Tool For Measuring Bullet OALs

[brshtr]

I'm not sure why one would want to measure base to tip?? To me that dimension means nothing! You need to know base to ogive or boattail to ogive. The total bullet length in irreverent..

I want to follow up on gstaylorg's responses above, who said it better than I could have, and clarify why I asked the question in the first place.

As I said in my original post: I want to measure base to tip (actually, to sort them by that measurement) in order to point the bullets more consistently.

When I push the bullet into the pointing die, the bullet makes contact at two points: (1) the base of the bullet sits on the shellholder base and (2) the tip of the bullet contacts the die. Neither the ogive, nor the bearing surface, nor anything else other than the base and the tip are contacting anything. Another way of saying it is that the bullet indexes off its base.

If you doubt what I'm saying, insert a 6mm Berger 105 Hybrid into a Whidden no. 1 pointing insert and see what happens. If you don't have those handy, see the attached photo. As you can see, the die doesn't come anywhere close to the ogive. Neither the ogive nor any other part of the bearing surface is touching anything.

If Bullet A is longer (base to tip) than Bullet B and I run both through the die at the same setting, then Bullet A will get pointed more because it goes further up into the die. I can easily, without magnification, see a difference in both the side profile and the amount of meplat closure. In order to point the bullets consistently, I would have to sort them by the base to tip length, the only time that measurement has ever been relevant to me.

Will it make a difference? Gstaylorg makes a compelling case for it. Ditto for Danny Biggs, who is only one of the best F-Class shooters in the country. See http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/trimming-and-pointing.3889015/.

To those who provided information to help me with my question, I express my thanks. Your suggestions are very helpful and I appreciate it. To those who wondered why I want to sort them this way, I hope this clarifies it.

Dave Rabin

 

[Joe Salt]

brshtr Don't let anyone tell you you are doing it wrong, because you are doing the right thing. If you don't the long one's will bulge the sides of the bullet.
Keep doing what you are doing.

Joe Salt

 

[ireload2]

None of those aluminum clamp on pieces will be as straight, flat and square as the caliper jaws.

Because it's already on there. Don't have to use it but you can ,geez.

 

[6xcshooter]

None of those aluminum clamp on pieces will be as straight, flat and square as the caliper jaws.

 

[6xcshooter]

Measured stuff with and without came out the same. But my caliper doesn't go to .00001.

 

[NC308]

In your case, OAL sorting might do very little. I certainly wouldn't take the time to do it other than for the reason I described. My main point was that I think sometimes people use various bullet sorting methods without fully appreciating what a particular method will or will not do. IMO, I will never be able to reliably detect a velocity/pressure difference, or actually shoot the difference between groups of bullets that differ in bearing surface length by a few, or even ten thousandths. I also believe that weight sorting bullets into groups is a complete waste of time. Velocity is a 4 digit number. Unless the weight variance within a lot of bullets goes into the 3rd or second decimal place, it will not change your velocity enough that you can even measure it. In my hands, even relatively poor lots of bullets don't have that much weight variance. Having said that, I do weigh all my bullets, but only to cull out a very small number of really gross outliers that seem to show up in most lots. It's never more than a few, but they always seem to be there. Fortunately, weighing bullets to cull outliers is much faster and easier than actually sorting them into groups; pretty much a GO/NO GO exercise.

In your example above, I don't know what kind of seating die you're using, but many types use a mechanism such that there is a discrete distance between where your caliper inserts seats on the bullet ogive very close to the bearing surface, and where the seater die stem contacts the bullet farther out on the nose. It may not be a huge distance, but it is not zero. The seater die stem doesn't know or care what is below it's contact point on the bullet, nor does the caliper insert know or care what is below its contact point on the bullet. If you're going to sort bullets in such a way as to generate sort groups that will improve seating depth consistency, you really want to use a tool that sorts them by measuring the region between the contact points of the caliper insert and the seater die stem. Bob Green's tool does that. If you're sorting bullets by base to ogive, or by bearing surface length, then you're sorting by a region on the bullet that is outside the two critical contact points. In other words, if sorting bullets by base to ogive appears to give better consistency in seating depth, it is likely mostly luck, because except for in extreme situations, seating depth is not usually dependent on the length of the bearing surface. As I mentioned above, I have found that small differences in the amount of shank in the neck do not normally cause velocity differences that I can reliably measure (i.e. small differences in bearing surface length). In addition, I find that there normally seems to be more length variation in the nose region of the lots of bullets I use, which is not surprising when considering the way they're made.

In general, there are many, many, many different ways to sort things, including bullets, brass, even primers. How much of that someone is willing to undertake will largely depend on how much time they can devote to sorting. So IMO, knowing specifically what different sorting methods will and won't do is of benefit because it may allow one to pick and choose which methods are the most likely to improve consistency on the target. I don't have unlimited time to do these things, so I want to focus on those methods that will have the most benefit with the least amount of time/effort. That is not to say that methods I personally choose not to use don't do anything at all, because almost any sorting method can have some effect. But for me, it's all about the "Law of Diminishing Returns". So I try to pick and choose carefully with regard to the sorting process to get the most out of the time I do have to spend on that aspect of reloading.

Understood. See I did learn somthing. I guess each meathod has its purpose like you said. I just do t point bullets so did not appreciate how the oal could effect it.

 

[bozo699]

I want to follow up on gstaylorg's responses above, who said it better than I could have, and clarify why I asked the question in the first place.

As I said in my original post: I want to measure base to tip (actually, to sort them by that measurement) in order to point the bullets more consistently.

When I push the bullet into the pointing die, the bullet makes contact at two points: (1) the base of the bullet sits on the shellholder base and (2) the tip of the bullet contacts the die. Neither the ogive, nor the bearing surface, nor anything else other than the base and the tip are contacting anything. Another way of saying it is that the bullet indexes off its base.

If you doubt what I'm saying, insert a 6mm Berger 105 Hybrid into a Whidden no. 1 pointing insert and see what happens. If you don't have those handy, see the attached photo. As you can see, the die doesn't come anywhere close to the ogive. Neither the ogive nor any other part of the bearing surface is touching anything.

If Bullet A is longer (base to tip) than Bullet B and I run both through the die at the same setting, then Bullet A will get pointed more because it goes further up into the die. I can easily, without magnification, see a difference in both the side profile and the amount of meplat closure. In order to point the bullets consistently, I would have to sort them by the base to tip length, the only time that measurement has ever been relevant to me.

Will it make a difference? Gstaylorg makes a compelling case for it. Ditto for Danny Biggs, who is only one of the best F-Class shooters in the country. See http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/trimming-and-pointing.3889015/.

To those who provided information to help me with my question, I express my thanks. Your suggestions are very helpful and I appreciate it. To those who wondered why I want to sort them this way, I hope this clarifies it.

Dave RabinView attachment 987043

Dave,
I understand what your doing and your doing it correctly. I also measure base to ojive but for what your doing base to tip is correct. I did this with a caliper with good results,...as someone pointed out on this thread you have to find what works and be consistent with the calipers but after several boxes of 500 your fingers get tired,..I get it so I modified my Bob Green bullet sorting stand and it works awesome,...very fast and repeatable. Sometimes you would be surprised how many piles of plus or minus .001 you will get out of a box of 500. I use dixi cups and write on them,..I do a quick average and call the middle zero and go up and down from there. Good look with your shooting my friend.
Wayne.

 

[K22]

Frankfort Arsenal Tool - available at Midway - cheapest, simplest and easiest tool to use

 

[bozo699]

Frankfort Arsenal Tool - available at Midway - cheapest, simplest and easiest tool to use

You speaking of this tool?

Frankford Arsenal Cartridge Overall Length Gauge 965887

Wayne.

 

[brshtr]

Dave,
I understand what your doing and your doing it correctly. I also measure base to ojive but for what your doing base to tip is correct. I did this with a caliper with good results,...as someone pointed out on this thread you have to find what works and be consistent with the calipers but after several boxes of 500 your fingers get tired,..I get it so I modified my Bob Green bullet sorting stand and it works awesome,...very fast and repeatable. Sometimes you would be surprised how many piles of plus or minus .001 you will get out of a box of 500. I use dixi cups and write on them,..I do a quick average and call the middle zero and go up and down from there. Good look with your shooting my friend.
Wayne.

Wayne,

Thanks for your reply. I went to the Bob Green website and the only tool I found was the comparator for sorting by ogive to seating stem length. Is that the stand you're referring to or is it something else? Thanks again.

Dave Rabin

 

[Terry Altom]

I still believe the fastest way is with the Sinclair bullet sorting stand, although it looks like the new one has a pointed tip on the plunger whereas mine has a flat tip like in this video.

Simply list the plunger lever, hold the bullet with your fingers and let the plunger lever back down. Done.

If you're going to do a lot of the routinely, you could have a 1" tall piece of barrel stock drilled out to hold the bullet vertical. Even easier is to buy the $11 bullet holder and have it drilled all the way through so you drop the bullet in base first.

 

[rardoin]

I still believe the fastest way is with the Sinclair bullet sorting stand, although it looks like the new one has a pointed tip on the plunger whereas mine has a flat tip like in this video.

The current model comes with a round nose polymer tip as well as the flat metal indicator tip.

 

[K22]

You speaking of this tool?

Frankford Arsenal Cartridge Overall Length Gauge 965887

Wayne.

Yes - Midway # 190-644