Bullet Pointing

[johara1]

I think there's a balance of trimming and pointing. But the elevation difference is pretty easy to test. Only trim a few and shoot them. They will be lower on paper, in my case 8"-10". Point a few and shoot a group, they will print higher than your reference group. In my case 6"-8" from reference group. (Everything loaded the same for each group)

I think you also may find that you could have to adjust your established load a little after trimming/pointing. Your load may of previously compensated for some of the dispersion. In my case the pointing really just brought the load together. But that's just my theory.

I use a control group at a 100 with non pointed bullets, then trim and point the group should be the same or smaller...... jim

 

[mikeeg02]

I use a control group at a 100 with non pointed bullets, then trim and point the group should be the same or smaller...... jim

Like I said before. Test everything!

Edit: BC variation I would think would show better at distance. But testing at 100 would give good insight that you're not messing up the bullets. But it's hard to argue with your results at matches. (Not attempting to discredit you)

 

[Laurie]

Maybe you were not doing it right, if it quits growing you had better stop or you make junk. Over all length better be the same or you make junk..... ..jim

Jim, I use the bullet OAL growth method and when an incremental addition on the die setting no longer increases OAL, I go back a step. Bullets are BTO and OAL batched beforehand. My first go with the Whidden pointer on 155 308 Scenars taught me all about the downside effects of overdoing it on L-R performance, so I'm a cautious pointer as those who look at my pointed bullets invariably say.

As I said in an earlier post though, I have transformed the performance of pre-factory pointed 180gn 7mm SMKs through batching, trimming and pointing. An originally mediocre to poor performer now holds half-MOA now at 1,000 in my 284 and that's on a range well known for short-term elevation 'funnies'.

 

[johara1]

Jim, I use the bullet OAL growth method and when an incremental addition on the die setting no longer increases OAL, I go back a step. Bullets are BTO and OAL batched beforehand. My first go with the Whidden pointer on 155 308 Scenars taught me all about the downside effects of overdoing it on L-R performance, so I'm a cautious pointer as those who look at my pointed bullets invariably say.

As I said in an earlier post though, I have transformed the performance of pre-factory pointed 180gn 7mm SMKs through batching, trimming and pointing. An originally mediocre to poor performer now holds half-MOA now at 1,000 in my 284 and that's on a range well known for short-term elevation 'funnies'.

Base to ogive is just part of it, bearing surface.. then trim........jim

 

[johara1]

Like I said before. Test everything!

Edit: BC variation I would think would show better at distance. But testing at 100 would give good insight that you're not messing up the bullets. But it's hard to argue with your results at matches. (Not attempting to discredit you)

I'm working with sub.1 gun under a lot of flags to eliminate variables .... I know they work, why leave the back yard till I'm sure.... jim

 

[Sheldon N]

Been thinking a lot about this after the excellent advice I've received from you all. I have 2k Hybrids all same lot # sitting ready for next season's BRA barrel and I think I'm going to add sorting to the mix rather than just pointing them all at the same setting. Thought I'd run my plan by you guys to make sure that I don't screw anything up, and that I'm not wasting effort either. Here's my tentative plan...

1) Sort base to ogive with Sinclair bullet sorting comparator and dial indicator. Hopefully end up with 4-5 piles of bullets.
2) Tackle each BTO sorted lot individually, measure OAL and break into 3-4 sub-lots by OAL.
3) Point (or meplat trim + point) each sub-lot, adjusting the die so that the pointing is "ideal" and non-damaging for each length lot.
4) Evaluate, and potentially consolidate some of the sorted bullets once all are pointed. I'd need to end up with lots that were at least a couple hundred bullets in size which might dictate combining some of the lots. A match for me can require 250-300 rounds. Probably would keep the BTO sorting, then consolidate some of the OAL sublots and the tail ends of the distributions unless they were terrible outliers. Likely would end up with a "long" and a "short" division for each BTO lot, to keep organization manageable.

End result would be BTO sorted bullets, and if I did the trimming/pointing right the points themselves would all be similar in size/quality. I'd be getting a metplat trimmer for my Giraud, which indexes off the ogive and the only way to trim consistently with that would seem to be BTO sort followed by OAL sort. The BTO sort would eliminate the variation in the tail end of the bullets and the remaining variance in the nose could easily be captured by measuring OAL. This would let me both trim (referenced off the ogive) and point (referenced off the base) with some degree of consistency expected in the point.

I suppose if I skipped meplat trimming I could simplify the sorting and could try the approach that @Ned Ludd suggested, OAL sort then point for each OAL lot. But then I would be skipping BTO sorting which seems to be the consensus best "one way" to sort bullets. Not sure on that, or on how much correlation there is between BTO sorted bullets vs OAL sorting.

Thoughts/suggestions?

 

[Ned Ludd]

...I suppose if I skipped meplat trimming I could simplify the sorting and could try the approach that @Ned Ludd suggested, OAL sort then point for each OAL lot. But then I would be skipping BTO sorting which seems to be the consensus best "one way" to sort bullets. Not sure on that, or on how much correlation there is between BTO sorted bullets vs OAL sorting.

Thoughts/suggestions?

Sheldon - it should be relatively simple to determine whether you can shoot any difference that BTO sorting or trimming meplats brings you. I've never been a fan of BTO sorting. I understand a lot of people swear by it, but the ones I have talked to can never seem to provide a good explanation of exactly what it is supposedly doing. For my purposes, it has not proven to be worth the extra effort; however, I'm shooting in F-Class, not BR. Nonetheless, you can set up however many bullets you think it will require to isolate and test each of these variables specifically to see whether you can see a difference on the target. A direct side-by-side comparison ought to reveal whether there are noticeable differences, or the differences aren't worth talking about. Once you have the answer, any decision-making process about whether to cull a certain step in the reloading process should be simplified.

 

[rwj]

Thanks to all that provided input and shared their experiences & knowledge!

 

[johara1]

Base to ogive measurement is first, this tells you if the bullet maker is consistent. Then I do bearing surface second, there is a slight correlation between the two. Bearing surface is drag.... The best ever I sorted were the old Spencers, Next are Bart's new 105 and one lot of Berger Hybrids ..... jim

 

[ED3]

Am I getting this right?
Reading through this thread,if I understand the principles and procedures correctly, it occurs to me that if one is going to trim, and point bullets, the correct sequence would be to first perform the meplat trimming operation, which indexes (if that's the correct term) off the bullet's ogive with the MCR system, then sort by bullet length, given the (Whidden) pointing process indexes off the base/ overall length of the bullet; pointing to whatever degree is determined to be beneficial, pointing at most until the bullet stops growing in overall length. Then depending on one's beliefs, and/ or experiences, sort by base to ogive, or length of bearing surface to take into account any modification/ distortion of the original bullet....

Thanks in advance.
ED3

 

[Sheldon N]

it occurs to me that if one is going to trim, and point bullets, the correct sequence would be to first perform the meplat trimming operation, which indexes (if that's the correct term) off the bullet's ogive with the MCR system, then sort by bullet length, given the (Whidden) pointing process indexes off the base/ overall length of the bullet; pointing to whatever degree is determined to be beneficial, pointing at most until the bullet stops growing in overall length.

My thinking was that there might be some variation in the ogive to tip length, and that if I just trimmed off the ogive alone without sorting I might get some variation in how much of the tip of the bullet was cut off and how big the resulting meplat would be. If I sort by base to ogive first, I could then measure OAL and any variation would be solely in the ogive to nose area of the bullet. I could then run them through the meplat trimmer, starting with the longest bullets and slowly adjusting the trimmer down as I worked toward the shorter bullets. That way I could keep the meplat size the same, even if there was any ogive to tip variation. I'd do the same thing with the pointing die so the pointing would also remain equal.

 

[mikeeg02]

The way I see it, the pointing die makes the nose of the bullet the same shape. The pointing die is referenced from the base.

After measuring/pointing/remeasuring, the over all length growth does vary, and I think that comes from the difference in shape of the nose.

The trimmer makes the nose the same length. But its referenced from the ogive.

I believe it takes a combination of the two, and proper sorting to make a "perfect" bullet. But I'm still learning.

 

[johara1]

Am I getting this right?
Reading through this thread,if I understand the principles and procedures correctly, it occurs to me that if one is going to trim, and point bullets, the correct sequence would be to first perform the meplat trimming operation, which indexes (if that's the correct term) off the bullet's ogive with the MCR system, then sort by bullet length, given the (Whidden) pointing process indexes off the base/ overall length of the bullet; pointing to whatever degree is determined to be beneficial, pointing at most until the bullet stops growing in overall length. Then depending on one's beliefs, and/ or experiences, sort by base to ogive, or length of bearing surface to take into account any modification/ distortion of the original bullet....

Thanks in advance.
ED3

If you measure the over all length right out of the box and they are all over the place, like .050 I close them back up and sell them, I don't bother with them. You need to cut them open and see how the cores are seated, there is a lot goes into it besides just pointing them.... When you find good one's it is worth wearing a good barrel out on them, not wearing a barrel out then finding they were junk..... jim