New guy upgrade & process questions

[josh shrum]

My main interest was finding ways to limit my input on the rifle more. When using bipod and squeeze bag I'm using my grip on the bag for elevation then position and pressure for windage.

My "theory" or understanding was that moving towards mechanical rest would allow me a way to adjust with less "input" from me

You are correct, especially if you are able to shoot free recoil. I had it in my head that you could put the $ you might spend on a front rest towards something which might benefit you more early on. I also forgot that you covered your desire to move away from the bipod/squeeze bag as you pursue your testing. My apologies, sometimes I wonder where my head is at.

So long as your rear bag and front rest allow the rifle to track well and support the rifle without you needing to assist, you should be in a good place. A good setup will make the gun feel like it is on rails.

Were I in your shoes and looking to purchase a quality front rest, especially if I didn't need a joystick, I would likely buy another Sinclair Competition.

When I first started down the precision rabbit hole I purchased a mechanical front rest that was quite popular and priced where most folks can afford it without trouble. About a year later I had sunk twice what that rest cost me into "upgrades" for it and still was not satisfied with it. In the end, I spent about what the Sinclair ended up costing me. My previous comments concerning rests stem from wanting to save others the same hassle/disappointment.

 

[josh shrum]

First thought: I recommend a basic Chargemaster or similar automatic thrower. I was able to consistently get within .1 grains with mine. Unless you’re competing at 600+ yards, more accurate powder charges aren’t necessary. It’s getting close to the season where these go on good sales.

Second thought: you will receive many tips and advice. It is always fair to ask whether this tip is based on proven data or is actually reducing the variance of the cartridge just because it’s possible. For example, consistency of bullets matters, and there’s countless examples of inconsistent bullets grouping bigger than consistent ones. For another example, runout of the assembled cartridge- there isn’t evidence that runout and group size consistently (if at all) line up. But it’s a variable that can be controlled and error reduced, in case it helps.
Im not saying to ignore advice that isn’t based on double blind studies published in peer reviewed journals. But make sure you know the context for every technique and decide if it’s worth your time and money right now.

Well said

 

[CharlieNC]

The Chargemaster will deliver +/-0.05gr if you tune the parameters and find a proper insert to deliver fine trickling. You must get innovative with an insert to achieve this when using large kernels vs fine ball/flake powder. So I no longer use a tuned beam, which is no better.

Harris bipod on the front and a hard bag, such as a Protektor on the back. Use a few boards of different thickness under the bag such that the equipment setup places the reticle on target, and not relying on the shooter's hold, can provide tight groups when you take your time. The squeeze sock is for rapid deployment, not the best accuracy.

 

[Plinkit]

First thought: I recommend a basic Chargemaster or similar automatic thrower. I was able to consistently get within .1 grains with mine. Unless you’re competing at 600+ yards, more accurate powder charges aren’t necessary. It’s getting close to the season where these go on good sales.

Second thought: you will receive many tips and advice. It is always fair to ask whether this tip is based on proven data or is actually reducing the variance of the cartridge just because it’s possible. For example, consistency of bullets matters, and there’s countless examples of inconsistent bullets grouping bigger than consistent ones. For another example, runout of the assembled cartridge- there isn’t evidence that runout and group size consistently (if at all) line up. But it’s a variable that can be controlled and error reduced, in case it helps.
Im not saying to ignore advice that isn’t based on double blind studies published in peer reviewed journals. But make sure you know the context for every technique and decide if it’s worth your time and money right now.

I do like the idea of a cheaper machine, but I would like to have the resolution and option to load for much longer ranges without needing another scale later

Yes I am aware there are a myriad of things that can cause small differences for guys looking to shoot in the .1s. Mr Clay Spencer was once nice enough to take the time to show me what the Vern Juenke machine did as well as show me a couple bullets he used an end mil to cut open. His theory on jacket vs grouping at the time was very interesting indeed, and he had some targets that appeared to show his theory. Even still I am afraid he was simply on a level I will not make it to in any realistic future I see for myself... so I do understand that I will need to let some things go in order for them to line up with my current position and ability.

Even though I'm comfortable leaving some things on the table... I'm not sure if getting the lower resolution scale leaves me with an option moving forward... If I try to shoot longer range, or heaven forbid elr I may really kick myself for not getting a scale I had more confidence in.

It's all a very thoughtful balancing act of where to spend time and money to make sure I neither cut myself short or waste money... I do appreciate the thoughts

 

[Plinkit]

You are correct, especially if you are able to shoot free recoil. I had it in my head that you could put the $ you might spend on a front rest towards something which might benefit you more early on. I also forgot that you covered your desire to move away from the bipod/squeeze bag as you pursue your testing. My apologies, sometimes I wonder where my head is at.

No apologies please
I am asking for thoughts on the matter
You and others may well be right that I am barking up the wrong tree, and I may be the one with my head placed firmly up my... Where it's hard to hear good advice...

I do have some decent bipods and various sand sock type bags and I feel as if I do decently with these most / some days. I believe I leave a lot more on the table than what the rifles are capable of though a d wonder if I could use the same rifles in different discipline / method to shoot more accurately as well. This is as much a way for me to test if the equipment can be better as it is to show myself that I should be doing better without it

If you have more thughts on places I should likely be spending money first please share the thoughts. I may be better off if I change routes from my current thinking and that was all part of the reason for posting here.

Conversation leads to thought processes that help justify ideas or move away from them

Were I in your shoes and looking to purchase a quality front rest, especially if I didn't need a joystick, I would likely buy another Sinclair Competition.

When I first started down the precision rabbit hole I purchased a mechanical front rest that was quite popular and priced where most folks can afford it without trouble. About a year later I had sunk twice what that rest cost me into "upgrades" for it and still was not satisfied with it. In the end, I spent about what the Sinclair ended up costing me. My previous comments concerning rests stem from wanting to save others the same hassle/disappointment.

I pulled these up to review them and the "AP" all purpose model may serve me well for my more practical & tactcal stock versions than a bag strictly designed for a bag rider... I may think on this unit a bit.

Thank you once again

 

[Plinkit]

The Chargemaster will deliver +/-0.05gr if you tune the parameters and find a proper insert to deliver fine trickling. You must get innovative with an insert to achieve this when using large kernels vs fine ball/flake powder. So I no longer use a tuned beam, which is no better.

How to you quantify / verify the scale having this accurate of a resolution unless you get something like the fx120 balance though?... That's my entire conundrum in looking at the matchmaster... Am I going to need to buy a lab scale after the chargemaster anyway? It appears several are telling me that I should go for the chargemaster but I'm still at a loss for how to verify the consistency level you are discussing without a second scale... Which puts me back to the cost of the higher unit anyway.

You say a tuned beam is no better... But equal to .05? How do you verify the comparison? I'm not personally familiar with any of the tuned beams so these units ability for resolution is of interest as well

Harris bipod on the front and a hard bag, such as a Protektor on the back. Use a few boards of different thickness under the bag such that the equipment setup places the reticle on target, and not relying on the shooter's hold, can provide tight groups when you take your time. The squeeze sock is for rapid deployment, not the best accuracy.

Yes it is a very practical system which works well, but it does leave me with questions about the ability of the rifles vs my ability with the bipod and bag

Hence my interest in mechanical rests as I try delving into a different reloading methodology

I have honestly never just tried using shims under the rear bag as the idea initially struck me as extremely tedious to line up with a target... But after thinking on the matter for a moment it doesn't really matter how accurate I am for testing... But simply how precise for testing. So even if the elevation was slightly off I could dial until the target was simply a reference point for repetition at the more natural point of aim

Thanks for the thoughts, I may have some things to test this weekend

 

[CharlieNC]

How to you quantify / verify the scale having this accurate of a resolution unless you get something like the fx120 balance though?... That's my entire conundrum in looking at the matchmaster... Am I going to need to buy a lab scale after the chargemaster anyway? It appears several are telling me that I should go for the chargemaster but I'm still at a loss for how to verify the consistency level you are discussing without a second scale... Which puts me back to the cost of the higher unit anyway.

You say a tuned beam is no better... But equal to .05? How do you verify the comparison? I'm not personally familiar with any of the tuned beams so these units ability for resolution is of interest as well


Yes it is a very practical system which works well, but it does leave me with questions about the ability of the rifles vs my ability with the bipod and bag

Hence my interest in mechanical rests as I try delving into a different reloading methodology

A low cost strain guage scale easily provides high resolution, but does not have the response characteristics needed for trickling. This is what I used to compare the devices I used.

I don't think you realize the improvement of a hard leather bag vs a stuffed sock. That plus a Harris are fully capable of easily holding a ragged hole, but the challenge is learning how to position the reticle onto the bullseye while having the setup hold the natural point of aim; a human squeezing a sock bag cannot compare. Of course an adjustable bench rest is better, but you should optimize the setup to the style you intend to shoot and become proficient with it. The appropriate stock design us a big deal.

 

[Plinkit]

A low cost strain guage scale easily provides high resolution, but does not have the response characteristics needed for trickling. This is what I used to compare the devices I used.

I don't think you realize the improvement of a hard leather bag vs a stuffed sock. That plus a Harris are fully capable of easily holding a ragged hole, but the challenge is learning how to position the reticle onto the bullseye while having the setup hold the natural point of aim; a human squeezing a sock bag cannot compare. Of course an adjustable bench rest is better, but you should optimize the setup to the style you intend to shoot and become proficient with it. The appropriate stock design us a big deal.

You actually beat me by about a minute as I was pondering your initial post and thinking it through while editing the previous post

Do you have an example of the strain gauge? Curious to learn a bit about them as they may solve my resolution / verification it sounds like.

Appropriate stock design still illudes me a bit I believe, as I haven't really settled in for a specific discipline of shooting I'm afraid. I bounce from positional plinking, to hunting, to prone, and now perhaps a bit more at a bench... I certainly have not tried to master a specific set up so I've followed chassis set ups that at least allow me to make changes to what I believe is best

 

[CharlieNC]

You actually beat me by about a minute as I was pondering your initial post and thinking it through while editing the previous post

Do you have an example of the strain gauge? Curious to learn a bit about them as they may solve my resolution / verification it sounds like.

Appropriate stock design still illudes me a bit I believe, as I haven't really settled in for a specific discipline of shooting I'm afraid. I bounce from positional plinking, to hunting, to prone, and now perhaps a bit more at a bench... I certainly have not tried to master a specific set up so I've followed chassis set ups that at least allow me to make changes to what I believe is best

Gempro 250 is a very popular scale. Again, these do not respond properly to trickling but are fine for weighing.

 

[josh shrum]

Appropriate stock design still illudes me a bit I believe, as I haven't really settled in for a specific discipline of shooting I'm afraid. I bounce from positional plinking, to hunting, to prone, and now perhaps a bit more at a bench... I certainly have not tried to master a specific set up so I've followed chassis set ups that at least allow me to make changes to what I believe is best

From earlier posts, it sounds like you are running some type of chassis. If your chassis design allows for the attachment of bag riders to the front and rear of the chassis you will be ok. I have found that my chassis's set up this way ride the bags fairly well, though not to the extent my Benchrest Rifles do. That said, I think that is due to the chassis sitting higher in the bags than the Benchrest stock, and suffering more from tourque. Not sure.

Just be sure to order bags with spacing that match width of the bag riders. Front bag is easy, most bag riders are 3" and that is one of the most common bag sizes. Rear bag rider may require you to have a bag made with customized spacing between the ears. I use Protektor for this, easy 5 min phone call, nicest people to deal with. That said, with as popular as chassis are these days, I wouldn't be surprised to see that they offer those spacings as standard now.

 

[Plinkit]

From earlier posts, it sounds like you are running some type of chassis. If your chassis design allows for the attachment of bag riders to the front and rear of the chassis you will be ok. I have found that my chassis's set up this way ride the bags fairly well, though not to the extent my Benchrest Rifles do. That said, I think that is due to the chassis sitting higher in the bags than the Benchrest stock, and suffering more from tourque. Not sure.

Yes for the most part I own chassis rifles. With the exception of a couple manners T6 stocks.

I believe that for the most part I can use bag riders with any of the rifles I own. I'm certain this will not get me to a point of being competitive in bench rest, but for developing and testing in a more precise manner I believe it will take me in the right direction

Just be sure to order bags with spacing that match width of the bag riders. Front bag is easy, most bag riders are 3" and that is one of the most common bag sizes. Rear bag rider may require you to have a bag made with customized spacing between the ears. I use Protektor for this, easy 5 min phone call, nicest people to deal with. That said, with as popular as chassis are these days, I wouldn't be surprised to see that they offer those spacings as standard now.

I do have some varied rear designs so this might take some thinking... I will give them a call thanks





I think I've taken this thread further down the subject of how I'm thinking of setting up to shoot than how I'm thinking of reloading. So perhaps I have put this in the wrong forum lol.
Forgive me everyone, and thanks for your thoughts

 

[Plinkit]

Gempro 250 is a very popular scale. Again, these do not respond properly to trickling but are fine for weighing.

If I understand correctly then they have a resolution that it consistent to a smaller measurement, but will require clearing the scale and setting the pan on it again to see reading change in small intervals?

I will do some research on these
Thanks again

 

[joshb]

Oh yes, it can be quite the rabbit hole. Lol

One of the things i've come to realize is that you can get by with some simple, cost effective reloading practices.

But optics is another story. And trigger, but that's another story.

I started with a Vortex Crossfire II 6-18X44. I quickly realized i needed better glass.
Upgraded to a Sightron STAC 4-20X50.
This past week, i found a deal on a Sightron SIII 10-50X60.
Cost me almost as much as my last 2 rifles. But if you can't see it, you can't hit it.

You’re just lucky I didn’t see it first!! The S111 10-50 is one of my favorite scopes! Good snag!

 

[std7mag]

Yeah, i jumped on it quick!
Did the i'll take it Monday morning, delivered to me that Thursday afternoon at work.
Hardest part was fending the coworkers off.

 

[Hohn]

Forgive the long winded post from a new guy, and thanks for any advice

Just joining the forum as my interests in shooting are changing a bit, and this forum seems to be filled with people interested in shooting in more precision oriented capacities. I have a couple questions to follow and some general notes about what I'm thinking of doing moving forward if anyone has guidance, advice, or thoughts on any of them I'd be interested in knowing before spending what I consider a substantial amount of money to make these changes.

I have reloaded for plinking rounds and hunting rounds for a while now without any issue, but if I'm going to take precision shooting seriously it appears I'll need to make some upgrades to my process and equipment.

I have a couple rifles that appear more capable than myself with higher quality factory ammo. This leaves me to believe it might be time to upgrade my reloading room and process to a level of gear that'll support being more precise as I continue to learn.

Now I've read & watched videos until my eyes bleed trying to learn the "correct" methods for precision reloading and load development. I'm aware each topic can turn into a discussion in itself... So I'm going to start at trying to upgrade my ability to reload to a more capable level.

All I have done up until this point is use a full length die and a bullet seater set up for each caliber. I have been using the redding competition shell holders to cut back on shoulder bump, but that's about the only "improvement" I've made to my actual reloading process.

Now to finally get to some questions after my long winded intro...

My first question is for scales and powder throw. I have been using the Hornady cheap scale, powder throw and trickler that came with my kit for several years now... I have been watching the fx120i but by the time I look at getting it set up in an automated fashion I'm looking at well over a grand on sticker prices. The next option down I am looking at is getting the rcbs matchmaster unit for a more integrated scale and throw combo. So question being when looking at this budget range (since I can't justify a prometheus) is the match master leaving enough room for improvement over the fx120i that I should ever be at a disadvantage? Or at this point is it mostly semantics?... Is there something else I should be looking at in this range as well?

Next thing I'm considering is "upgrading" my dies and process. From my limited knowledge of various methods vs cost I'm under the impression that a body only die and a lee collet die are an exceptional way to get started without a huge price per caliber. I already have most of the lee ultimate sets in my calibers of interest so I'd only need to purchase a body only die. When considering doing this for a half dozen calibers only needing to buy the body die is not a huge expense so this seems reasonable. (If this doesn't seem like a logical progression to move to from fl only sizing I'd be interested in your thoughts)

The last major change for my process would be moving to a more mechanical front rest and rear bag combo. I have been following more prs style shooting and advice for long enough now that all I hear is bipod and sand sock... Even for load development... I know in this manner I can keep things together some days, but I'm not confident that I can ever get to the level I'm interested in this way. How much of a learning curve would I need to look at moving to a machine front rest? Should this be a no brainier for being more consistent? Or will I need to consider that this is a new way to shoot that will take time to address before I can switch to testing and development in this manner? I have been looking at the caldwell fire control unit as a way to test this method of shooting. I know there are better options for a joy stick rest but I'm not jumping into f open right the minute so I'm hoping this will hold me until maybe I get to a point that's an option later.

If you haven't fallen asleep yet I appreciate your thoughts and I'll save my next few questions for my next book lol

One shooter's take on your questions:

I think most shooters vastly overstate the importance of powder charge variation. The obsession with single kernel repeatability is baffling to me. For most powders, a single kernels will be 0.1% or less of your total charge weight. If your load needs--requires-- that much precision to shoot, you have a bad load that will fall apart with any change in conditions. I think shooters are kidding themselves if they think the other aspects of powder charging (powder variation within the charge, primer output etc) are controlled to <0.1% variation.

I personally know accomplished shooters that trickle on a basic (not reworked) beam scale. I myself use a $20 digital from amazon that works just fine. Yes, a precision balance is nice to have, but I believe in the Pareto principle and decided to save that money and move on to things that will likely improve my shooting much more or greatly improve my speed or consistency of my loading processes.

The body die and LCD is an excellent option. It has the limitation of the neck tension being whatever the OD of the LCD mandrel sets it to. Another option with a similar limitation is the Honed Forster sizer. Both options will make very straight cases with neck tension consistency determined by your brass consistency. For ultimate consistency, you'll need to anneal and turn necks, neither of which I'm advanced enough to do yet. I prefer to just start with good brass (Lapua, peterson, RWS).

Think about the precision vs accuracy definitions. Precision is a lack of variation, regardless if the output is exactly what you want. Accuracy is the ability to achieve desired output. If you focus on the latter first, you'll never be able to do it consistently because you don't understand the sources of variation that control the output. So focus on precision first (repeatability) of those things that matter most-- case capacity, neck tension, neck surface finish, seating depth, etc-- then you'll be able to fiddle with adjusting them to achieve your best load.

I can't help you on mechanical rests, as I'm just just a bipod and squeeze bag shooter.