Wheeler method for seating depth for .223 Rem

[memilanuk]

So... been using this method since shortly after @Alex Wheeler first posted it on here. Love it. Took me a little bit of finagling to figure out how to make it work with a Savage bolt, and a little more to deal with some of the peculiarities of a Bighorn Origin bolt, but I use it all the time on my .308s and 6.5 CM bolt guns. Works *awesome*.

But...

For some reason, I have not-so-good luck trying to use it on my .223 Rem bolt guns. Again, Savage (one PTA, and one old 10FP) and Bighorn (same Origin as for the 6.5 CM). All custom/aftermarket barrels. 28" Krieger 7tw on the PTA, with an ISSF 0.169" FB chamber, 28" Shilen 7tw on the 10FP with a "90VLD" chamber (their words, not mine, I disagree, but...) and whatever 'match' reamer the gunsmith used on the 26" Krieger 8 tw for the Origin.

Basically... I can't 'feel' when the bullet engages the rifling - almost like it's rubbing in the freebore area. Had the same problem with a number of different bullets - Berger 75 & 80 gn VLDs, Berger 82gn BTs, 85.5 gn Hybrids, etc. Not sure if I've tried any Hornady or Nosler in those as of yet. Good quality brass - Lapua, both neck turned and not, depending on the gun. *Pretty sure* my rounds are straight enough they shouldn't be rubbing in the FB... but I'll admit I haven't blown the dust off the concentricity gauge and checked.

Anyone else have difficulty making this technique work on smaller calibers? I've pretty much had to go back to my 'old school' method of using a Stoney Point OAL tool with the modified case. It works, but it's definitely less civilized

Any other suggestions?

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Freebore diameter is tight on a lot of .223 chambers. Tighter than I would spec. Thats my bet.

 

[K22]

I use the Frankfort Arsenal system* - no case is required. It's simple, inexpensive, and works great.

* I made a home version of it. All you need is a cleaning rod, two nylon spacers** (tapped and drilled for nylon screws), and a caliper.

** 1/4" ID for use with a .224 cleaning rod - spacers and screws available at Home Depot or Lowes.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Not knocking anyone's method but why not just start at full jam and work backward from that? Full jam being defined as the point at which a given neck tension will allow the bullet to push back in the case neck when long seated.
As long as you have a repeatable method, I don't see why it matters, except when comparing notes with someone across the country and their best seating depth may well be different than someone else's anyway. This way has the benefit of only having one way to go, deeper into the case. Once a oal that shoots best is established, I can't see how it matters that you got there. Document it and work from there going forward. To each their own and I'm open to anything. Help me see what I'm missing. If your method is giving you issues, it can't hurt to try another one.

 

[Link]

Not knocking anyone's method but why not just start at full jam and work backward from that? Full jam being defined as the point at which a given neck tension will allow the bullet to push back in the case neck when long seated.
As long as you have a repeatable method, I don't see why it matters, except when comparing notes with someone across the country and their best seating depth may well be different than someone else's anyway. This way has the benefit of only having one way to go, deeper into the case. Once a oal that shoots best is established, I can't see how it matters that you got there. Document it and work from there going forward. To each their own and I'm open to anything. Help me see what I'm missing. If your method is giving you issues, it can't hurt to try another one.

How much do you work out at a time, there are so many different ideas.

ty Don.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

How much do you work out at a time, there are so many different ideas.

ty Don.

Depends. In my bench rifles I don't care if a live round can be extracted without pulling the bullet or not. I've found that my 30s very typically like a lot of jam and my 6s usually like light jam or short jump. So I factor that in. But if I had no idea where to start, I'd start at .005 at a time. Another factor is bullet design. Some will allow a pretty good bit before pushing back in the case and some not and some styles are more sensitive to depth. For those I'd move smaller.
But I'm not sure any of that matters. You still have to establish what the gun likes and still have to establish how much you'll move it in or out at a time, regardless of method of finding a so called just touch point. At least you know that you canly only go in one direction. And not that one way is better than the other. That measurement can be immensely accurate but you still have to find what you gun likes. A precise measurement in this regard seems to only have value for conversations sake. It's much like using a Hornady comparator. No matter how accurate it is, you still have to find your own measurements rather than someone elses.

 

[memilanuk]

Freebore diameter is tight on a lot of .223 chambers. Tighter than I would spec. Thats my bet.

That... is actually ringing some bells. I found that the freebore was ridiculously tight compared to what my brain was used to (.308 Win, FTR chambers for 200 Hybrids and 20Xs).

 

[Ned Ludd]

That... is actually ringing some bells. I found that the freebore was ridiculously tight compared to what my brain was used to (.308 Win, FTR chambers for 200 Hybrids and 20Xs).

Monte - the freebore diameter on my various .223 Rem reamer prints is 0.2242" +/- whatever the manufacturer's tolerances are. All are based on my original 223 Rem ISSF reamer from PTG, with various freebore lengths. Every single one cuts a chamber so tight that when I use a Hornady OAL gauge, the bullet stops when it first encounters the [start] of the freebore. It requires a much harder push on the plastic rod to get the bullet moving again, albeit grudgingly, until it encounters a second [harder] stop, i.e. the rifling. It makes determining CBTO and COAL at "touching" much more difficult than with my .308s, but it is still doable with a little practice and close attention. I still can recall the very first time I took a measurement this way on my first .223 Rem F-TR bolt rifle set up for shooting 90 VLDs. When the bullet hit the start of the freebore, I thought it was actually touching the lands. So I tightened up the set screw and pushed the assembly out with the cleaning rod. Needless to say, I was a little surprised to see the bullet seated way deeper in the case neck than I thought it should be. Once I figured out what was happening and got the measurement working as described below, the difference between the two measurements was very close to 0.169". Imagine that.

The primary concern is that you have to push on the little plastic stick much harder when the bullet first encounters the freebore, but then still be able to feel the rifling and stop a short distance later when the bullet actually encounters the rifling. Like I said, it takes practice and care, but it can be done. There is at least one way to "check" as an internal control whether you have actually accidentally pushed the bullet well into the rifling. I use a cleaning rod inserted from the muzzle to push the bullet and OAL gauge back out as a single unit to take the measurements. If the bullet has actually gone into the rifling any appreciable distance, you can feel additional resistance when using the cleaning rod to push it back out that is not present if the bullet is merely just touching the lands. Further, I make a "Measurement Set" of 8 or 10 bullets grabbed at random from every Lot # of bullets. I number each bullet on the base with a Sharpie, then measure and record the OAL. The Measurement Set goes into a labeled bullet box and is used until that Lot # of bullets is finished. I use the average of the measured CBTO and COAL values, which are also an internal control in that you can immediately see when one measurement is much different than all the others and re-measure with that bullet, if necessary. An additional internal control is that the SD of the COAL measurements taken with the tool should be very close to the SD of bullet OAL. If it is not, then you probably introduced additional error into the measurements when taking them. I attached a copy of a recent set measurements taken from a new barrel on my original .223 Rem F-TR rifle, if you want to get a feel for what the results look like.

Again, this approach with the Hornady OAL gauge is far from ideal due to the tight .223 Rem freebore, but it can still be made to work successfully in the event you are unable to get Alex's method working satisfactorily with your .223s.

 

[Jon D]

Ned is spot on, these 223 chambers have a tight freebore. Push harder on the plastic rod in the Hornady kit. Once you find the actual hard jam max length of the chamber, start finessing around and you can figure out the touch point.

 

[Lance21]

Rub some fine steel wool around your bullet. Keep seating deeper until the rifling marks go away. There's your touch depth.

 

[pertnear]

Have you ever tried seating a bullet backwards to get a CBTO? From this you can work backwards to a COAL for the "touch". The bullet would need to be FB & FN. The edges of a FB bullet are still slightly beveled but that could be taken into account in the calculation. Perhaps a FMJ, open base might work best. I guess an ambitious shooter could make the bullet base perfectly flat via lathe or mill(?) Just a random thought...

 

[memilanuk]

Have you ever tried seating a bullet backwards to get a CBTO? From this you can work backwards to a COAL for the "touch". The bullet would need to be FB & FN. The edges of a FB bullet are still slightly beveled but that could be taken into account in the calculation. Perhaps a FMJ, open base might work best. I guess an ambitious shooter could make the bullet base perfectly flat via lathe or mill(?) Just a random thought...

I don't see how using a FB, FN or FMJ would have any relevance. The point of the exercise is to find the CBTO for the actual bullet(s) being used. Not sure why *anyone* would care about CBTO on a FMJ, not to this level of precision.

 

[memilanuk]

Ned is spot on, these 223 chambers have a tight freebore. Push harder on the plastic rod in the Hornady kit. Once you find the actual hard jam max length of the chamber, start finessing around and you can figure out the touch point.

Luckily my tool predates Hornady acquiring, and cheapening, the product line. Stoney Point, with aluminum push rod. I've always ended to 'lean on it' a good bit harder than most people, which I think was why my CBTO readings with it tend to come out pretty close to what they do with a custom sized case and a stripped bolt (in other calibers).

 

[pertnear]

I don't see how using a FB, FN or FMJ would have any relevance. The point of the exercise is to find the CBTO for the actual bullet(s) being used. Not sure why *anyone* would care about CBTO on a FMJ, not to this level of precision.

What you are trying to determine, with precision, is the touch point of a caliber diameter cylinder bullet. The BTO is measured from the base of the cartridge to the caliber diameter point (i.e. ogive start) on the bullet. Grant it, the riflings don't start off square at the end of the throat, but that can be allowed for. If you know the caliber diameter touch point, you can compute the desired CBTO & thus the COAL for any bullet. The FN is not so important except to give more neck surface for a short bullet. FMJ bullets are often swaged very flat with the lead core exposed at the back of the bullet.

 

[memilanuk]

I'm not interested in 'computing' anything (in this case). I want to *know* the actual touch point for a specific lot# of a particular bullet - not some theoretical computed value. And yes, that does vary lot to lot, in my experience.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I'm not interested in 'computing' anything (in this case). I want to *know* the actual touch point for a specific lot# of a particular bullet - not some theoretical computed value. And yes, that does vary lot to lot, in my experience.

So you establish a method that gives repeatable results, I get that..then start moving the bullet to get the best results and then document that number. Am I right that you then work from the latter number, where it shoots best and adjust or maintain jump/jam/accuracy from there?
I guess that has been my point all along, that you establish a length that is repeatable, then no longer work with that number, but a different one altogether...the one that shoots best. That's why I don't think the method of finding a given starting point is critical, as long as it's repeatable enough to get you out of the gate toward a good seating depth that you work with going forward. Is that all correct.

 

[Ned Ludd]

So you establish a method that gives repeatable results, I get that..then start moving the bullet to get the best results and then document that number. Am I right that you then work from the latter number, where it shoots best and adjust or maintain jump/jam/accuracy from there?
I guess that has been my point all along, that you establish a length that is repeatable, then no longer work with that number, but a different one altogether...the one that shoots best. That's why I don't think the method of finding a given starting point is critical, as long as it's repeatable enough to get you out of the gate toward a good seating depth that you work with going forward. Is that all correct.

^^^This. The purpose of something like the Stoney Point tool/Hornady OAL gauge is to establish a reference point. That reference point could be right at "touching", or .003" into the lands, it doesn't matter. As a scientist, I struggled with this concept for years, but it's true. Once the reference point has been established, regardless of what it is, one will use it to establish a seating depth test range. The target will then reveal which CBTO length(s) shoot the best. That CBTO can then be reproduced at will with very good precision. If, according to the reference measurement, one believes their optimal seating depth to be .015" off the lands, when it's really .012" off because their "touching" reference measurement was actually .003" into the lands, it shouldn't matter in most cases because the CBTO can be reproduced accurately.

Of course, we all try to make the measurement at "touching" as accurate as possible, but agonizing over the potential measurement errors with the tools available as I used to do when I first started reloading isn't going to change anything when using jumped bullets. In fairness, those that seat bullets into the lands may have a different opinion or do things a slightly different way. I get it. But for those of us that rarely, if ever, jam bullets, the accuracy of the Stoney Point/Hornady OAL gauge measurements, or those obtained using some other method are generally more than sufficient to establish a reference point that will facilitate finding optimal seating depth for a given load.

 

[memilanuk]

So you establish a method that gives repeatable results, I get that..then start moving the bullet to get the best results and then document that number. Am I right that you then work from the latter number, where it shoots best and adjust or maintain jump/jam/accuracy from there?
I guess that has been my point all along, that you establish a length that is repeatable, then no longer work with that number, but a different one altogether...the one that shoots best. That's why I don't think the method of finding a given starting point is critical, as long as it's repeatable enough to get you out of the gate toward a good seating depth that you work with going forward. Is that all correct.

Yes and no. I do check the 'touch' value periodically, to assess throat wear. Typically the calibers I'm shooting the most (.308 Win and .223 Rem, both primarily in the context of FTR competition) don't move the throat a lot. I still check every few hundred rounds, just to be sure, and adjust as needed.

I've had a few exceptions... one Krieger barrel, I gave up trying to keep up with the throat, as it was moving 20-40 thou every time I checked. The barrel finally quit shooting Xs somewhere around the point where the bullet I was using (Berger 185 Juggernauts) basically were in free-fall from the case mouth to the lands - when I went back and checked, the bullet literally fell out of the case before it hit the lands. Others... moved a certain amount the first few hundred rounds, then stopped, and pretty much never moved again, even after the barrel was well past due for replacement based on downrange results. That one freaked me out a bit - it was the barrel on my primary gun for the 2017 FCWC, and the accuracy was fading at only 400rds in... checked the touch distance, with a specific exemplar bullet from the particular lot # I had been using at the time, and sure as $hit, it'd moved 5-6 thou. Adjusted the seating depth accordingly, and the groups cinched back down. I went so far as to seat all my ammo long (had to ship 7-800 rds ahead, to use for both the DCRA FCNC and the ICFRA FCWC), clean the barrel down to bare metal every night, check the seating depth, and final seat the bullets to the appropriate seating depth. It never changed again, but I did sleep easier at night *knowing* that

If I can get the barrel/bullet combo to shoot with a 'big' jump, I generally find that it's way less 'sensitive' to the small variations that pop up. Definitely my preferred mode of operation, but not always one that's open to me.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

^^^This. The purpose of something like the Stoney Point tool/Hornady OAL gauge is to establish a reference point. That reference point could be right at "touching", or .003" into the lands, it doesn't matter. As a scientist, I struggled with this concept for years, but it's true. Once the reference point has been established, regardless of what it is, one will use it to establish a seating depth test range. The target will then reveal which CBTO length(s) shoot the best. That CBTO can then be reproduced at will with very good precision. If, according to the reference measurement, one believes their optimal seating depth to be .015" off the lands, when it's really .012" off because their "touching" reference measurement was actually .003" into the lands, it shouldn't matter in most cases because the CBTO can be reproduced accurately.

Of course, we all try to make the measurement at "touching" as accurate as possible, but agonizing over the potential measurement errors with the tools available as I used to do when I first started reloading isn't going to change anything when using jumped bullets. In fairness, those that seat bullets into the lands may have a different opinion or do things a slightly different way. I get it. But for those of us that rarely, if ever, jam bullets, the accuracy of the Stoney Point/Hornady OAL gauge measurements, or those obtained using some other method are generally more than sufficient to establish a reference point that will facilitate finding optimal seating depth for a given load.

Thanks! That's what I've been saying. Not that one way is superior or inferior to others. I find a reference point, establish a load and then work from that number.

I can see what Monte is saying too, especially is referencing future data to the initial "touch point", as in .003 from touch, for example. I typically work from full jam backward, having had years of good luck with bullets either jammed or very near..with .010 off being about as far as I ever go in that direction. VLD's do seem to be more depth sensitive though and a lot of people jump them what I'd call a very long way. IME, tune repeats over and over(frequency) and there is likely a spot inside of a smaller window than many people jump them by. But that's just my 2 cents and I don't argue with good results. If a gun is truly in tune jumping them .100 or truly in tune at some amount of jam...then it's in tune and it ain't broke, either way. I think a "standard" for finding touch is most valuable when conveying a number that works in one gun, to people across the country via the internet, etc. I also think that can lead new people down the path of expecting their gun to shoot best at that setting, which might get you in the right ballpark but is very much gun/load dependent. I prefer to convey that kinda data in more general terms, like..jammed firmly or just off of the lands a few thou. Gotta test it anyway and see what your gun and load shoots best. Thanks ya'll!

 

[Ned Ludd]

Thanks! That's what I've been saying. Not that one way is superior or inferior to others. I find a reference point, establish a load and then work from that number.

I can see what Monte is saying too, especially is referencing future data to the initial "touch point", as in .003 from touch, for example. I typically work from full jam backward, having had years of good luck with bullets either jammed or very near..with .010 off being about as far as I ever go in that direction. VLD's do seem to be more depth sensitive though and a lot of people jump them what I'd call a very long way. IME, tune repeats over and over(frequency) and there is likely a spot inside of a smaller window than many people jump them by. But that's just my 2 cents and I don't argue with good results. If a gun is truly in tune jumping them .100 or truly in tune at some amount of jam...then it's in tune and it ain't broke, either way. I think a "standard" for finding touch is most valuable when conveying a number that works in one gun, to people across the country via the internet, etc. I also think that can lead new people down the path of expecting their gun to shoot best at that setting, which might get you in the right ballpark but is very much gun/load dependent. I prefer to convey that kinda data in more general terms, like..jammed firmly or just off of the lands a few thou. Gotta test it anyway and see what your gun and load shoots best. Thanks ya'll!

Although we approach taking the "reference" measurements in slightly different ways (I try to get a measurement as close as possible to "touching" using the Hornady OAL gauge, rather than starting at hard jam), it sounds like your experience is similar to mine. I have loaded the 90 VLDs over H4895 in .223 Rem F-TR loads for about 8 years now. Based on my Hornady OAL "touching" reference measurements, my loads with 90s have always tuned in at .018" or .021" off the lands in 4 different barrels chambered with the same .223 Rem ISSF reamer. Further, CBTO and COAL measurements of these loaded over the years have also been very consistent, well within the expected range given different Lot #s of bullets and varying round counts on the barrels. I know because this thread prompted me to go back and check through the data in my reloading data book for that particular rifle yesterday.

I am also not a believer that there is only one way to do things in the reloading process. Typically, there is more than one way to arrive at the same goal, and no one way is necessarily "better" than the others, except in a single individual's hands. Find which approach works most consistently for you and stick with it.