Help with "The Flyer"

[Bill Norris]

Flyer Brass Segregation
When, during practice, running sighters, or in a match, I had an unexplained "Flyer", I would put that brass case in a different pile. All this "Flyer" brass was then relegated for fouler shots or varmint use with my 6mmBR.

I noticed, over time, a reduction in flyers. I can't tell you why the "bad boy" brass caused issues, but putting it out of the "good to go" group did help over the course of a season.

I concede that this is NOT science and it may not be repeatable for readers at all.

But this is similar to a procedure I used when bullet seating. If I had a case that felt weird or notably inconsistent when seating bullets with arbor press, I would mark that as a fouler. That procedure did definitely help. Again I can't tell you why, but the results on target were positive when I segregated the seating feel outliers.

I believe there are gains to be realized by culling brass that feels different when seating and the flyer from the group. I agree it's not scientific but my groups are better by sorting out those pieces of brass.

 

[Bronsin]

Flyer Brass Segregation
When, during practice, running sighters, or in a match, I had an unexplained "Flyer", I would put that brass case in a different pile. All this "Flyer" brass was then relegated for fouler shots or varmint use with my 6mmBR.

I noticed, over time, a reduction in flyers. I can't tell you why the "bad boy" brass caused issues, but putting it out of the "good to go" group did help over the course of a season.

I concede that this is NOT science and it may not be repeatable for readers at all.

But this is similar to a procedure I used when bullet seating. If I had a case that felt weird or notably inconsistent when seating bullets with arbor press, I would mark that as a fouler. That procedure did definitely help. Again I can't tell you why, but the results on target were positive when I segregated the seating feel outliers.

The first thing I segregate cases for is wall thickness near the web. If they are more than .002 out, I don't even use them at all. Anything .0015 and lower I keep. I started doing this years ago when my .300WM was throwing strange shots. Kept that brass to see what I could find later on, and all of them were banana shaped much more than the cases that shot well. The length of the case and it's intended use can set the limits on what an individual may set as their own limits for acceptance.

Just for comparison, I have a new lot of Lapua .220 Russian. 25 were less than .001, 69 were less than .002, and seven were .002. My Norma brass was just 2 at .002, and the rest varied all the way to .006! Yeah, that stuff is getting circular filed. Surprisingly, my newest batch of Winchester .223 has 55 of them at .001 or less, 26 at .0015, and 18 at .002+. Stellar for that rounds uses.

 

[bozo699]

I believe there are gains to be realized by culling brass that feels different when seating and the flyer from the group. I agree it's not scientific but my groups are better by sorting out those pieces of brass.

Agree Bill
Wayne

 

[Flea21]

Alright everyone I have an update…

First off, the .308 Winchester…
I haven’t gone to range to shoot because it’s a 1.5hr drive to get to the nearest range for rifles out here. That being said, I took measurements of the 308 Winchester rifle using the same modified case and projectile I’ve used since the rifles birth. Here’s what I got for CBTO 2.270 and COAL 2.852. Coincidentally enough, this is the same measurement I took a year ago and I’d say approximately 300 rounds ago being that I haven’t shot much in the past year.

Then I measured the remaining 83 or so rounds I have left that I didn’t finish the other day and I found some very interesting data. It turns out that when measuring each round’s CBTO I was getting about .005 runout but also two separate groups, one ranging from 2.016-2.023 CBTO (those made up 75 Rounds) and then there were 8 rounds that ranged from 2.241-2.244 CBTO. This seemed VERY odd considering they are ranged around the COAL I desired which is 2.825 (they vary slightly considering the tips are not perfect an exact).

I broke down one round of each batch and got similar BTO measurements .650 and .644 but the real major difference was the OAL measurement which was 1.251and 1.224.

This is a major variance that clearly leads to more jump to the lands and also pressures as well. Clearly I must’ve been seating to an OAL and not CBTO and also I have not sorted my projectiles either. Had I done that, I’m certain I would have caught this and also would have made ammo that is truly consistent. I’m not saying that this is the culprit entirely, but this is one variable that I wasn’t aware of.

I have since sorted the loaded rounds by their CBTO and am just gonna shoot these and start fresh measuring all my projectiles and sorting them.

Secondly, the 22-250…
This one has all the ammo consistent, and all measurements accounted for. After receiving all your responses, I think this rifle could benefit from a little slower load and work up in .2 or .3 grain increments.


Lastly, I think there was more going on in the 308 than the 22-250 but I think both could benefit from a slightly lighter load. So I think dropping the charges by 1-1.5grs and working up in .2 or .3 grain increments to find something that I have better control over couldn’t hurt. Also, working on my technique as well and recording myself shooting couldn’t hurt either, so I plan to do that too. I think having the chronograph there certainly helps a lot as well too because it measures what the ammo is doing and I can take that back with me and share with y’all to study the results.

Once again, I appreciate the tips and look forward to hearing back what y’all think about those findings and also sharing with everyone once I get a chance to shoot these two again implementing the changes.

 

[jelenko]

Wait - are you saying that 8 rounds were 2/10's of an inch longer than the other 75?

 

[Flea21]

Wait - are you saying that 8 rounds were 2/10's of an inch longer than the other 75?

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And, that’s the rounds from what was left over. There were 100+ rounds that I fired which I have no clue how many more of these existed. But the left over rounds clearly 8 of these rounds that make no sense whatsoever.

 

[jelenko]

For CBTO to vary almost a quarter inch either they are different bullets or the seater came loose/was changed or, maybe, malfunctioning in some way.

 

[Coyotefurharvester]

Agree, have not seen cbto vary that much. The cbto is the important measurement. Does still concern me that the center of the group(scope zero if you are using same aiming point) moves and you have not adjusted the scope turrets between groups.

 

[Flea21]

I seems like a bad batch of 308 projectiles for sure.. very weird.

 

[PigButtons]

@R700Shooter ,
If I read your post above correctly, you don't do length testing as part of your system of load development. Here's a thread of mine on that subject. Just wanted to let you know that it can make a difference.

Thanks for coaching me to success with seating depth for accuracy

A couple of weeks ago there was a thread on how important seating depth is to accuracy. I had never given it much thought because I had always found that loading to SAMMI spec and adjusting powder charges could get me to 1/4 to 1/2 MOA even if it took a couple of powder or bullet changes to get...

forum.accurateshooter.com

 

[Flea21]

@R700Shooter ,
If I read your post above correctly, you don't do length testing as part of your system of load development. Here's a thread of mine on that subject. Just wanted to let you know that it can make a difference.

Thanks for coaching me to success with seating depth for accuracy

A couple of weeks ago there was a thread on how important seating depth is to accuracy. I had never given it much thought because I had always found that loading to SAMMI spec and adjusting powder charges could get me to 1/4 to 1/2 MOA even if it took a couple of powder or bullet changes to get...

forum.accurateshooter.com

I do length testing but I don’t do that to the projectiles.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Although it depends to some extent on the bullet manufacturer, bullet OAL within a single Lot# will typically vary around -.015" to .020" or so. In my hands, the majority of that OAL variance resides in the nose region (i.e. not the boattail or bearing surface). That becomes important with respect to consistent seating depth. Nose length variance between the two critical contact points (1) where the seating die stem contacts the bullet out near the meplat, and (2) where the caliper insert seats during cartridge base-to-ogive (CBTO) measurement will also cause seating depth variance. Because the majority of bullet OAL variance typically occurs in the nose region, you can improve seating depth consistency within a given Lot# of bullets simply by sorting bullets using OAL. It is not perfect, but you will generally end up with more consistent seating depth by doing so.

According to your numbers, it seems like you had at least .228" CBTO variance among the loaded rounds you checked. Considering that it is not uncommon to test seating depth in .003" increments, that is grossly excessive. Checking your die and press setup for any anomalies would be a good idea at this point. Secondly, I would recommend checking CBTO for each loaded round until you are convinced you are getting consistent seating depth. This is critical for at least two reasons. First, seating depth variance of that magnitude with a single charge weight can have a huge effect on velocity/pressure...possibly sufficient to create safety issues under the right circumstances. Secondly, there is no telling exactly how much such seating depth variance will degrade precision/accuracy, but I can assure you the effect won't be good. Hopefully by addressing the seating depth inconsistency, you will also find the number of "flyers" will decrease substantially. By analogy, seating depth variance that large would be similar to shooting individual groups with 2 or 3 different brands of factory ammunition, and expecting good precision. Even if correcting the seating depth variance doesn't totally eliminate the flyers, it improves the odds of finding the real culprit that is causing them significantly.

Edited to add: you mentioned that when measuring CBTO you were getting "runout". For clarification, I am not sure how you can detect runout when measuring CBTO. The term "runout" is used to indicate seated bullets that are not concentric with respect to the case longitudinal axis (i.e. not perfectly straight). A concentricity gauge is necessary to measure total indicated runout (TIR). Perhaps you meant seating depth or CBTO length variance instead of runout?

 

[Bronsin]

I do length testing but I don’t do that to the projectiles.

What are you testing the length of?

 

[Flea21]

I appreciate everyone’s input on this thread, it’s been very helpful. After realizing there is no doubt some error on my part and also some inconsistent components, I found it was best to eliminate as many variables as possible by rebuilding the ammo from the ground up on both of these rifles.

Therefore, here’s what I did to the brass on both calibers… First off, I full length resized them bumping the shoulders .002” and then mandrel expanded the necks (308 Win to .3055” and the 22-250 to .222”). After that I trimmed the brass (308 Win to 2.010” and 22-250 to 1.900”) and after that I de-burred and chamfered the case necks as well as uniformed the primer pockets and slightly chamfered those as well with a crimp tool. Then I turned the necks slightly to 0.014 on both calibers to make everything uniform. Finally, I annealed both calibers using a Giraud Annealer and then I full length resized them again and then mandrel expanded the necks (3.055 for 308 Win and .222 for 22-250).

Now the brass is ready to load and all measurements are documented and accounted for so there’s less unknown variables. As far as primers go, I switched to Federal #210 Large Rifle Primers on both calibers.

Before loading I took chamber measurements on my rifles. The 308 Win has a max COAL of 2.852” and CBTO of 2.270 using a Sierra MatchKing #2275 175gr HPBT. The 22-250 has a max COAL of 2.458” and CBTO of 2.118” using a Sierra MatchKing #1410 52gr HPBT. (Note: These measurements were taken using a Hornady guage with a modified case that was fired in these respective rifles that was full length resized with the shoulder bumped .002”).

After doing all that I finally made it to the point of reconfiguring my load in these rifles and following is what those look like…

308 Winchester
I measured the maximum internal case capacity which is 55.26gr.

(Note: When I entered that into the QuickLOAD software the numbers I was getting from the last range session were almost spot on as far as FPS goes, so that definitely was enlightening. However, considering the wacky seating depth measurements I was getting, there’s no way to tell what was what).

I made 5 load of 5 rounds each load. My starting charge is 41.5gr of IMR 4064 and working up each load in 0.03gr increments to a max load of 42.70gr. The CBTO on is 2.245” with a COAL of 2.830”. The neck tension on these is .0025” and the necks have .0005 to .00175 runout at 0.336” overall neck thickness with a seated bullet. (Note: I believe the added runout to be induced from turning the necks and expect this to improve after fire forming considering they were .0005” - .0001” before turning).

(Note: This rifle is a blueprinted Remington 700 Action with a PTG Bolt with a 24” K&P Barrel at 1:11.25” 6 Groove RH Twist by LongRifles, Inc. Sitting in a Manners T4-A with Mini Chassis Stock and Badger Ordinance 20MOA Rail and Vortex PST 6-24x50 FFP Scope with Vortex 30MM PMR Rings)


22-250
I measured the maximum internal case capacity which is 44.50gr.

(Note: When I entered that into the QuickLOAD software the numbers I was getting from the last range session were almost spot on as far as FPS goes, so that definitely was enlightening. The measurements on these rounds were more documented at the time however, the brass was not worked to the point it is now and I have more data going into it this time around).

I made 4 loads of 5 rounds each load with 3 different seating depths per load for a total of 60rds. My starting charge is 34.80gr of H4895 and working up in 0.03gr increments to a max load of 35.70gr.

The CBTO and COAL on each 15rd batch is as follows…
5Rds - CBTO 2.025” COAL 2.375” (These have 0.093” jump to the lands)
5Rds - CBTO 2.050” COAL 2.400” (These have 0.068” jump to the lands)
5Rds - CBTO 2.075” COAL 2.425” (These have 0.043” jump to the lands)

The neck tension on these is .0025” and the necks have .0005 to .00175 runout at 0.252” overall neck thickness with a seated bullet. (Note: I believe the added runout to be induced from turning the necks and expect this to improve after fire forming considering they were .0005” - .0001” before turning).

(Note: This rifle is a factory Remington 700 with a 1:14” RH twist 26” barrel. Sitting in a Manners T2-A Elite with Mini Chassis Stock and an EGW 0MOA Rail and Vortex Diamondback 6-24x50 FFP Scope with Vortex 30MM PMR Rings)

OKAY!! Finally, the moment of truth to the million dollar question awaits me, “Was this all worth it?!” I plan on going to the range this Thursday, God willing of course, to find out. I’ll update everyone with the results as I anticipate to gather some very meaningful and useful data.

In the meantime, if you made it this far down the rabbit hole with me, I’d like to hear your thoughts on anything else I may have overlooked that may improve things further or eliminate another variable.

Thanks again for reading and sharing your knowledge with me.

 

[INTJ]

You are on the right track. You did a bunch of stuff you didn't need to, but that is how we find what works best--leave nothing on the table. A couple of observations:

1. There is no such thing as a flyer. Group size is group size.

2. If you are shooting from a stable position, where the crosshairs are dead steady every time you pull the trigger; then the shooting technique isn't a factor. The type of target you use can help quite a bit with that.

3. As long as you are shooting in mild wind or better conditions when developing a load, then wind isn't much of a factor.

4. If the barreled action isn't bedded terribly, then the bedding isn't much of an issue

5. Same with the scope. If it is working normally it won't be much of a factor.

6. Assuming all the above is working properly, and most shooters who are thoughtful solve all the above, the biggest factors are barrel and load.

A bad barrel won't shoot anything well. A big indicator of that is when 2 or 3 known accuracy loads all shoot poorly. Carbon fiber barrels are much more likely to be bad than steel barrels.

A good barrel is usually a from a quality barrel maker and it is chambered straight.

All that said, even good barrels will not shoot every load well. My 33-28 Nosler is an example. It has a very good barrel that I chambered myself. It's group sizes ranged from 1/2" to 3" at 100 yds during initial load development, depending on bullet and powder.

Sorting brass and bullets ahead are time consuming but will eliminate variables. Also, precise powder charges and consistent seating depths are critical.

7. Oh yeah, make sure your action screws and scope screws are properly torqued, and check them frequently.

 

[JFrank]

I like the fire formed modified case but why bump the shoulder ?

Note: These measurements were taken using a Hornady guage with a modified case that was fired in these respective rifles that was full length resized with the shoulder bumped .002”).

 

[AlNyhus]

You need two things before you can make any evaluations:
1. Wind flags
2. Better control of your hand loading consistency

If you don't use #1, then #2 won't matter much.

Good shootin' -Al

 

[Flea21]

I like the fire formed modified case but why bump the shoulder ?

I do this so that the modified case is exactly the same as my cases ready to load.

 

[JFrank]

I do this so that the modified case is exactly the same as my cases ready to load.

Yep’
But your modified case is now a minimum of .002 shorter then the chamber that the tool was created for.
Moving forward, just leave it fully fire formed and marked as such.

 

[INTJ]

Yep’
But your modified case is now a minimum of .002 shorter then the chamber that the tool was created for.
Moving forward, just leave it fully fire formed and marked as such.

Jim,

I would be careful of using an unsized case. With a COAL case that is bumped .002", all you have to do is add .002" to your reading, if it's really that that important. As long as we have a consistent measurement we are fine, even if what we think is .020" off the lands is really .022".

However, a COAL case that doesn't easily fit in the chamber can hang up too short and we can wind up with readings that are .050" too long. These can be very consistent as well--ask me how I know.......