 (Texas Cactus Shooter)

Roddy:
Great shooting! That's what I call accuracy no
matter what the method used to get there. You sort of stumbled onto the secret I think of
getting tight groups by seating those bullets
0.030" off the lands. You found the right charge
and the right jump to the lands and it worked.
The pro's at Sierra recomend bullet seating 0.020-
0.025" off the lands to start finding the best
O.A.L. for any load.
http://www.sierrabullets.com/xring/index.cfm?fuseaction=Vol7no1#oa
I'll bet you can repeat this with different bullets and loads with the Savage. I'm convinced
that Savage Arms offers the most accuracy for the
money. Can't wait to see more of you targets!BLR7

27 February 2003, 02:05

Hot Core

quote:
Originally posted by Nebraska:

quote:
Oh yes, that's right. The never improved upon, non-Rookieized, original Creighton Audette Method (but shot at 200yds)!
Hot Core,

Could you expand on that please. I'm new to reloading so this is interesting research. Details please!!![/QB]

Hey Nebraska, Creighton Audette put into simple words a Load Development Method that has never been improved upon. It allows you to quickly determine where the Harmonic Convergance is located within a string of shots made with increased powder charges. Once you know where the Harmonic Convergance is located for a specific case/primer/powder/bullet combination, then you simply Fine Tune it by varying the Seating Depth.

From time to time some Rookie Reloader comes along who thinks they have somehow improved on Mr. Audette's Method. But, when you scrutinize whatever they "claim" makes their way better, it always reduces the chance of your getting to the best Load.

The Rookie's illogical thought processes can normally be tracked back to a lack of understanding concerning the Physics involved. They base incorrect assumptions on illogical physics principals.

But, the good news is you don't have to just take my word for it. You can prove it to yourself by simply comparing the results of the Audette Method to any other Load Development Method you can find. If it is not obvious to someone why the Rookie changes degrade Mr. Audette's Method from a formal education perspective, it will still show up in their groups as they gain actual Trigger Time.

That dosen't mean a person can't get a "good Load" using a different Load Development Method. There are plenty of ways to get "good Loads". It is just that the Audette Method allows you to reach the "best Load combination" for a specific firearm - quickly.

Do a search on the net for the Creighton Audette Method and it will be out there somewhere.

27 February 2003, 04:07

<green 788>

Yep, Hotcore... it's "out there somewhere!" [Big Grin]

Dan