CONatureBoy
Well-Known Member
[Duplicate post, sorry!]
Loading to magazine length/bent tips
- Thread starter Briant_az
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
CONatureBoy
Well-Known Member
MagnumManiac, as for your comment, "There is no hard and fast rule about whether a bullet is accurate close to the rifling or far away, those statements made by people that bullets are more accurate close to the rifling know very little," here's what Tony Boyer said on the subject:
This is from https://precisionshooting.com/psm_2009_08_frame-html/, an interview with Tony and Faye Boyer, both members of the U.S. Benchrest Hall of Fame. Tony wrote The Book of Rifle Accuracy. In this part of the interview, Tony's point is that he evaluates a barrel's inherent accuracy by shooting at most 30 rounds loaded very close to or at the lands, depending on how the rifle's bore was cut. If the gun doesn't perform, he blames the barrel (and doesn't use it in competition). He does not try to tune the length of the cartridge.
I don't know who you are, MagnumManiac, but I know who Tony Boyer is. From the same article: "Tony is the best benchrest shooter of all time, and his record of 122 HOF points (and counting) may never be equaled. Not only did he win the Super Shoot for the fifth time, he received the Precision Shooting 'Shooter of the Year' award for an unprecedented eleventh time." How do you come by your opinions about rifle accuracy?
Ballistics is a scientific subject. We can use empirical methods and mathematical analysis to understand it. Software like QuickLOAD and the external-ballistics calculator on the Berger Bullets web site (or built into a Kestrel) uses mathematical models to estimate with remarkable accuracy how chambers, bullets, powders, weather conditions, etc. interact to determine a bullet's flight. The patterns are not always simple to discern or describe mathematically, but they exist and are discoverable by those adequately trained in the scientific method and its mathematical tools. Some of the patterns are simple, as Tony's comments above about loading close to the lands suggests.
Language attacking someone who politely expresses an opinion is "argumentum ad hominem," the logical fallacy of attacking the speaker. It has no place in scientific, rational, or civil discourse. I encourage you to set aside such knee-jerk responses and give honest questions respectful and scientifically well-reasoned answers. It's the civil thing to do. You might even (heaven forbid) learn something or make a friend in the process.
This is from https://precisionshooting.com/psm_2009_08_frame-html/, an interview with Tony and Faye Boyer, both members of the U.S. Benchrest Hall of Fame. Tony wrote The Book of Rifle Accuracy. In this part of the interview, Tony's point is that he evaluates a barrel's inherent accuracy by shooting at most 30 rounds loaded very close to or at the lands, depending on how the rifle's bore was cut. If the gun doesn't perform, he blames the barrel (and doesn't use it in competition). He does not try to tune the length of the cartridge.
I don't know who you are, MagnumManiac, but I know who Tony Boyer is. From the same article: "Tony is the best benchrest shooter of all time, and his record of 122 HOF points (and counting) may never be equaled. Not only did he win the Super Shoot for the fifth time, he received the Precision Shooting 'Shooter of the Year' award for an unprecedented eleventh time." How do you come by your opinions about rifle accuracy?
Ballistics is a scientific subject. We can use empirical methods and mathematical analysis to understand it. Software like QuickLOAD and the external-ballistics calculator on the Berger Bullets web site (or built into a Kestrel) uses mathematical models to estimate with remarkable accuracy how chambers, bullets, powders, weather conditions, etc. interact to determine a bullet's flight. The patterns are not always simple to discern or describe mathematically, but they exist and are discoverable by those adequately trained in the scientific method and its mathematical tools. Some of the patterns are simple, as Tony's comments above about loading close to the lands suggests.
Language attacking someone who politely expresses an opinion is "argumentum ad hominem," the logical fallacy of attacking the speaker. It has no place in scientific, rational, or civil discourse. I encourage you to set aside such knee-jerk responses and give honest questions respectful and scientifically well-reasoned answers. It's the civil thing to do. You might even (heaven forbid) learn something or make a friend in the process.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
MagnumManiac
Well-Known Member
Disagree all you like Mr CONatureBoy, we don't shoot Benchrest when hunting, and I stand by statement that PRECISION can be found with bullets NO WHERE NEAR THE RIFLING.
I do not know who you are Mr CONatureBoy, but unless YOU have done the testing, and not quoted a Benchrest shooter and his techniques, that you actually know nothing about his ENTIRE rifle set-up, which includes his throat length, chamber design or leade angles, then who are you to question anything with your 7 page response?
You think Quickload is accurate?
I know it is not. I have a Pressure Trace II, I bought QL to run PREDICTIONS against an actual pressure measuring tool, and it was way off. It took so much TWEAKING to get anywhere near close to the ACTUAL pressures AND velocities the rifle spat out that it was a waste of time. Gave it away and never thought of it again.
What I said, if you read my post again, about throat, leade and freebore are correct.
Attack me some more, I enjoy it.
Cheers.
I do not know who you are Mr CONatureBoy, but unless YOU have done the testing, and not quoted a Benchrest shooter and his techniques, that you actually know nothing about his ENTIRE rifle set-up, which includes his throat length, chamber design or leade angles, then who are you to question anything with your 7 page response?
You think Quickload is accurate?
I know it is not. I have a Pressure Trace II, I bought QL to run PREDICTIONS against an actual pressure measuring tool, and it was way off. It took so much TWEAKING to get anywhere near close to the ACTUAL pressures AND velocities the rifle spat out that it was a waste of time. Gave it away and never thought of it again.
What I said, if you read my post again, about throat, leade and freebore are correct.
Attack me some more, I enjoy it.
Cheers.
Last edited:
CONatureBoy
Well-Known Member
I am a data scientist. I did my doctoral work at Stanford in industrial engineering. I have taught graduate-level classes in data science, probability, and statistics. I have spent several years of my career modeling high-speed manufacturing assembly-line data, so I know a little about the sorts of mathematical models one uses to account for variations in the outcomes of mechanical processes. I'm purely an amateur shooter, but I do bring my professional and academic training to bear on my handloading. I have read a half-dozen engineering-oriented and practical books about ballistics and handloading. I read reloading manuals for fun, because I like to think about data-generating processes and the numbers they produce.
My personal experience only amounts to a small sample, statistically speaking (handloading for perhaps two-dozen rifles). The rifles have ranged from an ultralight mountain gun to a heavy-varmint-taper target/varmint rig. I mostly hunt with blueprinted Remington 700s in calibers from 264 Win Mag to 300 RUM. My hunting rigs all have Jewell triggers, aftermarket firing pins, and the other usual goodies. I have loaded mostly Nosler, Sierra, Hornady, and Berger bullets--VLD and Elite Hunter Bergers especially. As I wrote earlier: in my own experience some bullets (e.g. Nosler Ballistic Tip) achieve half-MOA accuracy loaded well away from the lands, and exhibit low sensitivity to seating depth. For hunting purposes I'm content to load these at the maximum SAAMI COAL. Others (especially Berger VLDs) have been easier to get half-MOA accuracy from when I start load development within a few thousandths of the lands. Starting near the lands, I have never had to tune the cartridge length, with Berger VLDs. Starting away from the lands, I have had to lengthen the cartridge to achieve my accuracy goals. Every time I shoot my rifles it's quite obvious to me that my rifles shoot more accurately than I do. My varmint/target rifles shoot into 1/3-1/4 MOA routinely. My hunting rifles, 1/2-1/3 MOA. I'm only good on game to about 600 yards, so I'm nothing like an expert shooter. I just know a little math.
I don't mean to come across as attacking you, so if you heard that I apologize. I am critical of some of your internal-ballistics opinions because I doubt their scientific basis. I'm also willing to say that your aggressive language detracts from my own enjoyment of this forum, whose members seem mostly inclined to write with a lot of mutual deference and a good sense of humor. I wish you'd decide to adopt the same attitudes in your own posts. There's a big difference between someone disagreeing with your opinions and attacking you personally. I only intend the former. On the whole this is a really fun forum to read. I learn a lot here.
My personal experience only amounts to a small sample, statistically speaking (handloading for perhaps two-dozen rifles). The rifles have ranged from an ultralight mountain gun to a heavy-varmint-taper target/varmint rig. I mostly hunt with blueprinted Remington 700s in calibers from 264 Win Mag to 300 RUM. My hunting rigs all have Jewell triggers, aftermarket firing pins, and the other usual goodies. I have loaded mostly Nosler, Sierra, Hornady, and Berger bullets--VLD and Elite Hunter Bergers especially. As I wrote earlier: in my own experience some bullets (e.g. Nosler Ballistic Tip) achieve half-MOA accuracy loaded well away from the lands, and exhibit low sensitivity to seating depth. For hunting purposes I'm content to load these at the maximum SAAMI COAL. Others (especially Berger VLDs) have been easier to get half-MOA accuracy from when I start load development within a few thousandths of the lands. Starting near the lands, I have never had to tune the cartridge length, with Berger VLDs. Starting away from the lands, I have had to lengthen the cartridge to achieve my accuracy goals. Every time I shoot my rifles it's quite obvious to me that my rifles shoot more accurately than I do. My varmint/target rifles shoot into 1/3-1/4 MOA routinely. My hunting rifles, 1/2-1/3 MOA. I'm only good on game to about 600 yards, so I'm nothing like an expert shooter. I just know a little math.
I don't mean to come across as attacking you, so if you heard that I apologize. I am critical of some of your internal-ballistics opinions because I doubt their scientific basis. I'm also willing to say that your aggressive language detracts from my own enjoyment of this forum, whose members seem mostly inclined to write with a lot of mutual deference and a good sense of humor. I wish you'd decide to adopt the same attitudes in your own posts. There's a big difference between someone disagreeing with your opinions and attacking you personally. I only intend the former. On the whole this is a really fun forum to read. I learn a lot here.
Last edited:
I completely understand what you are alluding to, as I had a Wyatt's box put in my stock to facilitate shooting 190gr. VLD's. I thought that the author of this article was asking for information regarding shooting Nosler Accubonds and therefore gave the reply I did. Most companies manufacturing. 308 bullets don't have ogives like that of the VLD which tends to work better with no jump. There are many tests that Remington made in the process of producing the 300RUM that alluded to a 0.040 minimum jump. After experimenting with the 200gr Accubond and trying to mic it off the L&Gs I found success with going to the SAMMI specs and mic from OAL. This was the basis for my reply to his question.
I also know what effect bullet jump causes in barrel wear, however, the best accuracy I can achieve from a rifle I hunt with supercedes any costs for a new barrel.
Last edited:
CONatureBoy
Well-Known Member
Well the Berger hybrids moot the whole argument, because they are much less sensitive to seating depth/jump. So you can load them to fit a stock magazine, and you'll be fine.
