I'd like your opinion

[lancetkenyon]

Perhaps having such a bad bullet would actually make him better.

It would be hard to tell if the 2 MOA group is the bullet...or the shooter.

 

[copper still]

Thanks everyone who has responded. The following hopefully with clarify some of the questions people had

• This is a target load . This load is not a hunting load.
• It needs only to ring steel and punch holes in paper, terminal ballistics are not an issue.
• I intend to shoot a fair amount so keeping cost down important.
• I want the bullet to be close to the grains of my hunting round but ideally slightly lighter
• I am a capable mid range shooter that consistently shoots longs strings of sub moa groups past 600 yards with other rifles I own.
• I intend to practice shooting this load at 600+ yards in improvised positions and over my hunting backpack.
• I also shoot this rifle with a trail boss load for sub 100 yard standing shots using a 150 gr InterLock SP. From the bench this load is sub moa
• I thought that the fmjbt might be a better fit for farther distances and thought that bullet seating should get me the group size I need.
• I would welcome anybody's constructive opinions or experience
• I'm interested in FPS harmonic nodes that are in and around this that might be applicable.

Cheers,
Brendan

 

[K.E.C.]

Years ago when 600yds was LR.
We shot flat base bullets.
Speer, Sierra, Hornady..150gr.
Maybe this helps.

 

[Taylorbok]

Everyone has their own opinion on load dev. If you do more extensive testing you will find those flat spots or "nodes" you are looking at don't really exist, they are something that show up due to low sample size and variation in velocity. Also notice that where you are looking at is the worst ES, not that 3 shots has any real meaning in that regard either.

Basically my load dev has gone to a powder test to find pressure and then back it off a couple grains and play around there with 5 or 10 shot groups and see what looks the best. Then maybe do some seating depth if I wanna try and help it a bit more but I've started to skip this.

IMO .1gr is to small of a step in your testing and depending on your scale is within the realm of error.
.3 or .5 will show more actual change.

I also agree that 2 MOA is possibly the shooter

 

[Mountain Sloth]

I would agree that bumping up your charge weight more than .1 would give you better results, ie you can see the change and spend less time sending components down range. Also have you replicated that the groups are doing that or was this the first test? I've found that shooing a load one day then going out the next to verify with the same load can have polar opposite results. I'm fairly new to reloading but this is what I've seen and a lot of these guys here have a wealth of knowledge and weather or not you like the constructive points they are giving you seeing as saving money is your goal take the advice you asked for.

 

[copper still]

I would agree that bumping up your charge weight more than .1 would give you better results, ie you can see the change and spend less time sending components down range. Also have you replicated that the groups are doing that or was this the first test? I've found that shooing a load one day then going out the next to verify with the same load can have polar opposite results. I'm fairly new to reloading but this is what I've seen and a lot of these guys here have a wealth of knowledge and weather or not you like the constructive points they are giving you seeing as saving money is your goal take the advice you asked for.

This is the 2nd load dev I did.
The first was 43-46.3[max load Hornady book] in .3 grain increments
I found two flat spots at 44.8-45.1 and another at 45.4-45.6 with a jump FPS in between that was in both tests.
I shot three bullets for each of those. That day was Hot and Sunny 85+ and 2nd day was cloudy and 70 F
The FPS for both tests were similar and so were the ES and SD.
I went down to .1 to better find the edges of the nodes

 

[copper still]

Everyone has their own opinion on load dev. If you do more extensive testing you will find those flat spots or "nodes" you are looking at don't really exist, they are something that show up due to low sample size and variation in velocity. Also notice that where you are looking at is the worst ES, not that 3 shots has any real meaning in that regard either.

Basically my load dev has gone to a powder test to find pressure and then back it off a couple grains and play around there with 5 or 10 shot groups and see what looks the best. Then maybe do some seating depth if I wanna try and help it a bit more but I've started to skip this.

IMO .1gr is to small of a step in your testing and depending on your scale is within the realm of error.
.3 or .5 will show more actual change.

I also agree that 2 MOA is possibly the shooter

I can always be the shooter, but I don't think so. I did feel good that day I shot the 2nd test the one I posted initially. 2" moa was the worst, some were 1.1-1.25. I just felt the groups were about equal between the nodes and was looking for insight and ideas for what if anything I might change.

 

[Taylorbok]

This is the 2nd load dev I did.
The first was 43-46.3[max load Hornady book] in .3 grain increments
I found two flat spots at 44.8-45.1 and another at 45.4-45.6 with a jump FPS in between that was in both tests.
I shot three bullets for each of those. That day was Hot and Sunny 85+ and 2nd day was cloudy and 70 F
The FPS for both tests were similar and so were the ES and SD.
I went down to .1 to better find the edges of the nodes

If you believe in the flat spots based on these tests what would make you want to go there?
if you look at 45.1-45.3 that group of shots has about the same ES as the group you are looking at with the "flat spot"
Now if you are trusting this limited data, if you can consistently throw the exact powder charge you should technically end up with a smaller ES at 45.2 gr than you would in your flat spot.

If you believe these groups were shot well then try adjusting seating depth and see if it makes a difference.

 

[std7mag]

If the graph you posted is 3 shots per increase in powder, i'd explore the 45.3 charge some more.

I will agree that your bullet choice leaves much to be desired.
I understand about keeping costs down. But unless you're just blowing rounds from an AR10, your not saving yourself any money.

Switch over to the SST and see the performance difference at 600 yards.
I know, SST isn't a target bullet, but for low cost, I'd wager you'd see a difference.

 

[lancetkenyon]

You say this is your second round of charge weight testing. Your first was at .3 gr of charge weight increases. You need to set us up with all the info you can when asking a question. It will yield better responses.

A 2MOA load at 100 is a 12"+ load at 600 at best. Definitely not a load I would use to practice at 600. Way too hard to tell if the error is the round or the shooter. So no real positive feedback of shooting. That would drive me insane. Shooting a lot, and shooting well a lot are two different things. Sierra bullets are not overly high on costs, but accuracy is priceless.

If you are looking for barrel harmonic dispersion testing, 100 yards is not going to cut it. You need to be doing that testing at 300-400 yards minimum to find a node. And there again, a 12" bullet at 600 isn't going to cut it. A vertical dispersion node doesn't really have to have low ES. You might be surprised.

 

[nksmfamjp]

Take 44.2 and load 20 shots. Shoot 4 x 5 shot groups and map the aggregate group to determine the 20 shot pattern. If under 1.5 moa, go shoot steel. That is my opinion. Basically, lower charges are often easier to shoot and more consistent. Your lower "node range" had narrower ES bars.

If it is over 15 Sd or 1.5 moa @100 yds, then try a match bullet. Match bullets are usually decently priced.

How is that powder's temp stability? Measured, not guessed at…..

 

[FireFlyFishing]

I can shoot below 2 MOA all day with my 18" m14 with irons. I'd try something else.

FMJs are cool if you're trying to follow the Geneva convention. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Greyfox]

Just my viewpoint…Given you are target shooting for practice at a distance out to 600 yards or more, the major question is if you are you are doing it with the purpose to improve or just banging steel for fun? If to improve, at some point(soon) you are going to hit at wall given your accuracy criteria/choice of bullet. If cost is a primary factor…..Beware of the "false economy".

 

[keith4kk]

Some barrels just don't like some bullets. Usually give one about 6 different charge weights @ 5 shots. If nothing promising with 2 powders I move to another bullet. We have 4 308s. To get consistent groups we had to move them all to between 165 and 178 gr. Powders we use Varget or IMR4064. My sons 700 will live at .5MOA with 175SMK on 4064.

My Savage 110 just went to Element training complex in Holt FL Friday, Out to 1065 yards, 7 for 10 shots on a 16inch silhouette. I recently decided to change bullets so I could hunt and shoot target with 1 load. Below is where I am. The gun is better than me at sub 1/2 MOA.

1:10 twist 5R
20 inch barrel
Eldx 178
Muzzle velocity 2680
Ballistic coefficient .552
Warren 20MOA rail
Varget 44.5 gr.
2.81 coal
Federal 210 primers
SilencerCo Harvester

With the supressor, recoil is about equal to my 556. Can stay on target and watch impact.