• 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.

9X Fired Brass, 200 Yards Results - No Mandrel, No Annealing, No Neck Turning, No Tumbeling. Updated MOA

Looks like I did the math incorrectly.

Extreme Spread Multiplied by 100 - (.671 X 100 = 67.1)

Subtract the Caliber of the Bullet - 67.1 - .264 = 66.836

Divide by Target Distance - (66.836 ÷ 300 = .227)

MOA = .227
Exactly what I told you it was the other day ;)
 
9X Fired - 6.5 Creedmoor Lapua Brass.

I wanted to shoot my 9X Fired Brass today because I recieved my delivery of brand new brass. This is the 10th firing with it. It has never been annealed or neck turned. I haven't used a mandrel or tumbled it.

5 shot group - .671" - .227 MOA

I see no reason to add unnecessary steps to your brass when you can get results like this from your 10th firing of 6.5 Brass.

Will be shooting 300 to 500 yards on Friday with the rest of my 9X Fired Brass. No reason to break out the new Lapua yet.
I shoot a Remington 700 in 6mm Remington, it's a crow/chuck rifle, I still have 99% of all the brass I bought when I bought the rifle. I separated 60 cases to start, I shot until the barrel needed replaced, did that and still shooting.

I neck size, load hot and shoot, a great deal of my brass has been shot over 20 times.
 
I shoot a Remington 700 in 6mm Remington, it's a crow/chuck rifle, I still have 99% of all the brass I bought when I bought the rifle. I separated 60 cases to start, I shot until the barrel needed replaced, did that and still shooting.

I neck size, load hot and shoot, a great deal of my brass has been shot over 20 times.
That's awesome.
 
9X Fired - 6.5 Creedmoor Lapua Brass.

I wanted to shoot my 9X Fired Brass today because I recieved my delivery of brand new brass. This is the 10th firing with it. It has never been annealed or neck turned. I haven't used a mandrel or tumbled it.

5 shot group - .671" - .227 MOA

I see no reason to add unnecessary steps to your brass when you can get results like this from your 10th firing of 6.5 Brass.

Will be shooting 300 to 500 yards on Friday with the rest of my 9X Fired Brass. No reason to break out the new Lapua yet.
Dang wish I could shoot that well :oops: after 125 I'm a friggen mess on paper
 
Mr. Wick...Nice shooting! Keep doing what you're doing...because it's working. Not because you read it on the internet, but because you TESTED it for yourself and the results don't lie. They might not be statistically significant to some people but that's all the more reason to just keep doing it until it doesn't work as well as something else...for YOU.

When someone says.."that'll never work", that's motivation to find out if they're right or just parroting what they've read or heard somewhere. Most of my BR "career" has been made up of testing and doing "what will never work." FWIW, I've gone as much as 50 firings on Lapua brass without annealing and that's stepping on the gas hard with it the whole time. The primer pockets were terrible when the necks finally gave out and accuracy suffered. But I'm just a short range shooter, too.

Nevertheless, I respect anyone who does their own testing and walks in their own footprints alone, successfully. This game is chock full of examples of things that "have to be done to win", and even when you prove them wrong, well, it was a fluke or it was the shooter or whatever. You get my point. Kudos to you for actually doing it rather than falling in line like a good foot soldier.
 
Mr. Wick...Nice shooting! Keep doing what you're doing...because it's working. Not because you read it on the internet, but because you TESTED it for yourself and the results don't lie. They might not be statistically significant to some people but that's all the more reason to just keep doing it until it doesn't work as well as something else...for YOU.

When someone says.."that'll never work", that's motivation to find out if they're right or just parroting what they've read or heard somewhere. Most of my BR "career" has been made up of testing and doing "what will never work." FWIW, I've gone as much as 50 firings on Lapua brass without annealing and that's stepping on the gas hard with it the whole time. The primer pockets were terrible when the necks finally gave out and accuracy suffered. But I'm just a short range shooter, too.

Nevertheless, I respect anyone who does their own testing and walks in their own footprints alone, successfully. This game is chock full of examples of things that "have to be done to win", and even when you prove them wrong, well, it was a fluke or it was the shooter or whatever. You get my point. Kudos to you for actually doing it rather than falling in line like a good foot soldier.
Thank you for that post. It's all about learning, testing, practicing, and then passing that knowledge and experience on to those that care to hear it. That's part of the process to me. Sharing what works.
 
Thank you for that post. It's all about learning, testing, practicing, and then passing that knowledge and experience on to those that care to hear it. That's part of the process to me. Sharing what works.
Thank you as well! I fly against the wind a lot, so what I said is me speaking from experience. It's tough to convince people that what seemingly everyone says online MIGHT not be as true as they think. Just do you and test things that you think are worth your time. A lot of what you read is true and a lot is just not.
 
Exactly what I told you it was the other day ;)
Except,, it's not right.
You don't subtract cal, but bullet hole.
Extreme Spread Multiplied by 100 - (.671 X 100 = 67.1)

Subtract the Caliber of the Bullet - 67.1 - .264 = 66.836

Divide by Target Distance - (66.836 ÷ 300 = .227)

MOA = .227
It wasn't 300yds (it was 200), and 66.836/300 is not .227 (it's .222787)(.223).
And what you're trying to define is in inches per hundred yards (IPHY), not minutes of angle (moa).
It was not .227moa

This is how it would work:
GROUP DIAMETER minus HOLE DIAMETER
If hole diameter was actually .264, then .671-.264 = .407 true group

Divide true group by distance ratio: .407/(200/100) for .204 IPHY
Convert IPHY to MOA: .204 x 0.955 for .194 MOA

Now measure actual bullet holes and find that your true group was not .407
 
Except,, it's not right.
You don't subtract cal, but bullet hole.

It wasn't 300yds (it was 200), and 66.836/300 is not .227 (it's .222787)(.223).
And what you're trying to define is in inches per hundred yards (IPHY), not minutes of angle (moa).
It was not .227moa

This is how it would work:
GROUP DIAMETER minus HOLE DIAMETER
If hole diameter was actually .264, then .671-.264 = .407 true group

Divide true group by distance ratio: .407/(200/100) for .204 IPHY
Convert IPHY to MOA: .204 x 0.955 for .194 MOA

Now measure actual bullet holes and find that your true group was not .407
I fixed my math. I've never heard of your method. I will look into it. Thank you.
 
It's not a method/rule of thumb/shortcut. It's what's going on.
You need to understand it so you can do it in your head at the range.

Measure true group
Take it to IPHY
Subtract around 5% of IPHY for MOA
 

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
166,312
Messages
2,216,357
Members
79,554
Latest member
GerSteve
Back
Top