Let’s talk reloading

[stiff neck]

I'm sure I could seat bullets .200 off the lands and half way into the case and see a difference, yes.

But I've shot multiple rifles at .010 jam, .010 off and .020 off and seen no provable repeatable significant change. Those are the only depths I would even test before I changed to a different bullet or powder if it didn't perform though.

The top shooters in the world only move in 0.003" increments and they win national/world championships. You see no change using 0.010" increments. Are you doing it wrong? Or are they doing it wrong?

 

[skipglo]

Miles later admitted their reloading podcast is aimed at typical common beginner level reloaders tinkering around in the garage, NOT high level performers. It's "Reloading For Dummies", not reloading for experts.

But I disagree that all beginners are dummies. I read reloading and competition forums like this one for several years before I bought my first press and actually started. I had a solid knowledge base on day one and was interested only in tiny groups. I did not start on level 1.

I agree with your DISAGREEMENT about All beginners been dummies..
But I'm sorry in advance that I disagree that you didn't start at level 1....you may have been well informed on where to start ...but your first 1000 rounds are LEVEL 1. You never stop learning and after 52 years of reloading I might consider my self ( not knowing how many Levels folks may think there are to this game..so fall back to the scale of 1-10) a strong 6.5 !

 

[Huntnful]

The top shooters in the world only move in 0.003" increments and they win national/world championships. You see no change using 0.010" increments. Are you doing it wrong? Or are they doing it wrong?

The top shooters in the world are shooting 20+ pound rifles with $2k front rests and 50X scopes. And those .003 changes shrink their groups by .1" when they find the best depth.

If someone thinks they are going take their 9-10 pound magnum rifle and undeniably produce the same results by testing every .003. Go right ahead. I've done it, because "that's what the pro's do", and it was a total waste of time in a hunting platform rifle. So no, I cannot personally shoot a meaningful difference in accuracy with those small changes in seating depth and repeat it and prove that I did something significant to increase my accuracy with my hunting rifle.

Here's my personal 7-300 NMI with NO DEVELOPMENT.


If someone wants to piddle around at 100 yards chasing .1 MOA better accuracy and go from .4 to .3 MOA with .003 seating depth changes, they're more than welcome. But it's more than likely a total waste of time with a hunting rifle. A hunting rifle is for killing things, not punching paper and setting world records.

I bet I have over 50 pictures of smaller than 1/2 MOA 5 shot groups from 100-1000 yards out of hunting weight rifles that I've personally shot with zero load development or tuning.


Obviously I don't personally know you, but I'd be very curious to know if your talking from personal experience with micro tuning hunting rifles, or just watching F class guys tuning their rifles and shooting groups on YouTube. I've personally shot over 1000 rounds through my hunting rifles in the last 4 months. I have a decent idea of their capabilities and how hard it is to actually make significant improvements in accuracy from a baseline load that is 1gr. under pressure and close to the lands. And prove that you actually made a change with undeniable repeatability.

 

[nealm66]

While I do believe you are getting fantastic results with little to no load work up with those custom rifles, I have to say that I've not had those results with a lot ( lost count) of off the shelf hunting rifles that truly benefited from tuning wether you choose to believe it or not. Your results may have differed but I just had way too many good responses from tuning. I'm in the school of if I only hunted, I wouldn't handload at all. I'd buy a weatherby with their premium ammo, proof my click data and be done.

 

[Huntnful]

While I do believe you are getting fantastic results with little to no load work up with those custom rifles, I have to say that I've not had those results with a lot ( lost count) of off the shelf hunting rifles that truly benefited from tuning wether you choose to believe it or not. Your results may have differed but I just had way too many good responses from tuning. I'm in the school of if I only hunted, I wouldn't handload at all. I'd buy a weatherby with their premium ammo, proof my click data and be done.

Yes it could be my baseline level of accuracy is just simply small enough, that it is genuinely hard to improve on. There's no denying that a 10 shot .5 MOA group is **** hard to shrink down haha.

If someone with a moderate weight hunting rifle could legitimately document a baseline accuracy of a load. 1gr. below pressure and .010 off the lands with a 10 shot group. Then tweak and tune until your heart is content, and shoot another 10 shot group with the now "tuned" load right next to it and show significant improvements, I would love to see the data.

I literally just shot these groups. 5 shots up top and 10 shots on the lower group. 2 different bullets, 2 different charge weights. First load with both bullets.

And to prove how much statistical relevance you need, here's a 12 shot group from the exact same load at the lower group, that is even smaller, with more shots.

So just between those two groups, of the same exact load, there is a 40% variation. And that's a relatively large group.

I believe to prove you did anything significant the data has be 30% different and repeated many times. I'm not deep into statistics, but there are actual hard numbers that PROVE change. And a count of 5 with a difference of 10% are not those numbers lol. I'm not saying you think that, but a lot of people do.

 

[stiff neck]

The top shooters in the world are shooting 20+ pound rifles with $2k front rests and 50X scopes. And those .003 changes shrink their groups by .1" when they find the best depth.

If someone thinks they are going take their 9-10 pound magnum rifle and undeniably produce the same results by testing every .003. Go right ahead. I've done it, because "that's what the pro's do", and it was a total waste of time in a hunting platform rifle. So no, I cannot personally shoot a meaningful difference in accuracy with those small changes in seating depth and repeat it and prove that I did something significant to increase my accuracy with my hunting rifle.

Here's my personal 7-300 NMI with NO DEVELOPMENT.


If someone wants to piddle around at 100 yards chasing .1 MOA better accuracy and go from .4 to .3 MOA with .003 seating depth changes, they're more than welcome. But it's more than likely a total waste of time with a hunting rifle. A hunting rifle is for killing things, not punching paper and setting world records.

I bet I have over 50 pictures of smaller than 1/2 MOA 5 shot groups from 100-1000 yards out of hunting weight rifles that I've personally shot with zero load development or tuning.


Obviously I don't personally know you, but I'd be very curious to know if your talking from personal experience with micro tuning hunting rifles, or just watching F class guys tuning their rifles and shooting groups on YouTube. I've personally shot over 1000 rounds through my hunting rifles in the last 4 months. I have a decent idea of their capabilities and how hard it is to actually make significant improvements in accuracy from a baseline load that is 1gr. under pressure and close to the lands. And prove that you actually made a change with undeniable repeatability.

You were talking about not seeing results testing seating depth in 0.010" increments. Those are huge increments, whether your rifle weighs 9 or 20 lbs.

 

[Huntnful]

You were talking about not seeing results testing seating depth in 0.010" increments. Those are huge increments, whether your rifle weighs 9 or 20 lbs.

That is absolutely false. And yes recoil management and baseline accuracy (which comes from weight) does matter in regards to actually being able to see small improvements. You're not going to be able to repeat and prove changes near as easily with a 9lb gun as you would with the same exact gun that weighs 20lbs.

You're only saying they're huge increments, because you see F class guys on youtube go in steps of .003. Go shoot any significant group size at .010 off, .020 off & .030 off and show me how HUGE those differences are on paper. I basically know that you haven't personally done any of these things at this point, or you would be showing me your own testing (like I have done) instead of referring me to the pro's on youtube.

Then go watch these F class guys actually show the forgiveness of seating depth and the variance in small sample seating depth testing. F Class John does a 20 shot .100 change in seating depth test at 600 yards (The 20 shot group was .6 MOA over .100 thousandths of seating depth changes). Winning the wind does a large sample 100 round seating depth test with his "worst" and his "best" depths from his initial testing (large sample shows the exact opposite of his small sample).

 

[nealm66]

Well to be fair, a lot of the bullets nowadays have a very forgiving seating depth. Which really helps when you're shooting a 30-378. It's hard to really see the improvements until you're at distance. Even looking for that silly flat spot or where the es/ds just seems better helps a little. I don't really have anything to prove really at my point in life but I wouldn't want a newer handloader to be under the impression that the boxed ammunition off the shelf is going to shoot as good as anything he could make with practice

 

[SmokinCrow]

For brand name bragging rights? I think they are doing a service to the community that's been fed a bunch of dogma that's not supported by data and are saving people a bunch of wasted time, money, and effort. It's actually pretty amazing that the hobbyist level folks got hoodwinked into thinking they are being told something by 1-3 shot groups.

Yep. That's what I have been thinking for quite some time. I also think many are just so stuck in their ways that it would be heresy to think something other than their own way would work.

 

[Huntnful]

Well to be fair, a lot of the bullets nowadays have a very forgiving seating depth. Which really helps when you're shooting a 30-378. It's hard to really see the improvements until you're at distance. Even looking for that silly flat spot or where the es/ds just seems better helps a little. I don't really have anything to prove really at my point in life but I wouldn't want a newer handloader to be under the impression that the boxed ammunition off the shelf is going to shoot as good as anything he could make with practice

Oh I'm certainly not saying. I take great care in the consistency of my brass prep. That is where the accuracy comes from. Consistency. Not normally the seating depth or an exact specific charge weight.

 

[stiff neck]

I basically know that you haven't personally done any of these things at this point, or you would be showing me your own testing (like I have done) instead of referring me to the pro's on youtube.

1. You know everything about everybody based on the pictures they post, or don't post? Hmm. Pics or it didn't happen? Bro, I was winning medals at nationals before digital cameras or Instagram were a thing.
2. I never referred you to anybody on YouTube, you have me confused with someone else.

 

[Huntnful]

1. You know everything about everybody based on the pictures they post, or don't post? Hmm. Pics or it didn't happen? Bro, I was winning medals at nationals before digital cameras or Instagram were a thing.
2. I never referred you to anybody on YouTube, you have me confused with someone else.

You're absolutely right. I got myself a little worked up lol.

But honestly, yes. On the internet there are WAY more people with opinions and theories than experience. And they're happy to talk and act like what they say is gospel, with literally zero personal data or experience to back it up.

So basically you can believe none of what you hear/read and only half of what you see on here. Because even pictures and groups are doctored up and hand selected. But it's hard to doctor up 10, 20 and 30 round groups to show the variances in sample size testing.

Have you done testing and seen massive improvements with modern bullets like a berger hybrid and ELDM. I haven't found them to be very seating depth sensitive. I'm not sure what lead balls you were shooting and tuning 86 years ago out your flintlock musket hahaha. Totally kidding, just making an old guy joke

 

[SmokinCrow]

The top shooters in the world only move in 0.003" increments and they win national/world championships. You see no change using 0.010" increments. Are you doing it wrong? Or are they doing it wrong?

Top shooters in the world probably have means to afford to shoot and test to that extent. Top shooters tend to be sponsored and aren't footing the whole bill themselves. Probably aren't working on 60K a year to not only shoot/hunt, but to pay bills and support their family. They probably aren't scrimping and saving to buy a rifle to take their kids hunting with. Top shooters aren't in the same situation as others. Some need to do things as efficiently as possible. Barrels don't come cheap for many. I enjoy loading, and I don't do it to save money. However, I can't afford to test .003 increments. I aim to optimize to my resources. Its more important to find a load that works for your purposes. Sometimes chasing that 1/4 in doesn't really increase hit probably enough to justify the extensive time, effort, money etc. to justify. If you have the means to test that extensively great. Lucky you, but aren't. Many more probably don't have to shooting prowess to actually shoot the difference.

 

[Hugnot]

In today's world of component supply challenges it is important to have alternative pet loads for the same rifle and bullet. Primer,brass and powder availability changes often day by day. A large stock of a certain powder can evaporate in hours when powder type dependent reloaders discover a source for works well for their application. RL26 is the best example.

I believe in stats, especially those derived from non human trigger pulling methods. Exceptions would be nice 10 or more shot groups,the 95 shot group indicated major validity.



The green sticky dot measures .75 inch, distance 100 yards, light puffy breeze, magneto speed chrony bayonet thingy attached to barrel, CFE powder thrown from measure, case necks turned/trimmed, CCI 41 primers, Hornady brass bought once fired, F/L sized, then Lee neck collet sized, 40 gr. VMax bullets seated with Lee seater.

The stat workup indicates what to expect at a 95% probability with this ammo using reasonable shooting consistency being heat. I also developed a load with IMR 8208 that almost duplicates the CFE load. Planned is the same work up using Staball Match that is available at my LGS's. Human hands did not touch the floating point math inside my computer.

Extended rodent shoots have proven this load.

Stat or result cheating/faking?? In a former life I saw some research guys go down in abject disgrace after their pubs were reviewed & found to have fakery. The severity of fakery was compounded by grant $$.