Rest for testing handloads?

[bow shot]

It has dawned on me...

I have a tough time breaking into the 0.3" group size realm when developing handloads (.204, 6.5x55, 6.5-284, .223).

I'm shooting with a bag in back, bipod on the front, prone or from a solid table.

As I've developed loads, I've have very little trouble getting to 100Y .5" 5 shot groups, and they stick handily to 1..5" @ 300y.

But now I'm wondering if, for strictly testing the merit of a LOAD, I need more from my rests, ie., Is this set up insufficent for the degree of human error reduction that is required for load testing?

Advice?

 

[ar10ar15man]

custom chambers or production saami chambers ??

.3 to .5 is respectable.....unless these are br guns.

if you can truely do this on a regular basis..no need for a rest.....

but if those are ocassional groups...add a quality rest like a sinclair or hart.

 

[jb27]

If you already have a base, you could add one of these tops.

http://shadetreeea.com/products.htm

 

[jonbearman]

I would suggest a hart rest or comparable(heavy) with a protektor front bag that matches the forend to prevent the gun from jumping during the ignition cycle.You rear bag has to match your buttstock too,so call protektor and see what they say.

 

[Dan Hall]

Get one of the books that covers 100 and 200 yard benchrest shooting. They cover the subject of bag riding in these books. At this point you need a good front rest with a bag that fits your rifle stock to a tee. A rear bag of quality construction is also needed that does the same. Then you get into how the gun reacts when you fire a shot. Riding the bags !! You want the gun to come straight back so you can just push it forward to the stop and be perfectly aligned for the next shot. This gives you total repeatability shot after shot. You basically want the front rest and rear bag to control the rifle so that you barely touch the gun. Try to take yourself out of the equation as much as possible. The groups will come and you can start "tuning" the rifle. Good luck.

 

[BoydAllen]

Are you using some sort of wind flags? Even sticks with surveyor's tape are a lot better than nothing. Where are you placing the front bag on your stocks? How heavy are your triggers? What sort of load work up are you doing? Accuracy has a lot of components. On the other hand, a good rest never hurts. I use a Hart with a windage top, and a rear bag that is very stable. What kind of rear bag are you using? Does your bench wiggle when you lean on it?

 

[GSPV]

+1 with Boyd on the wind flags. You can use snow poles with surveyor's tape to make something that works OK.

It's hard to read them at first. Just start out not shooting part of a group when the tape is pointed one way and the other when it's pointed the other. I.e., the tape pointed in the same direction for all the shots in the group.

It's an art. You learn to focus on the reticle and target with your shooting eye and the flags with your off eye.

From there, you can graduate to shooting when the tape makes the same angle with the ground. Like shoot when the tape is at a 45 degree angle and not shooting when it's hanging straight down or blowing parallel the the round.

If you can get someone to go with you and tell you when you missed a switch, pick up or let off, it'll help you learn.

In another vein, here is a link to an article on shooting with a bipod. http://www.6mmbr.com/TacticalFroggyA1.html .

If flags and improved bipod technique doesn't help, you might look into front rests and front-and-rear bag riders.

 

[Lazydays]

It has dawned on me...

I have a tough time breaking into the 0.3" group size realm when developing handloads (.204, 6.5x55, 6.5-284, .223).

I'm shooting with a bag in back, bipod on the front, prone or from a solid table.

As I've developed loads, I've have very little trouble getting to 100Y .5" 5 shot groups, and they stick handily to 1..5" @ 300y.

But now I'm wondering if, for strictly testing the merit of a LOAD, I need more from my rests, ie., Is this set up insufficent for the degree of human error reduction that is required for load testing?

Advice?

now it may just be me, but I doubt it. I've just never been real happy with the aftermarket bipods. I find they tend to have too much flex in them.. But removing the bipod and simply shooting off a stack of sandbags gave me better groups. When I shoot off a bench I have three different rests I shoot off of. I built and designed all three. I mostly prefer the Sinclair windage plates and their bags
gary

 

[bow shot]

Ok... answers
1) These are "factory" (savage, 6.5-284 w/ sproter style stock, RRA AR15 varmint .204 with round tube handguared) except for the 6.5 Grendel, which has a JP enterprises match barrel (had a quad rail). the ARs wear a magpul PRS stock which has the nice, non-tapered belly.
2) 0.5" is my expected group with any of these, and I'll do 0.3" on very rare occasion
3) yup surveyor's tape on 1-by's. I strive to shoot when the wind is dead calm, but a shot may occur somewhere in the faint (10" tape barely raising) range.
4) The rear bag is a pretty huge cheapy, filled with rice, its a tad floppy. It does not fit the stock contour at all, but I end up pressing the stock into it and forcing a shape, and then squeezing the bad through the shot to keep on the bull.
5) the trigger in the ARs is... crappy. I'd say the Accutrigger on the Savage is better than I'll ever be.

I should say this: I've never been able to just "get off" the ARs and shoot, because the trigger is not good at all. Perhaps I can with the Savage
becasue I can set it trigger so light..

 

[BoydAllen]

Too many shooters think that they will always shoot better with less contact with the rifle. To be sure, some benchrest shooters do very well this way, but that is with rifles that are stocked, balanced, and supported with bags that are specifically designed for this method of shooting, using calibers that have recoil levels that are a good match for the rifle's weight. Virtually no factory rifle has the right combination to be consistently shot well that way. If you are around a half inch, with an AR with a crappy trigger, you are doing very well. You are there, until you get a better trigger, and if you are holding the Savage and shouldering it, the soft rear bag may work. One shooter that is near the top in the Benchrest Hall of Fame holds his rifle, shouldering and cheeking it, uses a non windage rest top, and squeezes a very soft rear bag, that has a soft bottom. I would suggest that you might want to substitute sand for rice in yours. Have you done any dry fire practice with your rifles? Recently, I recommended this to a friend who was shooting well, but had hit a wall. It worked. His shooting took a step up, form very good to excellent.

 

[bow shot]

Understood Boyd'..

Part of the reason I shoot with the 'pod and bag, is becasue that is the way I intend to use the rifles 90% of the time (woodchucks, crows, and misc. tiny vermin). I got thinking in the "rest" realm because I get to wondering: If my poor form could be excluded, shouldn't I be better able to judge the accuracy of my handloads?

So my aim is to "perfect" (big can of worms, I know...) my handloads, and then forget obsessing over that variable, and spend my energy on perfecting my form.

I am dilligent with the loads to the degree that I want to drive myself insane (Laupua brass, matchkings or berger varmint/target, Fed 205M or BR2, redding bump followed by lee neck, dual beam scale and trickle, wilson seat, etc., etc., and sort for .002" TIR for the bolt guns) considering that I may be wasting some energy on poor-man's rifles that cannot achieve the accuracy of custom rigs.

 

[BoydAllen]

One thing relating to bipods has recently occurred to me. On sproter stocks, if moving the front sandbag well back toward the action gives better accuracy (which I have seen more than once) then why would a bipod be any different? Perhaps a test, with a rifle with an accessory rail or using an older stock that one did not installing other sling studs, farther back, would demonstrate if there was something to be gained. Just a thought...

 

[hogan]

Sorry you're having a tough time of getting into the .3s

Shooting a benchrest setup with hand-press loads and a bedded/oriented scope base should get you there.


think maybe your expectations are too high? Got it figured out? Ever shoot a rifle that delivered those results?
Consistently?

Really kind of a bore at least shooting a lazer capable rifle from the bench all day. First .308win I ever built would deliver 168smk in Remington brass into .35" 5shot groups at 100yds on blustery day and sub .7" at 200. Got pretty boring and too easy. Front sandbag (shotbag filled with sand, rear bunny-bag) H-S Precision Police stock and a well-used PSS takeoff barrel I bought 2nd hand. The Badger base & rings plus mark 4 6x target dot sight didn't hurt any either.

5 shots into .332 before subtracting bullet diameter mostly getting around .345 to .37.
Shoot that with a sling and you are somebody...

I would look at your scope mount setup first and trigger 2nd. Scope needs to be solid and proven also. Short OAL chamber is best aid to precision I have found. No need to true action or other efforts. Try the Sierra accuracy loads as a starting point. I was loading the 168s to max length I could get in an M14 magazine. Maybe that was the ticket? Not like I ever experimented or proved the results... The Results just kept coming with fine repeatability. Got too boring to keep my interest.

If you are getting sub .5" or better shooting off a bipod that all you need is to bolster your bench system and work on technique. Consistent aiming point as fine as possible with good trigger control will deliver the results.

 

[bow shot]

Boyd', funny you should mention that about the 'pod. I did some googleing/asking around about that one and never got a satisfying answer, and it always haunted me. the 6.5 has a rail, so I can adjust the 'pod position on that one....

hoagn.. I'd be delighted to reach that kind of boredom, lol! thanks for the encouragement!

 

[mac86951]

Too many shooters think that they will always shoot better with less contact with the rifle. To be sure, some benchrest shooters do very well this way, but that is with rifles that are stocked, balanced, and supported with bags that are specifically designed for this method of shooting, using calibers that have recoil levels that are a good match for the rifle's weight. Virtually no factory rifle has the right combination to be consistently shot well that way. If you are around a half inch, with an AR with a crappy trigger, you are doing very well. You are there, until you get a better trigger, and if you are holding the Savage and shouldering it, the soft rear bag may work. One shooter that is near the top in the Benchrest Hall of Fame holds his rifle, shouldering and cheeking it, uses a non windage rest top, and squeezes a very soft rear bag, that has a soft bottom. I would suggest that you might want to substitute sand for rice in yours. Have you done any dry fire practice with your rifles? Recently, I recommended this to a friend who was shooting well, but had hit a wall. It worked. His shooting took a step up, form very good to excellent.

Good point Boyd. Practice doesn't make perfect, only perfect Practice makes perfect.

-Mac

 

[bow shot]

Yes. That's my problem.. I would like to get "me" out of the equasion as much as possible (without buying a million dollar shooting machine) for hand load testing. Then, get back to practice, just shooting and perfecting the form that I've chosen (bipod and bag).

I forgot to mention: I've read and re-read the Froggy article over the past year. Great piece, and that's what inspired me to stick to my preferred rest option.

I do obsess over cheek weld, position behind the rifle, buttstock contact, breathing, etc. as well as dry-fire and safety-on trigger drills.

 

[BoydAllen]

Bow Shot,
If you get around to testing different bipod positions, I would like to hear about your results.
Boyd

 

[bow shot]

I shall. I gave moving the fromt bag fore and aft on a Savage VLP, and found a good spot, but I thinnk the merit of that spot was that it produced the least rifle "hop". I didn't get too scientific after that because that's exactly when I switched to the pod exclusively because the hop with the pod was even less... and the VLP only had the one fore-stud for the 'pod.

If I get picky with the 6.5, which has the rail, I'll take notes and share. It will likely take me a looog time though.