What is the best way to sort bullets and what are the best tools to perform these tasks? I only want to buy once and don't mind spending money on quality, so what what be considered the best and most accurate? Any help would be greatly appreciated, especially since I am fairly new to reloading. I am shooting F Class so I am trying to get everything possible out of my ammo!
Bullet Sorting?
- Thread starter Lucky7
- Start date
I believe I have heard the same about the Bob Grren, just wasn't sure how easy that one is to use? I have seen the one that Sinclair sells, but havent heard anything outstanding about the results. I will have to look into the Bob Green and do some research on his products. Thank you all for the info.
I have the Sinclair on do not buy the electric gauge one it drifts too much. I would sort bullets I would get a reading of .638 turn it off and come back 30 min later and get readings of .646 for the all ready sorted bullets. I got the mechanical gauge rock sold. I get the same reading for bullets I have all ready sorted.
Mark King makes a good comparator.
skiutah02
Silver $$ Contributor
Only recently have started sorting bullets myself and have found that the Hoover trimmer acting as a bullet sorter is very nice. It is advertised as such so this is not necessarily "new" info, but having it serve dual purposes has been super convenient. It allows measurement of base-to-ogive very repeatably. Drew
That is the John Buhay. When John quit he gave everything to Mark. I was told by another shooter that Mark is no longer selling them. Matt
Sorting is not credible with any single tool.
The Bob Green Comparator (BGC) qualifies ogives which present datums for most other meaasures.
The buhay measure is also affected by the datum provided by your ogives.
Base to ogive,, meaningless.
Where you intend to trim meplats and/or point, avoid doing so tip to base. Do it off qualified ogives, so that meplats are actually taken to same diameters.
Otherwise your only trimming to make noses the same length, or worse, overall bullet to same length.
The Bob Green Comparator (BGC) qualifies ogives which present datums for most other meaasures.
The buhay measure is also affected by the datum provided by your ogives.
Base to ogive,, meaningless.
Where you intend to trim meplats and/or point, avoid doing so tip to base. Do it off qualified ogives, so that meplats are actually taken to same diameters.
Otherwise your only trimming to make noses the same length, or worse, overall bullet to same length.
We had the current president of Berger bullets give us a talk about a week ago at Brian's seminar. When asked what is the most important parameter to sort bullets by, he said bearing surface length as that is the interface between the bullet and your barrel. The problem is I know of no method to measure this without an optical micrometer. FWIW, at Berger, when they do QA, the measure base to ogive.
I've yet to see any evidence of bearing variance making a difference myself.
And I've yet to read where someone else described qualified/isolated bearing measure, separated with this, and then tested to see a difference.
IMO, the biggest single correction for typical LR bullet variance, lies with meplats (BC variance).
And I've yet to read where someone else described qualified/isolated bearing measure, separated with this, and then tested to see a difference.
IMO, the biggest single correction for typical LR bullet variance, lies with meplats (BC variance).
It is much more important to have first hand experience than to depend on reading hearsay from someone else.
In "theory" both theory and practice are the same.
In "practice" they are not.
If few people have optical comparators you are not likely to hear anything about their use.
In "theory" both theory and practice are the same.
In "practice" they are not.
If few people have optical comparators you are not likely to hear anything about their use.
Last edited:
From the video:
"Probably base to ogive" -because it's better than OAL(there's a revelation).. Did not imply actual bearing surface measure..
The view seems no more than generalization.
Best way to learn something real here is logical reasoning and objective testing.
Ask yourself, what does ~10thou bearing surface variance do to MV? To BC? And then test it and post it please.
I haven't seen anyone else test this yet.
So far my Oehler chronograph with 20' screen spacing doesn't see it. Maybe I'll be able to detect it when I get my hands on RADAR.
I can't see the BC affect because Bearing in itself is a small contributor to BC, usually countered by surrounding bullet parameters, and I don't have a downrange chrono.
But open a meplat 10thou, all by itself, and you'll see this at distance.
We wanna focus on what we can see, right?
"Probably base to ogive" -because it's better than OAL(there's a revelation).. Did not imply actual bearing surface measure..
The view seems no more than generalization.
Best way to learn something real here is logical reasoning and objective testing.
Ask yourself, what does ~10thou bearing surface variance do to MV? To BC? And then test it and post it please.
I haven't seen anyone else test this yet.
So far my Oehler chronograph with 20' screen spacing doesn't see it. Maybe I'll be able to detect it when I get my hands on RADAR.
I can't see the BC affect because Bearing in itself is a small contributor to BC, usually countered by surrounding bullet parameters, and I don't have a downrange chrono.
But open a meplat 10thou, all by itself, and you'll see this at distance.
We wanna focus on what we can see, right?
What he said is measuring BTO is very similar to measuring the total bearing surface and using either method will provide very similar info. While he did not say it, I think he recommends BTO because it is faster and provides the same info as the slower total bearing surface measurement. I've tested hundreds of bullets using both techniques and agree with what Bryan said: each method gives you the same info and you end up with the bullets sorted into virtually identical piles.
Regarding whether measuring bearing surface matters, I did my own tests at 1,000 yards and was surprised at what an impact a .010" difference makes in the bullet impact. I don't think .001 or .002 matters, but .010+ sure does. Furthermore, I've had some lots of Berger bullets where a 2,000 bullet sample did not vary more than .004. I've had other Berger lots where they varied .040".
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.