Weight sorting or lengthen sorting that is the question

[6-dasher]

Do you weight sort or lengthen sort? What is your method of sorting Bullets

 

[Bc'z]

OAL 1st sort
Occasionally BBTO, but seldom do.
Never weight other than to see a few tenths variation out of curiosity.

I have found a more consistent CBTO by OAL sorting.

This fits my needs, but may not fit yours.

 

[6-dasher]

Thank you sir, just trying to see what ideas people have

 

[R.Morehouse]

I suggest making them all the same size and staying on top of it. I found this to be best on my targets shooting SR BR with my 6ppc & 30 Major.

Regards
Rick

 

[dstoenner]

Bryan Litz if you sort, sort by length because that is where you get the most BC variation which then creates vertical at distance.

David

 

[Rocketvapor]

For 600 yd competition rounds I check weight. Always seem to find one or two out several tenths.
I check total length of a few then set seating die for COAL. The seating die then ignores total length as it touches down the ojive. Not as accurate as CBTO but better than COAL. I run all at that setting. Slight variations in meplate pointing or tip don't show.
The new Hornady seating stem works well for heavy slick bullets.

 

[ttfreestyle]

I think I read Litz recommends base to ogive length if only doing one type of sorting.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I routinely measure samples of the bullets I use (Bergers), and the vast majority of OAL variance occurs in the nose region, not in the bearing surface or boattail, which both seem to be of very consistent length. In this specific case, sorting by OAL provides a benefit in terms of both seating depth consistency and precision at the target. If the boattail/bearing surface lengths of the bullets one uses are very consistent straight out of the box as mine seem to be, sorting them base-to-ogive isn't going to accomplish very much. I originally started sorting bullets by OAL solely for the purpose of pointing them. I can sort bullets into OAL groups of .0015" range per group and point all the bullets in a single length group without having to change to the pointing die micrometer setting.

Many shooters decline to sort bullets by weight if they are from a respected bullet manufacturer. One can easily predict the effect of bullet weight variance on velocity using simple math; i.e. multiply the average velocity by the fractional weight differential between a lighter and heavier bullet. What you will typically find is that unless the weight difference between the two bullets is significant, there won't be much of a change in velocity predicted. If the weight differential is very small, is will not be a limiting source of error in terms of velocity. Other things such as powder/primer selection, neck tension, etc., will cause greater velocity variance than a slight difference in bullet weight. Another simple way to make crude estimate is simply to look at the number of digits. For example, we are typically looking at 4-digit velocities with rifle bullets. If bullet weight variance is limited to the 4th digit only (i.e. one tenth of a grain or two), it will likely only affect velocity in the 4th digit, when loaded to equal pressure.

The approaches people use to sort bullets may vary dependent on their specific needs/goals and the shooting discipline in which they participate. Thus, listing the shooting discipline and/or precision requirements might solicit more specific opinions from others doing the same type of shooting.

 

[ttfreestyle]

Sir do you trim and point or solely point, if so could you tell a difference in doing either way? Thanks

 

[3Sigma]

What you will typically find is that unless the weight difference between the two bullets is significant, there won't be much of a change in velocity predicted. If the weight differential is very small, is will not be a limiting source of error in terms of velocity.

I have load sweeps with a 285 ELD and 300 Berger OTM in a 338 Edge that ran the exact same average velocity (5 shot average for each) at the same powder weight. POI was the same, but it was only 100 yds, so I don't count it for much.

Bergers grouped much better though.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Sir do you trim and point or solely point, if so could you tell a difference in doing either way? Thanks

If you were asking me, I length-sort into groups of .0015" range per sorting group. The next group starts .0005" longer, so the difference between length groups is actually .002" (i.e. if Length Group 1 was 1.2500" to 1.2515", then Length Group 2 would be 1.2520" to 1.2535">>> the difference between the shortest or the longest bullets in two adjacent length groups would be .002", even though the range within a single group would be .0015").

I length-sort bullets, then point directly without trimming. I have certainly trimmed meplats prior to pointing, but there are other caveats involved in doing it that way. I didn't feel as though the points obtained after trimming were any better than the points on my length-sorted (but untrimmed) bullets, so I stopped trimming first.

If you intend to trim meplats prior to pointing, there are some considerations, which may be dependent to some extent on the brand of bullet trimmer that is used. For example, one approach is to find the shortest bullet within the Lot# you intend to trim and set the trimmer so that it just barely suffices to trim that particular bullet. All the other bullets in the Lot# being longer will then be trimmed to a greater extent, but even the shortest bullets will be trimmed sufficiently at that trimmer setting. The issue here is that trimming longer/shorter bullet with the same trimmer setting means that the diameter of the resultant "trimmed" meplats will not be the same prior to pointing them. Some will be wider, others will be more narrow. In theory, the points should all be close after pointing, but in my hands there are visible differences after pointing. The wider the bullet meplat after trimming, the "lower" the pointing die micrometer needs to be set in order to close up the meplat as fully. If the whole point of bullet pointing is not only to improve bullet BC, but also to make the BCs more consistent within a single Lot#, then this approach doesn't make much sense as it actually introduces additional variance. My suggestion to address this issue would be to to length sort bullets in some manner similar to what I described above, then set the trimmer using the shortest bullets within that particular length group. My biggest difficulty has always been pointing the gun in the right direction for what the wind was doing at that moment. In the grand scheme of things, pointing bullets usually yields an increase in BC of perhaps 4-6%. So the effect of pointing bullets is never going to make a huge difference in BC, regardless of which approach you use, and it will never overcome the necessity for making good wind calls.

Some may feel that I am splitting hairs with respect to my observations about the variance that can arise after trimming meplats prior to pointing when using the shortest bullet to set the trimmer. However, in my hands, the differences between the points obtained for longer versus shorter bullets within a given Lot# were readily seen from a casual visual inspection. If I can easily see the difference, then it could have an impact on bullet BC after the trimming/pointing process was complete. Nonetheless, I know quite a few shooters that trim before pointing and their results are impressive, to say the least. I think that done properly, either approach is slightly better than not pointing at all.

The concern for most of the people I have talked to about pointing bullets that have only been length-sorted but not trimmed is that the ragged looking meplats as they came from the manufacturer often look even uglier after pointing. However, one must consider that the effect of these ragged meplats on bullet trajectory is minimized as it is pushed closer in to the bullet axis of rotation. I suppose the same could be said of the the consideration I described above regarding trimmed and pointed bullets. It doesn't really matter either way because the main reason I only length-sort bullets prior to pointing is that I don't care for the time and effort involved in trimming bullets prior to pointing them. If I can't shoot the difference, then extra effort is wasted effort, IMO. My testing indicates that in fact I cannot shoot difference between bullets that are length-sorted only prior to trimming, and those that are trimmed and then pointed. So I don't trim bullets prior to pointing. To really learn whether there is a noticeable difference between the two approaches in their own hands, people need to test this for themselves like I have and determine if there is a difference with their specific components, tools, and rifle setup. Don't just take my word for it, test it yourself, then you'll know.

 

[ttfreestyle]

Thanks for taking time to reply, makes sense to me. I have stopped trimming as well and only point. I will take your advice and point in sorted lots and test, makes sense to me that can make a difference. Thanks again, Troy

 

[6bra1k]

I THINK YOU NEED TO DEFINE WHAT YOU ARE DOING FIRST.
what quality level of bullet are you shooting
BR shooting at 600 and 1k require more than f class, i think fclass requires more than prs. at short rang it is an entirely different game score or group.
base to ojive, weight
ogive on sr score

 

[JFrank]

For long range BR I load 103 gr Vapor Trails right out of the box, Berger 108 gr I sort BBTO.

 

[1shot]

First, off, I'm a sling shooter, so I have a larger target to shoot at. with that being said, I don't do anything to bullets for 600 and in. For 1K matches, this is my bullet prep.
1. Find the shortest bullet with in the lot.
2. Trim to the shortest length - .001
3. Re-point.
I have found that this method gets rid of those pesky outliers that will ruin a good shot string. Outliers being bullets that are several thousandth long, and or several tenths heavy. For me, the gain in BC if just an added bonus, but the consistency in one bullet to another is worth the price of admission.
I hope this helps,

Lloyd