My issues with the Berger method…..

[david g ranes]

Berger Method LINK


I have some small issues with the Berger method. It is contrary to my experiences and others test results.

So, Berger says to test VLD's from 0's through about 0.15". They recommend a method where one uses 0.030" or 0.040" increments. Many people get good results, but not everybod.

Long range benchrest folks were testing from jam to maybe 0.030" max and finding some great VLD loads.

The EC's interview with Lou Murdica suggests nodes to be about 0.006 - 0.012" wide.….as well as many other accuracy sources.

To add to that, I noticed using 0.03" increments that sometimes I found a node and sometimes I did not. I have modified my technique to start at my longest reasonable length and shorten 0.005"-0.010" increments. This has worked pretty well for me.

To me, it seems like it would be hard to find your true node with any consistency using the Berger method. I think you could shoot a lot of bullets looking for a node and still only find a 2nd or 3rd node.

What are your thoughts/experience on this?

Bergers method is shoot more sell more I definitely do not like their method but I like their bullets seems like everything I have liked around 30 thou. David

 

[Mikecr]

I agree you have to test primers with your powder test. I always do powder first then seating depth. I've never done it the other way in my mind the seating depth is tuning the harmonics of the barrel to the release time of the bullet which will vary with different powder charges. Does your tune not fall apart if you adjust your powder charge after seating depth?

The other caveat to this is with wildcats or improved cartridges you simply have to preform a powder test first to even get in the ball park.

Seating is not tuning, as primer swapping is not tuning. Instead, they are items prerequisite to tuning.
That is, they are 'coarse' in their affects to any load.
You tune with powder, and neck tension, and/or a barrel tuner. These are your 'fine' adjustments.
With anything calibrated you adjust coarse first, then fine. Never the other way around.

I use QuickLoad so wildcats are not a cause of surprise really. But the only thing desired to know about a powder load to test coarse seating, or primers, is that I'm NOT in a powder node, beginning nor end. Worst possible is best. I want to see great big shifts from -just what I'm testing, and nothing else.
When I'm breaking in the barrel, or piddling around, I can use an ~80% SAAMI Max load and confirm that it sucks.
A useful beginning for me.

 

[QuietTexan]

The real issue is do rifles have throat to match magazine length need for Bergers?

Unpopular opinion time: in factory rifles the new fancy cartridges do, because they're designed around the "long bullet" premise. 6.5 PRC might not be faster than a 264 WM, but with the shorter case you can seat the bullet longer and more correctly (base past the shoulder) and still fit in a normal mag length. Same story with the 6mm Creedmoor vs 243 WIN, 300 PRC vs 300 RUM, the list goes on.

Enter all the people skipping over "in factory rifles" arguing about their long throated chambers in special ordered fast twists.

 

[Kmccord]

If we are talking about the Berger Hunting seating depth test, we have to remember anything 1MOA and less is great for hunting. I used it to find a good node for my Grandson 7mm Rem Mag for the 168gr VLD and found .050 off to be the sweet spot. To try and find a sweet spot moving .003 per test will burn up a lot of powder, primers and bullets to maybe find a .250 MOA from a .050 MOA load, to me in a hunting rifle, that will not cause a miss out to 1k yards. When using Hammer Bullets, it doesn't seem to matter if you are .020 off the lands or .050 off, in today's environment, finding available consumables and being conservative seems to be the best action. I don't want to waste those consumables to move a .250 in size for hunting.

 

[Rhovee]

No reason to do .003 at a time. Seating depth will come together similar to powder. If you went from 1" group at 100 yards, then a 1/2" group with .003 difference, it won't repeat. Do course then hone in on your window.

 

[Stgraves260]

Berger Method LINK


I have some small issues with the Berger method. It is contrary to my experiences and others test results.

So, Berger says to test VLD's from 0's through about 0.15". They recommend a method where one uses 0.030" or 0.040" increments. Many people get good results, but not everybod.

Long range benchrest folks were testing from jam to maybe 0.030" max and finding some great VLD loads.

The EC's interview with Lou Murdica suggests nodes to be about 0.006 - 0.012" wide.….as well as many other accuracy sources.

To add to that, I noticed using 0.03" increments that sometimes I found a node and sometimes I did not. I have modified my technique to start at my longest reasonable length and shorten 0.005"-0.010" increments. This has worked pretty well for me.

To me, it seems like it would be hard to find your true node with any consistency using the Berger method. I think you could shoot a lot of bullets looking for a node and still only find a 2nd or 3rd node.

What are your thoughts/experience on this?

In my experience I have learned to stop chasing the lands. All my rifles are Mag fed. I have reload for others. I get my max AOL that will fit in my Mag. I then back off .010. I do that so that they will feed good. Then I do a latter test to find the most accurate charge. I figure if it doesn't feed well then what's the point how close it is to the lands. I'll post picks of results.

 

[Stgraves260]

Here's those pics.

 

[BrentM]

I use the seating node method that has been adopted by some top tier comp shooters, not bench rest. Basically starting around .070 going to .150ish. So far on my last test everything shoots very well at .070-.100 off the lands. I have found berger generally does shoot quite well around 100 no matter what caliber and hornady is anywhere from .020 to .090

 

[Stgraves260]

Final results

 

[Bigdad]

I use to think COAL/CBTO didn't have much effect on accuracy because I followed the Berger method in increments of .040" and didn't experience good results. I tried Erik Cortina's method by starting .020" from the lands and decreasing CBTO in .003" increments and started seeing the accuracy nodes. Now I'm a believer.

 

[bamban]

So, what does seating depth expercse do, micro tuming of pressure? Thus, micro tuning of harmonics?

 

[waveslayer]

No offense, but arguing with Berger=arguing with Litz, whoninwouldnt debate on this subject unless you have the experience and knowledge.

It works, there are all sorts of nodes out there. Get a velocity and then tune seating depth

 

[cajun]

Bullet Jump Research: Executive Summary & Load Development Tips

This is the last post in a series of articles focused on bullet jump research that has been conduct...

precisionrifleblog.com

Really depends on what your doing with your rifle. F class, prs, hunting?

 

[cajun]

So, what does seating depth expercse do, micro tuming of pressure? Thus, micro tuning of harmonics?

Most common theory is that you are timing the bullet exiting the barrel in a more forgiving state of barrel harmonics. This is also I believe why certain rifles tend to shoot better at a certain velocity window.