Long range load development at 100 yards.

[savageshooter86]

looks like that powder/bullet combo doesn't want to shoot? That 6BR should be shooting better than that

 

[Nomad47]

Erik, here is one for you to analyze. I think the low shot on target 4 was me being a tad disappointed in the first two shots and hurrying the shot. Half grain increments and I posted the MV and ES on the target.

 

[barnesuser28]

Erik, here is one for you to analyze. I think the low shot on target 4 was me being a tad disappointed in the first two shots and hurrying the shot. Half grain increments and I posted the MV and ES on the target.

I say go with 45.5 grains and run with it! I did a test tonight and i will post up pics, my results were obvious!

Riley

 

[Erik Cortina]

Bill, 45.5 looks really good as does 44.5, but 45.0 puzzles me. Maybe it was you like you said, as it should have shot better than that. I would be curious to see how 45.0 would do on another test but for now I'm liking 45.5

Go to first page of this thread and on first post I attached the target I use for load testing. Download it and shoot next test on it. It's easier to aim and read groups on.

Move on to seating depth testing, but take 5 loaded at 45.0 and shoot again, it should do better than above.

 

[Nomad47]

Thanks, Erik. Yeah, I keep thinking the same thing about the 45.0 load. ES was better on the 45.5 load, but three shots is an awful small sample for ES.

As far as my target goes, I will be shooting it for a while - I had 1000 copies made last winter. I line up the crosshairs on the points of the diamonds. But I should have put in 1/4" grids when I was creating it.

 

[savageshooter86]

Maybe it is my eyes but I am not seeing 45.5 being the node. 45 group center is about right on water line, 45.5 is higher, and 46 is higher than the previous. It is walking up the paper. Where 44.5 appears to be a lot better, since 44 and 45 hit same POI vertical and 44.5 hits just slightly higher but is in the middle of the other two charges? ???

BUT.......45 appears to be scatter node too so not sure you want your charge that close to scatter node?

 

[barnesuser28]

All info is on the target, i am thinking 52.6 grains is the ticket.

 

[jsthntn247]

Erik, here is one for you to analyze. I think the low shot on target 4 was me being a tad disappointed in the first two shots and hurrying the shot. Half grain increments and I posted the MV and ES on the target.

I say go with 45.5 grains and run with it! I did a test tonight and i will post up pics, my results were obvious!

Riley

That is about as classic of an example as you can get for an ocw test. 45.0 is a scatter node in which your accuracy node should be a charge of around 1% higher. 45.5 is about 1% higher than the scatter node, has a low ES and shoots one hole, and the 46.0 charge shot a similar poi, what more could ask. If you wanted to find the dead center of that node, you could work from 45.0 to 45.6 in .1 grain increments and zero in on it.

 

[barnesuser28]

Now that i look at my targets, i think mine is also a great example, i think i will test 52.6 ,52.7, and 52.8. 5 shots each, does that sound about right? What am i looking for in these tests? Accuracy or stable elevation?

 

[barnesuser28]

Now that i look at my targets, i think mine is also a great example, i think i will test 52.6 ,52.7, and 52.8. 5 shots each, does that sound about right? What am i looking for in these tests? Accuracy or stable elevation?

Thoughts Erik?

 

[jsthntn247]

Now that i look at my targets, i think mine is also a great example, i think i will test 52.6 ,52.7, and 52.8. 5 shots each, does that sound about right? What am i looking for in these tests? Accuracy or stable elevation?

I would start seating depth test with 52.8. It will shoot.

 

[trailrider121]

Here's a test using my 24" barrel 260 Rem, 130 gr vld Hunting, Lapua brass, H4350, and Wolf LR primer. Bullets were seated .080" 2.870" col. Touch lands at 2.950" which I can load to.

I'm going to roll with 44.3grs as center node. Just wanted to share my results.

Load data:

NM= 43.5
A= 43.7
B=44.0
C=44.3
D=44.6
E=44.9
F=45.2

Test done at 109 yards, shot round robin.

 

[savageshooter86]

44.3 looks good to me

 

[barnesuser28]

I would start seating depth test with 52.8. It will shoot.

Will do.

 

[Erik Cortina]

Now that i look at my targets, i think mine is also a great example, i think i will test 52.6 ,52.7, and 52.8. 5 shots each, does that sound about right? What am i looking for in these tests? Accuracy or stable elevation?

I would start seating depth test with 52.8. It will shoot.

I agree.

 

[savageshooter86]

So Erik, when doing this if you don't have really great consistency in vertical for 3 consecutive charges over a 1 gr load window(0.3 increments when testing charges), you would use the middle of the 2 charges that did shoot well? Or at that point would you switch powder to try to get a bigger load window?

On barnesuser28's target you said 52.8 gr, that is only a 0.3 gr accuracy window? That is not very big at all

 

[Erik Cortina]

So Erik, when doing this if you don't have really great consistency in vertical for 3 consecutive charges over a 1 gr load window(0.3 increments when testing charges), you would use the middle of the 2 charges that did shoot well? Or at that point would you switch powder to try to get a bigger load window?

On barnesuser28's target you said 52.8 gr, that is only a 0.3 gr accuracy window? That is not very big at all

I agree, not very big, but that's all he has to work with. Some powders offer a wider window, as also same powder at different pressures sometimes offer wider accuracy windows.

 

[barnesuser28]

I might also have stable elevation at 53.2 grains but i havent tested it, and unless you think it would be worth it, i dont plan too. I dont think the 52.9 grains is too hot, now that i looked at all the other rounds, they all have flattened primers and i can BARELY see a "quarter moon" on the 52.9 grains.

 

[falconpilot]

Eric,

Great thread! Thanks for sharing.

Jim

 

[Erik Cortina]

Eric,

Great thread! Thanks for sharing.

Jim

Thanks Jim.