Sorting for bullet trimming and/or pointing

[Sightcast-Alan]

Hi, I recently got a Hoover trimmer and pointer to try it out and learn. When it comes to sorting what methods do you prefer. After reading a lot of posts and researching what I can find
Here are my initial thoughts…

For trimming, the Hoover trimmer has a built in slot for a caliper to be inserted to measure bearing surface length. which you can sort on for that length but you still have the ogive and oal lengths not uniform and since you’re trimming from bearing surface stop to tip in stumped on a good way to sort to get a uniform trim. Or I’m I thinking about this to hard lol.

For tipping my first thought is to sort based on base to tip length and then point those in batches so they get roughly the same force. But then I think about.. and probably too much again…. If the surface trimmed is not consistent in diameter based on how much or little was trimmed off does that affect how much is crushed when pointed.


Obviously all this needs real world target tested to verify my personal rifle and methods but what is the general methods of sorting to trim and sorting to point.



Thanks for any help

 

[DocBII]

SA,

Sort by ogive length +/- 0.002 groups. Trim to remove as little meplat as possible, tumble in ball bearings to remove scarf. Sort bullets in the groups by OAL, then point.

You're done,
DocBII

 

[Ned Ludd]

To set the trimmer, you can use a spark plug gauge, the kind with thin strips, to help you set up a specific trim length. I would also recommend sorting bullets by OAL into .002" (or less) length groups as mentioned above by DocBII. I sort into length groups of 1.5 thousands total variance per group. For example, bullets measuring 1.2500", 1.2505", 1.2510", and 1.2515" would all fall within a single length group that covered 1.2500" to 1.2515" range. The next longer group would cover 1.2520" to 1.2535". Thus, each length group actuall;y only covers 1.5 thousandths, but there will be .002" between each group, making it easy to reset the trimmer by .002" for each different length group.

Start with the shortest [measured] bullet from a given length group. With the bullet seated all the way into the trimmer body, set the cutter blade to just touch the tip with a gauge strip of the desired thickness placed in between the red handle and the trimmer body. When the gauge is removed, the blade will protrude that much further, giving the desired depth/amount of cut on the bullet meplat. If the meplars of a given Lot# of bullets are pretty uniform, you might try two to five thousandths to start, taking more only if necessary.

Alternatively, you might also consider pointing bullets directly after length sorting by OAL, without trimming first. The points obtained with trimmed bullest are going to look prettier to your eye. However, both approaches work. The more "ragged" the meplats are prior to pointing, the less pretty the points will look after pointing for bullets that have not been trimmed first. Nonetheless, the pointining process still works with untrimmed bullets, and I rather suspect that few shooters could actually shoot or measure the difference between the two approaches. Both approaches will measurably increase bullet BC, as well as the make the BC more uniform between/within the pointed bullets as compared to those straight out of the box.

In order to obtain comparable points as gauged by eye, trimmed bullets generally need to be pointed a little more aggressively in terms of the pointing die micrometer setting, because the trimming process makes the meplat flat and much wider than bullets that have not been trimmed. Length-sorted bullets that have not been trimmed require a little less aggressive pointing die micrometer setting, because the meplat won't be quite as wide/flat as with bullets that have been trimmed. Regardless, less is more when it comes to actually pointing bullets. I do not try to comnpletely close up the meplat with the pointing die. Doping so will generally create a visible bulge behind the point that is undesirable for obvious reasons. I typically aim for closing the meplat up by about 50-75%, no more. More aggressive points do not appear to increase the BC any further in my hands. Thus, being pretty conservative when setting the pointing die isn't going to hurt anything, and may prevent any undesirable effects that could be caused by overpointing.

 

[Dave M.]

Hi, I recently got a Hoover trimmer and pointer to try it out and learn. When it comes to sorting what methods do you prefer. After reading a lot of posts and researching what I can find
Here are my initial thoughts…

For trimming, the Hoover trimmer has a built in slot for a caliper to be inserted to measure bearing surface length. which you can sort on for that length but you still have the ogive and oal lengths not uniform and since you’re trimming from bearing surface stop to tip in stumped on a good way to sort to get a uniform trim. Or I’m I thinking about this to hard lol.

For tipping my first thought is to sort based on base to tip length and then point those in batches so they get roughly the same force. But then I think about.. and probably too much again…. If the surface trimmed is not consistent in diameter based on how much or little was trimmed off does that affect how much is crushed when pointed.


Obviously all this needs real world target tested to verify my personal rifle and methods but what is the general methods of sorting to trim and sorting to point.



Thanks for any help

For tipping only, I sort strictly on base to tip. This was suggested to me by more than one world class shooter that I highly respect. I only point bullets for 1000 yard competitions. I don’t bother for our 600 yard competitions because the untipped ones shoot so consistently already.
Dave

 

[Dave M.]

SA,

Sort by ogive length +/- 0.002 groups. Trim to remove as little meplat as possible, tumble in ball bearings to remove scarf. Sort bullets in the groups by OAL, then point.

You're done,
DocBII

I also sort into .002” batches for OAL and then point and shoot them in those batches. No trimming for me though.

 

[mikecr]

For the Hoovers, since they act w/resp to ogive datum, I would first qualify those datums.
You need a Bob Green Comparator (BGC), or functional alternate, for that.

 

[mgunderson]

The answers I expect to be all over the board. The best results will likely change with the bullet you are working with. Take advice for top shooters with that bullet. Sorting approach can change with bullet lots as well.

 

[DocBII]

DaveM,

Your method will work provided the OGL is consistent between lots or the same lot. I've learned you have to check OGL for a particular lot from ANY of the manufacturers.

Another method to improve consistency is to buy in large lots, i.e, 1k or higher. Expensive, but worth it.

HTH,
DocBII

 

[David Christian]

In my hands with good bullets, trimming is a tedious and unnecessary step for the level of precision I am seeking. Tipping on the other hand is an absolute step for my shooting past 600 yards. I sort at minimum 2,500 bullets at a time, into .001 bins, base to tip. The larger amount of bullets gives me large enough batches per bin to shoot a multi-day match per length.

I have found there to be a fine line between under and over tipping. For me, undertipping actually created a larger variance in bc, shown by vertical dispersion on target at 1,000 yards. All of this assumes that I’ve already done the necessary load and tune work for my rifle to be match ready, else it would be hard for me to separate the tune results from the tipping results.

 

[Dave M.]

DaveM,

Your method will work provided the OGL is consistent between lots or the same lot. I've learned you have to check OGL for a particular lot from ANY of the manufacturers.

Another method to improve consistency is to buy in large lots, i.e, 1k or higher. Expensive, but worth it.

HTH,
DocBII

Agree 100%. Checking OGL is truly necessary to see the full benefits of trimming and/or pointing. Unfortunately, it involves too much time and subjective measuring for my liking. I can consistently measure the OAL of bullet and split them into .002” groups. From there, I strictly point them and always shoot them in those groups to reduce consistency for round to round. I have definitely seen groups tighten up from sorting Berger 180g hybrids and then pointing them, versus the old method of just shooting the bullets straight out of the box without sorting or pointing. It’s tedious work, but I feel there are points to be saved by doing it; if there wasn’t, I wouldn’t be doing it. I never saw the benefit in trimming them pointing. At best, you just get back to the original BC before you started.
Dave

 

[Dave M.]

In my hands with good bullets, trimming is a tedious and unnecessary step for the level of precision I am seeking. Tipping on the other hand is an absolute step for my shooting past 600 yards. I sort at minimum 2,500 bullets at a time, into .001 bins, base to tip. The larger amount of bullets gives me large enough batches per bin to shoot a multi-day match per length.

I have found there to be a fine line between under and over tipping. For me, undertipping actually created a larger variance in bc, shown by vertical dispersion on target at 1,000 yards. All of this assumes that I’ve already done the necessary load and tune work for my rifle to be match ready, else it would be hard for me to separate the tune results from the tipping results.

I agree 100%. This is almost exactly what I do, except my sorting group size is .002”. OAL is far quicker and easier to sort bullets with the right tools.