Summarize your load development

[Nealm66]

I use three methods for load development. The quickest is pick a velocity,coal and use a tuner. If conditions and scope allow, I shoot at 200 and get groups inside 1” and as close to bullseye as possible. Then shoot 550 yards in low or no wind and inside a clay pigeon and confirm data (Kessler). That gets me out to 1000 the quickest of all the other things I have tried and has worked in 6 different rifles/cartridges

 

[garandman]

Lou Murdica does powder charge first, then seating depth.

Top Benchrest Shooter Lou Murdica Talks With LoadDevelopment.com - LoadDevelopment.com

To get to the real world truth about precision rifle reloading, we talk with pro shooter Lou Murdica.

www.loaddevelopment.com

 

[Lifesfordeath]

Thank you for this thread, taking some notes as load development is a daunting task for me as a newer shooter

 

[garandman]

Thank you for this thread, taking some notes as load development is a daunting task for me as a newer shooter

one of the best summaries of reloading I've heard comes from an experienced reloader… "I do about 20 things in my reloading process.. Likely only 10 of them actually make a difference. I just don't know which 10."

The target will tell us whether or not our process works. A lot of folks are dogmatic that their way is the only/bestest way.

I find it to be like a maze of rabbit holes… there are numerous ways to the same destination and we can go as deep as we want to go.

 

[BCBRAD]

For many years I have studied QuickLoad (QL).
Also, have handloaded in the various methods described above.
Now, all load development is done through QL, with OCW and OBT reference.
I get on the podium at club events occasionally at 500m and 1000 yards, 0.3-4 moa for 5 shots and ~/<0.8 moa 10 shots.
This method gets a good load fairly quick , usually within 10 shots total.
I do not mess with seating depth at all. If the round must fit a magazine it is ~0.020" short for reliable functioning. If single loaded then 0.010 to 0.015" off the rifling.
The rifles used are for the most part are re-barrelled Tikka T3's.

 

[6ShotsOr5?]

1. Shoot with different powders, charge weights, bullets, and seating depths until it shoots 5-shot groups in the 0.2s or 0.3s.
2. Shoot that load until the groups get worse.
3. Repeat step 1!

 

[Retired Grunt]

So how many of you seat long and then use a Hand Press to seat at the range or maybe an Arbor Press?
Is it worth it?

 

[darkangel_r2]

So how many of you seat long and then use a Hand Press to seat at the range or maybe an Arbor Press?
Is it worth it?

I do hand press for seating depth at the range. Its pretty slick. Get a micrometer seater, load them all to the same length then incrementally seat deeper and shoot groups until you see consecutive small groups with the same poi. Seat a few more to the shortest jump in the seating node to confirm. It works pretty well.

 

[INTJ]

So how many of you seat long and then use a Hand Press to seat at the range or maybe an Arbor Press?
Is it worth it?

Having all our stuff at the range allows us to load up what we want to test, retest, and avoid loading up a bunch of stuff that doesn't work or that we have to take apart.
Many of the shooters at Deep Creek 1000 yd BR range bring a travel trailer with their loading stuff and test all day. It allows for very extensive testing.

The problem with just seating bullets long is that you don't have the ability to fine tune your powder charge. At Deep Creek, we think in most cases powder charge testing allows us to stay better in tune. Once found, seating seems to stay in tune well by chasing the lands, but sometimes we don't need to chase the lands the full amount. Ideally, we should test both powder and seating to be optimally tuned for the match the next day.

A way to do both powder and seating testing without bringing a trailer or a portable power supply is to preload small glass vials with powder. Let's say I want to test four powder charges and four seating depths. I would need to prep and prime 24 cases and 60 powder charges. 12 powder charges in loaded ammo and 48 powder charges in glass vials. I would shoot the powder ladder, then load up the best powder charge to check seating depth.

When the load is refined and only needs minor tweaking before a match, it could be done with seating first. Again, we need 24 cases prepped and primed, but we'd only need 24 powder charges. 12 in the loaded ammo then another 12 to check powder charges after finding seating. The big issue with this is you need to be pretty close with your initial powder charge.

Or we could go all out and do powder, seating, and powder again.

With whatever else we want to test, like neck tension, primers, primer crush, etc., we can figure out how many glass vials to load with powder and then seat at the range with a portable press--the arbor press probably being the simplest.

 

[Retired Grunt]

Having all our stuff at the range allows us to load up what we want to test, retest, and avoid loading up a bunch of stuff that doesn't work or that we have to take apart.
Many of the shooters at Deep Creek 1000 yd BR range bring a travel trailer with their loading stuff and test all day. It allows for very extensive testing.

The problem with just seating bullets long is that you don't have the ability to fine tune your powder charge. At Deep Creek, we think in most cases powder charge testing allows us to stay better in tune. Once found, seating seems to stay in tune well by chasing the lands, but sometimes we don't need to chase the lands the full amount. Ideally, we should test both powder and seating to be optimally tuned for the match the next day.

A way to do both powder and seating testing without bringing a trailer or a portable power supply is to preload small glass vials with powder. Let's say I want to test four powder charges and four seating depths. I would need to prep and prime 24 cases and 60 powder charges. 12 powder charges in loaded ammo and 48 powder charges in glass vials. I would shoot the powder ladder, then load up the best powder charge to check seating depth.

When the load is refined and only needs minor tweaking before a match, it could be done with seating first. Again, we need 24 cases prepped and primed, but we'd only need 24 powder charges. 12 in the loaded ammo then another 12 to check powder charges after finding seating. The big issue with this is you need to be pretty close with your initial powder charge.

Or we could go all out and do powder, seating, and powder again.

With whatever else we want to test, like neck tension, primers, primer crush, etc., we can figure out how many glass vials to load with powder and then seat at the range with a portable press--the arbor press probably being the simplest.

Thanks, I have a K&M Arbor press and a Wilson Seater. I can make a stand or small portable table for the truck. Now I just have to find the time.

 

[garandman]

Thanks, I have a K&M Arbor press and a Wilson Seater. I can make a stand or small portable table for the truck. Now I just have to find the time.

I swear by my K&M / Wilson combo.

 

[BigWyoming]

If I were to add one process - neck turning or bullet sorting - which one?

Eventually both, but in the spirit of one change at a time.

Neck turning is my guess...

 

[wizarc]

Seating depth first, then powder. There is really no substiute for repition of testing. I do all my shooting practice with some kind of load workup. Repeat over and over and you see trends.

 

[INTJ]

If I were to add one process - neck turning or bullet sorting - which one?

Eventually both, but in the spirit of one change at a time.

Neck turning is my guess...

Neck turning doesn't really make a rifle shoot better. If all brass came with neck wall variance of .001" or less, there wouldn't really be a need to turn. However, we might find as much as .002" or more of neck wall variance in a given lot of brass. The brass with more than .001"--or in larger cases .0015"--of neck wall variance may cause accuracy issues and should be set aside. That can sometimes be 30-50% of a lot of brass we shouldn't use.

Now if we take those cases with more than .001" of neck wall variance and turn them, we can make all those neck walls to be within .0005" or better, allowing us to use to use more of the brass in the lot. I wouldn't turn a case at all if it had more than .003" of variance, and to be honest I really don't like them with more than .002".

Sometimes it takes a couple thousandths off the case to get it to clean up. In some chambers that will leave too much clearance between the case neck and chamber. I don't know of a hard and fast rule, but if we get much more than .006" or .007" of clearance we can run into problems. Optimum is around .003" for a 6mm and .004" for a 30 cal.

In order the turn necks so we can use all the brass, but not have excessive neck clearance, we may have to specify a tight necked reamer. That's really only a good idea on a BR rifle.

So instead of neck turning, we can just sort out brass by variance in neck wall thickness. If we buy good brass we'll be able to use most of it.

So I recommend neck sorting and bullet sorting over neck turning. You probably don't even need any more tools to sort bullets. Measure BTO and set aside the outliers. You might find a couple of sorts.

 

[Retired Grunt]

I swear by my K&M / Wilson combo.

My scores have improved since I switched to this set up. Nothing automatic about it, one round at a time.

 

[BartsBullets]

Got a link that will describe in detail the method?

And as I noted above what really helps me is when people tell me *why* something works , not just that it works and then tell me to do it or then dog me for not just trusting them.

When people can tell me why it works is what persuades me. So… persuade me.

I’m persuaded by success. Could careless about why. My first Benchrest mentor a German gentleman by the name of Marin Menke would say, “Bart I don’t know why it is, but it is.” If it’s repeatable and it helps me shoot better I’m not concerned with why.

Go shoot, get better. Find a mentor that can kick your ass any day of the week. Soak up all the knowledge you can. Refine what you learn and adjust it to your system. My methods of tuning have worked well for myself, but probably aren’t for everyone. Lots of different ways to tune and get to the correct answer. Kind of like golf swings. Lots of different ones out there, but all of the Great players are square at impact.

Last but not least keep your ears and mind open. Sometimes the great advice comes from the least expected place. I’ve been shooting for a longtime and I’m still learning.
Bart

 

[garandman]

I’m persuaded by success. Could careless about why. My first Benchrest mentor a German gentleman by the name of Marin Menke would say, “Bart I don’t know why it is, but it is.” If it’s repeatable and it helps me shoot better I’m not concerned with why.

Go shoot, get better. Find a mentor that can kick your ass any day of the week. Soak up all the knowledge you can. Refine what you learn and adjust it to your system. My methods of tuning have worked well for myself, but probably aren’t for everyone. Lots of different ways to tune and get to the correct answer. Kind of like golf swings. Lots of different ones out there, but all of the Great players are square at impact.

Last but not least keep your ears and mind open. Sometimes the great advice comes from the least expected place. I’ve been shooting for a longtime and I’m still learning.
Bart

I hear ya...but I lack the time, money, local access to 600 / 1000 yd ranges and inclination to try every single thing that is recommended to me, here. EVERYBODY* is sure their way is the only / best way. And there's gotta be a half dozen different methods recommended in this thread alone.


So.... how do I choose between them? Maybe they are all really just different paths that lead to the exact same result. Or maybe there is one truly best way. I don't care to fry an entire bbl trying everything ppl recommend.

I'm also persuaded by success. But don't know if my 0.25 - 0.45 moa constitutes success. I'd like to learn how to do better.

If someone / anyone can give me the science behind their recommendation, I'm very persuadable. This is not indicative of lack of an open mind.... its exactly the opposite. Its indicative of a desire to change / improve in an as efficient manner as possible.

 

[BartsBullets]

I hear ya...but I lack the time, money, local access to 600 / 1000 yd ranges and inclination to try every single thing that is recommended to me, here. EVERYBODY* is sure their way is the only / best way. And there's gotta be a half dozen different methods recommended in this thread alone.

So.... how do I choose between them? Maybe they are all really just different paths that lead to the exact same result. Or maybe there is one truly best way. I don't care to fry an entire bbl trying everything ppl recommend.

If someone / anyone can give me the science behind their recommendation, I'm very persuadable. This is not indicative of lack of an open mind.... its exactly the opposite. Its indicative of a desire to change / improve.

Do you have any clue who is giving you recommendations? What their qualifications are? Pick someone that is at the top of whatever discipline you want to shoot and listen to them. Figure out a method. Great shooters are not scientists. They are shooters. I know a lot of engineer types that are really smart but can’t get past the “why” and shoot like crap.

Reading through this threat I’ve read some really good advice and some not so good.
Now how can you figure that out?

 

[garandman]

Do you have any clue who is giving you recommendations? What their qualifications are? Pick someone that is at the top of whatever discipline you want to shoot and listen to them. Figure out a method. Great shooters are not scientists. They are shooters. I know a lot of engineer types that are really smart but can’t get past the “why” and shoot like crap.

Reading through this threat I’ve read some really good advice and some not so good.
Now how can you figure that out?

I really don't know but 1 person here, personally. And he is an immensely successful shooter. I've gleaned much from him, But he's a busy guy and really doesn't ahve time to mentor me. SO your last question stands. That's the question I'm asking. My usual way of deciding who makes the most persuasive case is who can back it up with facts, logic and science. My bad, I guess..... lol

 

[BartsBullets]

Just go with the most persuasive. That way you have a method.