Improving reloads

[jpmimproved]

As I sit here after finishing bringing all of my loaded ammo to +- .0005" CBTO tolerance, I start to wonder how much diminishing returns we get from each step in improvements to out reloading process. When I first started reloading, I was shooting factory rifles and running standard RCBS dies, full length sizing and running the ram until it made contact with the bottom of the die, then setting a bullet to more or less maximum COAL by SAAMI spec. Charges were measured with a 5-0-5. Case lube was usually Crisco.

Nowadays, I spend hours on case prep, full length size either with a bushing die or a standard full length sizer with the expander ball removed, then running a mandrel to achieve neck tension. I use a lab grade scale to measure my charges to ensure accuracy of my Chargemaster. Any cases outside .002" runout gets kicked to the side as fowlers. I know my process is a lot more than some, and much less than others.

Long story short, I'm wondering, what single step have you taken that has given you the best results on paper?

For me, my groups shrank by close to a quarter inch by merely getting away from an expanded ball(mind you, I didn't know to lube case necks, either).

 

[T-shooter]

As I sit here after finishing bringing all of my loaded ammo to +- .0005" CBTO tolerance, I start to wonder how much diminishing returns we get from each step in improvements to out reloading process. When I first started reloading, I was shooting factory rifles and running standard RCBS dies, full length sizing and running the ram until it made contact with the bottom of the die, then setting a bullet to more or less maximum COAL by SAAMI spec. Charges were measured with a 5-0-5. Case lube was usually Crisco.

Nowadays, I spend hours on case prep, full length size either with a bushing die or a standard full length sizer with the expander ball removed, then running a mandrel to achieve neck tension. I use a lab grade scale to measure my charges to ensure accuracy of my Chargemaster. Any cases outside .002" runout gets kicked to the side as fowlers. I know my process is a lot more than some, and much less than others.

Long story short, I'm wondering, what single step have you taken that has given you the best results on paper?

For me, my groups shrank by close to a quarter inch by merely getting away from an expanded ball(mind you, I didn't know to lube case necks, either).

I never had any issues using an expander ball but I use Forester benchrest dies and the whole spindle floats a bit so it doesn't pull the necks out of alignment. I also had the dies honed by the factory so they only reduce the neck to .004" under the finished size and the ball expands it out to .002" under. The old Lee dies did cause a lot of runout. I learned a long time ago to lube the inside of the necks after pulling some out to where they wouldn't chamber. With my full length dies there is no difference in runout on the neck or the bullet 1/2 way to the tip.

I think consistent neck tension has done more to help me than any one thing. Attention to detail is very important. I sometimes go a little overboard but I figure making something more exact may not help, but it can't hurt. For precision, I weigh bullets and cases. Sorting the cases by volume would be better but extremely time consuming. I neck turn, weigh powder charges to 1 kernel, and set CBTO to within .001". I equalize primer pockets and chamfer the inside of the flash hole. When shooting I try to keep the barrel temperature as even as possible. I measure runout half way to the tip of the bullet and consider .001" or less good, .002" or less reasonable, and over .003" I may use for foulers or pull them apart and reload again. Still there are good days and bad days. Oh well, I don't shoot competition and only compete against myself.

 

[jim_k]

Measuring runout is a waste of time, assuming you are using proper technique, with good equipment, which I am sure you are. The way you are doing it is just fine. Neck turning does nothing, and is only needed if the neck gets too thick to permit a bullet to fall through a fired case; or if you have a tight-necked chamber, like a benchrest rifle. If I want to demonstrate runout, I just roll a loaded round across a flat table, and if the tip doesn't go up and down, it's ready to shoot. One thing you might want to experiment with is the Lee collet/mandrel sizing die. This also does not need any lube inside the neck, and "works" the brass less than just about any other method. I don't do it exactly like the instructions, though. Instructions say to run the bottom of the die down on top of the press ram, with the ram about 1/2 way up. What I do is to set the die so that the press ram can barely "cam over" when there is not a piece of brass in the die. Then run your brass through the die. The press should not cam over, and this seems to require less pressure on the press handle, as well as providing good neck tension. By "good", I mean light and consistent. Obviously, you still want the bullet to be firmly seated, and you should not be able to twist the bullet loose using your fingers. I have done accuracy testing with loads having different neck tension, and whatever neck tension you decide on, it needs to be consistent. Group size can easily get worse than 1" if neck tension is variable.

 

[bsekf]

Read someplace the primer pocket/flash hole uniforming is the single most important step towards accuracy.

Bill

 

[boltfluter]

Without a doubt, seating depth has been the one thing that has had the biggest impact on the accuracy of my hand loads.

Paul

www.boltfluting.com

 

[Mulligan]

Without a doubt, seating depth has been the one thing that has had the biggest impact on the accuracy of my hand loads.

Paul

www.boltfluting.com

^^^^^^^what he said ^^^^^^^^
CW

 

[BrandonK]

I'd go with seating depth too as a big one for accuracy. All other things being equal, keeping a consistent jam or jump seems to keep everything in the same neighborhood at least

 

[jds holler]

“Good Enough”, is a condition that is adequate for a given situation. “Perfect”, is a time consuming, expensive, and unnecessary enemy of “Good Enough”.

This may rub some folks the wrong way around here, but I've been applying this philosophy to a lot of things lately. I don't shoot competition, extremely long range, or have anything to prove. I like accuracy as much as the next guy, but maybe my standard is a little different.

The squirrels are out right now, I've got loads that are sufficient to get the job done, and limited time to go shooting. My rifle is shooting sub- .5MOA, and I think that ANY more time spent right now in testing and tweaking will be diminishing returns. I'm going shooting. jd

 

[T-shooter]

Measuring runout is a waste of time, assuming you are using proper technique, with good equipment, which I am sure you are. The way you are doing it is just fine. Neck turning does nothing, and is only needed if the neck gets too thick to permit a bullet to fall through a fired case; or if you have a tight-necked chamber, like a benchrest rifle. If I want to demonstrate runout, I just roll a loaded round across a flat table, and if the tip doesn't go up and down, it's ready to shoot. One thing you might want to experiment with is the Lee collet/mandrel sizing die. This also does not need any lube inside the neck, and "works" the brass less than just about any other method. I don't do it exactly like the instructions, though. Instructions say to run the bottom of the die down on top of the press ram, with the ram about 1/2 way up. What I do is to set the die so that the press ram can barely "cam over" when there is not a piece of brass in the die. Then run your brass through the die. The press should not cam over, and this seems to require less pressure on the press handle, as well as providing good neck tension. By "good", I mean light and consistent. Obviously, you still want the bullet to be firmly seated, and you should not be able to twist the bullet loose using your fingers. I have done accuracy testing with loads having different neck tension, and whatever neck tension you decide on, it needs to be consistent. Group size can easily get worse than 1" if neck tension is variable.

People have different views on runout. I can't say for sure but it can't hurt to get them closer. This summer I plan to do a test, at least 10 each with 0" to .0005" if I end up with that many, and some I'll deliberately make bad, in the .007" to .009" range. I like to test things when I can. I recently had a box of new Hornady .308 brass that was that bad no matter what I tried. I had to anneal them to get back to the .001"-.002" range. I fired a few before annealing and while that mostly straightened them, there was a soot ring on one side of the necks and perfectly clean on the other. Normally , there may be just a trace all the way around in my rifle. And it's not a benchrest rifle, just a stock Savage with a 22" barrel and a 1/10 twist. I used the Lee collet dies for quite a while and they work well for what they are. Very good to resize just the neck.

I look at neck turning differently. First, it evens out the thickness in the necks. I have seen over .003"-.004" even in Lapua necks. I turn them to .0125" and if it doesn't cut all the way around, so be it. At least the thickness and neck tension is more even. Also my full length Forster sizing die centers on the outside of the necks. I use an expander ball. Some hate them. The way I'm set up, I run the ram all the way up into the die, then adjust the ball upwards until I can feel it touch, and back it off about 1/2 turn. That way, most of the neck is supported by the die as the ball starts to be pulled through and the shaft can self-align since it is loose in the threads and sits on a rubber washer. On my .308 full length die, I had the neck portion of the die honed to only compress it .004" under the finished size and the ball will expand it back to give me .002" interference fit.

 

[effendude]

Speaking of seating depths, I ran an interesting test yesterday while fire forming 25 neck turned palma brass. Powder charges were exactly the same, well within a kernel of Varget. 5 each loaded at jam, .005, .010, .015 and .020 less than the jam setting. Jam gave me a sd of 1.7 for 5 shots into one ragged hole at 100. The other seating depths were single digit sd values but nearly double digits. Shots landed on paper a little wider as well.

I typically use a soft jam with my match rifles if the accuracy is there, mostly out of laziness that I don't want to keep chasing the lands. It works for me. I tune for the least vertical at distance. For my hunting rifles, I load to mag length as long as shed extract ok. I try 1/2 MOA on hunting rifles, and quit.

Buy good equipment and components, develop consistent methods and don't chase accuracy that you may never realize in real world field conditions.

Scott

 

[T-shooter]

Speaking of seating depths, I ran an interesting test yesterday while fire forming 25 neck turned palma brass. Powder charges were exactly the same, well within a kernel of Varget. 5 each loaded at jam, .005, .010, .015 and .020 less than the jam setting. Jam gave me a sd of 1.7 for 5 shots into one ragged hole at 100. The other seating depths were single digit sd values but nearly double digits. Shots landed on paper a little wider as well.

I typically use a soft jam with my match rifles if the accuracy is there, mostly out of laziness that I don't want to keep chasing the lands. It works for me. I tune for the least vertical at distance. For my hunting rifles, I load to mag length as long as shed extract ok. I try 1/2 MOA on hunting rifles, and quit.

Buy good equipment and components, develop consistent methods and don't chase accuracy that you may never realize in real world field conditions.

Scott

I did the same test running from .005" to .030" at .005" increments. My .308 likes .025" and shot 5 in less than a 1/4" group at 100 yards. I usually use only one kind of bullet and measure them in the chamber. I set the COL with a Hornady comparator which measures near the maximum diameter of the bullet. Measuring from the tips is not very accurate. The inside bore of this this bullet insert is about .298". I may try to hone it out larger, maybe to .304" I.D.

 

[Iowa Fox]

For me a cheap plastic 12x loupe and a home made steel wool spinner made from a copper pipe cap with a 1/4" rod soldered to the bottom. I got that idea from Al Harrel. Had to buy the pipe cap but scrounged everything else. De burring tools really leave ugly looking necks when you look at them under the loupe.

 

[BoydAllen]

Accuracy is a weakest link thing. You need to take care of the big things first. On the reloading side, learning how important seating depth can be, and working in the lands rather than jumping was an early aid to finding accuracy.

 

[Ned Ludd]

As I sit here after finishing bringing all of my loaded ammo to +- .0005" CBTO tolerance, I start to wonder how much diminishing returns we get from each step in improvements to out reloading process. When I first started reloading, I was shooting factory rifles and running standard RCBS dies, full length sizing and running the ram until it made contact with the bottom of the die, then setting a bullet to more or less maximum COAL by SAAMI spec. Charges were measured with a 5-0-5. Case lube was usually Crisco.

Nowadays, I spend hours on case prep, full length size either with a bushing die or a standard full length sizer with the expander ball removed, then running a mandrel to achieve neck tension. I use a lab grade scale to measure my charges to ensure accuracy of my Chargemaster. Any cases outside .002" runout gets kicked to the side as fowlers. I know my process is a lot more than some, and much less than others.

Long story short, I'm wondering, what single step have you taken that has given you the best results on paper?

For me, my groups shrank by close to a quarter inch by merely getting away from an expanded ball(mind you, I didn't know to lube case necks, either).

I do all of these steps and more for F-TR competition loads. There is really no way to know the relative contribution of all the extra effort to precision until you start omitting steps and notice the performance suddenly falls off. I've always viewed the significant extra effort for match loads in the following way: I don't ever want to get behind the rifle at a match without knowing I have done everything possible to produce the best ammunition that I am capable of producing. That way, it's not even a consideration during a match and I can focus all my attention on reading the conditions and shooting good scores. The other thing to consider when trying to decide whether to cut corners or streamline the reloading process is that there is a very good chance at least some of your competitors will always go the extra mile. It can certainly be painful at times, but the extra effort has usually paid dividends for me.

 

[Lapua40X]

... Long story short, I'm wondering, what single step have you taken that has given you the best results on paper?
For me, my groups shrank by close to a quarter inch by merely getting away from an expanded ball(mind you, I didn't know to lube case necks, either).

Good quality well maintained reloading equipment and discarding the expander ball in my sizing dies being a given in this equation, my single most influential step for excellence in accuracy has been seating depth. Once I understood how to manipulate that aspect of my reloading everything else just seemed to fall into place.

 

[T-shooter]

I do all of these steps and more for F-TR competition loads. There is really no way to know the relative contribution of all the extra effort to precision until you start omitting steps and notice the performance suddenly falls off. I've always viewed the significant extra effort for match loads in the following way: I don't ever want to get behind the rifle at a match without knowing I have done everything possible to produce the best ammunition that I am capable of producing. That way, it's not even a consideration during a match and I can focus all my attention on reading the conditions and shooting good scores. The other thing to consider when trying to decide whether to cut corners or streamline the reloading process is that there is a very good chance at least some of your competitors will always go the extra mile. It can certainly be painful at times, but the extra effort has usually paid dividends for me.

I feel the same way and try to make the ammo as good as it I can. I don't, and probably never will, shoot in competition, but want to be as accurate as I can. Some people say "shoot for fun". Fun to me is not making holes in paper. Fun is a sub 1/4 MOA group with relative cheap equipment. I want to better my skills and hopefully learn something in the process, not just waste ammo. I haven't got to the point of weighing primers (the propellant is a small part of their weight and I wonder if it's a waste of time). I also don't sort cases by internal volume. I'm sure it's worthwhile but very time consuming. I do weigh them and in the few that I have measured, from the same lot, usually (but not always) heavier ones have a smaller volume. This summer I want to buy some Alco 210 grain premium bullets and try them at 500 yards (all the room I have and I have to wait until the corn is harvested). The best I've done is a 10 shot group in 2-1/8" x 4-1/4" in a 5-10 mph cross wind blowing at 90 degrees from the firing direction. I didn't adjust hold for the wind, just waited and shot in between gusts as much as I could. By competition standards, quite poor, but good for me. These rounds were not dialed in, a hotter load for distance. .308 Hornady brass (handles the pressure better than Lapua), 208 grain ELD Match bullets, 41.5 grains of Varget, and Federal match primers. MV is 2,430 fps.

 

[Nature Boy]

I believe I've crossed the line when the things I'm trying to measure exceed what me and my measuring equipment are capable of repeatability and reliability measuring.

I've caught myself doing it and thought, "...you're worried about tenths? really? get real!"

 

[T-shooter]

I believe I've crossed the line when the things I'm trying to measure exceed what me and my measuring equipment are capable of repeatability and reliability measuring.

I've caught myself doing it and thought, "...you're worried about tenths? really? get real!"

Me too. Better is best but there has to be an acceptable line. I draw the line at .002" on runout measured half way from the neck to the bullet tip. Some will say it's fine, some say not good enough, others will say it's a waste of time. I have plenty of time so why not? It's easy to get trapped into "Perfection" which doesn't exist in the real world.

 

[foxguy]

Accuracy is a weakest link thing. You need to take care of the big things first. "On the reloading side, learning how important seating depth can be, and working in the lands rather than jumping was an early aid to finding accuracy".

Boyd,

When working up new loads, do you start your test loads with a bullet jam? and If so, Do you always start with Bullet Jamed .XXX thousands ??

Thanks from a Relative new 6mm BR newbe.

 

[jpmimproved]

Boyd,

When working up new loads, do you start your test loads with a bullet jam? and If so, Do you always start with Bullet Jamed .XXX thousands ??

Thanks from a Relative new 6mm BR newbe.

Not to hijack your question, but I'm also curious if Boyd starts by finding a velocity node first or seating depth first?