Inconsistant ogive lapua bullets?

[Straightshooter1]

Well, thanks again.

My accuracy was better with the Bergers than it is with the Lapuas. And I had no problems seating the Berger bullets, with the same die I'm using now with the Lapuas and and getting very consistent CBTO measurements.
If they ever become available again in my lifetime I'll get some more.
But now I'm kinda stuck with what I have.

Now I'm not the best shooter around either, wont see me winning any competitions, I can usually keep the groups an inch or smaller at 100 yards but It's closer to 1/2 with the Bergers. But as I'm not that accurate/good a shooter I want all the advantages I can get with a load that is consistent shot to shot. I need all the help I can get.

Tip is not bottoming out in the seating die, didn't with the Bergers either which have a sharper point than the Lapuas.

Yes I think it is the bullet too, but I've got a few hundred of them and want to load them to get the best cartridge I can with what I've got to work with.

I'm not shooting touching the lands and have no desire to chase them either. As with the Bergers I got the powder charge that gave me the best consistent velocities and groups, then I adjusted the seating depth away from the lands until I got a depth that gave me the best groups that had very similar groups at longer jump. That way as the throat erodes the seating depth will still be in a good group length. Don't know if I explained what I meant there. Right now I'm at 24 thou off the lands, The groups and velocities were similar up to 30 off.

Until I get an insert the diameter of the seating stem, I will load a few rounds with bullets out of the four base to ogive groups and see how they compare when seated within the groups.

Thanks again

Sounds like you're on the right path. If you've found a seating depth that's giving you good results that you like, stay there and don't change any of that as the throat erodes, not until the results actually turn bad. That's when you'll need to make some seating adjustments to get back into the accuracy node.

I'd recommend keep you thinking away from how far you are off the lands and more about your seating depth. When you state .024 off the lands, that really doesn't mean anything to us as our rifle chambers will have very different free bores that will have different seating depths when .024 of the lands. Better to state the COAL, which gives us a better idea of your actual seating depth.

 

[1951]

OK, I pulled 16 bullets out of the box at random, and 16 loaded cartridges out of the box at random.
Bullet base to tip ranged from 1.3620" to 1.3690" Spread fairly evenly in that range. That's a variance of 7 Thou.
COAL ranged from 2.8015" to 2.8090" Spread fairly evenly throughout that range. That's a variance of 7-1/2 Thou.

Now, I don't know if they are all seated to the same depth using those numbers are not. The long bullets could be seated deep and the short ones shallow or...?

Looking at the shape of the HP tip under a glass one can see they are not very even in shape. I thought that was one of the reasons to measure from the base to ogive instead of the base to tip was due to the inconsistent tips.
But, what do I know?

Back to a couple of the other replies I got. The comparator is clean and there are no rings in the bullet from the seating stem.

When I get an insert closer to the diameter of the seating stem I'll measure the bullet base to ogive with it and see if the measurements are more
consistent than measuring with the insert I have now. If they are tighter and the CBTO corresponds then I'll know the seating depth of the bullet base is the same throughout, but if I get the same range in measurements I do now I'll know the bullets are out of wack. Hoping for the first.

Once again,
Thanks

 

[darkangel_r2]

Just so I have this strait. You have loaded rounds in the past with bergers and the remaining few you have exhibit tighter cb2o variation. Then using the same die and brass you loaded lapua 139s and their cb2o measurement had higher variation. Is that correct?

How many firings did you have on the berger loads brass? How many on the lapua? Is it the same brass? What type of sizing die are you using? What processing are you doing to the brass after sizing?

 

[Straightshooter1]

OK, I pulled 16 bullets out of the box at random, and 16 loaded cartridges out of the box at random.
Bullet base to tip ranged from 1.3620" to 1.3690" Spread fairly evenly in that range. That's a variance of 7 Thou.
COAL ranged from 2.8015" to 2.8090" Spread fairly evenly throughout that range. That's a variance of 7-1/2 Thou.

Now, I don't know if they are all seated to the same depth using those numbers are not. The long bullets could be seated deep and the short ones shallow or...?

Looking at the shape of the HP tip under a glass one can see they are not very even in shape. I thought that was one of the reasons to measure from the base to ogive instead of the base to tip was due to the inconsistent tips.
But, what do I know?

Back to a couple of the other replies I got. The comparator is clean and there are no rings in the bullet from the seating stem.

When I get an insert closer to the diameter of the seating stem I'll measure the bullet base to ogive with it and see if the measurements are more
consistent than measuring with the insert I have now. If they are tighter and the CBTO corresponds then I'll know the seating depth of the bullet base is the same throughout, but if I get the same range in measurements I do now I'll know the bullets are out of wack. Hoping for the first.

Once again,
Thanks

The way bullet's meplat's are formed when being manufactured, there's often a lot of variation there. Where the seating stem makes contact is well below the meplat and isn't really effected by the meplat's variations. With the particular lot of Lapua bullets I have (144 FMJ's) I found only a small variation between the BTO's and where the seating stem touches. And since measurement seating stem contact point to base of bullet on my batch of Lapua's, I didn't feel there was any point to sorting this batch. Normally, as I've mentioned, I'll sort my bullets this way and I get consistent results in seating depth as I know that measurement of the bullet and after seating the measurement from that same contact point to the base of the cartridge tells me more accurately how deep the bullet is seated than any COAL measurement.

While COAL gives us all a better idea of what your seating depth is than stating any jump, you can better know your seating depth by comparing a bullet's BTO to the cartridge's CBTO that has the exact same bullet and measured with the same comparator insert. You can get more consistent seating depths sorting bullets by BTO's than by OAL's. Sorting is the best way to get consistency.

Using an average of 1.3620" to 1.3690" for the bullets OAL and comparing the average COAL of 2.8015" to 2.8090", the seating depth "averages" .481" (assuming a case length is 1.920). Of course, the "averages" are just for two numbers and an average doesn't tell you the depth of any particular bullet seated.

 

[1951]

Not quite straight, but yeah. I started loading with the Bergers, never heard of a comparator or CBTO, or shoulder bump etc. Made a few mistakes, had a bit of trouble following the instructions that came with the dies and a few brain malfunctions. The only die set I could find was a rock crusher, the only press I could find was a Lyman. Ended up denting some cases, breaking the decapping pin and almost getting a case stuck, but I muddled through. Gave up on the used factory brass, all the primer pockets were too shallow and I got tired of twisting the uniformer. After the fist few dozen loads I learned about CBTO and quite sizing to overall length. I bought new Peterson brass. The next 365 rounds of 6.5 Creedmoor using Berger hybrids and Peterson brass all seated to within a thousandth of an inch CBTO. I ran out of Bergers and started to load Lapua and now I can't get the seating to within five thou CBTO. So you got that part straight, I loaded bergers and they are consistent CBTO but the Lapua cartridges have too much variance in CBTO.

I have a few Berger bullets left, so I measured the bullet's base to ogive length and they were all pretty much the same, I measured the lapua bullets base to ogive length and they varied as much as 5-7 thou. So my Berger bullets have consistent bullet base to ogive and my Lapua bullets do not have consistent base to ogive. Just like my loaded cartridges.

Brass was new for the first loads, the last hundred Bergers were loaded in 2X fired brass and the Lapuas I now have loaded are in 2X fired brass. Same brass, same brass prep, same primers, same dies, same press, same lube, same powder load, same calipers, same comparator and insert. Different bullet, different consistency. Pretty much tells the tale I think. But I have a few hundred of these bullets and want to load and shoot them so I may have to change something I do for these.

Process after sizing? I put them back into a tumbler to remove the lube that didn't wipe off. Then I re-inspect and measure the dia. at base, dia. at shoulder. I run the cases into a collet neck sizer just to make sure the inside of the mouths are all at the same diameter. I measure the dia at the neck and OAL. I trim the lengths each firing just to keep them all the same at the trim length, 1.910". The cases were all 1-3 thou under when new, and some seem to stretch more than others when sized so I take the time to keep all the cases the same length every loading. I deburr the case mouth inner and outer.

The Bergers shot a better group, but is it the bullet design or the fact they are all at a consistent seating depth. If the Lapuas shoot a larger group than the Bergers so be it, I'll still shoot them, but if I can get the groups smaller by changing the loading procedure I'll do that as well. If I get a consistent bullet base to ogive measurement using a smaller diameter comparator insert, and and then the CBTO measurement using that insert is consistent, I'll know I'm at least getting the same seating depth bullet to bullet, even though the ogive to lands jump may not be, at the diameter the ogive contacts the rifling.

 

[1951]

Well as suggested, I can now measure the bullet base to the point on the ogive that is the same (or as close as I could get) diameter as the seating plug inside diameter. 0.1725". I measured 10 bullets with the BTO insert then measured the same bullets with the base to seater diameter insert. I'll call that the BTSD insert.

The variance of the bullets measured with BTO was three thou, the variance using the BTSD insert was four thou. Not great. Even worse the longest and shortest bullets measured to ogive weren't the same as the ones measured to seating plug diameter.

So the variance between bullets at ogive doesn't correspond the the variance at the seating stem. It seems to me the length of the bullet base isn't the problem but the inconsistency of the shape of the bullet from the body to the tip.

I'm glad it was suggested to me that I measure with a tool that corresponds to the seating plug diameter rather than the ogive, thank you, other wise I wouldn't really know what to measure.

I'll measure all the 680 bullets I have using the BTSD insert and sort them in lots +/-0.0005" , one thou groups. Then seat them to get at least a close average to the CBTO I want. I should be able to get five or so lots of ammo with consistent seating depth but alas, not so consistent CBTO.

I measured some of the rounds I loaded with the BTSD insert and they are consistent in length, so the actual mechanics of seating the bullets is satisfactory, they are consistent one to the next as far as the seating plug setting goes, but I'll have to knock the bullets out, sort and reload them if I want the bullets to be inserted into the cases the same bullet to bullet within the sorted lots.

I can see why Berger bullets go for more money than some of the others out there.

Thank you for all your input.
Al

 

[Straightshooter1]

Well as suggested, I can now measure the bullet base to the point on the ogive that is the same (or as close as I could get) diameter as the seating plug inside diameter. 0.1725". I measured 10 bullets with the BTO insert then measured the same bullets with the base to seater diameter insert. I'll call that the BTSD insert.

The variance of the bullets measured with BTO was three thou, the variance using the BTSD insert was four thou. Not great. Even worse the longest and shortest bullets measured to ogive weren't the same as the ones measured to seating plug diameter.

So the variance between bullets at ogive doesn't correspond the the variance at the seating stem. It seems to me the length of the bullet base isn't the problem but the inconsistency of the shape of the bullet from the body to the tip.

Yes, when seat bullets that have been sorted by bullets base to contact point of the seating stem (let's call it BCPSS), you're going to have some variance in the CBTO measurement of the cartridge. But that's not really a problem. Each bullet that's has the same BCPSS measurement will have the base of the bullet seated to the same depth within the case, being more important than the variance in CBTO or COAL.

Because there can be variance in the bullets shape, as you suggest, the meplat can be of particular importance for LR and ER shooters and why they'll tip their bullets to make them more consistent and even increase the bullet's BC (if done right). But, I'd say this issue is for the higher level of shooters.

I'm glad it was suggested to me that I measure with a tool that corresponds to the seating plug diameter rather than the ogive, thank you, other wise I wouldn't really know what to measure.

I'll measure all the 680 bullets I have using the BTSD insert and sort them in lots +/-0.0005" , one thou groups. Then seat them to get at least a close average to the CBTO I want. I should be able to get five or so lots of ammo with consistent seating depth but alas, not so consistent CBTO.

Yup, that's OK about the CBTO. It's consistent seating depth you're after.

I sort to +/- .001, as I could justify +/- .0005 as not being able to see that difference in chrono or on paper. lol, I'm not even sure I can see any difference in the +/- .001. But, going to extremes can make us feel better.

I measured some of the rounds I loaded with the BTSD insert and they are consistent in length, so the actual mechanics of seating the bullets is satisfactory, they are consistent one to the next as far as the seating plug setting goes, but I'll have to knock the bullets out, sort and reload them if I want the bullets to be inserted into the cases the same bullet to bullet within the sorted lots.

I can see why Berger bullets go for more money than some of the others out there.

Thank you for all your input.
Al

. . . one of many parts of the process worked out, huh?

Next . . . ???

 

[darkangel_r2]

Make sure to trim, chamfer, (and maybe brush) the inside of your necks before seating any bullet. And keep in mind it takes 2-3 shots for brass to reach a hardness plateau when it starts acting consistently if you are not annealing. So there will be variations in seating depth due to more or less work required to seat the bullets until then.

If you have a micrometer seating die you can somewhat quickly seat each bullet to the same b2o measurement by seating each twice with a measurement in-between. Keep the ram at the bottom of the stroke for a few seconds as well when seating (helps when sizing brass too).

Then just mark any round that felt like it seated much lighter and heaver than the others and use those for practice and fouling shots.

For the bullets do what you said and sort them by b2o or better by bearing surface if you have 2 comparators.

That's about all I have for you. Good luck.

 

[1951]

Thanks guys.
When I first started this reloading I thought -buy some equipment, follow the instructions and presto- but there's so much more to it. Everytime I turn around I seem to have to buy, modify or make a tool, change methods, or redo something I've already done. More and more precise detail about a reloading step or theory. But I enjoy it as I'm constantly learning.

 

[bozo699]

Yup, this is it:

Welcome to Green's Rifles

Complete Bench & Varmint Rifles Precision Barrel Installation Superior Custom Dies and Tooling Specializing in craftsmanship

greensrifles.com

Wish I had know this earlier in my precision loading trek.

I love my Bob Greens bullet sorting tools
Wayne

 

[jimmymac]

And keep in mind it takes 2-3 shots for brass to reach a hardness plateau when it starts acting consistently if you are not annealing. So there will be variations in seating depth due to more or less work required to seat the bullets until then.

In practical application, I've experienced this seating depth issue exactly zero times.

 

[grovey]

last fall I bought a case of 1000 139 Lapua scenars and found them to measure better than your getting and better than the 142 smk I also use check your seating stem for fitI

last fall I bought a case of 1000 139 Lapua scenars and found them to measure better than your getting and better than the 142 smk I also use check your seating stem for fit.

I agree with this . I also had a 1,000 ct box of 139's, and I found them to be near perfect when measured on a stand. Certainly one of the best bullets I've had the pleasure of using.

 

[mchees1]

I have been using Lapua Scenar 6mm and 6.5mm bullets for years. I measure each lot of bullets with a Sinclair bullet comparitor and digital indicator mounted on a granite base. I use a consistent technique to apply the same amount of force when putting the bullets in the comparitor - I have found that greatly reduces the errors in readings. My Lapua Scenar 90gr 6mm bullets have a base to ogive variance of 0.0010. The oal range is 0.0035. The 105gr 6mm bullets have a base to ogive variance of 0.0010. The oal range is 0.0040. The 123gr 6.5mm bullets have a base to ogive variance of 0.0015. The oal variance is 0.0052. the 139gr 6.5mm bullets have a base to ogive variance of 0.0010. The oal variance is 0.0024.

I have never had a batch of Lapua bullets that were out of this range. The Lapua variance is exactly the same as my Berger 140gr hybrid target 140gr bullets, except the Bergers have more variance in oal. Same variance for my Berger 108gr target, 105gr hybrid target. The Bergers all have the same 0.0010 base to ogive variance as the Lapua bullets. But the Bergers did have more variance in oal - up to 0.0095. In fact one batch of Berger AR hybrid tactical otm 130gr 6.5mm bullets had a base to ogive variance of 0.0130! It is baffling to me that you have Lapua bullets that have that much variance in base to ogive distance.

My Lapua bullets all shoot great and I can get them. So I really don't have any reason to switch brands. Sorry to hear you seem to be having bad luck.

 

[1951]

Luck of the draw I suppose, but I measured and remeasured more than once.

I just spent a couple hours on the computer looking at as many sites I could find on the topic of Lapua 139 Scenars. More than half of the observations were the Scenars are the most consistent bullet made, about a third say they are not bad but use something better and the rest say they are junk.

I had really good luck with the Bergers, but maybe the next box I buy will be a disappointment , who knows? But I'll keep trying them, if they ever become available again, until they do disappoint. But I'm also willing to try other brands, I may find a couple that my rifle likes more than the Bergers.

 

[mchees1]

Luck of the draw I suppose, but I measured and remeasured more than once.

I just spent a couple hours on the computer looking at as many sites I could find on the topic of Lapua 139 Scenars. More than half of the observations were the Scenars are the most consistent bullet made, about a third say they are not bad but use something better and the rest say they are junk.

I had really good luck with the Bergers, but maybe the next box I buy will be a disappointment , who knows? But I'll keep trying them, if they ever become available again, until they do disappoint. But I'm also willing to try other brands, I may find a couple that my rifle likes more than the Bergers.

Just a thought. I haven't closely read all of the replies in this thread, but I don't recall anything specific as to which tools are being used to measure base to ogive. Ogive is just a curve - the curved part of the bullet. So what tools are being used to measure it is important. The comparitors let the bullet enter a hole of some specific diameter. This hole has to be smaller than the diameter of the bearing surface of the bullet. Then the bullet stops when the hole diameter matches that particular diameter on the bullet ogive - wherever that point is. So depending on what part of the ogive curve is contacting the comparitor, you might be getting inconsistent measurements. The Berger hybrid bullets have parts of 2 different ogive curves - a tangent and secant curve. I don't know if the Lapua bullets are hybrids or not. But, if they are, and your comparitor is happening to contact the bullets at or very near the change from tangent to secant, it may be causing the inconsistent length readings you seem to be getting. Any way you can try a different manufacturer for your comparitor measurements? Just an idea to give you peace of mind.

 

[mikecr]

The OP stated "I measured the few remaining Berger bullets from the bullet base to the ogive and they are all pretty much the same, I measured the Lapuas from the bullet base to ogive and some are as much as five thou different than others".

It IS the bullet.

Unless there is more to it, or a different issue, than BTO..
I think the answer is among notions provided by Ned Ludd or Texas10

 

[1951]

I started all over and sorted the whole box of bullets into four lots, within 1.5 thou each from bullet base to the point where the seating stem contacts with the .17 comparator insert. I then sorted each one of those lots into three lots measuring from the bullet base to the ogive using my 26 comparator insert.
Now I have 12 lots of bullets that are as close to the same size and shape as I can get withing each lot. I'll just load from one lot until it's gone the start on the next. PITA but my groups have improved over what I was shooting without sorting.

 

[1951]

I shot four five shot groups at 100 yards, pic 2&3 are unsorted bullets, 4&5 are sorted.
I'm not a great shooter, well let's face it not even good, and most of the problems I have shooting are due to me not the equipment or components. But my groups are doing better after I size sorted the bullets.