Bullet Jump/Jammed - Is it the Bullet design or the rifle

[Alex Wheeler]

I do not have a preference on seating depth, the target will tell you where to seat the bullets. I typically find myself within .020" of touch, either in or off. I have tested them all the way back to over .125 jump and everything between.
I spoke with Mark Gordon about his testing before it was published. He was interested in one of my stocks to build a BR rig for testing and we got to talking about his test data. What everyone needs to understand is that there are different levels of precision needed for different shooting sports. In PRS 1/2moa over a long string of fire is more than enough. Those guys need to load 100s of rounds in advance and shoot without cleaning the guns. Thats the basis for his testing, he wanted the most forgiving place, not necessarily the most accurate.
I find long range hunting to be very much similar to long range BR, we shoot far fewer rounds in a range trip and theres no "good enough". Theres nothing more serious that making a clean kill in my book. So I dont care about a huge window in hunting or BR, I care about the smallest groups and its my job to keep them tuned there. Everyone likes to think about the good days, but when the weather changes and you go out of tune, that 1/2 moa rifle is now 1 moa or worse, Id rather start with 1/4 moa.
You will find many seating depth "nodes" just like powder nodes, I just find the ones closer to the lands to shoot smaller groups, but usually the window is smaller. I find this to be true no matter the design of the bullet.
So far as major bullet makers suggestions, thats all they are. But keep in mind they are talking to the average loader. And often times they are wrong anyhow, remember when Berger said VLDs had to be in the lands? Once you get to know some of the people working at these different places you realize they are just normal people like the rest of us and can be wrong too.

 

[Dragoon300]

Alex,
Thanks for your reply!
Very good information.
Steve Werkema

 

[asd9055]

I do not have a preference on seating depth, the target will tell you where to seat the bullets. I typically find myself within .020" of touch, either in or off. I have tested them all the way back to over .125 jump and everything between.
I spoke with Mark Gordon about his testing before it was published. He was interested in one of my stocks to build a BR rig for testing and we got to talking about his test data. What everyone needs to understand is that there are different levels of precision needed for different shooting sports. In PRS 1/2moa over a long string of fire is more than enough. Those guys need to load 100s of rounds in advance and shoot without cleaning the guns. Thats the basis for his testing, he wanted the most forgiving place, not necessarily the most accurate.
I find long range hunting to be very much similar to long range BR, we shoot far fewer rounds in a range trip and theres no "good enough". Theres nothing more serious that making a clean kill in my book. So I dont care about a huge window in hunting or BR, I care about the smallest groups and its my job to keep them tuned there. Everyone likes to think about the good days, but when the weather changes and you go out of tune, that 1/2 moa rifle is now 1 moa or worse, Id rather start with 1/4 moa.
You will find many seating depth "nodes" just like powder nodes, I just find the ones closer to the lands to shoot smaller groups, but usually the window is smaller. I find this to be true no matter the design of the bullet.
So far as major bullet makers suggestions, thats all they are. But keep in mind they are talking to the average loader. And often times they are wrong anyhow, remember when Berger said VLDs had to be in the lands? Once you get to know some of the people working at these different places you realize they are just normal people like the rest of us and can be wrong too.

Alex, I was not going to write anymore, and resisted when I was attacked. However, your responses have always been thoughtful, so I think I should just comment.

As I said in my previous response to you, I respect your expertise. In comparison to me, I am learning to ride a bike and your are flying the new Tesla Spacecraft. So when you write something I pay attention.

I have been loading for hunting and handguns for almost 40 years, but I have only recently started in long range. So, I have been doing a lot or research and trying to learn as much as possible. This forum and a few others have been very educational.

Some people get blinders on, not open to new ideas and like cattle, follow the first lead steer to slaughter. Sometimes they will attack because they don't understand it. I posted 3-4 times on forums with different subjects and I had the same result. If I say something about Satterlee I get attacked by those who use the new variation of ladder. I like to keep an open mind. When something works, I will use it, but I will try to understand why it works. I was a believer of barrel harmonics in the 1980's. How many people can say that?

Many people who have done depth seat testing agree with you and Mark that there can be more than one nodes, could even be three or four. My understanding is Mark's suggestion is to find the one which is more forgiving, because in a competition you might start at 0.040" off the lands for example, but 200 rounds in you might be 0.060" off or more. In a hunting rifle, this is not necessary.

When at least two bullet manufacturers (the ones I reached out) tell you to start seat depth testing at one depth for one design and another for a different one, then my initial assertion that bullet design is a major factor must hold true.

I do have questions about Mark's method, but I didn't think this was the forum for it and I know he is very busy right now. If I had the right rifles, I would perform my own testing, I know how to setup a controlled experiment.

Again, Alex, I appreciate your comments and thoughts. I always looking for them.

Safe shooting and good hunting!!
ASD

 

[Laguna Freak]

Alex, I was not going to write anymore, and resisted when I was attacked. However, your responses have always been thoughtful, so I think I should just comment.

As I said in my previous response to you, I respect your expertise. In comparison to me, I am learning to ride a bike and your are flying the new Tesla Spacecraft. So when you write something I pay attention.

I have been loading for hunting and handguns for almost 40 years, but I have only recently started in long range. So, I have been doing a lot or research and trying to learn as much as possible. This forum and a few others have been very educational.

Some people get blinders on, not open to new ideas and like cattle, follow the first lead steer to slaughter. Sometimes they will attack because they don't understand it. I posted 3-4 times on forums with different subjects and I had the same result. If I say something about Satterlee I get attacked by those who use the new variation of ladder. I like to keep an open mind. When something works, I will use it, but I will try to understand why it works. I was a believer of barrel harmonics in the 1980's. How many people can say that?

Many people who have done depth seat testing agree with you and Mark that there can be more than one nodes, could even be three or four. My understanding is Mark's suggestion is to find the one which is more forgiving, because in a competition you might start at 0.040" off the lands for example, but 200 rounds in you might be 0.060" off or more. In a hunting rifle, this is not necessary.

When at least two bullet manufacturers (the ones I reached out) tell you to start seat depth testing at one depth for one design and another for a different one, then my initial assertion that bullet design is a major factor must hold true.

I do have questions about Mark's method, but I didn't think this was the forum for it and I know he is very busy right now. If I had the right rifles, I would perform my own testing, I know how to setup a controlled experiment.

Again, Alex, I appreciate your comments and thoughts. I always looking for them.

Safe shooting and good hunting!!
ASD

I'm interested in what you learn / determine. Maybe you are chasing an undefinable solution. Maybe not. I commend you for your motivation to pursue the solution.

You are correct about folks with blinders on / narrow-minded. You don't seem like the type to be dissuaded by such. Good for you!

I think its pretty clear there is more than one way to skin a cat. Mr. Wheeler has his methods that work well for him and he is convinced. Mr. Gordon likewise. They do not share the same opinions, as Mr. Wheeler stated. These are two well-respected professionals. Which is right? I say both; in their own pursuits.

Best wishes!

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Actually we do share the same opinions. Mark is right that the bigger jumps are more forgiving, he also agreed (at least at the time we spoke) the shorter jumps or jams shot smaller groups, but had a narrower window. Each has its place depending on the game your playing.