Look place 4 rds in the mag. Chamber the first, fire it, eject 1st case gently! STOP! take picture of fired case, next take picture of the next round still in magbox. Pay attention, focus, concentrate! -Rob

I just got back from the range.I blocked the hole on the bolt that I think was causing me the issues.I found no damaged rounds inside the magazine but saw a streak of black from the acraglass.I found a couple of cases with the small dents and bent necks.I got the same dents and bent necks when I ran a little test.I came to the conclusion that these are caused by the cases spinning and hitting the ground after ejection.I believe the cases were previously damaged by ejection and from the small hole I blocked.For the first time ever,I did not get any crazy flyers after shooting a few rounds.It was really late and the three shots to the right where shot without enough light to make[URL= ]100yds[/URL] out the exact location of the orange circle.[URL= ]acraglass gel[/URL] NO FLYERS!

This whole post was a joke.
Butch

quote:

I came to the conclusion that these are caused by the cases spinning and hitting the ground after ejection.I believe the cases were previously damaged by ejection and from the small hole I blocked.

That's two distinct things. Hitting the ground and damaged by ejection. Which is it? Well?

Some of us are probably curious. Have you ever done stand-up comedy?

Just a follow up,I just finished cleaning the rifle that shot the group above and I honestly never had an easier time cleaning it after shooting offhand with a loaded magazine.What this whole thread boils down to is that when rounds are banged up in the magazine,they will not shoot accurate and will really foul up the bore with accuracy robbing copper.I have some Norma lott cases on order and can't wait to test them in this rifle.Will they stand up to being banged around any better and give superior accuracy?

That about sums this up I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
All of which brings up a very relevant question.

What does your gunsmith have to say about it?

Are you referring to the gunsmith that replaces his barrels after 70 shots because they are worn out?

They obviously speak a different brand of english in Quebec.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
This whole post was a joke.
Butch

Well if it wasn't for the fact that Shootaway does end up with fired cases with a dent in the mounth, I agree it is a rather silly post.

Shootaway you have shown us a photo of just about everything except a loaded round with a dent in the case as you are (or were) asserting is happening to the rounds in the magazine. Use a bit of logic here. You assert the top round in the magazine is being dented because of the hole in the underside of the bolt, based on the premise that the round is hitting the underside of the bolt under recoil. Logically this means the bolt is stationary under recoil while the loaded round recoils vertically into the hole in the bolt. Why would the bolt not be recoiling vertically at the same rate as the loaded round in the magazine? It is just plainly impossible for a case with a bullet in place to be dented at the mouth such as you are showing us.

As for inaccuracy and barrel fouling, that is just another issue you have to find the answer for, not related to the empty cases being dented on ejection. Unplug that bolt hole!!!!! and for yours and our sanity give us a photo of a loaded round with a dent in it and I'll take back everything I've just said.

I have seen plenty of dented cases like this and always caused by the case mouth hitting a part of the action or scope mount on ejection. The H&K 770 sporter is a classic where every case has a dent on the fired case exactly the same as yours Shootaway. Only other way a case is dented is on hitting the ground but this shows up as random due to the various ways the spinning case hits.

Best of luck in solving your issues with the rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
This whole post was a joke.
Butch

Well if it wasn't for the fact that Shootaway does end up with fired cases with a dent in the mounth, I agree it is a rather silly post.

Shootaway you have shown us a photo of just about everything except a loaded round with a dent in the case as you are (or were) asserting is happening to the rounds in the magazine. Use a bit of logic here. You assert the top round in the magazine is being dented because of the hole in the underside of the bolt, based on the premise that the round is hitting the underside of the bolt under recoil. Logically this means the bolt is stationary under recoil while the loaded round recoils vertically into the hole in the bolt. Why would the bolt not be recoiling vertically at the same rate as the loaded round in the magazine? It is just plainly impossible for a case with a bullet in place to be dented at the mouth such as you are showing us.

As for inaccuracy and barrel fouling, that is just another issue you have to find the answer for, not related to the empty cases being dented on ejection. Unplug that bolt hole!!!!! and for yours and our sanity give us a photo of a loaded round with a dent in it and I'll take back everything I've just said.

I have seen plenty of dented cases like this and always caused by the case mouth hitting a part of the action or scope mount on ejection. The H&K 770 sporter is a classic where every case has a dent on the fired case exactly the same as yours Shootaway. Only other way a case is dented is on hitting the ground but this shows up as random due to the various ways the spinning case hits.

Best of luck in solving your issues with the rifle.

I am going back to the range today.I gave the rifle a good cleaning yesterday.If it shoots as good as it did last time there will be no doubt in my mind that the hole was the cause of the issue.I remember well what it would shoot like before I blocked the hole.If it shoots that way again then I will agree that it's not the hole.

Shootaway- Do you have any idea why that hole is there in the first place? wear your shooting helmet!-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
This whole post was a joke.
Butch

Well if it wasn't for the fact that Shootaway does end up with fired cases with a dent in the mounth, I agree it is a rather silly post.

Shootaway you have shown us a photo of just about everything except a loaded round with a dent in the case as you are (or were) asserting is happening to the rounds in the magazine. Use a bit of logic here. You assert the top round in the magazine is being dented because of the hole in the underside of the bolt, based on the premise that the round is hitting the underside of the bolt under recoil. Logically this means the bolt is stationary under recoil while the loaded round recoils vertically into the hole in the bolt. Why would the bolt not be recoiling vertically at the same rate as the loaded round in the magazine? It is just plainly impossible for a case with a bullet in place to be dented at the mouth such as you are showing us.

As for inaccuracy and barrel fouling, that is just another issue you have to find the answer for, not related to the empty cases being dented on ejection. Unplug that bolt hole!!!!! and for yours and our sanity give us a photo of a loaded round with a dent in it and I'll take back everything I've just said.

I have seen plenty of dented cases like this and always caused by the case mouth hitting a part of the action or scope mount on ejection. The H&K 770 sporter is a classic where every case has a dent on the fired case exactly the same as yours Shootaway. Only other way a case is dented is on hitting the ground but this shows up as random due to the various ways the spinning case hits.

Best of luck in solving your issues with the rifle.

I am going back to the range today.I gave the rifle a good cleaning yesterday.If it shoots as good as it did last time there will be no doubt in my mind that the hole was the cause of the issue.I remember well what it would shoot like before I blocked the hole.If it shoots that way again then I will agree that it's not the hole.

Yes Shootaway but shooting and seeing what the accuracy is like is only part of it. As others have pointed out, and with all due respect, you need to do things in a logical manner to carefully eliminate all other variables. Fire a shot and carefully extract the fired case into your hand and see if it has any indentations. Look at the loaded cartridge next up in the magazine and see if it has suffered any indentations. Repeat these steps until the magazine is empty. This is the only way you are going to ascertain if the rounds/cases are being damaged in the magazine or on ejection for the cases alone.
You need to do this with the hole in the bolt exposed. These steps will then prove if the hole has anything to do with the issue or not.

The hole in the bolt is there for a reason and should not need to be covered up. You would have to be the unluckiest person in the world if the hole in the bolt was causing your problem with cases and inaccurate shooting!!!

I just got back from the range where I shot my rifle again to see if the issue was solved.The rifle still shot some unacceptable flyers after it grouped the first three well but too low.This convinced me that it is not the hole on the bolt that was causing the accuracy issues or the damaged cases.I will unblock the hole.After all this the only thing that I feel is the cause is copper fouling.It seems that accuracy and a consistant POI out to 100yds with the lott is only obtainable when I clean the hell out of the bore.I did not let the day at the range go to waste and practised some very fast rapid fire out to 50yds.[URL= ]50yds[/URL] The two shots on the top left are from my other Ruger.It seems that the time has come where its about had it.I think I will be a good thing for me to buy a bore scope.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Just a follow up,I just finished cleaning the rifle that shot the group above and I honestly never had an easier time cleaning it after shooting offhand with a loaded magazine.

WTF?? How does shooting position or loaded/unloaded magazine have anything to do with ease or difficulty in cleaning a firearm?

Shootaway;

Let me know when you decide to part with the the "about had it" Ruger- If it is a 416, I'll give it a good retirement home for a small fee....

Seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by 375fan:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Just a follow up,I just finished cleaning the rifle that shot the group above and I honestly never had an easier time cleaning it after shooting offhand with a loaded magazine.

WTF?? How does shooting position or loaded/unloaded magazine have anything to do with ease or difficulty in cleaning a firearm?

the rounds get banged around that way

I can't wait to try both custom 458 lotts I am having made.I wonder if they will shoot accurately offhand at 100yds week after week.

The hole in the bottom of the bolt is a gas vent to prevent the firing pin from being blown back if a primer pierces.

..am I the only one who thinks this resembles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfmvkO5x6Ng

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:

I don't usually give up on a problem but I'm afraid I've just died of frustration.

Shootaway - Dont buy a borescope you will need another 55 IQ points in order to interpret what you see. Since your starting out at 75 you,d best lay down till that idea goes away.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I can't wait to try both custom 458 lotts I am having made.I wonder if they will shoot accurately offhand at 100yds week after week.

its depending on whether your arm is strong that day or not. And whether you r using the soft or the hard helmet of course..
Week after week - well after about three weeks time I guess your barrel will be worn out when you look at it through your new borescope. So maybe get some extra barrels right away. A dousin should last you a year I guess...

I am going to give the bore a heavy cleaning,much like I did the times it shot very well at 100yds and see if that is the cause of the 100yd accuracy issue.There might be some streaks of cooper on or in between the lands that are not near the muzzle and therefore not visible to me.They might be difficult to get out just like the one a had a hard time with last time.I should have a target to show on Thursday.

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...jMBU&feature=related

I do not understand why it puts this type of videos .

Oscar.


---------------------------
Traducción por PROMT™
http://www.promt.es

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...jMBU&feature=related

Excellent



Oscar

You must learn about shootaway, then it will become very clear to you!

HEH HEH HEH

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am going to give the bore a heavy cleaning,much like I did the times it shot very well at 100yds and see if that is the cause of the 100yd accuracy issue.There might be some streaks of cooper on or in between the lands that are not near the muzzle and therefore not visible to me.They might be difficult to get out just like the one a had a hard time with last time.I should have a target to show on Thursday.

Shootaway

I have been doing my best not to get involved in this, again, but sometimes I am just plain stupid and cannot keep my mouth shut!

Please tell me this, you are testing this rifle or these rifles, for "accuracy", and you are testing this "off Hand"--do I understand that correct?

Now we have gone from doing standard off hand shooting--which I thought you were doing very well at this, but now you want to test "accuracy of the rifle" by shooting off hand? And you think scrubbing that bore is going to make a difference? You are shooting off hand, iron sights, cleaning the bore, no sling, trying to test "accuracy of the rifle"????

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am going to give the bore a heavy cleaning,much like I did the times it shot very well at 100yds and see if that is the cause of the 100yd accuracy issue.There might be some streaks of cooper on or in between the lands that are not near the muzzle and therefore not visible to me.They might be difficult to get out just like the one a had a hard time with last time.I should have a target to show on Thursday.

Shootaway

I have been doing my best not to get involved in this, again, but sometimes I am just plain stupid and cannot keep my mouth shut!

Please tell me this, you are testing this rifle or these rifles, for "accuracy", and you are testing this "off Hand"--do I understand that correct?

Now we have gone from doing standard off hand shooting--which I thought you were doing very well at this, but now you want to test "accuracy of the rifle" by shooting off hand? And you think scrubbing that bore is going to make a difference? You are shooting off hand, iron sights, cleaning the bore, no sling, trying to test "accuracy of the rifle"????

Michael

Michael,I have a strong hold.I should shoot almost as accurate,at 100yds standing or off a bench-unless I am out of breath.With a big bore,going from 50yds to 100yds would be like going from 100yds to 200yds with a 270win.If you done enough shooting with a 270 you will know that it will only group well at 200yds,with a factory barrel,and not drop its POI,if the bore is like new or free of copper.So,the 458lott will only shoot well offhand at 100yds and not drop its POI if the bore is REALLY copper free.Also,I prefer to test offhand because I believe the rifle has different harmonics when shot offhand and therefore things are different.

Shootaway

Sorry pal, you are delusional, to test accuracy of a rifle at any range, does not matter, you take the human element out of the equation as much as you can. You cannot test the accuracy of the rifle, cartridge, load or bullet, standing off hand, iron sights, no sling, shooting at 100 yds. Not in this life. Rifle must be benched, scope is even better, one sees better with a scope believe it or not, one is able to see the same point much better with a scope, time after time.

Sorry, I don't own anything that starts with 270, never have, never will. I also don't own or have never owned and will never own a 7 mm anything, nor a 375 anything. So that has no bearing, other than to say that small bores are indeed effected by copper or other fouling, FAR more so than any big bore. This is a fact.

Now, you are telling me that a 458 Lott will shoot better at 100 yds than it will at 50 yds? So according to your last target posted above a group of several rounds in 5-6 inches or so. Now that is going to be worse at 50 yds?

What if I told you that if you put a scope on that very rifle, you sit your DA on a decent bench with proper bags and equipment those groups would shrink down to 1-1.5 inches MAX---at 100 yds--at 50 yds they would all be in the SAME HOLE-if you do your job! Would you believe that? If not, you bring your gear, and I will show you.

Barrel harmonics don't come into play with big bore rifles, barrels are normally heavier and stiffer than little whimpy ass things you see on a 270 or some such useless crap caliber. I never had POI change from literally hundreds of big bore rifles shot, tested, sighted in at the bench, and then go to the field in my life, I dare say I have a good bit of experience at doing just that. I have several 458 Lotts too.

There is no way humanly possible that you can test the accuracy of a rifle, cartridge or load, with any degree of confidence without taking the human factor out, as much as possible. Off hand you test Shootaway--Not the rifle! First things first, test rifle, load, up front--then test Shootaway, saves a lot of time, effort, bullets, and energy.

M

Michael,I just don't agree with you.Sorry,I should've said 270 like cartridges like a 30-06 or a 7mmRM or a 300wm.

I know things are easier with a scope.I just don't get the same feeling like I do when I use open sights.I feel like one of those guys in a painting where they are stalking dangerous game and the lion or buff or leopard is shown just about to unexpectaedly jump on the hunter or one of the trackers.IMO,a scope would not belong in such a picture.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Shootaway

Sorry pal, you are delusional, to test accuracy of a rifle at any range, does not matter, you take the human element out of the equation as much as you can. You cannot test the accuracy of the rifle, cartridge, load or bullet, standing off hand, iron sights, no sling, shooting at 100 yds. Not in this life. Rifle must be benched, scope is even better, one sees better with a scope believe it or not, one is able to see the same point much better with a scope, time after time.



There is no way humanly possible that you can test the accuracy of a rifle, cartridge or load, with any degree of confidence without taking the human factor out, as much as possible. Off hand you test Shootaway--Not the rifle! First things first, test rifle, load, up front--then test Shootaway, saves a lot of time, effort, bullets, and energy.

M

Well said!

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
You've probably seen what recoil can do to a 500gr bullet nose and what the bullet noses can do to the front wall of a magazine.Now,why can't rounds stacked close together smash upwards against the bolt too.

Michaels absolutely correct! Not gunna happin!
I've been reloading for 47 years and have seen lot's of cases that look just like that right after sizing when the case is dented in to begin with, but it happens usually while ejecting. I have had hundreds of cases look like that when ejecting hard.
The other time it happens is if you seat a cast bullet that digs into the edge of the case and pulls it in, but then there is also a bit of the side of the bullet left on the outside of the case. This has peeled off at times to leave that same dent. Are you using cast?

No way will it happen when there is aready a bullet in the case.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
Shootaway you have shown us a photo of just about everything except a loaded round with a dent in the case as you are (or were) asserting is happening to the rounds in the magazine.

Why do I have the feeling we will never see that photo?

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I know things are easier with a scope.I just don't get the same feeling like I do when I use open sights.I feel like one of those guys in a painting where they are stalking dangerous game and the lion or buff or leopard is shown just about to unexpectaedly jump on the hunter or one of the trackers.IMO,a scope would not belong in such a picture.

Shootaway, I don't think anyone is saying you should always use a scope on a big bore when hunting but they are good in some circumstances and especially good when trying out various loadings for accuracy. This especially true if ones eyesight has deteriorated and the use of iron sights is not possible.

Irrespective of whether you wish to use a scope or not, you should be trying to eliminate the human factor as much as possible when trying to test your gun for accuracy.
I use a bipod off a concrete bench at a shooting range when testing loads or checking the sights or scope on my 404J. This is the sort of result you can hope for when doing this under good controlled conditions (3 shots from my 404J at 50m cast bullets at 1800fps)



I don't use a bipod and actually prefer natural rests or shooting off-hand when hunting. I did my buffalo hunting with iron sights.

There is no shame in using a scope and a good bench rest when testing firearms and loads for accuracy and for sighting the rifle in on target with a scope or iron sights. If the rifle is not accurate under these conditions then you have a problem that has to be solved before going any further.

Once everything looks okay off the bench, then and only then, should you shoot in a manner duplicating your hunting style, whether off-hand and with or without a scope. If you have problems with accuracy now, then at least it is not the rifle or the loads that have previously proved themselves off the bench.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I know things are easier with a scope.I just don't get the same feeling like I do when I use open sights.I feel like one of those guys in a painting where they are stalking dangerous game and the lion or buff or leopard is shown just about to unexpectaedly jump on the hunter or one of the trackers.IMO,a scope would not belong in such a picture.

Shootaway

So I suppose I am a putz when I am stalking dangerous game, including leopard, bear, lion, buffalo, elephant and hippo, with my rifles that have either a 1.5X5 Leupold or 1X4 Leupold set at or around 2X? And have taken all those with same said setup, anywhere from 6 ft to 50 yds. So I reckon I am a putz then, and should not be in that "Picture"? OH, and I forgot, my sling is wrapped around my left arm too at the same time!

You have read too many magazines, books, and stories, and having a vision.

Now sights are a personal thing, you shoot very well with irons--at 100 yds, if you do not wish to use a scope in the field, you don't have to. I do, always have, even when my eyesight was much better than it is now. And now my eyesight will not allow me to focus the front sight at all. With glasses I can see the front sight, but can't see the target good enough, with my other glasses I can see the target well, but can't focus the front sight! So.........

In the field I have always found that the scope allowed me to see things I otherwise would not have seen at all, sticks in the way, between me and target for instance. Some years ago I was hunting moose, 1885 single shot, iron sights. Took aim on the shoulder, only about 30 yds or so, shot dead straight through a 3 inch diameter tree, bullet plowed through the tree, hit moose square on the shoulder, reloaded, hit him again, end of story. I never even saw the tree! I cut that tree section out, brought it home with me to remind me of such things. It turned out to be a neat story, but it could have been a disaster as well.

Again, in the field, personal choice, no right or wrong way, there is only the best way for the individual doing the shooting.

On the test range--quite a different story! Bench that rifle, scope it for the best accuracy possible, you are testing the rifle or the load, or bullet, take the human error out. I don't give a damn if you are the best shooter that has ever been in history--you will never live long enough, nor will you ever shoot enough, to beat that bench for accuracy. I suppose I am a putz also because I do a hell of a lot of test work here, daily, weekly, shooting hundreds of rounds, all big bore, I don't tolerate or have interest in small bores or very many mediums, I use the bench for terminals, load data, pressure traces, accuracy, the works, and all are scoped. When I need to test Michael, I go outside and have anything from feet to 150 yds, but since one does not normally hunt DG at 150 yds, I normally shoot from 10 yds to 50 yds from various positions. I also use a scope and a sling!

On the test range if I have a bullet or load that will not shoot 3-5 rds in 1 inch at 50 yds, then I start looking at that very hard, most all the NonCons and Solids I use will put 3 in a hole at 50, very much like the target Eagle27 posted, some much better. I can't do that off hand, so I can't test things proper off hand.

Michael

Michael,

Stealing a quote from Skyline "I read the last couple of pages on this and view it as being very similar to beating your head against the wall. It feels good when you stop."

Michael,what if a hunter sees a lion at 80 or 100 or 120 yds and he is hunting with open sights and is really good with the rifle offhand,should he not shoot? I am sure many here will agree that it only takes 100yds to make a rifle that groups them all in one hole,to spray them all over in that distance.Now,why would that be if everything on the rifle is in order? There is certainly something that disturbed the bullet while in was going down the bore and did caused it to not retain that accuracy the extra 100rds.Was it copper? could be! Was it a round or bullet that was knocked about in the magazine and cased it to lose its concentricity? Could be! Wasn't it Winchester who believed that barrel vibration had an effect on accuracy and introduced the BOSS system for that? How about barrel vibration when the rifle is shot offhand compared to when it's shot off the bench,is it the same? Does it affect accuracy? Wouldn't a bullet that was somehow disturbed before or while it is going down the bore cause increased copper fouling?

Mike



Almost the same effect---I get it, and yes, I know better, but.........................



Ya just keep thinking you might get the point across.........

M