Long range load development at 100 yards.

[6BRinNZ]

Testing at 100 yards gives one good basic information. But tests at the long range target shows what the real accuracy is down range.

One other thing to consider in group shooting. If several groups with the same load are not within 10% of the same size, there's not enough shots in each group for any one of them to have a 90% or better chance of representing what the system's accuracy really is.

No disagreement with what you have posted but - one thing this thread does do is remove a lot of development complexity by providing basic criteria within which to make load decisions in an environment (100 yards) that can be managed by those that are either limited in experience or skill, as well as being used by those with vast skill and experience levels who can take into account all of the nuances of reloading and load development.

Ultimately any system is proven either in the varmint fields or at the ranges that are being competed against. The one variable that is seldom tested (absolutely there are exceptions) as part of the load development process is what it performs like under match criteria. Typically in this case the development choices are taken to club days and are validated or proven to be poor choices. IMO this makes sense.

 

[sbranden]

Well it was Fri night so I decided to try this again. Varget w/55BK's and Fed210GM primers in my 24" 1in12 twist Savage 22-250. From my original workup I had determined 35.9 to be a sweet spot charge (testing at just "Book COL", which is 2.350" OAL), then I did seating depth variations from .005 off, out to about .028 off with this one consistent 35.9 grain charge, locking in on a comparator measurement of 2.105" which ends up being about .018 off in this rifle. So tonight I was varying by .1's around this one consistent seating depth again (.018 off).

What's frustrating is that 2.350" COL/OAL was better with my original 35.9 winning charge, from a cold - cleaned & not even fouled yet, barrel! Check it out at bottom right.

35.8 (top left) was better than this when originally tested, so I fault myself really on groups 1, 3, and 7. Now I didn't shoot as many on the low end of 35.9 as I did on the high end because, well... this is a hunting rifle and I want to be as fast and flat as possible with these 55's. Fortunately, I repeated a few so in the case of 36.0, and 36.2 - my second groups of these in each case are much more representative of what it can do and hopefully will give the experts looking at this the best possible feel for POI changes in sequence with the other charges.

I still like 35.9 @ 2.350". :
I'm not thrilled with what I see going from 35.9 to 36.1 (second row).
(I don't feel totally confident about 36.0, even though that second group looked pretty darn good!)
36.0-36.1-36.2, try 36.1 again maybe?
You can see the drift to the right and higher from 36.1 to 36.4. Should I go higher? Still no pressure, but have to be close now!
36.0 and vary my seating depth again slightly, from .015 to .020 off in .001 increments?
35.9 or 36.0 either one starting at 2.350 ("Book COL"), and take it further off... jump it more, to 2.345, 2.340, etc. ?

I did try to sort bullets by comp (base of boat tail to ogive) this time, and then length sort within that grouping also. (But this wasn't done for the 3 @ 2.350 I fired first, because again this was just my starting point hunting load when I first got the gun and tried these BK's out.) The powder charge was as consistent as I could be in all cases with just a 5-0-5 balance beam type of scale.

Let me know where you think I should go from here - thanks!

 

[skiutah02]

Re: This is another good one-at least I think

Below is a target from 100 yd testing of the 185 Juggernauts in my rifle yesterday. Purchased a pack of these from another member here and they arrived a few days ago. Have a fair bit of experience using this method over the past year (I know it as the OCW method), but thought it might be fun (for me at least) to see what YOU might do. The jump in elevation between 43.6 and 43.9 makes me nervous, but the group at 43.6 makes me happy. This is the first 15-16 shots of this bullet in my rifle, so all of my starting points were educated guesses using manuals and the knowledge gained in the 2000 rounds with this barrel (testing with 155, 168, 175, 178s). It may important to know that the brass at 43.9 and 44.2 just started to (very, very faintly) show ejector marks and the writing indicates velocities of shots (round-robin). Later tonight I will post the results of what I did. Note: The 3 shots below the test is the load I am currently using and were used to foul the cold, clean barrel right before the test.

So the question is what would you do? In my mind not clear-cut but actually two possibilities..... Drew

As promised, here is what I did...

I considered seeing if there was a good node around 44.1-44.2, but I do not like hot loads as the temp swings in my area seem to cost a few of people on the line their day due to bolt issues and blown primers, so I investigated whether there was a decent node around 43.6, so I loaded up 4 each at 43.4, 43.6 and 43.8. Here is the target...(Note: wrote the wrong weights on target in pen, 44.4 should be 43.4, etc.)



I very much liked the elevations so I will use this charge and play around a bit with seating depths. Currently I have it jumping 0.020". I also confirmed that the 43.6 load shot OK at 300 yds with an 11 shot group (pulled one). I'll post that target in a bit. Drew

 

[skiutah02]

Re: This is another good one-at least I think

I also confirmed that the 43.6 load shot OK at 300 yds with an 11 shot group (pulled one). I'll post that target in a bit. Drew

Sorry Erik, its a Savage.... The sticker is 1" for reference

 

[Erik Cortina]

That's a pretty consistent group. I like it.

 

[skiutah02]

That's a pretty consistent group. I like it.

Thanks. I have not had too much success in testing seating depths during load development in the 308. It usually turns out that my starting point is the best (by coincidence) or the load is virtually insensitive to seating depth (to a point). I believe that you are advocating that seating depth nodes are 0.003" apart and most of my tests have been in 0.005" increments. I'm agreeable to test this theory. Do you suggest 0.003" (or less) increments from the tested depth (0.020" in my case), or start from jammed and work out in small increments? I'm thinking about trying 4 each of 0.015", 0.018", 0.020", 0.022" and 0.024". Thoughts? Drew

Up to this point I have been fine getting a load that consistently can hold 0.5 (or less) MOA vertical and has "good" ES/SDs and taking it to matches (I shoot FTR) without too much fine tuning because my ability to read the wind (windy in ND) has been the limiting factor for me....

 

[Erik Cortina]

That's a pretty consistent group. I like it.

Thanks. I have not had too much success in testing seating depths during load development in the 308. It usually turns out that my starting point is the best (by coincidence) or the load is virtually insensitive to seating depth (to a point). I believe that you are advocating that seating depth nodes are 0.003" apart and most of my tests have been in 0.005" increments. I'm agreeable to test this theory. Do you suggest 0.003" (or less) increments from the tested depth (0.020" in my case), or start from jammed and work out in small increments? I'm thinking about trying 4 each of 0.015", 0.018", 0.020", 0.022" and 0.024". Thoughts? Drew

Up to this point I have been fine getting a load that consistently can hold 0.5 (or less) MOA vertical and has "good" ES/SDs and taking it to matches (I shoot FTR) without too much fine tuning because my ability to read the wind (windy in ND) has been the limiting factor for me....

Yes, test in .003" increments. If I get around to it, I will post a target with .003" increments that outlines the nodes and also shows really narrow nodes (bad) that someone going in .020" increments would have picked.

 

[skiutah02]

Thanks for the response. I guess I should clarify. Actually I have used 0.005" increments. The 0.020" number is my current jump. Drew

 

[Tzed250]

No input on my original post here, http://forum.accurateshooter.com/index.php?topic=3814361.msg36428331#msg36428331.

But moving ahead, these are the results of my seating depth test:


XR-100 by zweitakt250, on Flickr


XR-100 by zweitakt250, on Flickr


XR-100 by zweitakt250, on Flickr

I fouled up the -.024" target when I lost a change in the wind and mirage. Other than that it seems to me the the rifle prefers to jump from .025 to .03 inches. With better bullets I may have a decent little shooter here.

 

[Erik Cortina]

-.012" to -.015" look best to me.

 

[Tzed250]

-.012" to -.015" look best to me.

Thank you Erik.



I have learned so much from this thread. Those who have been there and done that can see beyond those of us who haven't. With two trips to the range I have gathered what I think is quality data. There is no way I could have moved that quickly if it weren't for this thread. Some of the money saved in not burning up powder and bullets will go to help out the forum

 

[Erik Cortina]

-.012" to -.015" look best to me.

Thank you Erik.



I have learned so much from this thread. Those who have been there and done that can see beyond those of us who haven't. With two trips to the range I have gathered what I think is quality data. There is no way I could have moved that quickly if it weren't for this thread. Some of the money saved in not burning up powder and bullets will go to help out the forum

Glad to hear that. This forum has saved us all lots of money over the years learning from each other's experiences.

 

[skiutah02]

That's a pretty consistent group. I like it.

Thanks. I have not had too much success in testing seating depths during load development in the 308. It usually turns out that my starting point is the best (by coincidence) or the load is virtually insensitive to seating depth (to a point). I believe that you are advocating that seating depth nodes are 0.003" apart and most of my tests have been in 0.005" increments. I'm agreeable to test this theory. Do you suggest 0.003" (or less) increments from the tested depth (0.020" in my case), or start from jammed and work out in small increments? I'm thinking about trying 4 each of 0.015", 0.018", 0.020", 0.022" and 0.024". Thoughts? Drew

Up to this point I have been fine getting a load that consistently can hold 0.5 (or less) MOA vertical and has "good" ES/SDs and taking it to matches (I shoot FTR) without too much fine tuning because my ability to read the wind (windy in ND) has been the limiting factor for me....

Yes, test in .003" increments. If I get around to it, I will post a target with .003" increments that outlines the nodes and also shows really narrow nodes (bad) that someone going in .020" increments would have picked.

Here is my seating depth test. Went with 0.005" increments from just touching the lands to 0.025 jump. Took two shots with the 0.020" jump (already tested so have OK idea of how it shoots) to warm up the barrel, shot the 0,5,10,15 and 25 then finished with 3 shots of the 0.020". So the lower group (labeled 20) has five shots - two from cold bore then three with hot barrel (ambient temp was 93o), the rest 3. I am not a talented enough a shooter to discount the fact I MAY have pulled one on the 0.010" group, but it did not feel like it. I'm going to run with 0.015". If I get neurotic, I may try 0.013, 0.015 and 0.017 down the road. I also wish to see how she does at 600.

 

[skiutah02]

I also wish to see how she does at 600.

On a whim, with just barely enough daylight remaining yesterday, I loaded up 12 rounds of this load (see above) and drove the 1.25 hour one-way trip to a nearby 600 yd range. As I had not shot this load at 600, I guessed at the elevation needed and took 1 shot. Was 4" high and 6" right. Drove back to the line, adjusted scope, and took a three-shot group at a quarter (coin) under a 2" sticker I have been trying to hit at 600 yds this summer. Did not hit quarter, but the three shot group confirmed my zero and provided a pleasing group for this new load (yeah I know three shots blah blah , you can ignore the .223 holes like I said been trying to hit that quarter for my daughter all summer).

I then placed a new sheet of paper with a fifty-cent piece under a 2" sticker for my remaining 8 shots. On the first shot I hit the half-dollar. I was so excited I drove back down to see the hit (and to reattach the sticker as it was dangling and I could not aim at it anymore). Sadly, it was just a nick rather than a hole. I reattached the sticker and took the remaining 7 shots. You can see that the wind changed a little. Ultimately, I was hoping for a better group but still OK as a potential load. Maybe I would do better without trying to beat the darkness. I will probably try this load at my next match this weekend.

 

[savageshooter86]

What is the height from lowest shot to the highest one?

 

[skiutah02]

What is the height from lowest shot to the highest one?

Looks like 3.09 inches from center to center of highest to lowest hole.

 

[Piotrowski]

Asking a question that probably belongs in the new thread, but I want to keep this near the top as I'm going to try this method to find a better load...

The light bulb finally flashed on this past weekend at the Range when I noticed that the 5th and 6th reloads, with Neck Sizing only, were causing more work to get the bolt to close. (I'm assuming that the body has been stretching slightly with each time the cases are fired? Neck Sizing does nothing to fix this?)

Question is: If I've only got a standard Redding Full Length Sizing Die, should I use it, or continue with Neck Sizing only until I get my hands on a Competition FL Die? (I'm not leaning on the bolt yet, so I'm not worried that Neck Sizing for another reload will put me at risk.)

I could also use a little advice as to how wide (grains-wise) that I should load for this test? I've been shooting mostly mid to high 90's, with occasional low-90's when I forget what I'm supposed to do to get this rifle to shoot accurately, (non-competition out to 600 yards) with a GMM 175 clone load at about 41.8 grains of IMR4064. I've also been shooting it at .120 jump based on a bullet seating test I did a while back.

I'm assuming I should test initially at jam - .020? (Or is it -.012?)(It took me nearly three weeks to catch up with this 75 page thread. I didn't take any notes and don't want to re-read. Sorry.)

It seems most shoot a few grains higher than this.

I could also switch from 175 SMK's to 155 SMK's, 168 Nosler CC's, or Berger Hybrid 168's if someone knows they shoot better out of this gun.

I'm shooting a stock Savage 12F/TR .308 off of a clone Harris bipod. Sinclair F-Class is waiting on their adapter to arrive. (Shot it right off the end of the rail with the mickey-mouse addition of some thicker foam that I tried!)

Great Stuff! Really like seeing the end results some have had! (Amazing Shooters out there!)

 

[skiutah02]

I could also switch from 175 SMK's to 155 SMK's, 168 Nosler CC's, or Berger Hybrid 168's if someone knows they shoot better out of this gun.

I'm shooting a stock Savage 12F/TR .308 off of a clone Harris bipod. Sinclair F-Class is waiting on their adapter to arrive. (Shot it right off the end of the rail with the mickey-mouse addition of some thicker foam that I tried!)

Great Stuff! Really like seeing the end results some have had! (Amazing Shooters out there!)

Piotrowski,

I am using the same rifle as you for the Berger 185s in my tests reported just above. It is too soon for me to point you in that direction until I try this load under match conditions, but I can tell you that I tried the 175 SMKs in my rifle with the load you are using, found a better node at a little higher charge and 0.020" jump, and I was able to get Sierra 155 Palmas and Hornady 178AMAX/178 HPBTs to shoot better. I have posted my results for those tests here and elsewhere, but try here

http://savageftrreview.webs.com/apps/profile/119688973/

as a starting point if you are interested. Drew

It is worth noting that while our rifles are "the same model" you should work up your own loads as every rifle is different, but, yes, I would try 178s.....Good luck, Drew

 

[Piotrowski]

Thanks for the reply.

That 178 A-Max group (from the link) is pretty dang impressive. Powder Valley has them in stock, so I may pick up 100 to add to the experimentation list.

 

[trailrider121]

-.012" to -.015" look best to me.

Erik,

Of all the stuff you thought us, I reviewed Tzed250 targets and figured .009" to .018" seems to be end to end node with .012"- to .015" the center. If it were me, I would choose .013". Good stuff!