Thanks for the advice. Have you found that these bullets don't like to be Jammed?
I generally don't like to seat bullets into the lands unless they won't shoot jumped. For that reason, I usually test from ~.003" - .006" off, to ~.024" - .027" off
first, then move to testing bullets seated into the lands only if I don't find an acceptable seating depth window off the lands. I have found the vast majority of bullets I use will tune in somewhere within that window (i.e. "jumped"). However, every bullet and caliber is unique, so the only way to know for sure is to test.
It is usually helpful if you can find some information at a forum like Accurate Shooter before actually starting a new load as to what powders have been used and where others have seated bullets successfully, so as to pick a decent starting point. On occasion when starting out with a bullet for which I had no idea whatsoever where it might want to be seated, I have carried out a coarse seating depth test over a reasonable range, to get a rough idea where the bullet wanted to shoot best. I might test something like -.010" (into the lands), -.005", "touching", +.005" (jumped), +.010", +.015", +.020", +.025", and +.030", using a slightly reduced charge weight, and only 3-shot groups to minimize the total number of loaded rounds. This is usually sufficient to get a good idea of where to start, then move into charge weight testing, followed by a finer increment (.003) seating depth test.
On fairly infrequent occasions, I will come across someone that has reported a particular bullet/load required a pretty substantial jump (i.e. from .050" to .100", or even more). My typical approach will not address such instances and frankly, I probably wouldn't continue using a bullet that required such a large jump for a couple reasons. First off, my chambers are all cut with freebores that have been optimized for specific classes (base to ogive/bearing surface lengths) of bullets. Second, seating bullets that far off the lands will likely lead to a noticeable reduction in effective case volume, unless the rifle is chambered with a country mile of freebore. For my purposes (F-TR competition), there are plenty of high BC .224" and .308" bullets to choose from that
will tune in readily using my approach. So I have no real need to waste a lot of time and effort trying to tune in a bullet that requires fairly unusual seating depth requirements, because there are plenty of good choices that aren't so finicky.
If you're in a situation where using a bullet that may be difficult to tune is the only good option, I'd also suggest thinking about using Berger's approach for testing seating depth. It is a coarse seating depth test that covers a very wide seating depth range, and is a good way to find a
seating depth region with which to get started. It was originally intended for use with VLDs, which can sometimes be finicky to tune, but it can used for pretty much any bullet. Note that you still want to go back at some point during load development and fine-tune within the seating depth
region initially identified in the Berger VLD test.
https://bergerbullets.com/getting-the-best-precision-and-accuracy-from-vld-bullets-in-your-rifle/
Snozzberries - during seating depth testing, I would always prefer to see a minimum of two successive .003" seating depth increments that group nice and tight. I always load to the longest (COAL) of the seating depth increments that show tight grouping with jumped bullets to allow for maximum land erosion before seating depth must be re-visited (i.e. I don't load to the "middle" of the optimal seating depth window). With that in mind, various different Lot#s of 168 Hybrids have always tuned in for me between .009" and .015" off the lands. FWIW, I have found the same to be true of all the .30 cal Berger Hybrid bullets I have used (168s, 185s, 200.20Xs, 215s).