Hornady OAL Gauge

[338 dude]

I haven't used the stripped bolt method like in the Wheeler video but I plan to try it and compare the #'s to what I get with the Hornady tool. I always try and use consistent light pressure to push the bullet in so it doesn't manipulate my measurement #'s and I also take multiple measurements so I know I'm using the same amount of pressure to push the bullet up in till it touches. Also, I always have a case gauge made from a piece of brass that was fired in that particular chamber. I've tried using the modified case gauges from Hornady but they never seem to fit my chambers very tight and give me inconsistent and un-repeatable #'s so I just always have one made from fired brass shot in my specific gun.

I also use a fired case tapped and threaded by my gunsmith as well as doing that I measure 10 times and find the average that seems to help

 

[Rogmay]

After talking to Alex about his method, he said there are a couple of actions his method won’t necessarily work on or can be tricky, its been two years but I believe he said the actions were Defiance and Savage, which were the two I owned at the time. Please correct me or update me if I'm wrong, thanks.

 

[dmoran]

I spent most of an afternoon measuring with the Hornady OAL gauge and using the Stripped bolt method. After many measurements the results of the two methods were within .002" for me.
The Hornady tool relies on touch (how hard you push the rod) and the stripped bolt method also relies on hearing a click and also on feel when opening the bolt.
It was more time consuming using the stripped bolt method because I had to remove the ejector. I would be very confident with either method since my results were so close.

If you do not want to remove the ejector for the "stripped bolt method", one can drill a hole in a case head, larger then the ejector diameter in the vicinity of the ejector, then simply index the dedicated case over the ejector for the task each time.

On a note:
Personally find the "stripped bolt method" accurate to a 1/2-thousandths or less (once a person gets the method mastered a bit). With the Hornady OAL, I agree with your .002" input to accuracy, which is to much in my opinion, and since .002" variance can take a load off it's seating node center.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Zero333]

There is not a single thing that's plastic on my hornady OAL tool.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

This tool belongs in the drawer next to neck dies and other trinkets that were a lesson. Between the stripped bolt and polished bullet method there is no reason to use this tool- especially if it has a .002 variance

 

[MN50Shooter]

I've used my Hornady tool on all of my rifles, from .243 thru 50 BMG and have had excellent results.

 

[Ned Ludd]

This is far more simple than than it seems. The Hornady OAL gauge works very well if someone makes even a modest effort to learn how to use it properly. It's simple, fast, and it works.

Further, (and this is worth repeating over and over until people "get it"), a small amount variance in whatever method people choose to use to determine the distance to touching the lands has no bearing whatsoever on optimizing seating depth and precision. Absolutely none.

Regardless of the method used, all we're trying to do is generate a measurement value for use as a reference point. Nothing else. Once you have that number, whether it is absolutely spot on, off by .002", or even off by .005" or .010", the accuracy of the value you're using has no impact on subsequent seating depth testing or precision. The CBTO (cartridge base-to-ogive) of loaded rounds can be measured with excellent accuracy and precision. Moreover, a given CBTO can also be reproduced at will with excellent accuracy and precision.

For example, if the initial reference measurement is off by a couple thousandths, all that means is that your seating depth test target will tell you that rounds loaded at .010" off the lands showed the best grouping, when in actuality, .012" off the lands was the true value. It doesn't matter, you can easily reproduce whatever CBTO you believe gave the best precision. You will never know that the true value of distance to touching the lands was actually off by .002", and it will make no difference whatsoever in terms of precision. The target will tell you exactly which loaded rounds gave the best precision, and you will have directly measured those rounds for CBTO, and can then reproduce that CBTO to within +/- .0005" at will. The initial reference value no longer has any real importance at that point.

 

[dmoran]

....Regardless of the method used, all we're trying to do is generate a measurement value for use as a reference point. Nothing else. Once you have that number, whether it is absolutely spot on, off by .002", or even off by .005" or .010", the accuracy of the value you're using has no impact on subsequent seating depth testing or precision.....

Depends on the purpose of the measurement to the extent of accuracy one needs in there "touch numbers".
Examples:
- those who chase throat advancement by seating depth adjustments, repeatability and accuracy in the measurement is very important.
- for scenario's in matching another persons seating depth precisely, repeatability and accuracy in both measurements are needed.
The simplicity and accuracy in the measurements is individually and circumstantially not the same for everybody.
Very safe to say, my needs and demands to my "touch numbers" are different then yours, and likely so to others as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Winny94]

I have the Hornady as well as the Sinclair tool. The issue for me w/ the Hornady is I shoot 2 wildcat cartridges and brass is expensive and I dont like having odd numbers, so I dont want to burn one having it made into a modified case.
I find I can get repeatable measures w/ the Sinclair within .002". I can only do that if i measure a hard jam, but since this number only gives me a jumping off point as a reference, thats fine by me.

 

[centershot]

There is not a single thing that's plastic on my hornady OAL tool.

You must have an early model.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Depends on the purpose of the measurement to the extent of accuracy one needs in there "touch numbers".
Examples:
- those who chase throat advancement by seating depth adjustments, repeatability and accuracy in the measurement is very important.
- for scenario's in matching another persons seating depth precisely, repeatability and accuracy in both measurements are needed.
The simplicity and accuracy in the measurements, is individually and circumstantially not the same for everybody.
Very safe to say, my needs and demands to my "touch numbers", are different then yours. And likely so to others as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donovan, every one of the commonly-used methods to find distance to "touching" the lands has inherent sources of error, not the least of which is often the person taking the measurements. As a method for optimizing seating depth, "chasing the lands" can certainly work. Nonetheless, I have found it to depend largely on the bullet/load. Some bullets/loads work well with that, some don't. Even if I was working with a rifle and load for which I had determined that approach was suitable, I would never blindly adjust seating depth based on any distance to touching method and take it to a match without actually testing it.

Maybe it's because I'm a belt AND suspenders type of person, but I always test seating depth with loaded rounds on a target, and let the target tell me what is optimal. Even if I'm solely attempting to correct the load for the effect of land erosion, I will at least load up an abbreviated seating depth test that covers the range from the previous seating depth used to at least one test increment further than where I think it will tune in based on land measurements.

Once you do that, you're right back to my original statement that the reference measurement doesn't matter. I trust CBTO measurements and what the targets tell me from an actual seating depth test more than I trust any of the common methods solely used to determine distance to touching. Altering seating depth based on such measurements may work very reliably, or it may not work at all. In contrast, I can consistently reproduce the CBTO that I see produces optimal precision on the target to within ~ half a thousandth. Carrying out an abbreviated seating depth test doesn't require very many rounds or effort, and leaves no doubt as to where the rifle/load wants to shoot. As you stated, to each their own.

 

[dmoran]

@Ned Ludd
Besides myself, personally know several 1000-BR shooters who linearly chase barrel advancement with there seating. Every match the touch number is measured and seating adjusted lineally to it. Testing has proven the method to work for them and there scenario's.
Once you do that, you're right back to my original statement that it is "more then only a reference measurement" for some, with the amount of accuracy and repeatabilty in there measurements to matter very much. Yep... each to our own !.!.!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[cw308]

David Christian posted that video , IMO is the only way to go .

 

[Tim-o-thy]

if your smith test fires your rifle, ask them to use that case and make you one. I’m willing to bet they have that tap. And would do it for free or next to free. I’ve had 5 rifles done at alamo precision, I haven’t noticed the charge for a modified case on my invoice and I have five, that have been fired in my chambers. Ymmv

 

[Old Tanker]

In my opinion the simplest, easiest, and cheapest method to accurately measure COL is the Frankfort Arsenal tool.

I made my own based on their concept. All you need is a cleaning rod, two nylon spacers (donuts) that will slide through the cleaning rod, and caliper that's accurate to .001". The spacers need to be drilled in tapped for a nylon screws to hold the spacer in place on the cleaning rod.

First you set one spacer on the cleaning rod at the length from the muzzle to the bolt face ( bolt cocked).

Second you insert a bullet into the lands and secure it with a small rod to hold it in place. I use a bore guide to make it easy to insert the bullet and using a small pistol cleaning rod lightly tap the rod against the bullet's base to hold in the land.

Third you set the second nylon space on the cleaning rod at the length from the muzzle to the tip of the bullet.

Fourth you calculate the COL by measuring the distance between the spacers (using a caliper) adding the thickness of second space. OR

Use their tool and follow their instructions. Either way is simple, easy, and accurate. I know of one top long range rifle mfg that uses Frankfort's Tool their own rifle reloading.

Due to variations in bullet ogive, I like to measure at least three bullets from a given lot and use the most conservative value to select a COL that will avoid jamming the bullet into the land. Typically I start load develop at .020" from the lands provided I the cartridge will fit the magazine and have sufficient bullet depth in the case neck but never go below .010" from the lands.

How about a wood dowel rod and clothes pins?

 

[dgeesaman]

$.02

I have done the stripped bolt method so clearly defined by Wheeler. I found it accurate, slow, and tedious.

I now have a Hornady gauge. It’s repeatable for me within a couple thou and much faster. I found it to be comparable to the stripped bolt method. I prefer the gauge for most situations because I only need to know seating length close enough to begin load development with a new bullet. The stripped bolt method might help me see throat wear a bit better but again it’s not critical data and I just don’t benefit enough from this data point to keep going through it.

 

[TrxR]

Arent there still top shooters out there that soft seat instead of chasing the lands?

 

[riflewoman]

If anybody can determine an absolute cartridge base to ogive with either of these methods, I can probably get you a high level metrology job. Plus or minus 0.003 to .005 is about it for the method. Why? You’re stuffing a taper onto a taper and then trying to measure to a “datum” circle using a gauge that hasn’t got a definitive edge to the datum diameter. (So it becomes another taper in a taper...). Tapers aren’t defined nor held to an axial dimension like this.

Do I use this device? Sure but I measure a dozen or so times and use a “figure skating scoring” method where I throw out the extremes and average the rest. That’s my “zero jump” dimension. So then I set my seating depth accordingly.

 

[dgeesaman]

If anybody can determine an absolute cartridge base to ogive with either of these methods, I can probably get you a high level metrology job. Plus or minus 0.003 to .005 is about it for the method. Why? You’re stuffing a taper onto a taper and then trying to measure to a “datum” circle using a gauge that hasn’t got a definitive edge to the datum diameter. (So it becomes another taper in a taper...). Tapers aren’t defined nor held to an axial dimension like this.

And let's not forget that it's only a true taper before firing the first shot. As the barrel life commences, the throat will no longer be a machined feature...

 

[Shooter13]

Same here. After using mine for many years, I would gladly challenge anyone to find touch more accurately than I can.
View attachment 1125159

That looks very much like the Sinclair tool