Bullet pointing measuring OAL or other methods for more consistent bullets

[Trevor60]

Hi

I am having a friendly discussion about bullet pointing with a fellow competitor and was wondering if anyone could shed some light on the matter.

We go about the process differently one person sorts by OAL batches them to the nearest 1,000th and point the similar bullets believing that this way keeps all of them the same

The other measures the bullets base to ojive and ojive to tip and batches them into different groups, the bullet is then trimmed ­to an avg OAL and pointed

What is causing the debate is that one is of the mind that measuring them to the same OAL will have the same bullet tip dia .060 and can then be pointed down to the same reduced dia.030

The other contends that no matter what length of bullet because the bullets are swaged on the same die the ogive radius will be the same and whether or not one bullet is 1.50 with a .050 point and another is 1.484 with a 0.60 dia point by trimming them both to 1.484 the meplat will be the same dia at the 1.484 length and pointing them will get the same reduced point .30 with a consistent OAL.

Where we seem to differ is the OAL of both bullets. With two different lengths they will have different finished dia and by trimming the bullet back to the shorter OAL the bullet will have the same dia. Were as the other believe even the longer OAL 1.50 bullet has the same meplat .dia as the short one which means pointing a trimmed 1.484 vs. a bullet that was 1.484 out of the box will have two different finished points.

1.50 length meplat dia .050 trimmed to 1.484 dia .060 vs.
1.50 length meplat dia .060 trimmed to 1.484 dia .070

1.484 out of box meplat dia .060

We are both willing to abandon our current methods if the other is proven to be correct.

We both have had success in competitions but are trying to better our game.

Your help is much appreciated.

Thanks

Trevor

 

[Leaddog]

Trevor-

You'll get many answers to your question.

For me, I am only concerned with bullet base to ogive when sorting and cartridge base to ogive with the loaded rounds. With this, I can easily adjust my distance off or in the lands.

I trim and point some of my bullets just to clean them up, but the ogive measurement is what is important. I shoot Berger's and gave up on weighing them. They are that good. Recently, I've shot some Sierra 107's that needed nothing. I think Sierra is stepping up with better bullets.

 

[madderg]

If you trim them all to the same length...I know the extra step IS time consuming, then the point will all be the same. I do that to all except my Fowler 117 30 cal... the are the same to begin with and come out great, a close second is the Sierra 6.5 107's

 

[hoverp]

Trevor, I am in the exact same dilemma.

I just bought the Hoover pointing die and meplat trimmer.

I don't know the most consistant way to proceed.

 

[JohnW...ski]

I have tried various methods to sort bullets for trimming, pointing and have just plain sorted them by ogive length. I do not shoot 1000 yards or even 600 yards but shooting from a bench during load development I do see small but significent differences in group size at 200 and 300 yards. For me it came down to the issue of how much I wanted to measure and re- measure the bullets. Trimming has not been as consistant as I would like using a Giraud trimmer, the bullets seem to register on the ogive so by measuring the ogive and sorting by length consistency can be maintained but I have to sort and segregate by length of ogive. In the end I feel there ends up being just too much handling of the bullets during trimming and pointing.

My method has evolved to measuring overall length, sorting to within .002 to .005 and then setting to bullet pointer to the longer bullets. and pointing that lot, then going to the next shorter lot and resetting the pointer and continuing to point.

I do not usually shoot the bullets on the lands, I usually shoot .010 to .020 off the lands so I don't even worry about ogive length, I am probably leaving a small amount of accuraccy on the table but for me this method is a reasonable compromise. Beleive me if I saw a significent increase in accuraccy even though it was more difficult I would do it but so far it hasn't seemed worth it.

Also, load development is very important but don't neglect shooter development, practice can bring the greatest improvements. He who makes the least mistakes wins.

John

 

[FroggyOne2]

This past year, I shot 2200 Berger 90's in my 223, i didn't trim the meplat when I pointed them. All I did was seperate them by weight.. and then pointed them up..

 

[M14AMU]

I take the damn bullets outa the box....load 'em ahead of 38.5 grs. Varget and do this:


1000 yd. 15 rds. 6.5x47Lapua by Sharps45 2 7/8, on Flickr

 

[Blaster-37]

Trevor, I am in the exact same dilemma.

I just bought the Hoover pointing die and meplat trimmer.

I don't know the most consistant way to proceed.

Watch the video on Hoover's site. Talk to John, he is great. They point the 6.5.
Be carefull not to crush and deform the base with the 6mm trying to get their results. It's very easy to do and not notice until you send them all over the target. There is alot to it that changes with each type of bullet. Pointing done right can help. It is truly an art form.
I have pointed thousands over the years. My advice, less is more.
Greg

 

[DaveWhite]

+1 on the Hoover pointing die. I found with SMK 155's (the newer 2156 model) that the die just kissed the bullet tip opening closed to the point that they were significantly more uniform in appearance. Then separated by weight (those outside the "normal" distribution went into fouler shots), no issue with length as I was seating them 0.020 off the lands.

Then switched over to the Berger 168 grain Hybrid and have not fired any of the SMKs since. no need to sort them or point them.

will hold onto that Hoover die for the time being, but at some point in the future it will just be drawer clutter. The Bergers are that good.

 

[johara1]

I trim the long bullets to the length of the short bullets the lot. then point and sort by bearing surface +or - .0005. It works for me..... jim