sorting bullets

[Hal]

I just bought some 105 gr. Berger Hybrids.

How do you sort them, and what tools do you use?

Hal

 

[Killshot]

In testing I found little difference in group sizes when measured lengths (ogive to base) vary by a few .001s so I just seat them right out of the box. Shoots in the .1s and .2s - I guess that is acceptable. Shooting is more fun than sorting.

I got 300 for testing way back when and carefully measured and weighed every one. I think there were only three groups of lengths and weight only varied by a ES of .04. Very consistent stuff, and for the price, they'd better be.

 

[Steve Blair]

Depends upon what you are trying to do. If groups under .5" are acceptable; do nothing, just shoot them. If you are trying to get under .25"; your rifle must be up to the task, brass prep is important, powder charges must be weighed accurately ±.02 grain, and seating depth ±.001" maintained. [br]
I use Bob Green's sorting tool that measures from seating stem contact to rifling lands contact. My view is that this is the only reliable way to ensure consistent seating depth. [br]
http://greensrifles.com/New_Products.html

 

[SS427]

I've noticed slight weight differences in bullets as well as length. For instance my current lot of 6mm Sierra 70 gr match bullets weigh between 69.9 grains and 70.3 grains. Would there be any benefit in sorting by weight too?

 

[Steve Blair]

I've noticed slight weight differences in bullets as well as length. For instance my current lot of 6mm Sierra 70 gr match bullets weigh between 69.9 grains and 70.3 grains. Would there be any benefit in sorting by weight too?

[br]
I do, but only to find any outliers. Bergers are usually within .2 grains with 2-4% outside that. I use them for practice, foulers, etc.

 

[jdb]

I sorted 100 Hybrids last night with the Bob Green comparator Sleepygator mentioned, 98pcs. were within .0014" (sorted into 14 - .0001"increment sub lots) & 1pc wouldn't even register the indicator, which made it a "minimum" of .003" different than the rest. That's the one that'll blow your group! Check out this tool! @ greensrifles.com/
(cheap ice trays work good for sorting)

 

[Steve Blair]

(cheap ice trays work good for sorting)

[br]
I use an old egg carton. The ice tray is a good tip.

 

[Killshot]

98pcs. were within .0014" (sorted into 14 - .0001"increment sub lots)

98 out of 100 were within One Thousanths of each other. If that's not good enough and someone can demonstrate it, I won't say how crazy sorting by the ten thousands is.

 

[Steve Blair]

I sorted 1000 105 Hybrids and found a .005" range. I think only about 20 each were in the top and bottom groups but I would not want to shoot a round expecting a .013" jump and actually get .018". As i said previously, it depends upon what you are trying to do. [br]
I shot with David Gosnell, Richard King and Ryan Pierce at the Berger Southwest Nationals. We all finished with 1409 of 1450. David had 47X, Richard 46X and Ryan 43X. I had 40X. Those cartridges were loaded before Erik told me about the Green tool. Maybe I would have had a few more X's if my seating depth was more consistent. That 5" X-ring is small at 1000. Sorting has definitely reduced my groups sizes in 6BR. I am preparing to break in a new barrel on my Shehane and will also be sorting 180 Hybrids.

 

[bozo699]

I sorted 1000 105 Hybrids and found a .005" range. I think only about 20 each were in the top and bottom groups but I would not want to shoot a round expecting a .013" jump and actually get .018". As i said previously, it depends upon what you are trying to do. [br]
I shot with David Gosnell, Richard King and Ryan Pierce at the Berger Southwest Nationals. We all finished with 1409 of 1450. David had 47X, Richard 46X and Ryan 43X. I had 40X. Those cartridges were loaded before Erik told me about the Green tool. Maybe I would have had a few more X's if my seating depth was more consistent. That 5" X-ring is small at 1000. Sorting has definitely reduced my groups sizes in 6BR. I am preparing to break in a new barrel on my Shehane and will also be sorting 180 Hybrids.

I agree with both of your posts Steve your finding mirrors mine, I have sorted 1700 Hybrids with a Mark King ( Buhay ) sorting tool, the bulk of the bullets made + or - .0005 so that was my range if the were -.0005 or .0000 or + .0005 they made the cut, out of 1700 I have less then a box of bullets that didn't make the cut most of them were in the + or - .001 .0015 but there were a few that were as much a + or - .003 and that was just too much to take a chance, I also sort by total bullet length, they were sorted in .0015 increments they varied as much as .020 in length but the bulk landed in a .0085 variance. Now I don't know about you guys but the length of the bullet has to do with the b.c and .020 is a lot there would have been a lot of vertical at 1000 yards with a bullet .020 longer and the seating depth off by .003 ??? I have not seen a need for sorting by weight but length and bearing surface definitely!! Kill shot you really got a good lot I bought another 1000 but haven't sorted them yet I hope I find your results.
Wayne.

 

[Hal]

Wayne

Does Mark King have a web site that show a picture of his sorting tool?

Hal

 

[johara1]

Wayne, You are spot on about the length, i just changed lots and .020 + in length diff. after trimming and pointing. Some were so short they wouldn't trim. So much for QC. or lack of it.......jim

 

[bozo699]

Wayne

Does Mark King have a web site that show a picture of his sorting tool?

Hal

Hal,
no he doesn't have a pic I will see what I can do this evening, I believe ShaHane and Tubbs sorting tools look about the same and maybe sinclair has one I can't remember, it's a heavy granite block with a 1" or bigger shaft coming up out of it with a indicator attachment, indicator and sorting tool (like barrel blank stub) I'll see what I can do later.
Wayne.

 

[mr45man]

(cheap ice trays work good for sorting)

[br]
I use an old egg carton. The ice tray is a good tip.

3 OZ Dixie cups work great also.
John H.

 

[bozo699]

Hal,
I am sorry I meant to leave you Mark's web site anyway,
http://www.markkingrifles.com/

Wayne.

 

[Bradley Walker]

I have two words.

TOLERANCE

STACKING

 

[Hal]

Thanks for the replies. Very helpful.

Have anyone done any testing on the effect sorting has on bullet impact or group size at long range?

If you sorted a batch of bullet and shot the ten longest bullets aginst the ten shortest bullets for group, how far apart would the center of the groups be at 1000 yds? Tring to keep all the rest the same.

Hal

 

[Killshot]

Killshot you really got a good lot I bought another 1000 but haven't sorted them yet I hope I find your results.
Wayne.

Wayne, I admit I was surprised at the result. I had not seen that with the initial boxes I got for testing nor with the VLDs last year. I'm using a Starett model #1202 Caliper which doesn't have .0005" resolution and the Sinclair comparator - best I have at the moment.

Fortunately, Lot #3968 seems to be a decent one and I have a couple of season's worth.

I appreciate the differing approaches taken by everyone and enjoy reading of the results obtained.
Pretty amazing when we take a step back and objectively look at what we're able to accomplish.

 

[queen_stick]

I think Wayne is talking about this setup:

http://www.sinclairintl.com/.aspx/pid=38769/Product/Sinclair-Bullet-Sorting-Stand

I have a setup like that, and like it for bullet sorting much more than any other tool. My gunsmith made an attachment for the end of the indicator that was cut from another bullet comparator body, so he can measure bearing surface length on the same setup.

 

[mikecr]

For clarification, the Bob Green BGC does not sort bullet lengths or bearing. A Buhay type comparator is used for this.
The BGC qualifies ogive radius, via difference from a typical seater stem datum to a typical near-bearing datum.
Once bullet noses are qualified in ogive radius, then(and only then) are further measurements made with a Buhay valid.

Anyone can expect bullet nose datum spread variances to be tiny, as they do only represent ogive radius variance.
That is, typical radius variance is indicated by relatively small datum shifts off a nose.

I just don't think implications about ogive radius measurements should be directly associated with final OAL tolerances, until they are actually measured so.
Both are great tools --different uses-- --different meanings--