• 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.

OAL length discovery and how you all deal with it

..okay, I did a simple google search on Sinclair's comparator = good or bad!

Bullet Prep — Giving You the Long Range Edge
Editors Note: This is the 1st part in a series of articles by Pete Petros in the methodology he uses to prepare his bullets for long-range shooting.

When it comes to precision reloading and shooting, the main goal is to ensure everything from start to finish in the reloading process is close to the same as possible. Most shooters think of this as choosing the best brass for the cartridge, sorting it by weight, and prepping it properly to attain replication in brass properties. Then by carefully weighing each powder charge and seating the bullet to the same depth each time, the finished products will act the same as they are fired through the barrel.

This is very true, and these steps along with many sub-steps in case preparation are critical to attaining the most consistent results out of a load, but let us back up a step.

What is the most important component in a loaded round? Many would argue it is the type of powder and charge being used. Others may say the brass choice or even the primer make the load. The most important component in the mix is definitely what will give the final results, and that is the bullet.

These days there are so many choices in bullet types and style in every caliber to get the job done. Some are known to perform better than others, and certain rifles will shoot certain choices better. In fact, most of the bullets available to the reloader today are all good quality and will get the job done. It is no secret that a high Ballistic Coefficient VLD (Very Low Drag) type bullet will shoot better at long ranges and cut through the wind better. But what can you as the shooter do to make your bullet choice even better?

In the same essence as modifying a stock engine in a car to enhance or increase performance, you can do the same to your choice projectile to squeeze a tad more performance out of it. There are a few steps that can be taken to do this quite simply. Flash back to the beginning of the article. We talked about brass sorting and prep prior to loading. The same goes for your bullet. Through sorting your bullets in the same lot and prepping them, you can tighten your groups dramatically, and make your “close to the same” loads even closer to being identical.

The absolute first step in bullet sorting by some reloaders is to sort the lot by weight. Even in the highest quality bullets you will find a few tenths of a grain spread or more in weights. Through sorting by weight you can split the entire lot up by variation.

The next step taken in bullet sorting is to take the lot of bullets planned on being loaded, and measure them by base to bullet ogive. You will notice that even in the highest quality bullets available there is a variance of a few thousands of an inch or more. Take your lot, and sort them by base to ogive length and group them together.

The secret to consistency in both of these tools is the most important rule to remember. Basically the softest material in the process is the copper jacket of the bullet being measured. It will give a few thousandths with the more pressure you put onto the base while inserting it into the comparator. What is important and critical to this is to make sure you use the same light but steady pressure on the bullet base while measuring. This is where the bullet Sinclair Bullet Sorting Stand excels. After you lift the indicator stem up, lower it (slowly and steadily) onto the bullet while in the comparator, it will give the same amount of pressure each time. Prior to measuring the bullet, lightly “seat” the bullet ogive into the comparator with your finger to “seat” the ogive, then proceed to measure. Repeat this the same way each time to attain similar results. A good tip from reloaders that have been using the stand is to use the pointed indicator end versus the included flat end. While measuring be sure that the point is centered on the bullet base. The flat end tends to be more inconsistent in measurements.

Once you are set up and ready to sort bullets, take a batch of ten of the bullets randomly out of the un-measured lot. Measure each one as described earlier. Write each measurement down on a piece of masking tape and lay out on a flat surface with the measured bullets on your workbench in order of what you found. When all are measured, repeat the process with the same ten until you see consistency in your recorded test lot. When you achieve the same results during the repeating process, you have a consistent technique, and are ready to sort the entire batch.

With the measurements taken from the ten test bullets find the average of the batch. This is most likely the same or close to the average of the entire box or lot you will be sorting. The average measurement will be your “0” batch. Take one of the average bullets, place it in the stand and zero out the indicator face so it shows “0” when it is being measured. Test it a few times again to make sure that the zero is true and consistent.

The next step is setting up a system of separating the measured bullets. A great way to do this is by using empty bullet boxes, or glad ware containers. Take your chosen containers and mark them with masking tape labeled “0 (average), -.001, -.002….+.001, +.002…and so forth depending on how wide the spread of measurements are. These numbers are the difference in thousandths of an inch, found from the average you found in the test sequence.

Now it is time to measure. Place each bullet in the appropriate container for what you find. Keep these measured batches together, and label them so you remember which batches are which for the next steps in the bullet prep process. (see picture above). Many will leave it here and go ahead with the reloading process. In the next installment of this article, I will outline the next steps that can be taken to maximize these sorted bullets even more for performance. These next steps are meplat trimming and bullet pointing. The final steps in tweaking the ultimate long range bullet, Keep your eyes peeled for the next part of this series in future Reloading Press newsletters!
 
I'll try to illustrate one scenario in bullet measure & seating.
What this shows roundy-roundy is that our tools(used well) can be relied on to indicate seating w/resp to lands.
This, even though there are many possible variance combinaions, depending on contact angles, datums, tool pressure, seating pressure, and ogive radius variances.

That don't mean all this won't affect your ability to actually seat so accurately though..
You press bad angles together with high & varying forces, and you'll wrestle to get em all the same. But through engaged trial & error, it is very possible to seat them EXACTLY the same.

On a sidenote, consider how unforgiving this is as far as meplat trimming, and bullet base-ogive comparisons(which only get half way roundy). This is where it really is important to qualify bullets by ogive radius -first.
 

Attachments

  • OgvContact1.jpg
    OgvContact1.jpg
    63.3 KB · Views: 221
  • OgvContact2.jpg
    OgvContact2.jpg
    60.7 KB · Views: 164
  • SeaterContact1.jpg
    SeaterContact1.jpg
    64.9 KB · Views: 223
  • SeaterContact2.jpg
    SeaterContact2.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 139
  • LeadeContact1.jpg
    LeadeContact1.jpg
    57.3 KB · Views: 133
  • LeadeContact2.jpg
    LeadeContact2.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 146
mikecr;
cheerleader.gif
notworthy.gif
notworthy.gif

If they don't understand the words, show'm the pictures,
Well Done Sir, Well done indeed
 
I thought I read where the differences between your ogive datum points, from one bullet to the next, is the concern for external reasons. Not so much as distance to lands. I prolly made that up ???

Anyway, I am under the impression that, seating depths are less critical the father you get from the lands where referred differences would matter more. I like to jump em.

I believe there is a point where seating deeper will increase pressure thus increasing speed and changing tune.

How messed up do I have it?

Jim
 
Sometimes I get the feeling that some shooters try to use the internet to "plot a firing solution" then load it up and go to the range to try it out. A much better approach is to load everything AT THE RANGE, and shoot it all over a chronograph....instant answers....but is simply amazing how rare this approach is except in short range benchrest. Don't get me wrong; everyone gets to do his hobby the way that he wants to. I am just making a rather pointed observation and suggestion.
 
Boyd,
Instant answers should not be confused with understanding.
Nor is it 'rare' that efforts in understanding are abandoned to instant answers.

Is it your point that we should abandon understanding?
Or that all has been defined by the efforts of those shooting mid-weight, flat base BR bullets, from ~22" barrels, up close, with a tiny 6PPC? And all they had to do to understand it all, is load at the range, and shoot over a chronograph?
WOW

Well I can now understand at least that all the little things we wonder & ask about & discuss around here, must seem really silly to you..
 
As I said, there is a lot of resistance to loading at the range. Would you feel the same about working in an indoor ballistics lab with a tunnel? Real data pretty much trumps everything. The fact that one has planned his efforts so that the information is made available more quickly has no effect on the validity of the results. More efficient methods do not mean leas care is taken, just that resources are more efficiently used. I gave a concrete example that illustrated my point, and asked where an idea come from.....and the subject was changed. I wonder why?

Added later: Words on a screen lack facial expression, and sometimes I forget that. I do not think that any question is silly, or that I have all the answers. I do try to ground my answers in a combination of what I have read (just about everything I can get my hands on) and my experiences. I started out with a Lee loader and a plastic hammer. Everything that I have learned came from the kindness of others, my own experience, and, as I have said, extensive reading. When I asked for a source, that is what I really meant. He could have come back and said that he did such and such and this is what happened, or cited a source, and I would have been enlightened, and come to the conclusion that differing conditions can produce different results that are all real. If I came down too hard, and feelings were hurt. I apologize. While I think that a little back and forth is not out of line, I think that there are lines, and I may have crossed one. For me, it is fun learning new things, and tackling new problems, in my enthusiasm for my hobby it may be that I can be more abrasive than I intend to be, but I will not challenge the validity of someone else's feelings. They are what they are. I will try to be more careful in the future.
 
THIS thread is not about loading at the range.
OP brought concerns about his seating variance (1-6thou).
So the discussion here has been about about seating, tolerances in it, and measurement of it.
It never led to any load developing, validation, or prediction.
It's just 'how to seat bullets accurately' -as measured -and from a bench.

Your post(first in this thread) did not relate to his 1-6thou seating variances.
Actually, it's as though you meant to post your observation in SOME OTHER THREAD..

Still seems that way.
If that's the case, then I took it way out of context.
 
I will give you your point about my post not being responsive to the original question. As can happen when threads get longer, my post was a reaction to the one that immediately preceded it.

There have been a couple of recent threads on this topic. It is more than likely that I lost track of how this one had progressed.

Getting back to the original question. If you have a micrometer seater, a tool for measuring off the ogive at a place on bullets ogives that is very close to where they will make contact with the leade angle, you can double seat, measuring in between, grouping rounds by how much farther their bullets need to be seated to reach the desired measurement, and adjusting the seater as you progress from group to group. The results may not be perfect, but if you are serious about this sort of uniformity, it can be done. For many kinds of shooting, these sort of variations can get "lost in the noise".

As has been previously pointed out, the distance between where a seater stem contacts a bullets ogive, and where the rifling will make contact, can vary to a significant degree, from bullet to bullet. Beyond that variations in factors that effect the friction between bullets and the necks that they are seated in will have an effect. For press type seaters, having a small amount of toggling take place at the top of the ram stroke, something that Lee refers to a s a Dead Length seater, can help to reduce the effect of press linkage and die threaded joint induced variation that can add to the problem. By measuring the result of an initial seating, noting the remaining bullet movement required to achieve the desired dimension, and individualizing die adjustment (really only practical with a micrometer type seater) variations in effective seating depth can be minimized. I should also point out that this is basically a very labor intensive, last ditch sort of approach, that would be the last on the list of alternatives.

One hopes that this is more responsive to the original question.
 
....my procedures:

1. I use a Forster Micrometer Seater

2. I adjust to seat the bullets 0.008" "long".....that is, from my desired seating depth.

3. I seat all of the bullets.

4. I take my calipers with the insert bullet comparator and measure all of the seated bullets, I take a red sharpie and write on the side of the case the thousandths number, that is, if a loaded bullet is 0.005" long, I write a '5'

5. I sort all of the loaded rounds by their numbers.

6. Starting with the lowest number, I adjust my micrometer seater in 1/1000's to get me to the "standard" COL


...the last (50) I did the numbers fell like this:

(3) were between 0.008" and 0.009"

(44) were between 0.006" and 0.007"

(3) were between 0.003" and 0.004"


note: I have a Bonanza Co-Ax Press
 
Such attention to detail makes me smile. It is uncommon. Have you any idea as to how much variation it takes to show up on the target?
 
...thanks 8)

...well my targets are primarily furry little groundhogs!!.......I went 16 for 16 on Mother's day shots ranging from 250 yards out to 700 yards....the winds were calm that day!

I do, on occasion shoot 12"x12" AR500 steel out to 1,200 yards....

...I am the proverbial engineer [electrical] at heart.......my reloading mentor 25 years ago used to call it

"being FASTIDIOUS".......I call it an obsession in precision reloading!!!


....my wife calls it my 2nd mistress.....lol....
 
Seating can be a difficult problem to work through. Some concepts in reloading that are popular may need to be discarded. Some dies & presses that were expensive, may not be so ideal for seating. You might already have a killer load for bullets that suck in dimensions.
But it's worth it, if nothing else, so that it never comes into question.

I would carry serious discontent if I had to wrestle with seating.
It's why I dug into the matter, to understand & resolve it, long ago.
It's very similar to investigating & resolving runout.

When I sit down to seat 50 bullets, I expect that every one will measure easily within 1thou of my setting, if not exact, and they do. I don't even remember the last time I mis-seated in 22, 24, & 26cal. Something must really get weird for that to happen to me these days.

Now if I could only understand why seating matters the way it often does, well then someday I might actually accomplish something.
For now, it's one on the Think-List.
 
..I just got done with these (41) Total:

set my Micrometer Seater to 0.008" OVER my target COL


(3) = 0.009"
(15) = 0.008"
(5) = 0.007"
(13) = 0.006"
(5) = 0.005"


6561_1.jpg

6561_2.jpg
 
..the more I think about it...hell maybe I ought to just seat 'em to my target length and be done with it all!


...note: these Lapua's were pre-sorted for the base-to-ogive dimenesion = whatever that means anymore!!!
 
Speaking of sorting, here is one to consider. With something like the Stoney Point/ Hornady caliper attachment that has different inserts to measure off of the ogives of different calibers, measure from base to ogive with the one for the caliber that the bullets are, and subtract it from a measurement taken using an insert that hits the bullet at about the same place that the seating stem does. Those bullet to bullet variations are the ones that contribute to differences in ogive to case head measurements. If you only have one tool (my situation) you will need to use some sort of compartmented tray to keep track of individual bullets, and will need to make a spreadsheet to record you data and calculate the differences. If you decide to do the experiment, I would like to see what the distribution of differences looks like.
 
Boyd, this is exactly what the Bob Green BGC does. It uses the same datums as a Kevin Cram meplat trimmer + an indicator mounted Wilson seater plug.
And with it you can go through a bunch of bullets quickly.
If you go from CRs to SMKs,,,, night & day difference.

But his SEATING variance is caused by something other than ogive radius. I'm pretty sure of this because the same ogive that causes his measuring datum to move down the nose, will cause his seater plug to push the bullet further into a neck(countering).
That's not to say ogive variance isn't a contributor to his seating variance, just that it isn't the root cause.
My prediction is high & varying seating forces combined with a threaded die & press. His seater plug might also ride too high on noses(causing wedging).
 
mikecr said:
Boyd, this is exactly what the Bob Green BGC does. It uses the same datums as a Kevin Cram meplat trimmer + an indicator mounted Wilson seater plug.
And with it you can go through a bunch of bullets quickly.
If you go from CRs to SMKs,,,, night & day difference.

But his SEATING variance is caused by something other than ogive radius. I'm pretty sure of this because the same ogive that causes his measuring datum to move down the nose, will cause his seater plug to push the bullet further into a neck(countering).
That's not to say ogive variance isn't a contributor to his seating variance, just that it isn't the root cause.
My prediction is high & varying seating forces combined with a threaded die & press. His seater plug might also ride too high on noses(causing wedging).


not sure if you mean me or the OP!

...I have a Bonanza Co-AX where the die supposedly "floats"...no threading of the die itself...


I have noticed as much as 0.002" difference in just applying too much or too little pressure when measuring each loaded round...

do you have a link for this Bob Green BGC..thanks
 

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.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,277
Messages
2,214,927
Members
79,496
Latest member
Bie
Back
Top