I've been reloading for some time now and have a questions that has been bothering me for about that long. It's kind of long to explain, so please bare with me. I have been working with different seating depths and powder loads. But which one do I work on first? I used to think that the reason for adjusting seating depth was to change the timing that it takes for the bullet to strike the lands. But after reading the article in Shooting Times about seating depth I find that it has a lot more to do with the shape and size of the inside of the case and the effects that has on the powder and pressure. So, my question is: do I find the sweet spot as it pertains to seating dept first and then work on the powder load or should I do the reverse?

Load up a few rounds with different powder charges and go to the range to test. Pick the most promising load by the best group size and start your work with that load. Try seating out and seating in to see if that helps. Try different neck tension on the most promising of that load development. To put it in laymen terms, work with powder first then seating depth. You might find a load that needs no seating depth work. Good luck!

Bullet weight
Bullet type
bullet brand
Powder type
Powder charge
primer type
Seating depth

The seating depth is the last step in fine tuning, and the majority of shooters don't have the equipment or skill to realize the differences in grouping. That is to say, do you reguarly shoot in the low .3's and need to get into the high .1's or are you shooting in the 1.5's and dream about getting into the 1.0's? In the first case, playing with seating depth is important, in the second it won't do anything for you (except make your hair gray)

quarter

I don't buy or read Shooting Times so can't comment on that but let me say this. The final tuning of a load by playing with seating depth usually involves about .020" max. The effect that this has on interior ballistics is minimal at best. Read what tailgunner said, then read it again. Depending on the particular rifle/cartridge combination you are working with, your ability to recognize and interpret the VERY SMALL differences that fine tuning will produce will far outweigh everything else. I have been shooting Benchrest for nearly 50 years and I still struggle with it.

Ray

I had amazing results in my 308, by first loading bullets with different powder weights, choose the best group and worked on the aol afterwards. I used incriments of .2mm at a time over a range of 2mm. I ended with a group of 15 mm @ a 100m. The biggest was almost 50 mm.
I also got some vertical and horizontal stringing. After finding the correct load seating depth plays a major role.

IMO, powder charge is the "first" or primary, variable that has to be adjusted first in the quest for accuracy. Next woud be seating depth, and last, primers.....

Just to add to the conversation;
The first thing I pick is the bullet that I want to use. The terminal effects of the bullet are what matters most to me. Explosive expansion, slow expansion for more penetration, solids or paper punching.

Then the powder type (from the higher end of the reloading manual data)

Primer type

Then the powder charge weight

Then I adjust seating depth

Maybe because I live in Kalif. I do exactly what Frank does.

I start hunting loads at .005-.010" off the lands. Only rarely will a longer "jump" improve accuracy. The older Barnes X bullets are an exception. YOU MUST FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. These homogeneous bullets don't obdurate (conform to the bore) as easily as standard bullets, and must be seated at lease .030 off to avoid high pressure.

I really don't like to get much closer than .005" with hunting ammo. Having a bullet stuck in the lands is a very big problem in the field.

Would anybody like to discuss the use of ladders is load development? I'm new to the idea, and would like some input. Anyone care to start a new thread?

This is a lot like asking how to best tune a car's tires for NASCAR...lots of different answers, based on the crowds people run with, local mythology, their personal experiences, etc.

My own experience places bullet quality first and foremost. Second is powder type & charge, third is seating depth, and dead last, primers....so long as you don't use CCI's which obviously work well for some but have never panned out for me.

Dittoes what Fjold said!
I usually buy Rifles with a specific bullet to use in it already in mind.
Anymore I am seldom disappointed (unable to get my chosen bullet to work in a particular Rifle!).
I also follow along with Fjold in order of components and procedures to "fiddle" with while working up loads.
And this too quarterbore, I am assuming you are questing for the most accurate load possible for a particular Rifle?
Your post was not clear on that point and I am simply assuming that.
Quarterbore, one reason that seating depth is now lower on MY scale of "variables" is because so MANY factory Rifles have exceptionally long throats anymore! 35 years ago your average reloader (me!) had to be careful not to seat his bullets "to long" (to far out!) or a jam into the leades of the rifling was bound to occur - with resulting pressure spikes and magazines full of smokeless powder and a bullet snugly ensconced in the barrel and an unfired casing having been ejected!
That ain't the case no'mo!
Just because a reloader can not get his reloads to within .002" of the leades does not mean he is doomed to poor accuracy! I have Varmint and Big Game Rifles that mandate bullet jump of .02" to .10" and they shoot just dandily!
From time to time (not very often) I do find a Rifle that prefers one measure of bullet jump to another - but not very often am I unable to achieve completely pleasing accuracy with bullet jumps longer than .01"!
Good luck in your load development no matter what you are seeking.
By the way I use the fine Sinclair Bullet Depth Seating Gauge for setting up my C.O.A.L.!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I'm lazy and cheap!
My critria is based on rifle, caliber and usage.
My expectations of my lever action 45-70, 405 Winchester, 45 Colt, 30-06 is different them my expectations of my AR10t, which is different then my AR10, which is different then my Remington 700 Sendero 25-06.
Using the 25-06 as a starting point I start with a bullet, in this case a 100 grain Speer hollow points, since I have bunches of them, I have lots of IMR 4831 and lots CCI mag primers. I fire form the cases, uniform the neck thickness and uniform the primer pockets and flash holes, trim to length.
Now I'm left with over all length of cartidge, bullet seating depth and powder charge. The only other bullet I've tried is Sierra's 100 grain match king, maybe it was 90.
But the process works.
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Brice:
Would anybody like to discuss the use of ladders is load development? I'm new to the idea, and would like some input. Anyone care to start a new thread?

Where is the icon showing a smiley face opening a can of worms?

Here goes, there are 2 different methods that have been cussed and dicussed before:

OCW

in which loads are shot in a ladder sequence at 100 yards and then you "read the tea leaves" to figure out where the most consistant impact points were in your load sequence.

And the Audette method

see Hot Core's post

that is shot at 300 yards.

IMO, you need an exceptionally accurate rifle to use either and you still have to choose the bullet and powder first anyway.

The order of Tailgunner's list would be mine. I will have a bullet weight, style, and probably brand picked out. Load several to work up a max load with several powders, then fine tune the best load with seating depth, etc. I don't like a load where a minor adjustment in powder charge causes a lot of difference in group size, as this load will be all over the place as the weather and temp. changes. A good load will shoot near the same point even if the charge is purposely varied by as much as a grain or so. This is my idea of a good load.

Handloading can be seen as three levels:
1) Deer hunting 6"
2) Varmint hunting 1"
3) Benchrest competion .2"

There are a dozen things needed to get to each level.

Doing things for the higher level will do any good.

Tuning a 6" load to become a 5" load [with bullet choice, powder choice, bullet choice, and bullet depth] is something I no longer spend time on.

Trying to tune a 1" average factory rifle to be 1/2" is something I no longer spend time on.

The well spent time for me is improving the equiptment and technique.

When I built a rifle that would shoot 1/2" groups with any concentricly loaded 72 or 75 gr bullets with any powder and any seating depth, I realized that the years of data I gathered on tuning up loads for those other rifles was a waste of time.

Now I can see that tuning a load for most of my rifles is polishing a turd.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:

Now I can see that tuning a load for most of my rifles is polishing a turd.

Now that makes me feel a useful as tits on a boar hog!!

Good post, really. IMO, 85% or more of accuracy comes from the rifle.

Back to polishing turds.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
...When I built a rifle that would shoot 1/2" groups with any concentricly loaded 72 or 75 gr bullets with any powder and any seating depth, ...

Hey tnekkcc, 1. How many times can you "build a rifle like that" in a row?
2. Any kind of action in particular?
3. Any caliber in particular?
4. Any cartridge in particular?
---

Please explain this in minute detail, cause I want to take some notes. And type slow!

quote:

Originally posted by Brice:
Would anybody like to discuss the use of ladders in load development? I'm new to the idea, and would like some input. Anyone care to start a new thread?

Well, a new thread started some time ago. Go to https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2511043/m/571104925
Nice day,
Jan.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
1. How many times can you "build a rifle like that" in a row?

Please explain this in minute detail, cause I want to take some notes. And type slow!

257RAI Lothar Walther 1 in 10" light varmint barrel.
New Manson reamer.
Chambered in the headstock, not the steady rest.
The breech was gimballed in the heastock so it would point to the spider and not flex to it.
Dialed both ends of the barrel in to within .0001" at the grooves [with my Ouija board like, jumpy, Iterapid test indicator].
When we pulled the reamer for the last time, the base of the chamber was still dialed in within .001".
The barrel has never fired a bullet without moly and there it was always burnished with moly bore cream first.
The brass was fireformed with pistol powder.
No expander balls were ever used.
Suspect brass was all culled.
Bullets seated with sliding sleeve dies.

And the most important step... only shot from a benchrest on windless days with a 40X scope.


So far we have made only one more rifle that accurate, a .250" necked .223 with 1 in 16" Douglas barrel only tested with 35 gr bullets jammed into the lands, with 15 gr Blue Dot.

quote:

So far we have made only one more rifle that accurate,

Was that "two-in-a-row" or was there a few between them?

What "Action" did you use?

Special Triggers?

What is the Target "shape"?

And for Woods because I'm sure it is killing him to know, did you use a Stoney Point "thingy" anywhere in the Loading?

40x should show if you are a bit "shakey" on the Bench or not.

There have been a half dozen rifles in between.


The 257 is a VZ24 action with my inovative spring balls screwed into the bottom of the receiver to get the busy Mauser bolt like a sleeved bolt. [Bill Leeper tells me that is an old timer trick].

The trigger on that rifle is the stock miitary Mauser trigger with some typical milling, Silver soldering, drilling, and tapping to control the take up, force, and overtravel.

THe .223 is a 1903 Turkish Mauser [Oberndorf] with a TIG welded extractor and Bold trigger. I broke the yellow seals on trigger and adjusted it way down in force.

No Stoney Point.

It is interesting you mention shakey.
At the Tacoma Sportsman club's private 100m range, there are wooden benches. When I got my first 40X scope, I noticed that the cross hairs were moving around 3/4" on the target. I took boards, sheetrock screws, and a battery powered screwdriver, and triangulated that structure for stiffness. Next time at the range, my mods were gone. I am no longer a member there.

I look for a bullet that is going to do what I need it to do, varmit, match ect... I go through manuals and search the net for the powder that seems to work best in the particular case. IME primers do not seem to make much difference unless you are on the verge of needing a mag over a standard in a bigger case, or a pistol over small rifle in a small case. I seat the bullet as close to the lands as the throat/mag will allow and work to what max is. I can see if the rifle likes that powder and I find out were the ceiling is. I use the charge that gives the best groups then adjust seating. I found that there is ussually two sweet spots in seating one close and one further out. Depending on the gun/scope combo, I make a determination what the particular rifle should be capible of. Custom 6ppc with a 24x scope I expect more that a feather wieght factory gun. If you have a solid scope, good bedding, decent barrel, when you throw quality componets together loads are pretty easy to get to an acceptable level, mostly. I basically do it the way the other guys are doing it. Mostly it takes about three time to the range with several combos to find a load. That is about to change as I ran into a bunch of stuff on Ebay that is going to be made into a portable system. Check Kevin Weavers (weaver rifles)site he modified the Audette(sp?) ladder and it works really well

I have appreciated all of your advice.
Now, when tuning the seating depth should I start at the lands and work back with my loads or start about .030" to .050" back and go forward?

quote:

I've been reloading for some time now and have a questions that has been bothering me for about that long. It's kind of long to explain, so please bare with me. I have been working with different seating depths and powder loads. But which one do I work on first? I used to think that the reason for adjusting seating depth was to change the timing that it takes for the bullet to strike the lands. But after reading the article in Shooting Times about seating depth I find that it has a lot more to do with the shape and size of the inside of the case and the effects that has on the powder and pressure. So, my question is: do I find the sweet spot as it pertains to seating dept first and then work on the powder load or should I do the reverse?

I keep getting reminded time and time again that powder, primer, run-out, and bullet selection has far mor to do w/ accuracy than seasting depth. I used to just cringe when someone wanted me to do custom loading on a M70, Browning, SA Savage, or SA 700. It's almost a gaurantee w/ those rifles that most of them will have a short magazine allowance and a long throat. I soon found out that the above components werre much more important and even those rifles can be very accurate w/ long bullet jumps.

I still love my rifles that I can kiss the lands or be just short of them w/ but, I'm reminded all the time how good a rifle can shoot even if you cant get close. A good example is a Browning Abolt in 7RM I just purchased used for a great deal. I had some rounds that were well short of the lands (loaded w/ 150 NBTs). I had a little time to shoot a bit Saturday so, I cleaned the barrel, bore sigthed, fired a couple to zero alittle high at 100, and proceeded to shoot and cool for three rounds. Two went through the same hole and the 3rd opened the group to around 1/2". Another slap in the face on bullet seating depth.

I will keep being anal about it in all of my rifles that I shoot single shot or that have long enough mags. I'm really not sure if its just habbit or actual fact behind the seating depth craze.

On another note I've seen Weatherbies turn in groups less than an inch at 200 yards and I bet the bullets jumped 1/4"! in those barrels

Have a Good One

Reloader

Guess I have to put my two cents' worth in here. I go against what most of the posters have said re: powder charge vs seating depth.

I pick the bullet (actually the customer does), and then go to the reloading manuals to find a powder that gives good velocity and a high load density. Then I reduce the charge by about 1/3 of the difference between starting load and max and begin there. I begin with a series of rounds seated .005 off the lands, at .015, .030, .045. Take 'em to the range, use good technique, and see if you have a promising combo (shoot two groups with each set). If one or more shows promise, it's back to the bench, load up at least 9 rounds with that combo, plus maybe 6 rounds at +.005 and -.005 from the one that showed promise. Back to the range. Generally that will put me where I want to be. Then, after picking the best one (and not based on 1 or 2 groups only), I will start to increase the charge and chrono each increase until I get the velocity. And, while increasing the charge, I seldom find great changes in accuracy until I "go over the top" for that particular combo.

If, at this point, the accuracy/velocity meet the customer's specs, I call 'er done and ship it (with the bill).

So, while my process is somewhat different from others, it works for me. I first read about it on the old Arnold Arms web site, which is no longer alive.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
Handloading can be seen as three levels:
1) Deer hunting 6"
2) Varmint hunting 1"
3) Benchrest competion .2"

There are a dozen things needed to get to each level.

Doing things for the higher level will do any good.

Tuning a 6" load to become a 5" load [with bullet choice, powder choice, bullet choice, and bullet depth] is something I no longer spend time on.

Trying to tune a 1" average factory rifle to be 1/2" is something I no longer spend time on.

The well spent time for me is improving the equiptment and technique.

When I built a rifle that would shoot 1/2" groups with any concentricly loaded 72 or 75 gr bullets with any powder and any seating depth, I realized that the years of data I gathered on tuning up loads for those other rifles was a waste of time.

Now I can see that tuning a load for most of my rifles is polishing a turd.

great post!!!!!

There are three essential ingredients to accuracy.....rifle, shooter, and ammo.

Before we fine tune ammo the other two things must be correct or we're chasing our tales.

On ammo:...if accuracy was measured with a 12" ruler we'd find that picking a bullet that "matched" or rifle/scope system is 10" of it.

Picking the powder that best drives this bullet is another 1" of it and the last inch is composed of all the other little things combined.

There are a lot of good posts here for all reloaders. It's important that we bear in mind what the goal is.....are we trying to make a benchrest rifle out of our hunting rifle?...if so then do all the little things but if we're out to have a fine hunting rifle we can easily dispense with many of the frivelous things....or in other words..."Quit polishing the turd"..