Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
I have performed a "coarse" seating depth test such as you described above on a few occasions when I had no idea whatsoever where a new bullet I was testing might want to be seated. In that event, QuickLoad makes it easy to choose a charge weight to use that is slightly reduced, but not so low as to make any results you find almost meaningless. Once you find the approximate neighborhood where the bullet wants to be seated, move on to charge weight optimization. It is important to note that even after doing an initial "coarse" seating depth test, I will always come back after the charge weight optimization and do a fine increment seating depth test (.003" increments) to ensure using the optimal charge weight the bullets are seated where they need to be.
To some extent, these steps in the reloading process are like the "chicken or the egg" question. Optimizing charge weight by some methods, such as OCW, will be made much more difficult if you randomly choose an initial seating depth where the chosen bullet groups extremely poorly. Likewise, attempting to find an optimal seating depth if the charge weight/velocity of your load is off from where it will actually end up by 50 to 75 fps (or more) may also be of limited value. That is why there is nothing wrong with starting out with a coarse seating depth test, then proceeding to charge weight testing, and finishing up with a fine increment seating depth test. You're attempting to optimize two interdependent variables, so you bounce back and forth between tests for one variable or the other, narrowing in on the sweet spot a little more with each test.
To some extent, these steps in the reloading process are like the "chicken or the egg" question. Optimizing charge weight by some methods, such as OCW, will be made much more difficult if you randomly choose an initial seating depth where the chosen bullet groups extremely poorly. Likewise, attempting to find an optimal seating depth if the charge weight/velocity of your load is off from where it will actually end up by 50 to 75 fps (or more) may also be of limited value. That is why there is nothing wrong with starting out with a coarse seating depth test, then proceeding to charge weight testing, and finishing up with a fine increment seating depth test. You're attempting to optimize two interdependent variables, so you bounce back and forth between tests for one variable or the other, narrowing in on the sweet spot a little more with each test.