How often do you find its the bullet not the powder combo your gun likes?

[Critter Picker]

It is for this exact reason that I recommend new reloaders cut their teeth on plain vanilla flat base soft points haha, and I'm partial to
The hornady interlock. The "keep it simple stupid, KISS" policy applies.

Reason being there's not too many guns that HATE a flat base cup and core of middle of the road weight at 100 yards and it makes for a good control (and not so dang expensive for people in the rookie phase)

take a flat base interlock, load to standard coal, find a powder (and for the control I prefer the oldschool single base IMR and Hodgdon powders) that allows for 100 percent case fill or close to it, load a grain under book max (you should start lower and work up of course, I admittedly have not always done so) and see what it does.

There will be room for improvement probably, tighter accuracy and hotter velocity will be possible almost certainly. But if your gun HATES this kind of "control load" my experience says good luck finding a load it likes. Flat base interlocks are the chicken fingers of the bullet world: even the pickiest eating rifles usually like them!

Same goes for hammers and Nosler ballistic tips but those are in a whole other universe of expense and no I wouldn't suggest "learning the ropes" to a new loader with those haha

Lot of truth there!

Way back in my loading career,I had a 788 Rem in .222 that I shot hundreds of boat tailed bullets. Got some fair groups, but no eye openers. It would shoot buggies with Speer,Sierria, or Hornady FB bullets an almost any powder. My cousin had the exact same rifle and shot 1 hole groups with Sierria 52 BTHP . But it did smaller groups with the old 50 gr. Sierria Blitz.

 

[cajun]

I've seen a little of both. If the rifle doesn't like the bullet most times no powder will work. But I have seen a powder change make a big difference in accuracy as well. There just seems to be that one powder in certain rounds that shoots lights out. Like H4350 in 6.5 CM.

 

[birddog 68]

I did this with my browning x bolt and Hornady interbond. Was getting groups in the 1.5" range until I seated them .050 deeper and it shrank the groups in half.

Interestingly enough I worked up a load with this interbond bullet at the shorter coal but instead of the original load with IMR 4831 I used Ramshot hunter powder and it ended up shooting the same .75" groups.
Lots of variables but as @Calvin45 mentoined some bullets are much more forgiving.

 

[Calvin45]

I will say as well, the general rule in my limited experience has been that bullets that are first and foremost about having the highest ballistic coefficient possible for their weight are almost always way less forgiving. Not that they can't be just as accurate but they're usually very particular about depth, velocity, etc…

The one notable exception for me has been the hornady eld m (but my only experience is with the 208 and 225 grain 30 cals). They just plain shoot in my rifle. But they have a good amount of bearing surface which I think affects things.

But for example the boring old 168 smk is notoriously easy to obtain great accuracy with….just looking at it you can see that the number one consideration was not to see just how sleek a pill they could make.

 

[roadrunner1]

In my case it was usually the powder, I only found one bullet that my rifles did not like, Nosler Partition 140 gr and neither 7mm RM or 7mm-08 liked it, they love 150 and 160 NP's though.

 

[MagnumManiac]

But they have a good amount of bearing surface which I think affects things.

Bearing surface plays a very small amount to accuracy/precision. In fact, there is an amount of bearing surface that is detrimental to precision because it can, if too long, distorts the lead core and causes the bullet to yaw, point up or down, because it is no longer evenly distributed. This is why 'bore rider' designs were introduced.
No bullet jacket is made that has exactly the same thickness around its diameter, just as drawn rifle brass doesn't. CNC turned jackets will, but these are very expensive to make, as Speer proved when they dropped the African Grand Slam line. Great bullets!

Cheers.

 

[Calvin45]

Bearing surface plays a very small amount to accuracy/precision. In fact, there is an amount of bearing surface that is detrimental to precision because it can, if too long, distorts the lead core and causes the bullet to yaw, point up or down, because it is no longer evenly distributed. This is why 'bore rider' designs were introduced.
No bullet jacket is made that has exactly the same thickness around its diameter, just as drawn rifle brass doesn't. CNC turned jackets will, but these are very expensive to make, as Speer proved when they dropped the African Grand Slam line. Great bullets!
Cheers.

Agree up to a point. But if you're not seating right up to the lands I've definitely found that long boat tails and short bearing surfaces don't forgive much

 

[Stammster2]

Thinking back over time and reloading many bullet/powder combo's. I currently have 2 guns that like a bullet, much more than the bullet powder combo.

My 6.5PRC loves the 143gr eldx it shoots it .7moa with just about any powder load, and length. But it will not shoot the 142gr ABLR well with any powder I have tried.

I have a 243 win that just loves the 85gr TTSX it shoots it with most powders under 1moa, but most other bullets its very critical that the bullet/powder combo be just right and the node is small often. But with the 85gr it just shoots it good period, yes I can see a node, but its bad node is still 1moa where the good node is .5moa. With other bullets it might be .7moa in good node and 2" in a bad. Big swings are common with most bullets, but not the 85gr Barnes it will group great across 3grains of powder change.

Just wondering how many others have guns that just love a certain bullet, too where powder charge has little to do with its accuracy?

I didn't know Barnes made the .243 TTSX bullet is 85gr.

 

[MagnumManiac]

Agree up to a point. But if you're not seating right up to the lands I've definitely found that long boat tails and short bearing surfaces don't forgive much

This has nothing to do with bearing surface area, if that's what you mean? Seating near the lands is not what makes the bullet engrave differently. Short bearing surfaces will also not make a bullet less precise, you're thinking is off.
What does make a bullet more susceptible to finicky seating depth is boat tail length and angle, not the bearing surface area.
The reason is excessive blow by caused by the boat tail, not the bearing length. Engagement is engagement, the only time this is a problem is if the bullet strips the rifling due to too short of bearing length.

Cheers.

 

[Huntnful]

One of the first things I do now is just test bullets to see what's going to be easiest to shoot. Normally an ELDM, A-tip, Berger Hybrid, Berger VLD and maybe a hammer. One or two bullets will mostly definitely stand out as "wanting to shoot". I just try like 2 gr. below pressure and at mag length or .02 off.

The bullets that shoot well right off the bat seem to be no hassle throughout the entire shooting/reloading process. Even switching powders completely and charge weights and primers. They just shoot.

But trying to make one of the other bullets shoot, can be a pain in the *** haha.

 

[Calvin45]

This has nothing to do with bearing surface area, if that's what you mean? Seating near the lands is not what makes the bullet engrave differently. Short bearing surfaces will also not make a bullet less precise, you're thinking is off.
What does make a bullet more susceptible to finicky seating depth is boat tail length and angle, not the bearing surface area.
The reason is excessive blow by caused by the boat tail, not the bearing length. Engagement is engagement, the only time this is a problem is if the bullet strips the rifling due to too short of bearing length.

Cheers.

I'm going to assume we're not talking about the same thing here haha. I do know that total bearing surface technically shouldn't matter to intrinsic accuracy potential…my non-technical experience as an imperfect shooter, loader, using imperfect equipment and probably in an imperfect field too has however been that bullets with very short bearing surfaces (as in total contact with the rifling - now grooved or bore riding or drive band bullets are different, just talking cup and cores here mostly) DO require more fiddling around to find accurate loads with. Not that their inherently less accurate, but they're less "easily accurate" as in slap a load together and go shoot.

Sort of like how some cartridges are "inherently accurate" and some are notoriously fussy. It doesn't mean that the fussy ones aren't capable of being every bit as accurate as the easy ones, but the often require more trial and error to find that accuracy and don't shoot lights out with whatever you feed them. The .308s I've worked with you'd just about have to deliberately try to make them shoot poorly with dang near anything you feed them. The .220 swift is no less accurate…provided you feed it 4064 under 55 grain flat bases haha.

 

[MagnumManiac]

@Calvin45,
This is not my experience, I shot PALMA for quite a long time with 308 using 155g PALMA bullets that have a very small bearing surface. Not at all finicky and proved to have a wide node, much wider than other target bullets.
However, nose or ogive shape plays a huge role in finicky bullets, as does boat tail design. The ABLR, once seating depth is acquired plays nice, but is almost virtually unsusceptible to powder tuning until seating depth is found first. Many tangent ogive bullets are like this. Secant ogives are more forgiving on seating depth.

Cheers.

 

[Calvin45]

@Calvin45,
This is not my experience, I shot PALMA for quite a long time with 308 using 155g PALMA bullets that have a very small bearing surface. Not at all finicky and proved to have a wide node, much wider than other target bullets.
However, nose or ogive shape plays a huge role in finicky bullets, as does boat tail design. The ABLR, once seating depth is acquired plays nice, but is almost virtually unsusceptible to powder tuning until seating depth is found first. Many tangent ogive bullets are like this. Secant ogives are more forgiving on seating depth.

Cheers.

That makes sense. I fully admit I know less about ogives and their effect.

I also beleive you about the 308 with 155s. Most of my experience has been with decidedly more overbore cartridges and often jumping a little ways before engaging the lands. For sure I'm sticking to my story if using magnums with freebore haha. though I'll be sure to report my findings with the newer 200 smk (part number 2231, not the old one) which is just ridiculously slippery looking and has very little bearing surface as well.

 

[Mikecr]

You guys got the tangent/secant attributes backwards.
It's secant ogives that are more sensitive to optimum seating.
Berger adjusted their VLDs for a hybrid lineup to make it easier for folks. A hybrid has tangent interface to bearing, but secant/high ogive radius forward to the meplat. A VLD is purely secant.

Bullets were swapped more in the past because actual seating testing was not completed in the past.
But most reloaders should know by now that full seating testing is prerequisite to best results.
There is also merit to flat base bullets shooting better, as hunters generally use barrels that are too short for the cartridge. This, leading to higher muzzle pressures and ugly muzzle release against boat tails. FB bullets muzzle release cleaner and are far easier to stabilize.