• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Jumping bullets a mile!

I'm no expert, but I've witnessed groups come in, go out, and come in agian during seating tests moving in .003 increments.
I've personally never tried the berger method as I feel moving in .030 increments you'd possibly be jumping over your seating depth node.
Just my experience I usually find my accuracy between .010-.015 off of touch.
 
In my 6BR, the Berger 105 Hybrids seem to like a jump of about .030". I think I was running the VLD's at about .070", but never was really satisfied with consistency (hence the change to Hybrids.)
 
I talked with Mark about his testing a few months ago. Keep in mind he is looking for the widest tune not necessarily the tiniest group. Thats not to say you may not also find the tiniest group at those jumps. Just know what his goal was with this testing. I do think he did a very good job of achieving it.
 
Yes that was the goal the most forgiving load depth to resist chassing lands and diffrent evenviormental changes.But we traveling to matches whether LR BR or a Hunt. This info can help achieve a shooter not having to change and tweak every part of his load. Rather than shooting and learning the wind.

Thus giving you the most stable rock solid load and you can take anywhere from the desert to the mountains and it will shoot. And that way you add a little whiggle room to the loading process.


Do add some additional info

Erik Cortina video of his group at 1k is ES was 18fps so wiggle room is needed for sure even with the best load.
 
After reading the article, it all sounds very good and logical, but I'm still trying to process (in my mind) all that's actually going on as the bullet is seated deeper at each interval. For example, if one is starting with a load that fills the case to something like 102% of case capacity when seated at the lands, how far can one keep reducing the the seating depth until there's a major pressure problem? If one is starting with a load that only fills 94% of the case capacity, then there's plenty of room to not have much worry about too much pressure as one seats the bullet deeper. This issue wasn't mentioned in the article. I know this process is really all about POI, but as a bullet is seated deeper and deeper, one is changing MV and pressure curves (given the same powder load). So to some extent, MV data can be telling you something too as it relates to POI, isn't it . . . ??? Or maybe it just doesn't really matter???

I've got some more mulling to do. ;) :D

Anyone else have any thoughts along this line?
 
Last edited:
Yes i thought about that as well i am gonna guess they used a starting load. That would be a question for mark since he conducted the test.

@Alex Wheeler are you able to ask mark for powder charge specs for the #5 test loads?
 
We dont speak on a regular basis. He did share the data with me and I thought it was very good. I personally wouldnt worry about his powder charges, your barrel will be different. Even barrels chambered from the same batch with the same reamer and the same components do not tune up exactly the same. Many times they are close, but with a different barrel, chamber, powder lot, bullet lot, primer lots, ext chances his loads will work for you is highly unlikely.
 
I was thinking along the lines as a baseline to see if the load where 100% case fill then compressed when the seating depth increased. Or it was at 90% then seating depth.

Just as a start point
 
Alex Wheeler said:
We dont speak on a regular basis. He did share the data with me and I thought it was very good. I personally wouldnt worry about his powder charges, your barrel will be different. Even barrels chambered from the same batch with the same reamer and the same components do not tune up exactly the same. Many times they are close, but with a different barrel, chamber, powder lot, bullet lot, primer lots, ext chances his loads will work for you is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

You're so right about those differences. But it's not about how his powder charge might work in someone else's gun. It's about how his process might work (or not work) with someone else's powder charge(s) . . . given that some powder charges may present restrictions to the process.
 
I've had rifles that only wanted to be way off the lands, like 125 thou. some at sixty so at 15, off I've always say start in, then you only have one way to go. Don't think I've ever shot a compressed load so can't help you there. The one that shot with 125 off was my wife's H.G. and in 2009 she kick butt with in PA.

Joe Salt
 
Straightshooter1 said:
After reading the article, it all sounds very good and logical, but I'm still trying to process (in my mind) all that's actually going on as the bullet is seated deeper at each interval. For example, if one is starting with a load that fills the case to something like 102% of case capacity when seated at the lands, how far can one keep reducing the the seating depth until there's a major pressure problem? If one is starting with a load that only fills 94% of the case capacity, then there's plenty of room to not have much worry about too much pressure as one seats the bullet deeper. This issue wasn't mentioned in the article. I know this process is really all about POI, but as a bullet is seated deeper and deeper, one is changing MV and pressure curves (given the same powder load). So to some extent, MV data can be telling you something too as it relates to POI, isn't it . . . ??? Or maybe it just doesn't really matter???

I've got some more mulling to do. ;) :D

Anyone else have any thoughts along this line?
Click to expand...
My experience has been that the range of seating depths is very much caliber dependant. Small calibers are much more sensitive to pressure increases when seating deeper irrespective of the % of case fill.
Large seating depth changes need be approached with caution and lessen the charge if necessary.
Watch velocity and adapt the load to maintain a velocity sweet spot if you have one.
 
Using a ladder approach for seating depth as well as for charge weight seems fine to me, but should be on the basis of horizontal movement in addition to vertical impact. I often see that vertical and horizontal move together in a manner which allows the node to be defined for both. Otherwise if selecting charge and depth based on vertical alone, what's left to tune the horizontal? The referenced example clearly showed shots 17-19 suited both, eventhough the discussion was only for vertical.
 
I'm at 0.010 off for my Berger 6.5 Hybrid Target 140gr and .224 80.5 FullBore Target and 85.5 Long Range Hybrids. Getting right at half MoA or a little bit less.

And I been there for some 500 rounds.

I find seating depth the old fashioned way.... 5 round groups starting at the lands and then at increments of 0.005 off as far as needed to group well.
 
I've had a 6BR that needed .125 jump because of the over-extended throat (gunsmithing error). I went with the 105 Berger boat tails and got great results.

Now I am faced with the situation of loading for mag length (223). Should I start with max and reduce lengths first, before changing charge weights?

Thanks for any insight,
Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

6mm BRA - My Experience - How To Guide (long)
2
Replies
34
Views
25,432
6BRA
6BRA

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.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
167,035
Messages
2,226,969
Members
80,153
Latest member
RobJodrell

Share This Page

Back
Top