Pointing

[mitchellchandler_au]

Hi all,
I was wondering what tolerance you guys measure to when batching projectiles for pointing?
Thanks.

 

[Bob3700]

Bearing surface length.

 

[Dave M.]

Hi all,
I was wondering what tolerance you guys measure to when batching projectiles for pointing?
Thanks.

+/-1 thou. I split bullets into 2 thou groups as measured by OAL and then point and shoot those bullets in the same match together.

 

[quest450]

I OAL sort to 2thou batches, trim 4thou to uniform lenght then point

 

[FeMan]

I also sort to one thousandths OAL, tip and shoot them in batches. In a 500 count box of Bergers, I usually end up with five cups with 80% of the box in two of the cups. I sort a few thousand at a time and use the ones on the fringes for sighters if there aren't enough for a string.

 

[Dave M.]

I also sort to one thousandths OAL, tip and shoot them in batches. In a 500 count box of Bergers, I usually end up with five cups with 80% of the box in two of the cups. I sort a few thousand at a time and use the ones on the fringes for sighters if there aren't enough for a string.

This is literally exactly my process as well

 

[Dave M.]

I only point bullets for my 1000 yard .284, I don’t do it for any of our 600 yard guns because I never saw the benefit for F class type work. Furthermore, I’m certain that trimming first and then pointing would make the best possible bullet, but in my studies I couldn’t shoot the difference so I stopped trimming and just point for 1000 yards now (and only for bigger events)
Dave

 

[tom]

1 thou batches and then test if it's helping, and how much causes what change.

Not many notes as I was in a hurry to get on the road, but the test below is 1,000 yards at deep creek a couple Mondays ago. As we get used to a certain bullet, we can test in finer increments based on past experiences. Ran in a ladder format like I do for all my 1,000 yard tests.




Tom

 

[mitchellchandler_au]

Thanks for the reply's guys. I was thinking around the 1 to 2 thou spread is what most people are using.

 

[mitchellchandler_au]

I just finished measuring 200 of the 200.20x projectiles, I ended up with a 19thou variation. The bulk of the projectiles are in a 5thou spread. I noticed a lot of uneven meplats. Could I potentially point each group on their own merit and put them back into the box? I would assume I will be helping with increasing the BC and the consistency if I cull the outlier groups? Any and all opinions are welcome. I am getting into FTR if that has any importance on the subject.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Because the base-to-ogive measurement of Berger bullets is generally very uniform, sorting by OAL can help to improve consistency of seating depth, similar to the way a tool such as Bob Green's comparator works. Because you have already expended the effort to sort bullets by OAL, albeit for the primary purpose of pointing them, I would not mix them back together after pointing them. Instead, use the outliers as foulers/sighters or for pointing practice and keep the main length sorted groups separate. If necessary, pointed bullets from adjacent length groups can be used to finish loading for a single string.

 

[mitchellchandler_au]

Because the base-to-ogive measurement of Berger bullets is generally very uniform, sorting by OAL can help to improve consistency of seating depth, similar to the way a tool such as Bob Green's comparator works. Because you have already expended the effort to sort bullets by OAL, albeit for the primary purpose of pointing them, I would not mix them back together after pointing them. Instead, use the outliers as foulers/sighters or for pointing practice and keep the main length sorted groups separate. If necessary, pointed bullets from adjacent length groups can be used to finish loading for a single string.

Thanks very much for your reply Ned, would a 2 thou spread be acceptable or should I aim to keep them in their 1 thou lots?

 

[Ned Ludd]

Thanks very much for your reply Ned, would a 2 thou spread be acceptable or should I aim to keep them in their 1 thou lots?

I sort bullets for pointing purposes by OAL into length groups that span .0015" within a single sorting group, but that actually cover .002" between each group. For example, LG#1 = 1.5000" to 1.5015", LG#2 = 1.5020" to 1.5035", LG#3 = 1.5040" to 1.5055", etc. The .002" between length groups makes it pretty easy to keep track of the proper pointing die setting. I do not trim bullets prior to pointing.

One has to consider that bullet OAL measurements such as these are a bit sketchy to begin with in terms of their "accuracy" when pointing un-trimmed bullets, where the meplats are often visibly ragged or uneven, which contributes to potential measurement error, and also due to using caliper measurements out to the 4th decimal place. Nonetheless, the approach works. We are merely trying to improve the BC and bullet consistency by a small amount, not make them "perfect". I would also add that IMO, less is more when it comes to pointing. I try to set the pointing die so as to close the meplat up by perhaps 50-75%. Going further risks creating an undesirable "bulge" in the bullet jacket just underneath the point. In my hands, pointing bullets any more than that does not further improve the BC or consistency.

 

[mitchellchandler_au]

I sort bullets for pointing purposes by OAL into length groups that span .0015" within a single sorting group, but that actually cover .002" between each group. For example, LG#1 = 1.5000" to 1.5015", LG#2 = 1.5020" to 1.5035", LG#3 = 1.5040" to 1.5055", etc. The .002" between length groups makes it pretty easy to keep track of the proper pointing die setting. I do not trim bullets prior to pointing.

One has to consider that bullet OAL measurements such as these are a bit sketchy to begin with in term of their "accuracy" when pointing un-trimmed bullets, where the meplats are often visibly ragged or uneven, which contributes to potential measurement error, and also due to using caliper measurements out to the 4th decimal place. Nonetheless, the approach works. We are merely trying to improve the BC and bullet consistency by a small amount, not make them "perfect". I would also add that IMO, less is more when it comes to pointing. I try to set the pointing die so as to close the meplat up by perhaps 50-75%. Going further risks creating an undesirable "bulge" in the bullet jacket just underneath the point. In my hands, pointing bullets any more than that does not further improve the BC or consistency.

Thanks for the info mate. I have been wondering about the inconsistency of the meplats and what effect they have, some seem to be pretty uneven

 

[savageshooter86]

1 thou batches and then test if it's helping, and how much causes what change.

Not many notes as I was in a hurry to get on the road, but the test below is 1,000 yards at deep creek a couple Mondays ago. As we get used to a certain bullet, we can test in finer increments based on past experiences. Ran in a ladder format like I do for all my 1,000 yard tests.

View attachment 1529419


Tom

Was that just different pointer die settings being tested?

 

[tom]

Was that just different pointer die settings being tested?

Yes, the lowest one was no point

Tom

 

[savageshooter86]

Yes, the lowest one was no point

Tom

Looks like it made difference. Always love seeing your tests and targets at 1000. Great shooting

 

[Dave M.]

I sort bullets for pointing purposes by OAL into length groups that span .0015" within a single sorting group, but that actually cover .002" between each group. For example, LG#1 = 1.5000" to 1.5015", LG#2 = 1.5020" to 1.5035", LG#3 = 1.5040" to 1.5055", etc. The .002" between length groups makes it pretty easy to keep track of the proper pointing die setting. I do not trim bullets prior to pointing.

One has to consider that bullet OAL measurements such as these are a bit sketchy to begin with in terms of their "accuracy" when pointing un-trimmed bullets, where the meplats are often visibly ragged or uneven, which contributes to potential measurement error, and also due to using caliper measurements out to the 4th decimal place. Nonetheless, the approach works. We are merely trying to improve the BC and bullet consistency by a small amount, not make them "perfect". I would also add that IMO, less is more when it comes to pointing. I try to set the pointing die so as to close the meplat up by perhaps 50-75%. Going further risks creating an undesirable "bulge" in the bullet jacket just underneath the point. In my hands, pointing bullets any more than that does not further improve the BC or consistency.

This is the exact process I use, right down to how Ned is measuring and splitting them into groups. If I don’t know any better, I would swear I wrote that post above. I don’t trim either, point only.
Dave

 

[Mark611]

JMO, I sort from base to ojive to half a thousandth to 1k max, then measure all of the OAL's of the bullets, I take the shortest bullet length from base to meplat, and trim that bullet removing all the imperfections from the meplat even any little cracks in the jacket, I then set that bullet up in my Hoover tipping die, and adjust the die a little at a time checking how much the meplat is being closed, while also making sure you do not disturb the ojive measurement, if you change the ojive measurement you went too far!!! The bullets when sorting by ojive lengths I will end up with several groups of bullets, I keep them all separated until I'm ready to trim them and retip them, IMO this helps a lot in keep your seating depth where you want it between batches of sorted bullets, I use match seating dies with micrometer adjustments to get the COAL right where I want it, YMMV

 

[Dkk37058]

Some bullets come factory pointed do they need to be repointed or trimmed