Neck sizing vs full length

[INTJ]

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.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

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???

 

[Straightshooter1]

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???

Probably has a lot to do with custom chambers . . .???

 

[rwj]

Probably has a lot to do with custom chambers . . .???

Nah... gotta be weight sortin primers!

 

[davidjoe]

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???

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.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

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.

 

[johara1]

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

 

[INTJ]

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.

 

[Nature Boy]

Friends don't let friends neck size

 

[INTJ]

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.

 

[johara1]

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

 

[INTJ]

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.

 

[johara1]

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

 

[Straightshooter1]

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."

 

[David Milisock]

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

I find bench rest/target shooting tedious and boring, however the techniques are many times useful, when followed incrementally they always lead to a point where effort verses return on that effort converge and then separate.

I could list dozens of little things that help a rifle and load shoot better that are safe, simple and really return results that came from the bench game. Then more that have near zero effect on hits on target in the field but are talked about just as much. Field shooting is a different situation, I'm sure I'm not the best but I've been successful at ranges starting at the end of my arm to just over 1,500 yards.

Unless you don't know how to set your dies properly I would not list full length sizing verses neck sizing on the real gain column either way you size them.

If I have issues with mixing my loads with the same caliber rifles I figure I'll need my butt kicked, it's never happened in over 5 decades.

I do think that neck sizing seems to extend the life of brass which is why I do it. Hammering 6MM Remington cases with 65,000 PSI max loads, (many pieces in excess of 20 times some maybe 30 times) over the last 30 years has convinced me of that. The load pushes a 75 grain VMAX at 3,900 FPS, prints regulary 1 1/16" at 300 yards if I don't have too much coffee. On dozens of occasions on the same range visit it has printed multiple 300 yard groups I could cover with a dime, when I don't have loads of stress or have too much coffee and do my part. I do heat test all my loads in excess of the temperature they will be shot at so there are no surprises.

This combo has wacked crows out to 600 yards, on more than 1 occasion, I only count 1 shot 1 kill. So I find the discussion on neck or full length sizing less than enlightening .

With that said I do find the nonchalant nature of the over pressure loads, enlightening and not in a good way.

 

[1911nut]

Exactly how were you full length sizing?

I use a Redding FL bushing die, bumping the shoulders ~0.002”. All loads were Lapua brass, necks turned, same size bushing.

The loads shot good, just that groups in the 0’s and 1’s were less frequent when full length sized.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

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

Early in the morning before the thermals change is your window where I live. Not much wind until about 10:30 am unless a storm is moving in or heading out.
Nothing BS about it. I have way too much evidence on paper of great groups at 100 from many different rifles that won’t stay together at long range to change my view on this subject so I fully stand by my statement.

I’m not saying that I haven’t had rifles shoot great in 100 yard testing then also shoot great at long range, but I’ve had enough groups fool me at 100 yards that I don’t even mess with testing at that range anymore. Maybe not everyone agrees and that’s fine, but there are plenty of well established competitive long range shooters that would agree with me.

I have had most of my 300 yard groups maintain very similar accuracy farther out. Still, the farther out you test, the better you can see the true characteristics of a load.

 

[INTJ]

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."

Three and a half tenths is awfully tight clearance. I don't think anyone in LR BR runs that tight. The range for neck clearance is usually .002" - .004" for the 6mms.

 

[INTJ]

I use a Redding FL bushing die, bumping the shoulders ~0.002”. All loads were Lapua brass, necks turned, same size bushing.

The loads shot good, just that groups in the 0’s and 1’s were less frequent when full length sized.

Did you try to adjust the tune when FL sizing to see if you could get back to where you were?

 

[Jennb]

Can anybody play? FL sized with Redding bushing die. 1000 yard FTR womens National record
200-13x with a .308
5” X ring