Seating depth variation

RichCoyle said:

With my .223 I fired a ten shot group at 100 that was 7/16". Then I did it at 200 yards and the group was 7/8". If I fired twenty more at 100 and 200 respectively, would the groups get bigger?

Click to expand...

Likely, but probably not by more than 30%. From a statistical standpoint, data on a bell curve usually starts to stabilize between 30 and 50 data points and after that you are simply filling in the curve between +3SD and -3SD. You have two ten shot groups at 7/16 MOA. The group would likely grow in size slightly as you increased the number of shots but not likely to go from 7/16 MOA to say 3/4 MOA. What shooting 30 at the same distance and aim point (in smaller strings allowing the barrel to cool between) provides you with a mean radius. If your group size is 1/2 MOA, the mean radius may be 1/4 inch or smaller, meaning 50% of you shots will hit a 1/2" target at 200 yards. You can then figure out 1 SD and know that 68% will hit within that radius and 95% within a 2 SD radius.

I have spent quite a bit of time playing with seating depth and I'm in the camp that it doesn't make a huge difference (somewhat bullet dependent). I used to be a believer and would do all sorts of seating depth test and after "narrowing it down" in .02 increments would go as small as .003 increments. If you take the best and worst seating depths and load/shoot a large sample size of each the results have surprised me. There might be a difference but (most of the time) it's not going to be near as large as many would believe.

It's just like .2 grain powder changes making a difference, do the same test 10 times and you probably won't see the same results twice.

Digest this for a moment. Rounds were loaded to fit in magasine. 300WM, 190 SMKs, 2 test barrels each fired 14 five shot groups at 200 yards. That lot most likely accounted for lots of people on the receiving end instant dirt naps.

Btw for those that are mentioning the Bergers, the guys in episode #50 mention at least twice that the data was collected with Hornady projectiles and that with some bullet shapes seating depth was more critical to accuracy. They did use other manufacturers brass as well as their own. I wanted to throw that out there for the folks who won't watch the hour plus video.

RichCoyle said:

With my .223 I fired a ten shot group at 100 that was 7/16". Then I did it at 200 yards and the group was 7/8". If I fired twenty more at 100 and 200 respectively, would the groups get bigger?

Click to expand...

Just so we are on the same page, this topic is totally irrelevant if you are shooting inside 400-500 yards. This topic was meant for those shooting at ranges where the bullet time of flight is over 1 second (around 1000 yards). The difference on between .5 MOA and 1 MOA accuracy matters not on an eight inch vital zone at 500 yards. At that range, establishing consistency of your load with 3-5 shots is plenty.

But consistency and statistical significant are not the same, and at 1000 yards the difference between .5 MOA (5.3 inch group) and 1 MOA (10.5 inch group) accuracy matters on an eight inch vital zone. At this range I want to know if the statistical probability of a shot landing within the 8 inch vital zone is 50% or 95%. You can absolutely establish consistency of a load with much less than 30 data points, but most statisticians agree that 30 data point is a minimum for establishing statistical significance, which is needed to produce valid probability percentages.

Understanding math, science and statistics is not necessary to shoot inside 500 yards and many on this forum have no interest in, or even detest, them; I get that. But they become extremely important outside 1000 yards. I am passionate about both the math and the science of long range shooting and enjoy studying and having intelligent discussions about both and welcome all to join the conversation.

Phil Rizzo said:

If it's not a comp gun I'm betting I know the answer.

Click to expand...

It is a factory stock plastic stock Savage .223 with a 26" heavy barrel. The scope is a Tasco 6-24X in Burris Signature rings.

VenatusDominus said:

Likely, but probably not by more than 30%. From a statistical standpoint, data on a bell curve usually starts to stabilize between 30 and 50 data points and after that you are simply filling in the curve between +3SD and -3SD. You have two ten shot groups at 7/16 MOA. The group would likely grow in size slightly as you increased the number of shots but not likely to go from 7/16 MOA to say 3/4 MOA. What shooting 30 at the same distance and aim point (in smaller strings allowing the barrel to cool between) provides you with a mean radius. If your group size is 1/2 MOA, the mean radius may be 1/4 inch or smaller, meaning 50% of you shots will hit a 1/2" target at 200 yards. You can then figure out 1 SD and know that 68% will hit within that radius and 95% within a 2 SD radius.

Click to expand...

I didn't let the barrel cool between shots. My hunting rifles are fired cold bore. I use a air mattress pump between all shots. The last three shot groups I fired at 300 yards were .7", 1.3", and .9" with an eight pound 7 - .338RUM.

RichCoyle said:

I didn't let the barrel cool between shots. My hunting rifles are fired cold bore. I use a air mattress pump between all shots. The last three shot groups I fired at 300 yards were .7", 1.3", and .9" with an eight pound 7 - .338RUM.

Click to expand...

That is some fine shooting for sure, especially with a rifle that kicks like a mule. Does your RUM wear a break or a can? I shot my 6.5 pound 300 Weatherby for 30 years before adding a break to it. If I shot 10 rounds in a range session, I would have a bruise the next day. Much more enjoyable to shot now, although I shoot it much less since acquiring my 6.5 PRCs.

VenatusDominus said:

That is some fine shooting for sure, especially with a rifle that kicks like a mule. Does your RUM wear a break or a can? I shot my 6.5 pound 300 Weatherby for 30 years before adding a break to it. If I shot 10 rounds in a range session, I would have a bruise the next day. Much more enjoyable to shot now.

Click to expand...

It has a titanium Salmon River Solution five port brake. These were fired from the bench with a rest in the front and rabbit ears under the stock. I will shoot at a deer up to 70 yards offhand. Everything else requires this quivering old man to use a rest. I practice two or three times a week with the offhand, so I know my limit.

By the way the .223 was also fired from a bench rest. When I fired the same rifle for ten shots like I would at ground squirrels the group opened up to 2". I don't have a benchrest in the desert.

You were truly a brute to handle that Weatherby without a brake. One day I took my son-in-law to the range. He fired about thirty rounds from his 7 Rem Mag. His load was 140 grainers at 3,284 feet per second average. I fired my .375-8 Rem Mag also about thirty times. My load was 250 grainers at 3,190 feet per second.

He had a blood blister about an inch diameter with a bruise about five inches across. I didn't even have a red place on my shoulder. He said, "I think you better make me one of those brakes."

birddog 68 said:

I will admit that I didn't watch any videos.
If I shoot a 3 shot group with A seating depth and the group measures 1.5" and a group using B seating depth and it measures .75 are they saying that it doesn't matter which I use? Of course the .75 will be larger after shooting 30 shots BUT it stands to reason that the 1.5 will also be larger in size or will that one stay 1.5?

Click to expand...

It would appear to be so

Equalizer said:

I'm gonna watch the videos and read the outdoor life article but more data does make sense.

It reminded me of an article on finding the cold bore zero for a given rifle and load I read years back. I believe it was Carlos Hathcock's method…. it was a single shot at the same target on different days and in different conditions or elevations. The shooter takes notes and keeps the targets to overlay one another and continues to add to the data. It is different but similar in that your plotting the cone of fire and learning the predictability of your system in "all" conditions and circumstances for first shot hits.

Click to expand...

"One shot one kill" was the goal there.

Agreed. I prefer my hunting to be that way also.

I wouldn't worry about it if the variation is relatively small. I try to keep them within an ES of 0.003