• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Neck sizing vs full length

It's not the old rifle that makes rifle reloading unsafe it's the unsafe reloader and rifleman.
I own a Remington 1917 sporterized in 06, 2 03's in 06 a Springfield and Remington. I had McGowan build a 358 Norma on a Remington 03, a 64,000 PSI cartridge and Mike Burris build a custom 450 Marlin on a Mauser 98 for 60,000 PSI Loads with 500 grain projectiles. I also have newer Remington 700 actions and a Howa running at or near 65,000 PSI. Numerous semi auto's in various calibers. My 96 Mauser in 6.5 x 55 is the low pressure bolt rifle in my cabinet as they only proof at 65,900 PSI.
I understand the need to respect the steel, the brass and the burning properties of powder. I started loading with my old man in 1966, loaded and shot around 25,000 rounds a year for nearly 2 decades in shotgun competition, all sorts of reloading for rifles and handguns since then, untold rounds.
I'll say it here like I told my son and now his son, USE YOUR HEAD, read the brass, organize you loading bench. Act on any signs that somethings wrong. Conditions change so note the conditions that were safe on this day.
This stuff of tapping closed or tapping open bolts WILL NOT be taught in my family.
I agree with you on "not the rifle, it's the reloader" that's the problem. The reloader also needs to account for the condition of his rifle. What I said sounded more like a blanket statement against old rifles. Not true. I reload for a bunch of Mausers, Mosin's, and 1880's-1890's rifles. One of the things about a Mauser 98 model (of many kinds) is they have a gas escape path that modern rifles don't duplicate. A nice feature, but one shouldn't be tempted to use it.

As that pertains to this thread, one reason I try for the lowest accuracy node possible is for that reason with both modern and old. I find I'm never pushing the brass to a point of failure and am able to inspect it well enough that I can find issues on the reload bench instead of on the shooting bench. I load for brass fitting and not moving. I'm typically one to two grains below what my shooting partner uses in approximately the same bullet
 
To answer your question before it got sidetracked by old school short range shooters....I feel fairly confident in saying most all of the people I know in Fclass FLS....my guess is the same for LR BR....I don't shoot PRS but if I did, I would FLS every time.
I think fair portion of the PRS guys buy loaded ammo. If you aren't FL sizing for an event on the clock you are begging for trouble.

If your brass is dedicated to one barrel then you will likely not have problems with stuck cases if you neck size; however, if you have more than one reamer cutting your chambers, and/or you have more than one rifle or barrel in the same chambering then I garondamntee that unless you have the most amazing system of storing and sorting that I've ever seen, then you will at some point get a case from one rifle mixed in with the other and if it wasn't FL sized it will stick. (based on the number of times I've had to spin my scope pole top off for other people I'm pretty sure that)

Personally, I have >1000 cases in rotation for my F-TR rifles right now. That's more than normal, but I have to have 500ish to load to ship to South Africa for the matches there that I won't get back, and I just loaded and shipped 500 to PHX for the FCNC there this month so somewhere around 1000 is that I need today. I have more barrels that I can recall w/o counting that could be put into play throated for different bullets. My reamer has been cutting my barrels for about 7 yrs now and I'm pretty certain that today it doesn't cut the exact same chamber it cut in 2013. There is no way I am doing anything other than FL sizing.
 
Yeah I think FL sizing in PRS would be just as important because those guys are running around dusty fields and structures and shooting from all positions. Wouldn’t want a super tight body fit on the case if you had a little dust or dirt on the ammo or in the chamber.
 
^^ Agree XTR. Maybe it bears saying explicitly that FLS doesn’t make rounds - in and of themselves - more accurate, or brass last longer - unless they were too tight fitting before it was done. In this regard it IS rather different from nearly all other prep steps like annealing, barrel cleaning, bullet sorting or charge weighing, that draw a straight line to smaller groups or longer life.

It’s done for the stability of rifle when cycled, interchangeability of rounds between barrels, and life span of the action lugs. It is not an entirely benign operation, especially when excessive. If you FLS when it actually didn’t need to be done, then indeed you did not gain any of those benefits, that time. It is fair to say that in at least some guns, brass, especially when new, does not need to be FLS’d every firing.
 
Last edited:
I think fair portion of the PRS guys buy loaded ammo. If you aren't FL sizing for an event on the clock you are begging for trouble.

If your brass is dedicated to one barrel then you will likely not have problems with stuck cases if you neck size; however, if you have more than one reamer cutting your chambers, and/or you have more than one rifle or barrel in the same chambering then I garondamntee that unless you have the most amazing system of storing and sorting that I've ever seen, then you will at some point get a case from one rifle mixed in with the other and if it wasn't FL sized it will stick. (based on the number of times I've had to spin my scope pole top off for other people I'm pretty sure that)

Personally, I have >1000 cases in rotation for my F-TR rifles right now. That's more than normal, but I have to have 500ish to load to ship to South Africa for the matches there that I won't get back, and I just loaded and shipped 500 to PHX for the FCNC there this month so somewhere around 1000 is that I need today. I have more barrels that I can recall w/o counting that could be put into play throated for different bullets. My reamer has been cutting my barrels for about 7 yrs now and I'm pretty certain that today it doesn't cut the exact same chamber it cut in 2013. There is no way I am doing
I have posted the following before. I think it helps provide perspective.

I think the history of that knowledge is something like this. When bolt action rifles seriously hit the scene they were built as battle rifles. Reliability was an extremely important consideration. Reliability is why Mauser developed controlled round feed. Another big part of reliability is designing cases that always feed and extract. So cases were on the small side, chambers were on the large side, and freebore was enough to make sure there were no issues. That is still often the case with factory rifles and even some customs.

As benchrest came on the scene after WWII, the focus became on how to shoot as small of groups as possible. Reliability, though important, wasn't anywhere nearly as critical as with battle and even hunting rifles. The benchrest approach was taken up by hobby shooters and hunter as well. The initial way that was taught was to completely FL size the case, meaning the shellholder touched the die during sizing. This made the cases min spec in what was usually a max spec chamber.

One of the ways they found to improve accuracy was to make the case a custom fit with the chamber. They initially thought that making the case fit as closely as possible would help the most in accuracy. So they started neck-only sizing, along with developing a load and adjusting seating dept to get closer to the lands. And of course accuracy did indeed improved over the small case/large chamber battle/hunting ammo/basic reloading approach. I think that is where the idea came that neck-only sizing improved accuracy.

I went through a similar journey. When I became serious about reloading, the idea was still out there that neck-only sizing was the most accurate. Of course, after three firings, sometimes two, I'd get sticky extraction and would have to FL size. I, like others, began to notice the accuracy didn't fall off when partially FL sizing those cases cases that were sticky. That's when I learned that many just bumped the shoulders .002" all the time.

When I started LR BR shooting in 2005 I thought that they'd all tell me to neck-only size, but I found that every one of my fellow competitors bumped the shoulders each sizing and had been doing it that way for some time. I subsequently learned that even more clearance was better and that is why I bump my 6mm BRA cases .002-.003", and my custom die is almost as tight as a small base die--like almost everyone else I shoot with.

So compared to completely FL sizing, where we make the case min spec and then shoot it in a max spec chamber, neck-only sizing may well improve group sizes. However, when we bump the shoulder, we still get a custom fit but have enough clearance to avoid the sticky extraction issues and wind up with more consistency in our group sizes.
 
Here’s another snake in the pen to get the chicken coupe all riled up:
Many LR BR shooters have stopped annealing brass...

FL sizing, no annealing, not checking concentricity...how in the world are these guys still shooting smaller and smaller aggs??? :eek:

There’s a lot of assumptions about accuracy, especially short range loads, that are not borne out on paper. We just don’t often choose to waste valuable resources exploring the fringes of materiality in reloading steps.

I have taken a pair of pliers to bullets, seated at grossly different depths and neck tensions, and loaded charges to different weights, with shocking (non)results to 200 yards. Virtually none at 100. Consistency does matter more as the distance increases, though.

At long range, figuring out where to aim to often shoot clean is 20 times harder (and rarer) than devising a gun and loads that are capable of it. This becomes evident when the 9’s are right and left of the 10, but they do not go away.
 
Last edited:
There’s a lot of assumptions about accuracy, especially short range loads, that are not borne out on paper. We just don’t often choose to waste valuable resources exploring the fringes of materiality in reloading steps.

I have taken a pair of pliers to bullets, seated at grossly different depths and neck tensions, and loaded charges to different weights, with shocking (non)results to 200 yards. Virtually none at 100. Consistency does matter more as the distance increases, though.

At long range, figuring out where to aim to often shoot clean is 20 times harder (and rarer) than devising a gun and loads that are capable of it. This becomes evident when the 9’s are right and left of the 10, but they do not go away.
Yeah I don’t even test loads at 100 yards with long range rifles anymore. Doesn’t tell me anything about what the load is really doing or where the true nodes are located.

For the last couple years I have been testing all of my long range rifle loads at 500 yards.The information on how a load is acting in my rifles is infinitely more valuable than any results seen at 100. Of course the further you go, the better the info. One top shooter I know tests everything at 871 yards. Others I know only test at 600 and 1K.

I’ve had screamer one hole cluster groups at 100 yards in the past turn out to be struggling to get inside 1 MOA at 500 yards and beyond. Now I don’t shoot any groups at 100 yards with long range rifles because it’s a complete waste of time and money in my opinion. No good way to see if a group is actually vertically or horizontally stringing at 100. Even 200 yard testing, although better than 100 yard testing, can still be deceiving.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I don’t even test loads at 100 yards with long range rifles anymore. Doesn’t tell me anything about what the load is really doing or where the true nodes are located.

For the last couple years I have been testing all of my long range rifle loads at 500 yards.The information on how a load is acting in my rifles is infinitely more valuable than any results seen at 100. Of course the further you go, the better the info. One top shooter I know tests everything at 871 yards. Others I know only test at 600 and 1K.

I’ve had screamer one hole cluster groups at 100 yards in the past turn out to be struggling to get inside 1 MOA at 500 yards and beyond. Now I don’t shoot any groups at 100 yards with long range rifles because it’s a complete waste of time and money in my opinion. Absolutely no way to see if a group is actually vertically or horizontally stringing at 100. Even 200 yard testing, although better than 100 yard testing, can still be deceiving.


I beg to differ with you, All I do is load development at 100 and shoot 1000 and it works for me. you try to shoot a ten shot group around here it will be big, the conditions vary too much to try to do load development at 1000. Don't spread BS. that isn't fact, maybe out west it may be different. Plus I don't know of one good long range shooter that doesn't full length size .... jim
 
Probably has a lot to do with custom chambers . . .??? :)

Custom chambers aren't going to show a preference for annealing or not. In my own limited testing, annealing makes no difference in accuracy at least up to six firings. The reason I anneal is to extend brass life. Also, I think it's slightly more consistent when seating bullets. That said, I do not have a strong view either way. The important thing is to be consistent in our loading process.
 
Last edited:
At long range, figuring out where to aim to often shoot clean is 20 times harder (and rarer) than devising a gun and loads that are capable of it. This becomes evident when the 9’s are right and left of the 10, but they do not go away.

That isn't true in LR BR. Tuning to BR standards is at least as hard as correcting for the wind if not more so in all but the worst conditions. That is because we compete for both group and score. It's possible to shoot a good score with a mediocre tuned load, but it's not possible to shoot a good group agg with a mediocre tune.
 
That isn't true in LR BR. Tuning to BR standards is at least as hard as correcting for the wind if not more so in all but the worst conditions. That is because we compete for both group and score. It's possible to shoot a good score with a mediocre tuned load, but it's not possible to shoot a good group agg with a mediocre tune.

Plus they are shooting at a much bigger ten ring, and their X ring is almost as big as our 10 ring..... jim
 
I beg to differ with you, All I do is load development at 100 and shoot 1000 and it works for me. you try to shoot a ten shot group around here it will be big, the conditions vary too much to try to do load development at 1000. Don't spread BS. that isn't fact, maybe out west it may be different. Plus I don't know of one good long range shooter that doesn't full length size .... jim

I agree. While I prefer to tune at long range, and I do take advantage of tuning day before a match of one is offered, I have had great luck having my 200 yds be very reflective of my 600 and 1000 yd loads. For that to work, I shoot five shot groups at 200 and every shot is chronoed. I have found I need 5-shot groups that average 3/8" or better at 200 yds with the 6BRA. I occasionally will even get a 1/4" group, which is the standard for a NBRSA screamer group at 200 out of a short range rifle.
 
I agree. While I prefer to tune at long range, and I do take advantage of tuning day before a match of one is offered, I have had great luck having my 200 yds be very reflective of my 600 and 1000 yd loads. For that to work, I shoot five shot groups at 200 and every shot is chronoed. I have found I need 5-shot groups that average 3/8" or better at 200 yds with the 6BRA. I occasionally will even get a 1/4" group, which is the standard for a NBRSA screamer group at 200 out of a short range rifle.

Around here you need wind flags to control the conditions that you shoot in. I use the Labradar to get speed and ES. plus I want it to repeat. If the load isn't getting pushed around by the wind it will hammer at 600 and 1000. Barrel quality comes into play big time at long range and short too .... jim
 
Custom chambers aren't going to show a preference for annealing or not. In my own limited testing, annealing makes no difference in accuracy at least up to six firings. The reason I anneal is to extend brass life. Also, I think it's slightly more consistent when seating bullets. That said, I do not have a strong view either way. The important thing is to be consistent in our loading process.
It's not about chambers showing a preference for annealing or not. It's that with the right dimensions and attention to detail there's not going to be much work being done on the brass where one may even not have to size the necks after firing. Therefore, not annealing required to extend brass life. . . for the most part.

See this part of the Secrets of the Houston Warehouse article:

"Virgil did not size his case necks. With about .00035" clearance on all sides between the loaded round and chamber neck, the natural spring-back of the brass, in combination with his neck preparation, correctly gripped the bullets. Some other warehouse shooters, including T.J. Jackson, followed the same practice.

Cases, however, did wear out. Virgil estimated that a case would no longer grip and “snap” to his satisfaction when it had been recycled 20 to 25 times. It was then discarded."
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,970
Messages
2,207,631
Members
79,255
Latest member
Mark74
Back
Top