What should I do first in developing a new load? For example I have a 7mm WSM ordered. There is little data and even with established cartridges each rifle is unique. Here is what I may do.

1. Select a powder (4831), bullet (140 Sierra SBT) and primer.

2. Determine the maximum seating depth. This may be magazine, neck length or throat limited. Load one round with the starting load.

3. Load additional rounds with 0.5 gr increases until the maximum suggested load is reached. Mark each round with a permenant marking pen.

4. Fire these loads using the Ladder Technique by Audette. Note pressure signs.

5. Load the second set of test loads with the charge weight selected above but make sets of three shot groups (hunting rifle) with seating depths starting at the maximum and going 0.010" deeper with each set.

Links to load development.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Laddertest.htm

http://www.serveroptions.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000008

Howdy,

My technique...
Step One...Prepare your brass!!!

Coach

Go, Coach, go!!! Coach gave up #1 and Don started with #2. I would start six grains below a stated max load and ladder in smaller increments, like, .2gr (5 shots for each grain). So, each 20 round box would take you four grains up the ladder. Within forty rounds you should have both an accuracy and reasonable pressure load.

Don,

Here is a page that might interest you...

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/index.htm

It looks like the H4831 is the way to go with the 140's. Hodgdon is showing a starting load of 62 grains, and a max load of 66 grains.

If I were you, I'd not waste any more bullets and powder than absolutely necessary.

I would load one round of 62 grains, one of 63, one 64, and one of 65 grains. Shoot each of these during barrel break-in and look for pressure signs.

I would then begin with three rounds each of 64.8, 65.1, 65.4, 65.7, 66.0, and 66.3 (this last 66.3 grain charge to be used only if 66.0 shows no pressure signs).

The reason for shooting only one round at the lower powder levels is that if you actually have a rifle that isn't going to allow a full charge of the powder for the maximum velocities, you may want to go to another powder anyway. And what if you did find a "node" at 62.5 grains? Your velocity would be about what a 30-06 shooting 150's could do! So dispense quickly with the light loads, one shot of 62, 63, and 64 grains should tell you if you're going to be able to "rev 'er up" or not.

The Audette method can be cantankerous in my experience. One or two pulled shots can really screw up the data. Sometimes the shots rise vertically, and sometimes they go diagonally, horizontally, or whatever. And you have to shoot at such a distance that wind can alter the data, sometime even unbeknownst to the shooter.

Here is a better way:

I would set up six targets at 100 yards, and fire the first round of 64.8 grains at target one, allow a couple of minutes for the barrel to cool, and then fire a shot of the 65.1 grain charge at target two, cool, then fire one shot of the 65.4 grain charge at target three, etc. Continue this "round robin" method of firing each charge until you have a three shot group on each target. Firing in this fashion allows each charge weight an equal chance to succeed. This method precludes disadvantaging groups fired later in the string because of a hot or fouled barrel. (Or sore shoulder or flinching trigger finger) Another problem with the conventional Audette method, by the way--the last shots in the string may be off of normal POI due to barrel temperature or fouling, or shooter fatigue.

So, after you have fired all 18 rounds in round robin fashion (18, that is, if you're using 6 charge weights) you would triangulate each group and then look for the three groups which come closest to hitting the target in the same place. These three groups will represent a .6 grain spread which would still hold the same POI in the field. You choose the charge weight from the center group as your load, which I call the OCW or "optimal charge weight" for that load recipe.

The virtue of such a load is that minor variations in brass cases, powder lots, primer lots, outside temperatures, etc., won't affect your POI significantly enough to cause a miss. Any of the afformentioned anomalies will cause an increase or decrease in the load pressure. If you choose the center charge of the three groups which hit the same POI, you'll be covered for a significant amount of pressure spike or drop.

If you develop as most folks usually do, and merely choose the powder charge that shoots the tightest group, when a pressure change is introduced your shot will go astray.

I have actually found on many occasions that the center group of the three group string isn't anywhere close to being the tightest. There can be many reasons for this, shooter error being the most common. Adjustments in bullet seating depth can be done to fine tune the load after you have identified the OCW.

Good luck with your new rifle,

Dan Newberry
green 788

Heres my approach.

First I select components. Then work up a max load for your gun not worring about accuracy. Then accuracy becomes the focus. Load 5 max loads and fire, If the Max gives unsatisfactory accuracy then I try reducing the charge in 1/2 grn increments until either A; satisfactory accuracy is obtained or B; unsatisfactory velocity is reached. If B then try changing components one at a time. If A then I may fart around with oal and other lesser variables to close it up more.

Enjoy!

Dan,

I've actualy just e mailed you about your method for some advice. What I hadn't realised was the 0.2gr increments. Hell shooting with a 6x scope I have to look really close at the target (when I'm next to it) to tell the difference in POI using 1gr increments!

I think I am going to adopt the 'if it ain't bust don't fix it' approach. Let me see where are those round noses....

I would use .2 grain increments only in small cartridges like the .223 rem. With medium sized cases, .3 grains seems to save material and work well.
You may, on the larger magnums want to go with .4 grain graduations.

Think about it this way: If you have a 30-06 load which shoots great with 56.2 grains of powder "X," but falls all to hell with 56.4 grains, you don't have much of a load. Only the slightest increase in load pressure (again, brought on by an odd brass case, odd lot of powder, primer, outdoor temperature--whatever) will throw your POI too far to maintain MOA performance. Incidentally, this scenario is one reason folks experience "flyers" which they can't explain--load pressure changes, and voila, thrown shot...

Getting into an "accuracy groove," where slight changes in load pressure aren't going to alter POI beyond MOA is what you're looking for. My above mentioned "OCW" load development method helps you get to such a load with a minimal amount of wasted material and bore life.

Dan Newberry
green 788

I appreciate all of the comments and have been following this thread. It is helping me think this out.

Howdy,

Don, Dan is very knowledgable and is giving you good advice. Just don't get all hung up on the little bitty things at first. Get that barrel broken in good!!! Prepare your brass good!!! Then you can start working out loads. My own personal technique is to save bullet seating depth until last.

Good shooting.

Coach

Hey Core I think he Don typed WSM not STW

Hey Dave, Wooooooops on my part. Thank you!

Hey Don, Best of luck with the WSM. If it gives you "Feeding Problems" from the magazine, like some of the current M70s seem to be doing, and you want to fix it yourself, contact Jim Wisner at:

www.precisemetalsmithing.com

He makes replacement Extractor and Magazine springs for the M70 that seem to cure the factory designed Feed Problem.

Thanks Hot Core and all for the advice. I am trying to force myself into some disipline in my reloading. This includes lot control and better case prep as you mentioned.

At the moment I am making a arbor to fit a new 7mm WSM case that is not fired for the neck turning tool. As you know neck turning arbors? (the pin that goes into the neck) only fit fired cases. I want to get a jump on these cases and turn them before I fire them.

Not to be redundant but check this out.
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Laddertest.htm#Loaddevelopment

Hey Don, I used to "Turn Necks" when I messed with Wildcats and kind of got out of the habit. I think it can be beneficial if your Casenecks are a good bit thicker on one side. And of course, if you had a rifle rebarrelled to the 7mmWSM and opted for a "tight" Chamber-neck, then for sure it is needed.

I see a lot of folks mention case concentricity and bullet run-out as criteria they measure for tuning their Loads. No doubt that also helps keep everything as close to the CenterLine of the Bore as possible. I've not messed with it, but perhaps I should.

Oh yes, I think you and I also agree on Partial-Full Length Resizing as the best option for getting great accuracy. I seem to remember you making a post that said something to the effect that "proper" resizing" allows a slightly snug bolt close on the case and that is what I call P-FLR.

I've compared P-FLR a few times over the years to Neck Sizing and P-FLR always has the accuracy edge for me. I've been doing it again this past summer with a very accurate 223Rem and though they are close, the P-FLRed cases do a bit better in combined 18-shot groups.

I've seen a good many xWSMs at the Range this year. Looks like quite a nice cartridge to work with.

Best of luck to you.

Hot Core,

I fell into partial FL sizing a long time ago just by luck. I had bought a new 40-X in 6mm Rem Int. and the RCBS dies just had the FL and seat dies with no neck die. With that great body taper that the cartridge has and it's long neck I am able to get a good portion of the neck sized but not lube the body. This rifle has had new barrels since I got it and has always been my main match rifle for postition shooting up to 200 yards. It's very accurate.

On neck turning. I am getting back into it for now. It's a hassle and I may stop doing it but I have a real problem with my .358 Win brass having very inconsistant neck wall thicknesses. The runout on these .358's is .005" which is not awful but the neck tension is so bad that some bullets are tight and others are loose. This problem is exasperated by a worn FL die and no lot control.

So while I have lot control on the match rifle I was cheap on the hunting rifles and made do. Now I am upgrading all of my proceedures and equipment. As I said neck turning may get old but right now it's what I am going to do on some cases.

Tsiero,

Thanks for the link info. The article had some good information in it, most notably mention of the combined effects of muzzle whip and recoil effect on bullet impact.

The author appears, however, at one point to be negating the value of the information obtained from the Audette method by pointing out that slower bullets often impact the target at higher points because they leave the muzzle when it is in a higher point in the recoil arc. (This is of course true). He also alludes to the pitfalls that can be encountered when shooting the ladder test at 300 yards, and mentions shooting closer as a remedy. Of course in the example of the Obermeyer barreled rifle he mentions, it put a huge variety of powder charges into a 1.25" group at 100 yards, presumably yielding no useful data as to the best amount of powder.

Also, his tests with Varget in the .308 were extremely underpowered, it appears. He doesn't metion getting above 42.0 grains with the 168 grain Matchkings. He reports poor performance with that load, but said it was the best he tested. The truth is that 46 grains is where you want to be for consistent igntion with this load.

He tested the 175 grain Matchkings, again with poor results. Though he doesn't mention the powder charges he tested, I think it's fair to assume that he was below 42 grains at all times, since that's where he was with the 168's. And there is why his load did not perform--it was underpowered. 45 grains of Varget with the 175 grain Matchking is "where to be." I developed this load after speaking to a Hodgdon tech regarding max pressure, and the load works extremely well. Several other shooters at www.snipershide.com have since tested the recipe in their own rifles, and that same recipe is working unbelievably well in those rifles. I'll provide the links to that site's forum as evidence of what I'm saying. At this time, virtually no one has reported poor performance from the 175 grain Matchking/45 grian Varget load in the .308 win.

http://216.219.200.59/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=000048

http://216.219.200.59/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=000226

So it remains my contention (and the supporting evidence is ever mounting) that load recipes exist that perform well in most rifles so chambered. This fact would appear to be at odds with the understanding of barrel harmonics and load development set forth by the author of the article in the link you shared. At odds, but not completely so. The author mentions that the 5.7 grain powder variation in one ladder test he performed allowed for "at least one complete barrel vibration cycle." Looking at it this way, I can see why it would be hard to understand why several rifles could shoot the same recipe so well.

I think the truth is that the harmonic whip is faster and more often occurring than Constantine seems to suppose, which explains why various rifles can shoot the same recipe quite well (again, as evidenced by the links provided above). It is my belief that mere seating depth changes are all that are required to tune an existing proven recipe (what I call the OCW for "optimal charge weight") to get excellent results from the majority of rifles so chambered. The variation in bullet seating depth of course changes the entry time of the bullet, which relates to bore time. Slight alterations in bore time are all that are needed to bring a load into tune with the muzzle whip. See this link, by a fellow member at this site. True, it's only one test, but you'll find if your perform the same test with your own pet load, you'll get similar results.

http://www.serveroptions.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=005191#000000

Take care, and thanks for the read,

Dan Newberry
green 788

Guys -

Another monkey to throw a wrench at

Reading in Handloader the other day about the neck turning business. I think it was an article by Barsness. Anyway, he mentioned, and I think it's worthy of some thought, that, if the case necks are a good bit thicker on one side than the other, then the ENTIRE CASE is probably that way, so, the (edit) interior of the case is non-concentric in the chamber. He recommended using those cases for fouling shots or plinking. What do you think?

R-WEST

[ 09-28-2002, 18:51: Message edited by: R-WEST ]

I guess it's possible that what Barsness says is true, but I've read so much other stuff he has said that was obviously crap that my BS needle starts twitching now at the mere mention of his name.

I think he's done some worthwhile studies, but he has also set fly many obvious untruths at the same time, and like the proverbial feather pillow ripped and tossed to the wind, you'll never be able to collect all the "feathers of misinformation."

A short example: Barsness says:"Thrown powder charges are often more accurate at hunting ranges than weighed charges are. You're perfectly welcome to believe otherwise, but that won't change the facts." This was in a recent issue of handloader. The last sentence of his statement tells you right away that he's been met with considerable derision on the issue already. But he doesn't define "hunting distances," nor does he offer any explanation as to why a thrown charge would be more accurate than a weighed charge at these undetermined distances. Finally, by inserting the qualifier "hunting distances," he's basically acknowledging that at distances beyond that, the weighed charges must be more accurate. BS Barsness! The poor soul is, to put it in politically correct nomenclature, "logically challenged."

If you're really concerned about perfection in your brass cases, it would make more sense to me to buy premium brass. I like Lapua, and the .308 stuff isn't all that expensive. It would go up to .358 easily, and may serve you well.

My own experiences have shown that with a well developed load, you'll find little advantage at all in meticulous prepartion of the brass. Others have noted the same thing.

The more precarious your load recipe, the more you'll notice the effects of minor variations in brass cases. Of course keeping runout to a minimum (studies show that .004" or less is as good as no runout at all) may require some preparatory steps with the brass. Most often, however, a decent lot of Winchester brass will yield (especially after being fireformed) excellent runout numbers.

I believe that we often do things that really aren't helping anything at all, but when we get good results after a particular ritual, we assume that all of the preceeding steps were necessary. Sort of like Quigley blowing on the aperture sight before he made his shots. I guess so long as a confidence building rite does no harm it's okay in the end...

Dan Newberry
green 788

I have new WW .358 Winchester brass that has neck wall thickness of .012 at on one side and .015" on the other. My older cases are the same or worse but thinner.

I have made cases from 30/06 military brass and the necks are similar thicknesses but the cases have less capacity and are much heavier. I have not shot this lot of 06 brass much.

So I am going to turn the new necks. As Dan Newberry says the ritual may or may not be 100% necessary but I have to adopt the attitude to upgrade the things that I can. I have not annealed any necks in years. These .358's go first in the web as the rifles are 99's which stretch the cases.

I was talking to one of the guys at the MCS here in CT who shoot long range target. I asked what he did for case prep. He said "I turn all necks, trim, prep the primer pockets and deburr the flashhole from inside. Then I separate them into one grain lots by case weight."

Dan & Hot Core -

I've never really noticed a major difference in accuracy, which is the true test of all this, of course, with neck turned cases that had more material on one side than the other, vs cases that didn't have an obviously thicker side.

The only rifles I've turned necks for are ones that are accurate enough that one would expect to even notice the difference, in my case, a 223 Rem 700 VLS and a 308 VSSF. Both are more accurate than I am, probably, and, using the most consistent brass I have to date in each (Fed Gold Medal Match in the 223, and LC-81 and Fed. Gold Medal Match in the 308), I've seen very little difference in average group sizes between loads with turned necks (which would, perforce, include some that probably were a fair amount thicker on one side than the other) and the same loads with unturned necks. I've never tried tests of turned brass, segregated into those that were fairly concentric vs those on which more brass was removed from one side than the other. I mean, we aren't shooting sanctioned benchrest matches here, and, there is only so much time in the day.

I think we're in agreement Hot Core, in that, between the time the firing pin impacts the primer and the bullet leaves the barrel, we're dealing with a more or less closed system. The pressure could care less whether or not it's coming from a concentric vessel, it just wants out.

With various rifles that I've had trouble getting acceptable performance from in the past, I will say that neck turning alone has never solved its problems, although it MIGHT have contributed. Bedding has generally been the biggest single factor in turning a non-shooter into a shooter. The average hunting rifle is not capable, in my opinion, of the accuracy level necessary to even show the effects neck turning might have.

I've pretty much given up neck turning as part of my standard case prep procedure, for hunting rifles, anyway (still hoping it may be the magic elixir that gets my accurate rifles into the 0.200's on average, though ). Time gets more important as I get older and have less of it.

R-WEST

R West: "The average hunting rifle is not capable, in my opinion, of the accuracy level necessary to even show the effects neck turning might have."

A very good point, I believe.

And dammit, my nemesis Hotcore makes a good point regarding the thickness of the case walls, and uses excellent logic to support what he says. I agree that only the neck of the case would have any effect on the accuracy, so long as interior dimensions were similar from one case to the next. If the case neck is extremely uneven, runout numbers and neck tension would cause inconsistency in POI.

Good discussion!

Dan Newberry
green 788

This is what I do,

First picking a powder and bullet and load book. I pick a load about midway up a load books recipe. I then load, in .5 gr increments up to the max load in that book, one round in each powder weight. Then I shoot them over my chronograph inspecting each case for pressure signs. I also look for velocity spikes on the chronograph. Say for instance that each powder weight increase reflects a rise of about 30-50 fps. then you find an increase to 80 or more fps. That would be a pressure spike. A possible danger sign. When I find the velocity that meets my standards I drop 1 gr of powder and load back up to that chosen load in .2 gr increments 3 rounds each and shoot for accuracy. I usually use 40 to 50 rounds with my method.

good luck