How "important" are certain details when reloading?
- Thread starter trophyhusband
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
trophyhusband
Well-Known Member
I've been up in the mountains for the last few days so I haven't been out to shoot again yet. My rifle does have a recoil pad on it. For testing purposes though I'm using a lead sled. Last time I only had about a 10 lb sandbag on it, but I'm going to add another sandbag next time out
I do have more rounds loaded up, but there's something I don't like about the deepest seated round. The ogive is just barely outside the case. Considering that the cases I'm using are shorter than the "trim to" length, I'm pretty sure that if I were to load some rounds at that depth using longer cases, the ogive would actually be inside the case mouth. Clearly it is way too deep of a seating depth but the question is, would it still be safe to shoot these rounds as fouling shots or should I just unload them?
Thanks for the link.
Had to laugh when I saw in Part II, this in print:
There's no rimless or belted bottleneck headspace gauge made anywhere that measures that. Nor is their any such dimension spec'd in SAAMI's info.
That space, folks, is correctly called head clearance. . .according to the industry standard most firearms, ammo and reloading tool companies have suscribed to.
Skimming over the rest of it, it looks pretty good as far as I could tell.
BartB- thanks. i saw the title and thought they might be relevant. barely even skimmed them. "" my opinion" for Trophy is: lapua (along with norma and nosler ) brass is way precise and anything i do to it will just fowl it up. precision shooting magazine had articles on de burring flash holes and uniforming flash holes. made the groups bigger. nolser brass only varies less than a Grain ! the vertical in the groups is from the lead sled/bench technique. the best group horizontal i believe was 1.2" is good enough for a very long shot on elk. especially with 180 partitions. i personally would not be able to tell much difference in bench testing without putting at least a 4.5-14 ; add one with the cds feature to the it and the rifle/scope are going to be good to 500 or .........
trophyhusband
Well-Known Member
I quoted this because I currently have a Leupold 3-9 and that is what I'll be hunting with this year. This may factor into the answers I get here.
So after a road trip to Alaska and ridiculously hot and dry weather, I've just now been able to go shoot the test rounds I loaded up what seems like forever ago. I loaded OALs of 3.930, 3.890, and 3.850. HOWEVER, the 3.850s were just too short so I only shot the other two lengths. I shot from a bench at 100 yards and shot the round robin style.
The first pic is the 3.930. The numbers in parentheses are the measurements if you were to consider the upper right shot to be a "flyer".
Group- 1.7 (1.25)
Vertical- 1.15 (1.1)
Horizontal- 1.4 (.095)
The second pic is at 3.890. The numbers in parentheses are if you would consider the lower left shot to be a "flyer".
Group- 1.75 (1.17)
Vertical- 1.6 (.85)
Horizontal- 1.3 (1.15)
At this point I'm not sure where to go. One thing to keep in mind is that elk season is only 3 1/2 weeks away and I want to settle on something in enough time to do some long range target practice before then. As is stands right now, I have something I could load up at hunt with. The question is, do I keep chasing the the OAL or do I move on to the powder charge testing? My gut tells me that I should move on to the charge and then when I get a different scope I should go back and further refine the OAL. Thoughts?
As far as powder charge, I've read both to do it in .5gr and 1gr increments. What are the pros and cons of each here? Also, I have a chrono. Will that give me any useful info during the R & D stage, or should I just wait until I settle on a round and then use it to find my muzzle velocity for ballistics calculations?
Attachments
Statistically, in my opinion, there's no difference in those two groups as far as their size is concerned.
As far as the incremental charge weight change between loads to test, the smaller the increment, the more shots one must put in each group to make them statistically significant. One whole grain difference is good enough for testing at 100 yards if you shoot 5-shot groups. Half-grain increments need 10-shot groups to make them worthwhile size wise.
Chronographing loads will tell you what they do. Game animals have a hard time distinguishing between bullets smacking them when they go in with 100 fps difference in impact velocity. I think it's important to load for best accuracy and not get concerned about the most accurate load leaving 63 fps slower than the fastest one.
As far as the incremental charge weight change between loads to test, the smaller the increment, the more shots one must put in each group to make them statistically significant. One whole grain difference is good enough for testing at 100 yards if you shoot 5-shot groups. Half-grain increments need 10-shot groups to make them worthwhile size wise.
Chronographing loads will tell you what they do. Game animals have a hard time distinguishing between bullets smacking them when they go in with 100 fps difference in impact velocity. I think it's important to load for best accuracy and not get concerned about the most accurate load leaving 63 fps slower than the fastest one.
Trophy- good to hear from you. i do not mess with oal. i load either 030 off ( hunting) or 010 off (match). the partition is my favorite bullet. tougher to get an accurate load. as you are finding. i would try other bullets; an accubond ( best bet) 165, 180 or 200; or a 165 or 200 partition. PM sent
benchracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,659
It doesn't look like your rifle cares at all about seating depth with the bullets you are using. I would say to go ahead with the powder charge runup. Here is the method I like to use. I have had good results doing this:
OCW Overview - Dan Newberry's OCW Load Development System
YMMV. There are other ways to approach this as well.
Once the powder charge runup is complete, you will have seen the best work that your rifle is going to do with the combination of components you are using. Go with the powder charge that gives your best results and shoot it at longer range to verify its performance. Given your time constraints, zero for your best powder charge and practice with what you've got.
Worst case scenario, 1.7 MOA should get you to about 400 yards on elk if you practice and know what your rifle/load combination will do.
One thing that may be worth paying attention to is where your cold bore/fouled barrel shot impacts and if it shows the same cold bore POI every time. Also observe what shots two and three do and if they do it consistently. Those will be your most important shots for hunting. If you know where they are going to hit when you do your part, you can shoot with more confidence.
OCW Overview - Dan Newberry's OCW Load Development System
YMMV. There are other ways to approach this as well.
Once the powder charge runup is complete, you will have seen the best work that your rifle is going to do with the combination of components you are using. Go with the powder charge that gives your best results and shoot it at longer range to verify its performance. Given your time constraints, zero for your best powder charge and practice with what you've got.
Worst case scenario, 1.7 MOA should get you to about 400 yards on elk if you practice and know what your rifle/load combination will do.
One thing that may be worth paying attention to is where your cold bore/fouled barrel shot impacts and if it shows the same cold bore POI every time. Also observe what shots two and three do and if they do it consistently. Those will be your most important shots for hunting. If you know where they are going to hit when you do your part, you can shoot with more confidence.
I used a Model 70 Winchester in 300 H&H to shoot 1000 yard matches in 1971. What I am about to write is based on my memories of that so take it as background information.
The 300 H&H chamber is significantly tapered and the shoulder is a shallow angle so resizing is less critical. Also i was told the cartridge is designed to headspace off the belt not the shoulder. That being the case your headspace is not likely to change much before the brass is unusable for other reasons.
My preferred powders based on what I know now and what I remember from back then would be H4350, Varget, H4895, H4831SC, H4831 in that order. However based on availabilty all I use now is H4895.
The 300 H&H chamber is significantly tapered and the shoulder is a shallow angle so resizing is less critical. Also i was told the cartridge is designed to headspace off the belt not the shoulder. That being the case your headspace is not likely to change much before the brass is unusable for other reasons.
My preferred powders based on what I know now and what I remember from back then would be H4350, Varget, H4895, H4831SC, H4831 in that order. However based on availabilty all I use now is H4895.
BigJohnH
Well-Known Member
This is interesting thread as I have been asked many times why I am so "ANAL" when it comes to reloading. My answer is when I squeeze the trigger I know where my bullet is going to hit. ok back to the question, I weigh everything and I do mean everything after triming I weigh the cases, I weigh every bullet and put it in containers with bullets that weigh the same, I weigh every charge of powder and adjust for bullet weight, I weigh primers and put like weighted primers in same weight bullet and cases..... So I guess to answer the question to me all details are important.... A fellow just asked me what caliber and scope, I told him then I got to thinking I would say on here I do those things for my weapons or for someone else if I am loading up some for their weapons....
trophyhusband
Well-Known Member
I did another round of shooting today. With the exception of one shot, everything felt solid. The sight picture looked great and I was relaxed. I was expecting tighter groups than I got.
The first pic is a load of 63gr.
The second pic is at 64 gr. It was one of these that felt "off". I didn't have my spotting scope so I wasn't checking the target between shots (I have a good reason for that) so while it was probably the highest hit, I can't be sure. Also, there were 3 bullets that hit right above the "2".
The third pic is at 65 gr. Two bullets hit at the farthest hole to the right.
I'm thinking that I need to load another 6 rounds at 64gr and see what kind of group I'm getting.
I also have to wonder how much my technique and abilities are effecting my results.
The first pic is a load of 63gr.
The second pic is at 64 gr. It was one of these that felt "off". I didn't have my spotting scope so I wasn't checking the target between shots (I have a good reason for that) so while it was probably the highest hit, I can't be sure. Also, there were 3 bullets that hit right above the "2".
The third pic is at 65 gr. Two bullets hit at the farthest hole to the right.
I'm thinking that I need to load another 6 rounds at 64gr and see what kind of group I'm getting.
I also have to wonder how much my technique and abilities are effecting my results.
Attachments
BigJohnH
Well-Known Member
Trophyhusband Are those 100yd groups? What was the wind like? Bench rest with forehand back or on the stock? sorry for all the questions.....I am an A type personality...lol
trophyhusband
Well-Known Member
By all means, ask away. I haven't ever been taught to do precision shooting so you might hit on something I'm doing wrong.
All my testing so far is at 100 yds. The wind was negligible. My rest is a folding table with a lead sled on it. I put my forehand on the post that the fore stock rests on.
