Well, it's a long story......

1. I used the "cleaning rod method" to determine my max COAL before load development and came up with 2.715"

2. I shot some ladders and came up with a good group right at .4" at 100 yards

3. My gunsmith then told me that the cleaning rod method was too crude and said just seat a bullet in a case that was a little neck sized and chamber it and let the lands seat it.....measure...repeat till something consistent happens.

4. Did it and came up with 2.815" which is about 1/10 of an inch longer!

5. Went back to the range and shot a seating depth test at the same charge weight that worked with the cleaning rod method. It wouldn't group as well but the Max COAL set printed a perfectly vertical set of bullet holes all touching each other.....


The question is: Should I stay at that depth and can the vertical be tuned out with charge weight changes? My guess is yes.

What do you have to say?

Even though .10" seems like a lot of jump to me. If it shoots better then go with it.

I use the smoked bullet method of determing bullet seating. Seat the bullet long, no powder, no primer, chamber the round and see if I can chamber it. Use the bullet seating die to push the bullet deeper until I casn chamber the round. Smoke the bullet with a candle or butane lighter and chamber check for how much the lands mark the soot. Keep shortening the round until I barely have a mark, then lock the die.
I fiddle with loads going up 2/10s of a grain until I get an acceptable group. Should mention I clean between each batch of 10 round of the same powder charge. Then I uniform the primer pockets, flash holes, case length, case neck thickness. And shoot 20 rounds of that successful powder combination to see if I need to fiddle some more. If all is well I start loading lots of 100 rounds of that load.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
Even though .10" seems like a lot of jump to me. If it shoots better then go with it.

That was my first thought as well. But after thinking about seating into or on the lands which is where the new depth is, and seeing the perfectly vertical string of bullet holes, I thought:

1. The depth is repeatable even with some erosion in the future.

2. The group had no horizontal deviation what so ever but all the others including the "good" group did. I thought this might have been from being off of the lands so far, introducing another variable

3. Maybe the load could be tuned further at that depth with charge weight.

I think with the perfect vertical string of bullet holes, that the bullet must be exiting the muzzle right in between the top of the swing and the bottom. It's either on the way up or down. The bullet needs to exit at the top of the swing for accuracy.

I think I'll run a ladder charge weight wise up from where I am and see what happens.

Thoughts?

The vertical stringing indicates pressure jumps, which is no surprise when you are seating into the lands.

Back off in increments of .02 and see which shoots best.

The fact that you were not getting any horizontal stringing may be coincidental. You would have to verify this by shooting a couple more groups.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Well, it's a long story......

1. I used the "cleaning rod method" to determine my max COAL before load development and came up with 2.715".

Hey R, If you retained this Bullet, you can use it to see the repeatability of the Cleaning Rod Method and to measure how much your Lands move after a Box of Bullets has been shot.

quote:

2. I shot some ladders and came up with a good group right at .4" at 100 yards

Excellent. Always nice to "try" and improve on a Combination like that, but it is generally more difficulot than a 1" group.

quote:

3. My gunsmith then told me that the cleaning rod method was too crude and said just seat a bullet in a case that was a little neck sized and chamber it and let the lands seat it.....measure...repeat till something consistent happens.

Everyone has a favorite method of determining Seating Depth. I can not see why he denegrades the Cleaning Rod Method, when the Method he recommends is often difficult to repeat and get the same measurement.

quote:

4. Did it and came up with 2.815" which is about 1/10 of an inch longer!

That could be from "Spring-back" or "Hanging" in the Lands. Neither is a problem with the Cleaning Rod Method. Or, if you changed Bullets, it could be the second Bullet is just 1/10" longer than the first one.
However, it really does not make a lot of difference because it is always a good idea to run a series of Tests with varying Seating Depths to Fine Tune the Final Load. So, even if one Method gives a slightly different dimension, it will all be compensated for when you do the Fine Tuning(varying the Seating Depth).

quote:

5. Went back to the range and shot a seating depth test at the same charge weight that worked with the cleaning rod method. It wouldn't group as well but the Max COAL set printed a perfectly vertical set of bullet holes all touching each other.....

The question is: Should I stay at that depth and can the vertical be tuned out with charge weight changes? My guess is yes.

What do you have to say?

I'd suggest you run the never improved upon Creighton Audette Method with the Bullets Seated 0.010" Into-the-Lands, locate the best Harmonic, and then do a Fine Tuning of the Load by varying the Seating Depth.

However, there are lots of ways to get a great shooting Load. Some do it with pure luck using a randomly selected Load. Others use a more analytical approach and there are lots in between. You have to pick what works the best for you and does not create a level of frustration that causes a person to loose Focus during the Testing.

The 0.4" Load is excellent. If you can repeat it on a regular basis, it will be very difficult to better. Best of luck on the quest.

quote:

Originally posted by McFox:
The vertical stringing indicates pressure jumps, which is no surprise when you are seating into the lands.

Back off in increments of .02 and see which shoots best.

The fact that you were not getting any horizontal stringing may be coincidental. You would have to verify this by shooting a couple more groups.

Yep, I agree. Vertical stringing indicates pressure jumps to me as well. Backing down on the charge in increments might indeed fix the issue.

Seating against the lands is only one thing that can cause pressure jumps. Case length can do it too. You might be able to eliminate the pressure jumps by shortening your cases another 0.002"

Are you full length resizing or just neck sizing these cases?

UPDATE..............

Hey HC,

Thanks for chiming in! I did the cleaning rod method like always and came up with pretty repeatable measurements and used them in the first load. I also measured multiple bullets from the box and none varied by more than about .001". When I did the bullet in the case measurement, I also had very repeatable measurements even though the bullet would stick in the lands once in a while. To combat this, I used the cleaning rod to gently tap on the tip of the bullet while simultaneously opening the bolt. The bullet would release and the measurements were consistent. I think the difference between the two measurements, about .9", is due to how far the bullet is jammed into the lands. With the cleaning rod method, you just drop it in the chamber and hold it in with a pencil. With the bullet seated in a slightly sized case and letting the bolt seat it, it probably is into the lands harder.



Well, I've had some success and I'll tell you the chain of events from the beginning:


This is the best group with the cleaning rod method finding the lands.







After using the "bullet in the case" method and finding that the above cartridges were probably .9" off of the lands I loaded the same charge weight in a seating depth test, all backing off the lands (MOAL of 2.815") by .005" for each group of cartridges and this is how they looked:







Needless to say, I was quite disappointed. I did some thinking. It's good to do sometimes. The groups had some intersting shapes and the first group, the one seated at MOAL, was perfectly verical.........







I got to thinking about why. I presumed it was because the barrel was moving very fast either upward or downward when the bullet was exiting causing different vertical points of impact. I've learned that you want the bullet to exit when the barrel is at the top or the bottom of its vertical swing and the only way to alter it is by making the bullet exit faster or slower........another charge weight ladder must be shot at this seating depth to tune it.

My thought was that the muzzle was on the way down looking at the lower and lower points of impact. I needed to let the bullet leave earlier, while the muzzle was pausing at the top, so I increased the charge weights by .2 grains for 5 sets of cartridges and shot another ladder and this is what happened:







The group really got tight at 42.9 grains, which is .4 grains more than the first test load:











Now we really need to talk.


I think I have a problem.


I think that others here on the Forum and elsewhere in rifle shooting and load development have the same problem...........

I'm obsessed with making rifles accurate! If I have a rifle that won't shoot to its capability, I can't stop thinking of ways to make it work....day and night. It's affecting my sleep.

That's why I did all of this yesterday, culminating in shooting the final product at 11 p.m. at our range's lighted tunnel!


















By the way, it was cold.







I think I'm going to start a support group for guys like me. HA, or "Handloaders Anonymous"

Anyone intersted, PM me!.......HA!

This experience resurfaces an old submission of mine when I first started posting.

Does the seating depth chosen for the load development CHOOSE THE CHARGE WEIGHT it likes or does the CHARGE WEIGHT choose the seating depth it likes for accuracy???
In my first case I chose a seating depth that was about .9" off of the lands. I "found" a charge weight that shot the bullet accurately at that depth. When I changed the depth to the "jam" and sequentially off of them by .005" for each set of 5 cartridges, none of them would shoot accurately.

I had to run a new charge weight ladder (find a new charge weight) to find accuracy at the new depth...it was different than the charge weight that was accurate at the other depth.

I still contend that depth is just as important as charge weight. The two are linked and inseparable....

Conclusions:

VLD style bullets like the "jam" or way off the lands (.050")

Hunting bullets seem to like the "in between"

I think you need to choose the depth by these parameters and stay with it while varying the charge until accuracy is found. Small, I mean tiny, varience in depth may tune for accuracy at that point.

Both are of equal importance from my experience.

It's early and I've only had one cup of coffee. Am I miss reading the last couple posts? Are you loading 9 tenths of an inch off the lands, or 9 thousandths? I am usually in the .00x range.
Thanks
I'll get another cup of coffee.
Bfly

I'm on my first cup.

With the cleaning rod method, you just drop it in the chamber and hold it in with a pencil. With the bullet seated in a slightly sized case and letting the bolt seat it, it probably is into the lands harder.


I think the differences I found in Max COAL were due to how much the bullet was forced into the lands with the partially sized case.

Cleaning rod method Max COAL = 2.715"

Case with bullet method Max COAL= 2.815"

It seems to me that .1 inches is a lot of difference. Do you think that a bullet can be pushed into the lands by the case that much further? I sized the case so minutely that you can push the bullet in and out with your fingers.

I figured the differences were due to the crudeness in measuring with the cleaning rod combined with the possibility of the case jamming the bullet into the lands a bit more than just holding it against them with a pencil like you do with the cleaning rod method.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
I'm on my first cup.

With the cleaning rod method, you just drop it in the chamber and hold it in with a pencil. With the bullet seated in a slightly sized case and letting the bolt seat it, it probably is into the lands harder.


I think the differences I found in Max COAL were due to how much the bullet was forced into the lands with the partially sized case.

Cleaning rod method Max COAL = 2.715"

Case with bullet method Max COAL= 2.815"

It seems to me that .1 inches is a lot of difference. Do you think that a bullet can be pushed into the lands by the case that much further? I sized the case so minutely that you can push the bullet in and out with your fingers.

I figured the differences were due to the crudeness in measuring with the cleaning rod combined with the possibility of the case jamming the bullet into the lands a bit more than just holding it against them with a pencil like you do with the cleaning rod method.

Unless you used exactly the same bullet to perform each measurement method then your results may also include ogive variations in the bullets.

Yes, that too as HC posted.

I had another sleepless night. I woke up at 2 am thinking about the load and the "jam". I thought I might have problems chambering a round, not firing it, then opening the bolt leaving the bullet stuck in the lands.

Not the best situation during a match or hunting.

I rolled around thinking I would check that when I got up, but couldn't get it out of my mind so I got up and tried the few I had left from shooting the ladders. I chambered the rounds and could feel them stick slightly upon trying to extract them, but they all came out OK. I measured them after extracting and they seated in about another .005" to 2.810". I'm going to back the depth off to that when I load just to be safe.

I hope they still group.

Hey Rick,

I'd gladly trade you my ability to sleep soundly with hunting loads that group ONLY .75" for just a bit of your amazing skill with a shotgun.

I don't think people on this forum have a clue how accomplished you are shooting patterns instead of groups. I've always been a fan, especially how you tackle difficult targets.

Will your growing intrigue with rifles prove a substantial enough distraction to give the rest of us a chance at the clay competitions?

Take care,
Kyler

Kyler,

Shhhhhh.... Don't blow my cover!

Thanks for the kind words.

Believe me, I'd take you up on your offer if it could happen. I'm just screwing around with rifles. I've just gotten my first custom rifles and am pretty enthused!

Nice website you have.