Greta info. Taggin in
Yea, often it is like book length, max length, mag length and find charge by OCW focusing on small Sd. Then dial CBTD back in 0.005" increments until your dial in group. Then run ocw again to tighten sd.So, for anyone trying this method... Is the idea is to start at a fixed seating depth and do a ladder test to determine the best charge. Then one there, begin to adjust the seating depth? There has to be a constant to begin with I am assuming. I am not a fan of jamming and I believe that bergers do better with jump, so I planned on starting at .020 and finding the best charge. Then adjust seating from there. This sound flawed?
I know this is common, but it's also horribly backwards.the idea is to start at a fixed seating depth and do a ladder test to determine the best charge. Then one there, begin to adjust the seating depth?
So I have heard this many times and makes complete sense as I have new brass that needs to be fire formed. What charge weight does someone use though for starters?I know this is common, but it's also horribly backwards.
How are you going to interpret ladders if you're loaded with bad or worst seating? Maybe worst primers?
You could end up cherry picking from garbage..
New ideas:
1. Optimum seating is independent of powder.
2. Don't bother with a ladder until your brass is fire formed to stable dimensions.
3. So while fire forming, go ahead with FULL coarse seating testing to find apparent best.
4. Second fire forming is a good time to test for best primers as well.
5. With best coarse seating at least, -then move to powder testing.
6. After powder, go back to seating, but fine tweaking of it for tightest group shaping.
YepSo just load 38.1, find best grouping and then build ladder test off of that?
So this is the first time I've done a load work up like this. I don't feel like anything just jumped off the page. Curious, should I have seen 1/2-3/4 MOA at some point?
I know this is common, but it's also horribly backwards.
How are you going to interpret ladders if you're loaded with bad or worst seating? Maybe worst primers?
You could end up cherry picking from garbage..
New ideas:
1. Optimum seating is independent of powder.
2. Don't bother with a ladder until your brass is fire formed to stable dimensions.
3. So while fire forming, go ahead with FULL coarse seating testing to find apparent best.
4. Second fire forming is a good time to test for best primers as well.
5. With best coarse seating at least, -then move to powder testing.
6. After powder, go back to seating, but fine tweaking of it for tightest group shaping.
#3…my biggest increments are 0.030", but I'm starting to change to more of a mindset of longest acceptable round and decrease in 0.003" increments until groups shrink. Remember the Houston warehouse….no accurate groups out of the lands. Doing this first is not a bad idea.This might be a good place to clarify a few of these.
-- on #3, how much do you change OAL between groups? Do you start at a certain distance off the lands?
-- on #4, are you just looking for a better group size while using the best seating depth and the starting powder charge?
-- On #6, how much do you change OAL between groups for fine adjustment?
You obviously think your way is the only way.That's NOT full seating testing. It's finer tweaking(group shaping), while at best staying within a powder node.
#6 on my list. Basically, what I've watched people do in the 70s, which was done the same in the 50s.
By far most competitive shooters HAVE NEVER done full seating testing, and could not even understand what I'm talking about.
Most [still] think seating is tuning, and the majority of BR shooters have assumed bullets needed to be into/near lands.
That's not all of them of course. I think more will come around to trying full seating testing eventually, and then logically.
Full testing is max length until the neck and bullet surface start to gap?That's NOT full seating testing. It's finer tweaking(group shaping), while at best staying within a powder node.
#6 on my list. Basically, what I've watched people do in the 70s, which was done the same in the 50s.
By far most competitive shooters HAVE NEVER done full seating testing, and could not even understand what I'm talking about.
Most [still] think seating is tuning, and the majority of BR shooters have assumed bullets needed to be into/near lands.
That's not all of them of course. I think more will come around to trying full seating testing eventually, and then logically.
Berger laid it out right here (go back to page 1).Full testing is max length until the neck and bullet surface start to gap?
I'm not saying there isn't a tune or even a pretty good tune a ways back, but are you saying the best tune maybe 0.15" or something back?
Do you do wide increments like 0.050" and then narrow to 0.003"? Or just 100's of rounds in 0.003" increments?