Bullet sorting ?s

[bobinpa]

If you were only able to sort your bullets one way, which would it be, by weight or by bearing surface and why? Which is more critical?
Also, if you sort by weight, how many tenths of a grain are in each increment?

I have never sorted bullets before and I am thinking of starting. Just trying to get an idea.
Thanks,
Bob

 

[fredhorace77]

personaly id go with length...base to ogive.

 

[Barlow]

I agree, base to ogive length. Barlow

 

[dabibbee]

I always sort by base to ogive because any difference larger than .003" - .004"
may change your POI depending on powder. I do not know of any tests done on this but it would be interesting to know the outcome.

Dave

 

[FroggyOne2]

The Berger bullets I use have shot well enough with out sorting. But from my experience, Sierra bullets do incur less elevation dispersion by sorting them. I do it base to ogive.

 

[DennisH]

This is getting to be a common subject.

I had a thread going several weeks ago on the same subject. There were some very interesting comments. I don't think there was a common outcome

Feel free to view http://forum.accurateshooter.com/index.php?topic=3821902.0

I am not hijacking this thread, just maybe looking for additional comments on the same subject.

Dennis

 

[timeout]

The Berger bullets I use have shot well enough with out sorting. But from my experience, Sierra bullets do incur less elevation dispersion by sorting them. I do it base to ogive.

I'm certainly not an expert shooter, but my experience leads me to agree with FroggyOne2. My limited experience with Sierras found that the base to ogive measurement varies all over the place within an individual box of bullets. I have measured several different Berger's Bullets and found that within the same lot #s, base to ogive measurements are at least 98% + or - .001". When you switch to another lot number, the base to ogive measurement will most likely be a few thousandths different from your previous lot #. That would lead me to believe that the average Joe Shooter would never notice any accuracy loss by not sorting the Bergers. Many readers of Accurate Shooter however, myself included, will still comparator sort even the Bergers.

 

[Beau]

I sorted Berger, Sierra & Nosler 80 gr bullets by base to ogive length. The Sierra had the most spread (IIRC, it was about 7 thou), the Bergers had about the same extreme spread but the SD was much lower, and the Noslers were the most uniform with the extreme spread being less than 2 thou.

 

[amlevin]

I'm using some Lapua 170 gr Lock Base bullets. Almost impossible to sort them by any length as the base has the cute little tail cone crimp. I just shoot 'em and the Lapua reputation holds up. They're super accurate.

For my .223 Bolt Action I'm now using Bergers and don't see any need to sort. The few I've checked are dead on, base to ogive, bearing surface, and even OAL.

 

[Hoier]

I sort by weight only and I keep my sorts in <.1 gr. the only real reason I do this is to get the one that are way out.

 

[FroggyOne2]

Shooting the Bergers, I feel that they hold excellent elevation. At Perry, there days I held waterline for all 22 shots, some days, due position on the point and wind conditions, elevation was 3/4 moa, but usually the elevation is as good as the shooter can hold. My normal area of wabble is 1/2 moa, this is prone with sling and irons.

The other day, I was shooting XTR's F/TR rifle at 1K. It was the first time I had ever shot it, held absolute waterline and cleaned the target with ten shots. Most were in the X ring, his rifle shoots very very well with Berger 185's. Now if Wade is sorting them, I am not sure, but I would gather to guess he does.

 

[bobinpa]

Thanks to all for the info. Looks like I am either going to start sorting by length or maybe just start shooting Bergers.....

 

[BaconFat]

I'm confused about bullet sorting. It seems you do this with the purpose of determining the length of the bearing surface. The longer the bearing surface, the more friction you have to overcome in the case neck. If you're sorting flat base bullets it's pretty straight forward. But when it comes to boat tail bullets this is where I have a problem. Since we're sorting bullets based on the differences of .001" or so, which isn't much, how do you know when sorting BT bullets that the difference in length isn't a change in the length of the bearing surface but a change in the length of the boat tail.

I figure someone has written about this and I haven't found it yet, so if somebody could point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[47WillysGuy]

Try German Salazar's write up in the "Rifleman's Journal" on Measuring Bullets. Maybe his thoughts will help.

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2010/09/reloading-measuring-bullets.html

 

[Beau]

I'm confused about bullet sorting. It seems you do this with the purpose of determining the length of the bearing surface. The longer the bearing surface, the more friction you have to overcome in the case neck. If you're sorting flat base bullets it's pretty straight forward. But when it comes to boat tail bullets this is where I have a problem. Since we're sorting bullets based on the differences of .001" or so, which isn't much, how do you know when sorting BT bullets that the difference in length isn't a change in the length of the bearing surface but a change in the length of the boat tail.

I figure someone has written about this and I haven't found it yet, so if somebody could point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.

First of all, I don't believe it's necessary to sort into groups of 1 thou. 3 or 4 thou or more may be helpful. I only sort when I get bulk bullets that are off several bullet presses and show a polymodal distribution.

Usually the tails are close enough for Gov't work, but if you are really anal you get 2 of these, one for the base & one for the ogive. http://www.sinclairintl.com/reloading-equipment/measuring-tools/bullet-comparators/sinclair-hex-style-bullet-comparators-prod34262.aspx

 

[Beau]

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, think about what effect varying ogive contours would have. ???

 

[wapiti25]

Why not sort some bullets, shoot several strings with bullets that are the same and then shoot several strings that have bullets that are at the extremes as far as your measurements go. This should be done at 300yds or more, 600 would be better. I say "strings" as 10 shots or more as used in match shooting.

 

[DanConzo]

Beau-Base to ogive is not the bearing surface, the bearing surface is the area where the bullet contacts the barrel. I don't believe Sinclair sells a bearing surface gauge but Accuracy One, Mark King, Tubbs and others do, however Sinclair sells Davidson Bullet Comparators that can be installed on your caliper jaws and effectively measure the bearing surface.

 

[Beau]

The Sinclair nut is about .215". That's plenty close enough to groove diameter for comparing bearing lengths. Remember, you'd need to match the hole to your barrel's groove diameter to get an exact measurement. Do you have a tool for each barrel? Your barrels will vary by a thou or 2 depending upon who made them. How close do you feel like you need to be?

All you need is a close proxy because unless you are custom grinding your tools, you aren't getting an exact measurement anyway, even with AO, King or Tubbs, especially when you throw in ogive shape variation.

You'll see that Larry Medlar's results comparing the Tubb BSC to a Neal Jones Rimfire Headspace Checker mirror my results. And that is, the Tubb BSC is flossy, but measuring base to somewhere on the ogive works just as well.

http://www.6mmbr.com/medlerTUBBBSC.html

BTW, how much does that BSC cost?

A Sinclair nut is < $20. Matter of fact, If you want to eliminate the variation in tail length, I'll bet that 2 Sinclair nuts are still cheaper than 1 of any of those other tools.

ETA: I see that just the caliber inserts for the BSC are more than 2x the cost of a Sinclair nut.

 

[Beau]

Why not sort some bullets, shoot several strings with bullets that are the same and then shoot several strings that have bullets that are at the extremes as far as your measurements go.

Because at least 50% of shooters would get smaller groups from the extreme bullets and the other 49.99% of shooters aren't good enough to tell the difference without a machine rest! ;D