Bullet Ogive Bearing Surface Consistency

[johara1]

You are not measuring bearing surface that way,with that part of the boat tail. You need to measure the oj to the heal of the boat tail, the base just goes along for the ride. You need two of those ends like you have on the nose of the bullet then you can measure the bearing surface. Better yet look at Tubbs BCS.,you will get the idea............jim

 

[mikecr]

Yes, I am assuming your measure is meaningless.
It's a very broad measure that doesn't identify the particular variances.
With it:
You don't know the bearing length.
You don't know the boat tail length, or it's angle, or end diameter.
You don't know the nose length, or meplat diameter, or ogive radius.
You don't know the weight, or jacket thickness variances.
AND, YOU HAVEN'T YET SHOT ANY DIFFERENCE

You assume that these bullets vary in ogive shape, while you have not actually measured ogive shape at all.
You reach further to suggest this would affect seated distance to lands, which is not true.
It's not clear what you're assuming w/regard to world records, but I'll assume it would represent an anomaly from you.

I don't use hornady bullets. I use Lapua, Berger, Jahner, Bib.
But I think shooters here should understand that shortcuts in measurement(like this) don't really lead anywhere.

 

[Redhighpower]

I think that bullet weight difference would be far more important than the Ogive consistency. When you loan a round you measure from the Ogive to the base of the case. A bullet sticking one or three thousands differently in to the case should not matter. Think about it, there is a gap between the powder and the bullet,you load the round the powder will flow to the bullet but there will be an angular gap between the powder and the bullet and case. You cannot controll it , I'm sure that the angular gap is different each time. I think that we get too wrapped up in the monusha. With all we do to improve our reloading, a simple change in the wind ,the angle of the sun, humidity and our ability hold consistently with each round has more effect than all the extreme details in our reloading.

 

[BigDMT]

Yes, I am assuming your measure is meaningless.
It's a very broad measure that doesn't identify the particular variances.
With it:
You don't know the bearing length.
You don't know the boat tail length, or it's angle, or end diameter.
You don't know the nose length, or meplat diameter, or ogive radius.
You don't know the weight, or jacket thickness variances.
AND, YOU HAVEN'T YET SHOT ANY DIFFERENCE

You assume that these bullets vary in ogive shape, while you have not actually measured ogive shape at all.
You reach further to suggest this would affect seated distance to lands, which is not true.
It's not clear what you're assuming w/regard to world records, but I'll assume it would represent an anomaly from you.

I don't use hornady bullets. I use Lapua, Berger, Jahner, Bib.
But I think shooters here should understand that shortcuts in measurement(like this) don't really lead anywhere.

Ok, mikecr, ok. In all fairness. Lets "assume" my measurements mean "nothing". Lets say they don't depict the level of quality control at the bullet manufacturing facilities. Lets say Hornady, although severely lacking in my measurements, could be equal to Lapua and Berger bullets in other areas of measurements.

Now remember that the whole point of this thread is about the lack of quality control at Hornady's bullet manufacturing facility. Not to get specific on technical terms and what not.

I now have weight sorting data.

I kept all the bullets sorted. I randomly grabbed 20 of the Hornady 123gr A-Max bullets and Hornady 140 gr HPBT Match bullets within the .003" tolerance and Berger 130gr VLDs and Lapua 139gr Scenars in an attempt to get a quick visual of whether or not Hornady's lack of quality control is present in other ares of their bullet manufacturing.

The proof is in the pudding my friend : ) Results are below with every weight measurement so you can't "assume" there was just one or two bad bullets.

My results using a GemPro250 scale accurate to +/- .02 grains. They are listed from the most consistent bullet to the least consistent. Which surprisingly matches up with the same consistency order of my measurements! Imagine that!!! : )

Berger 130gr VLD
Low: 129.92 gr
High: 130.12 gr
Spread: 0.2gr

130.02, 130.12, 130.04, 129.96
129.92, 130.06, 129.96, 130.00
130.06, 130.08, 129.98, 130.06
130.04, 129.90, 129.96, 130.08
129.98, 130.00, 129.98, 130.08


Lapua 139gr Scenar
Low: 138.84 gr
High: 139.06 gr
Spread: 0.22 gr

138.92, 139.02, 138.92, 138.84
138.90, 138.92, 138.94, 138.88
138.98, 138.98, 139.00, 138.84
138.94, 138.94, 138.94, 139.06
138.88, 138.96, 139.02, 138.92


Hornady 123gr A-Max
Low: 123.02 gr
High: 123.40 gr
Spread: 0.38 gr

123.02, 123.14, 123.34, 123.10
123.32, 123.08, 123.20, 123.12
123.26, 123.24, 123.26, 123.28
123.22, 123.26, 123.06, 123.20
123.40, 123.08, 123.02, 123.08


Hornady 140gr HPBT Match
Low: 139.90 gr
High: 140.56 gr
Spread: 0.66 gr That's ridiculous just like the measurements!

140.44, 140.38, 140.00, 140.28
140.28, 140.32, 140.44, 140.28
140.34, 140.16, 140.22, 140.56
139.90, 140.38, 140.20, 140.22
140.54, 140.46, 140.42, 140.46


So I ask you all who doubt the conclusion of my measurement test; Did my measurements really mean anything?...or not?

I'm not doing this test to "bash" Hornady bullets. These are just the particular bullets I purchased to test, these are my results, and I'm posting my disappointing results for the Hornady HPBT Match bullets so that those of us who can "shoot the difference" don't waste our time load testing with them.

And don't get me wrong. Hornady A-Max bullets are far more consistent than their "HPBT Match" bullets. So use any of these if you like. Regard or disregard my results. It's totally up to you. How your gun shoots doesn't actually matter to me unless you're firing next to me at the same competition.
So Wayne go ahead and buy some Hornady HPBT Match bullets for your rifle please : ) LOL!

Don't let my "post count" on this particular forum fool you fellas. I'm no novice to the shooting and reloading world. I'm only here to lend my knowledge if it will be received or needed and learn from those who are more advanced than I. Take care : )

Brandon

 

[queen_stick]

Brandon,

I'm in no way trying to take away from your sorting techniques... I do the same that thing you've demonstrated in this thread. I'm also here to learn, and I have done that by reading your posts - Hornady Match bullets are not up to par with other "match" bullets, or even the Hornady Amax's. Now I know, though it may not prevent me from trying them myself down the road

I've always been intrigued with making bullets... one of these days I might make my own, but that's another discussion . Anyway, one of the recent documents I found on the web had some interesting info about weight differences with bullets...

"Consistent core weight is another factor, but not as critical as some would have you believe. For short range benchrest, bullet total weight variances of 2 or 3 tenths of a grain will not be seen on the target. We normally have control of core weight, but different lots of jackets produce bullet weights that may vary by a half grain or more. I have intentionally shot bullets from 2 different lots, that weighed a half grain apart, into the same group with no notable dispersion. "

That's a statement from Bryan Armatys of Zia Bullets. My guess is that the test was done at 100yds, out of a PPC. The finding is interesting though. I wonder how that theory would change if it were tested at 1k yards? I can't say... I never tested something like that myself.

almost forgot... here's the link I pulled that statement from - http://www.benchrest.com/FAQ/1.shtml
It's a good read for anyone interested in rifle accuracy in general, not just bullet making.

 

[jonbearman]

I have read all these disortations and now I have a headache.LOOL I am going to bed.LOL

 

[mikecr]

the whole point of this thread is about the lack of quality control at Hornady's bullet manufacturing facility. Not to get specific on technical terms and what not.

And the whole point of my replies is that you lack the basis to declare any of this..
I think if you shoot the spread, and your barrel likes them, well then you'll feel differently about it. Especially if they happen to shoot better for you than the Bergers.
If your barrel don't like em, then you might generalize it to quality control, but that would still hold as unproven here.

 

[BigDMT]

Well I've always wondered why nobody uses Hornady bullets in 1000 yard competition Mike? My results give me a pretty clear picture as to why.

I don't personally need to do any further testing. I have drawn my own conclusions. I just show my data, everyone else's opinions and conclusions are their own and can be whatever they want.

Thank you all for your input on this thread. It is greatly appreciated as it furthers my shooting knowledge and experience: )

 

[johara1]

I think the real proof is on the target no matter what method you end up with, you will know if it works or not. Small groups in a match or practice give you your answer.I told you what works for me and just to measure them does help but to trim point and measure them does better. That part only a small part of it, i have over 10 targets from 2- 4" 5 shot groups at 1K and good number 5-7" 10 shot targets from last year so i hope i am going in the right direction. My biggest variable is me, i make the most mistakes........jim

 

[fishbone]

Many thanks, BigDMT, for the test results. I appreciate it.
I'm presently testing seating depths on a 6ppc where bullet ogive variation sure comes into play. If it didn't make a difference, why do shooters tune the seating depth.
Good work!

 

[mikecr]

I'm presently testing seating depths on a 6ppc where bullet ogive variation sure comes into play

Why do you think ogive radius variance makes any real difference to seated distance to/into lands?

If it didn't make a difference, why do shooters tune the seating depth

You're talking about two completely different and unrelated things.
Shooters do tune with with seating depth adjustments. They DO NOT tune with bullet measurement comparisons.

A seater stem sets the bullet based on it's datum off the bullet noses, regardless of ogive radius. This is the FRONT of the bullet nose, and not a distance BEHIND the nose. You determine the best seating depth during load development regardless of ogive radius. Again, this is forward of measurements taken here, and w/resp to the lands.
Now, ogive radius does vary. It varies enough to void the tiny discrepancies declared to the world as though extreme by OP.
But it doesn't vary enough to change tune (only BC, due to resulting meplat variance).

 

[johara1]

VLD seating stems are way closer to the ogive than the nose,constant seating length has a lot to do with seating pressure and annealing. I sort by seating depth, how fast and how hard you pull the handle will also change seating depth.........jim

 

[Trevor60]

Interesting read your lapua results with different measuring methods seem to show similar deviations as mine.
I do think what Mikecr is attempting to point out is that the method you have employed while measuring on the ojive does not provide one specific point to measure against. What I mean by that is that your measuring method measures from the ojive to the base of the bullet but does not isolate which part is out from the other segments
Is the boatail short or longer
Is the bearing surface shorter or longer
Is the cone straighter or more curved.
It would be interesting to see if the bullets as batched do show a noticeable difference on paper.
There is a different measuring tool that seems to be able to identify variations that to me have shown on paper sorted vs. un-sorted. Pulling from mikecr’s wording the 2 datums are compared(difference between two different contact points on a nose). http://greensrifles.com/New_Products.html
It is always an interesting read when fellow shooters run test and we appreciate the work..
Now who here weight sorts their bullets….

 

[BigDMT]

Point is there is more variance in both that particular measurement and weights with Hornady bullets vs. Berger and Lapua.

Notice that the order of bullet type's amount of variation in the measurements from LEAST TO MOST was the same exact order of weight variation from LEAST TO MOST.

I'd be willing to bet just about anything that if I took this test further, the amount and order of variations in consistency with any measurement would be almost exactly the same with perhaps only Berger and Lapua exchaning spots in the order a few times.
However, I don't have the tools, nor do I feel the need to purchase the tools, for further testing just to knowingly end up with similar results.
Hornady bullets will never be as consistent as Berger or Lapua in any way unless they do make some big changes in their manufacturing process.
I's like trying to say that Leupold binoculars are as good as Leica or Swarovski. I owned Leupold Golden Ring 10-17X42 Switchpower binoculars. The most expensive Leupold makes. And no matter how hard I tried to convince myself they were in the same league as major European optics companies, they never could quite stack up to Leica or Swarovski. So I now own a set of Leica Ultravid 10X42 binos.
So even though I really do wish Hornady made bullets as consistent as Berger or Lapua, we all know that with Hornadys current manufacturing processes, that will never happen. So I will shoot Berger, like I have for years, or some other custom bullet that proves to be as consistent. Anybody can shoot Hornady if they want. It's totally up to you.[list type=decimal]

[/list]