Loads ready can't decise ocw or ladder test?

[Mikecr]

I'm glad you're receptive to all these views.
There are two reasons I see many tail chasing with development;
#1 Seating testing has by far the largest single affect to grouping. Actual seating testing(not tweaking in a seating window) is NOT a fine adjustment. Truth is, powder is the fine adjustment, with only neck tension being lesser. Most have never actually tested seating -to learn this.
#2 Unless you know a chosen seating is best, there is no reason for it to be anywhere close to needed. It's just adding an abstract to an already subjective task, and could make powder determinations/interpretations way more difficult.

The tail chasing comes in when you find out also that significant seating changes(testing) from your seemingly best powder node cause that node to collapse, which makes it difficult to interpret seating affects(2 changes at once).
Jumping into powder with seating settings pulled from your butt is not logical. You're essentially going straight to the fine adjustment before determining proper coarse adjustment.

I recommend Berger's seating testing to begin. You can do it with a reduced load while fireforming your brass(which needs to happen before development). Then, with best seating from that, move into incremental powder testing you're confident with. Once you have your powder node(and you already have your coarse seating) tweak seating within a few thou both ways to center the seating node and best shape your groups.

 

[Bigeclipse]

I'm glad you're receptive to all these views.
There are two reasons I see many tail chasing with development;
#1 Seating testing has by far the largest single affect to grouping. Actual seating testing(not tweaking in a seating window) is NOT a fine adjustment. Truth is, powder is the fine adjustment, with only neck tension being lesser. Most have never actually tested seating -to learn this.
#2 Unless you know a chosen seating is best, there is no reason for it to be anywhere close to needed. It's just adding an abstract to an already subjective task, and could make powder determinations/interpretations way more difficult.

The tail chasing comes in when you find out also that significant seating changes(testing) from your seemingly best powder node cause that node to collapse, which makes it difficult to interpret seating affects(2 changes at once).
Jumping into powder with seating settings pulled from your butt is not logical. You're essentially going straight to the fine adjustment before determining proper coarse adjustment.

I recommend Berger's seating testing to begin. You can do it with a reduced load while fireforming your brass(which needs to happen before development). Then, with best seating from that, move into incremental powder testing you're confident with. Once you have your powder node(and you already have your coarse seating) tweak seating within a few thou both ways to center the seating node and best shape your groups.

Do you suggest berger's method with all type bullets as well? I forget the term but for instance, the regular berger bullet has an ogive which they suggest you use their berger seating method, or their hybrid now has a different ogive which they suggest simply trying .020-.040 jump. Sorry I am confusing this just looking for more info on what you are saying.

 

[bill123]

I'm glad you're receptive to all these views.
There are two reasons I see many tail chasing with development;
#1 Seating testing has by far the largest single affect to grouping. Actual seating testing(not tweaking in a seating window) is NOT a fine adjustment. Truth is, powder is the fine adjustment, with only neck tension being lesser. Most have never actually tested seating -to learn this.
#2 Unless you know a chosen seating is best, there is no reason for it to be anywhere close to needed. It's just adding an abstract to an already subjective task, and could make powder determinations/interpretations way more difficult.

The tail chasing comes in when you find out also that significant seating changes(testing) from your seemingly best powder node cause that node to collapse, which makes it difficult to interpret seating affects(2 changes at once).
Jumping into powder with seating settings pulled from your butt is not logical. You're essentially going straight to the fine adjustment before determining proper coarse adjustment.

I recommend Berger's seating testing to begin. You can do it with a reduced load while fireforming your brass(which needs to happen before development). Then, with best seating from that, move into incremental powder testing you're confident with. Once you have your powder node(and you already have your coarse seating) tweak seating within a few thou both ways to center the seating node and best shape your groups.

Interesting. I do like the Berger seating depth test and use it on all of my loads. I've got a new barrel on order and might try seating depth before OCW.

For what its worth, Dan Newberry recommends the following:

The seating depth for all test loads should of course be the same. I normally seat the bullet a caliber's depth into the case, or to magazine length--whichever is shorter. I don't believe loading to approach the lands is necessary, or even desirable in most situations. So long as the bullets are seated straight, with as little runout as possible, the advantages of loading close to the lands are largely over-stated. This said, be certain that the seating depth you choose does not cram the bullet into the lands. Stay at least .020" or so off the lands for these excercises.

 

[jca57jd]

Well I did the vld Berger test this evening. Here is a picture of the results from 200yds on a bench on bags and steady. 0.050" was the best group but I def want to make it better. Should i go back to adjusting powder now or do a little more with seating depth? Also what would be your advice on which way to go with the seating depth?

 

[Korhil78]

Well I did the vld Berger test this evening. Here is a picture of the results from 200yds on a bench on bags and steady. 0.050" was the best group but I def want to make it better. Should i go back to adjusting powder now or do a little more with seating depth? Also what would be your advice on which way to go with the seating depth?

You can adjust it either way to see what it does. But either way, now that you have the seating depth, you can adjust the powder charge to see if it tightens up the group. If you do want to play with seating depth a little more, you would have to do some loads with bullets seated deeper and longer to see which is going to group better. It just depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go.

 

[Mikecr]

Do you suggest berger's method with all type bullets as well? I forget the term but for instance, the regular berger bullet has an ogive which they suggest you use their berger seating method, or their hybrid now has a different ogive which they suggest simply trying .020-.040 jump.

You don't have to call it a 'Berger' test really. They didn't invent seating testing or anything like that. What they did IMO, was boost awareness of the potentials in testing. The kind of thing good a bullet company would do.
So yes, you should fully test ALL bullets(including BT, FB, secant, tangent, hybrids, etc).
Why wouldn't you?
After all, you really do want to KNOW you've produced the best results you can, right?

 

[jca57jd]

Hey mike. Yes I def want the best performance I can get but I don't have any other heavy bullets right now besides the 105 hybrids. I bought those because they had the best bc and I hurd a ton of good reviews on them around the web. What would you be loading up next if you were in my shoes (working the seating depth up, down or both from 0.050 off lans? And how much would you change it up in your tests?). Thanks!

I did this test with 87 vlds in one of my bolt actions and I get 1/2" - 3/4" groups at 300 yds with it! However I started at the lans and worked it out from right on the lans to .030 jump in .005 increments and it liked them right on the lans.

 

[bill123]

You don't have to call it a 'Berger' test really. They didn't invent seating testing or anything like that. What they did IMO, was boost awareness of the potentials in testing. The kind of thing good a bullet company would do.
So yes, you should fully test ALL bullets(including BT, FB, secant, tangent, hybrids, etc).
Why wouldn't you?
After all, you really do want to KNOW you've produced the best results you can, right?

I think what he means is does the test work on all types of bullets, not just VLD's. The original Berger doc. was called something like "Getting the Best Accuracy Out of VLD's".

To answer Bigeclipse's question, The procedure was found to work on other bullet types.

Berger may not have invented the idea, but they outlined a specific procedure for making the process straight forward.

 

[Mikecr]

I do a little more of seating testing than Berger recommended, and have always considered seating as prerequisite to load development.

First I back off considerably from a Max pressure load, and any known higher node. For a mid-capacity cartridge like a 22-250,243,308,etc this would be minus around ~2gr.
Load a few of each:
1. .010 ITL (-~2gr)
2. .010 ITL (-~3gr)
3. .010 OTL (.005,.010,.015)
4. .030 OTL (.020,.030,.040)
5. .060 OTL (.050,.060,.070)
6. .090 OTL (.075,.090,.105)
7. .130 OTL (.110,.130,.150)

Where I find that one stands out as better, I seat a window about it(). That is, if 60-OTL looks best, retest at 50, 60, and 70.
For ITL testing I run two charges of powder because I need to be sure I'm only seeing the results of seating and not also coming into or out of a powder node.

With ~best seating I go to a 300yd ladder(Audette), and validate my chosen charge with incremental group shooting. Then I tweak seating both ways to shape grouping and lock in on best final seating. All of this was with 1/3 length neck sizing.

Then if my results aren't gonna cut it(for me), I detour to primer striking testing. With this, I adjust firing pin fall in 10thou increments and I'll find one setting that is best for my primers seated at thou crush. If my results still need to be better, it's time to change powder or bullets or both and start over where appropriate.. This sucks for sure but I've had to do this before, no choice.
Where things go well and I'm confident my load is as good as can be expected for the system, I purchase enough of that powder lot, bullet lot, and primer lot for the expected life of that barrel. You can be sure my plan for the brass in-hand follows, and will also last the life of the barrel.

Then I go to cold bore testing which takes a great deal of time and effort. Here I tweak powder and neck length sizing(tension). This is not group shooting(precision), it's purely cold bore accuracy, and best defines my capabilities with the system.

On OCW? Not interested in wide range universal loads..
I need cutting edge best accuracy, as this sets the max range for my killzone.
So my loads are purpose built and managed for intended field temps only.

 

[bill123]

I do a little more of seating testing than Berger recommended, and have always considered seating as prerequisite to load development.

First I back off considerably from a Max pressure load, and any known higher node. For a mid-capacity cartridge like a 22-250,243,308,etc this would be minus around ~2gr.
Load a few of each:
1. .010 ITL (-~2gr)
2. .010 ITL (-~3gr)
3. .010 OTL (.005,.010,.015)
4. .030 OTL (.020,.030,.040)
5. .060 OTL (.050,.060,.070)
6. .090 OTL (.075,.090,.105)
7. .130 OTL (.110,.130,.150)

Where I find that one stands out as better, I seat a window about it(). That is, if 60-OTL looks best, retest at 50, 60, and 70.
For ITL testing I run two charges of powder because I need to be sure I'm only seeing the results of seating and not also coming into or out of a powder node.

With ~best seating I go to a 300yd ladder(Audette), and validate my chosen charge with incremental group shooting. Then I tweak seating both ways to shape grouping and lock in on best final seating. All of this was with 1/3 length neck sizing.

Then if my results aren't gonna cut it(for me), I detour to primer striking testing. With this, I adjust firing pin fall in 10thou increments and I'll find one setting that is best for my primers seated at thou crush. If my results still need to be better, it's time to change powder or bullets or both and start over where appropriate.. This sucks for sure but I've had to do this before, no choice.
Where things go well and I'm confident my load is as good as can be expected for the system, I purchase enough of that powder lot, bullet lot, and primer lot for the expected life of that barrel. You can be sure my plan for the brass in-hand follows, and will also last the life of the barrel.

Then I go to cold bore testing which takes a great deal of time and effort. Here I tweak powder and neck length sizing(tension). This is not group shooting(precision), it's purely cold bore accuracy, and best defines my capabilities with the system.

On OCW? Not interested in wide range universal loads..
I need cutting edge best accuracy, as this sets the max range for my killzone.
So my loads are purpose built and managed for intended field temps only.

Really impressive. I have a few questions. I have never heard the terms ITL & OTL. Is that jump and jamb? I know nothing of of Primer Strike Testing either. Where can I read about it.

I understand that you are primarily interested in cold bore precision. How long between shots do you have to wait to consider it a bore cold? For say a custom rifle, what would you consider "cutting edge best accuracy"?

Thanks in advance.

Why partial length neck sizing?

 

[Mikecr]

I have never heard the terms ITL & OTL. Is that jump and jamb?

In the Lands, Off the Lands

I know nothing of Primer Strike Testing. Where can I read about it?

And I know of no official striker testing. I could go into what I've found but it would need to be another thread.

I understand that you are primarily interested in cold bore precision. How long between shots do you have to wait to consider it a bore cold?

This of coarse depends on how much powder you're burning, your bore size, & barrel weight. I begin 1 shot/day, then 1sht/4hrs, then 2/hrs, 1/2/hrs, and finally 10min/sht.
10min per shot has performed worse by far, and this is where I expend a lot of efforts.

For say a custom rifle, what would you consider "cutting edge best accuracy"?

One thing you learn with actual cold bore accuracy testing is that it doesn't matter if the gun is a cheap factory build or an expensive aftermarket build. It is what it actually is, no better, and you will never know it unless you find out..
There is a local contest here for fall pre-hunting seasons. We each get 1 shot on a 200yd 3/4" bull, one shooter at a time(and there are 40-50 shooters each year), no sighters. If you hit the bull, you move to the back of the line/next round. It typically goes 9-12 rounds before there is only one left(the winner) with your shot timing going from ~6hours to 5minutes(takes all day). That winner get's all the money(the $20 we each dropped in a hat).
One year I watched a HV 6PPC grouping in the 1s/low 2s beforehand lose to a factory savage(plasitc stock) in .243. Actually the same 6PPC was used by 3 shooters, they lost. And I beat the .243 with a 6.5wssm which I consider good(for sure) for 3/8moa grouping.
We should understand the differences between precision, trueness, and accuracy,, and then extend these to practical field conditions/use.
Cutting edge hunting accuracy is not minute of deer all year long. And it's not hot grouping at set ranges under a tent, with sighters/warm-ups, wind flags, and a martini(shaken, not stirred). It's purpose built for the specific killzone per max range under prepared for field conditions. It's the BEST you're capable & aware of -honestly.
For a farmer's entertainment(not my idea) I dropped a doe with a brain shot at 510yds off a bipod with a 50gr FB BR bullet in 223, near sunset. Not so much as a death twitch, and the doe next to her didn't get excited a bit. Looked up, looked over at the corpse 20' away & then went back to eating.. Deer are not as smart as older groundhogs.
I remember this as much a stupid thing to do as anything else. But I also remember that I knew the result while squeezing the trigger. There was no doubt where the bullet would hit. No generalizations or playing around like 'shooting steel' or some other tactical hogwash.

Why partial length neck sizing?

Bushing sizing is partial length sizing. I adjust the length to affect bullet grip which affects tune(fine adjust).

 

[bill123]

In the Lands, Off the Lands

And I know of no official striker testing. I could go into what I've found but it would need to be another thread.

This of coarse depends on how much powder you're burning, your bore size, & barrel weight. I begin 1 shot/day, then 1sht/4hrs, then 2/hrs, 1/2/hrs, and finally 10min/sht.
10min per shot has performed worse by far, and this is where I expend a lot of efforts.

One thing you learn with actual cold bore accuracy testing is that it doesn't matter if the gun is a cheap factory build or an expensive aftermarket build. It is what it actually is, no better, and you will never know it unless you find out..
There is a local contest here for fall pre-hunting seasons. We each get 1 shot on a 200yd 3/4" bull, one shooter at a time(and there are 40-50 shooters each year), no sighters. If you hit the bull, you move to the back of the line/next round. It typically goes 9-12 rounds before there is only one left(the winner) with your shot timing going from ~6hours to 5minutes(takes all day). That winner get's all the money(the $20 we each dropped in a hat).
One year I watched a HV 6PPC grouping in the 1s/low 2s beforehand lose to a factory savage(plasitc stock) in .243. Actually the same 6PPC was used by 3 shooters, they lost. And I beat the .243 with a 6.5wssm which I consider good(for sure) for 3/8moa grouping.
We should understand the differences between precision, trueness, and accuracy,, and then extend these to practical field conditions/use.
Cutting edge hunting accuracy is not minute of deer all year long. And it's not hot grouping at set ranges under a tent, with sighters/warm-ups, wind flags, and a martini(shaken, not stirred). It's purpose built for the specific killzone per max range under prepared for field conditions. It's the BEST you're capable & aware of -honestly.
For a farmer's entertainment(not my idea) I dropped a doe with a brain shot at 510yds off a bipod with a 50gr FB BR bullet in 223, near sunset. Not so much as a death twitch, and the doe next to her didn't get excited a bit. Looked up, looked over at the corpse 20' away & then went back to eating.. Deer are not as smart as older groundhogs.
I remember this as much a stupid thing to do as anything else. But I also remember that I knew the result while squeezing the trigger. There was no doubt where the bullet would hit. No generalizations or playing around like 'shooting steel' or some other tactical hogwash.


Bushing sizing is partial length sizing. I adjust the length to affect bullet grip which affects tune(fine adjust).

Thanks for the extensive reply!

 

[Bigeclipse]

I do a little more of seating testing than Berger recommended, and have always considered seating as prerequisite to load development.

First I back off considerably from a Max pressure load, and any known higher node. For a mid-capacity cartridge like a 22-250,243,308,etc this would be minus around ~2gr.
Load a few of each:
1. .010 ITL (-~2gr)
2. .010 ITL (-~3gr)
3. .010 OTL (.005,.010,.015)
4. .030 OTL (.020,.030,.040)
5. .060 OTL (.050,.060,.070)
6. .090 OTL (.075,.090,.105)
7. .130 OTL (.110,.130,.150)

Where I find that one stands out as better, I seat a window about it(). That is, if 60-OTL looks best, retest at 50, 60, and 70.
For ITL testing I run two charges of powder because I need to be sure I'm only seeing the results of seating and not also coming into or out of a powder node.


Then I go to cold bore testing which takes a great deal of time and effort. Here I tweak powder and neck length sizing(tension). This is not group shooting(precision), it's purely cold bore accuracy, and best defines my capabilities with the system.

On OCW? Not interested in wide range universal loads..
I need cutting edge best accuracy, as this sets the max range for my killzone.
So my loads are purpose built and managed for intended field temps only.

Thanks for this info. Just a follow up question, do you do all this testing for any rifle or for certain applications. For example, I would think this is kind of a waste for a rifle that may never see greater than 300 yards on deer. If this is the case, for deer hunting, at what range and accuracy do you start doing this much load work up? Again I understand it may depend on the scenario but looking for guidelines. For instance, to me 1 MOA accuracy is good out to 400 yards on deer. Above that and I want to strive for sub MOA. Above 600 yards and I would want .5MOA and better. So for me...I would do whatever testing it took to get these results.

One last follow up question...how do you get the same bullet lots? For instance, I mainly order my bullet heads on the net as they can be hard to find at a shop. So how would one go about finding specific lots?

 

[Mikecr]

My killzone -vs- accuracy plays a big role in my capability. Then it's a matter of what I desire in capability -vs- what I have.
Lately I've been hunting GHs with a 223/50gr Jayners. My ~2.5" killzone sets the max range with a 1/2moa gun at 500yds. This is easy enough in calm conditions, and I'm getting better in wind, but my bullets are very low in BC. So while I get 1/4moa from this system in calm, 1/2moa is still a challenge & risky in gusty winds. With this, I would opt for a closer shot position, or watch & time conditions for a calm shot(if the GH will give me this much). I consider it a 500yd gun.
Once in a while I use a 6br/95VLDs. I've taken a good number of GHs past 600yds with it, and I consider it a solid 600yd gun.
I'm sure I can go further with my 6.5wssm/139Laps, but I have no where to hunt further, and I'm not motivated so far to do all the testing for hunting shots beyond 600. If I couldn't get that close it wouldn't seem hunting anyway.
I tested a tube gun in 6XC/105Laps, but while the gun grouped great it was hopeless for accuracy (so I sold it off).
This is just my current situation, to answer your question.

As far as same lots? I don't buy any reloading components before first confirming that I can purchase what I need from that lot for the life of a barrel. No powder, brass, primers, or bullets, unless they got a bunch of em.
With brass, I buy it all, measure it, cull enough of it, before ordering a reamer.
Everything we do amounts to choices that lead to results. This is one of mine.