Next step help

[JD250]

Ok thanks for all the input guys it looks like general consensus is seating depth as my next test so I'll take the 82.3 and start playing with that, I now understand why most are saying that load because of the shape of the group. I'll also chrono every round shot to verify consistency. So just to clarify if I'm shooting .005 off right now I should load three shot groups at .015-.060 off in .010 increments or is that to small should I go .020 increments? Out to like .080 off?

 

[JD250]

And I'll also stick with the bags since that's what I've been doing since the start to keep everything consistent.

 

[sedancowboy]

If you are .005 off now then try .025 then .050 then .075. Again don't waste components or time with fine adjustments yet. I use .025 increments to simplify things Berger recommends .030 increments. Only after you see which your rifle favors then maybe do .010 up and down.

 

[Rflshootr]

I'd seat 3 rounds .015 further out, so .010 into the lands if you are positive that you are .005 off right now. Then .005 less so you're .005 in the lands. I wouldn't go any more then .010 in the lands on a hunting rifle or you may have a problem unloading a live round. Bergers, in my experience, like to be in the lands. If that doesn't work, then go the opposite direction. Look for pressure signs with the longest. At 82 or 82.3, I don't think you'll have a problem.
Here is a very cheap hunting rifle with a cheap barrel. Look at the difference .002 can make in group size. Large changes in seating depth can make you miss the node completely unless you happen to get lucky, especially with VLD style bullets. The bottom groups are .006 into the lands on this target. They were also shot with a 12x scope.

 

[Mikecr]

Look at the difference .002 can make in group size. Large changes in seating depth can make you miss the node completely unless you happen to get lucky, especially with VLD style bullets. The bottom groups are .006 into the lands on this target.

If the bottom groups were 6thou ITL, then your top groups were also ITL. That's not full seating testing, but seating tweaking.
Then where will you chase yourself 150 rounds from now, with lands moving?

Full seating testing really begins with finding a coarse window off the lands (OTL). That's what you can go into powder development with, or you can move into fine tweaking within that window, if you already know your best load.
If you already know that you need to be ITL for the load to work, then you just put it ITL and tweak seating for tightest group shape. No reason then to test anything OTL, as you already know your load needs a high starting pressure.

An important concept to understand about optimum seating testing, is that it's not load development.
Instead, optimum seating is a prerequisite to load development. And so are primers. You don't load develop with primer swapping either.
You load develop with powder and neck tension and/or a tuner.

 

[birddog 68]

Load 24 rounds at the following COAL if you are a hunter (pulling a bullet out of the case with your rifling while in the field can be a hunt ending event which must be avoided) or a competition shooter who worries about pulling a bullet during a match:
1. .010 off the lands (jump) 6 rounds
2. .050 off the lands (jump) 6 rounds
3. .090 off the lands (jump) 6 rounds
4. .130 off the lands (jump) 6 rounds

This is from Berger and is their recommended method for a HUNTING rifle. If you need to unload your rifle and it pulls out the bullet because it's jammed into the rifling you will have 80+ grains of a mess in your rifle.
It's your rifle and your choice.

 

[Rflshootr]

This is from Berger and is their recommended method for a HUNTING rifle. If you need to unload your rifle and it pulls out the bullet because it's jammed into the rifling you will have 80+ grains of a mess in your rifle.
It's your rifle and your choice.

I've tried this method, twice, on 2 different rifles. The problem I ran into, is that both rifles liked the bullet seated somewhere between their recommended seating depths. All the group sizes sucked at .010, .050, .090 and .130 off the lands. It didn't tell me anything except that I needed to be somewhere in between one of those seating depths. Which ones? Who knew at that point? What I did find out is that I needed to load more ammo between those seating depths and make another trip to the range. Both times with each rifle, those loads got me closer to something that looked promising but not exactly what I expected accuracy wise. So, multiple more trips to the range with more ammo, and more components used up as well as barrel life. Then once I hit a spot that I thought looked good, more trips to the range to do more load tweaking. To me, it's a chase your tail method and Berger is in business to sell bullets. Hundreds of rounds later, Eventually I got an epiphany to try seating depths toward the lands instead of away. BINGO! The groups shrank considerably. I keep my barrels clean, use .002 neck tension, and have never had a bullet pull that was .010 or less into the lands. On a new barrel, I start powder development with the bullet .010 into the lands, find the best charge weight, then tweak seating depth, then re-tweak the powder in tenths of a grain. Then, I run the load over the chrono to make sure the numbers are good (which they usually are) and to get a velocity average for a drop chart. It works for me. Your mileage may vary.

 

[birddog 68]

I've tried this method, twice, on 2 different rifles. The problem I ran into, is that both rifles liked the bullet seated somewhere between their recommended seating depths. All the group sizes sucked at .010, .050, .090 and .130 off the lands. It didn't tell me anything except that I needed to be somewhere in between one of those seating depths. Which ones? Who knew at that point? What I did find out is that I needed to load more ammo between those seating depths and make another trip to the range. Both times with each rifle, those loads got me closer to something that looked promising but not exactly what I expected accuracy wise. So, multiple more trips to the range with more ammo, and more components used up as well as barrel life. Then once I hit a spot that I thought looked good, more trips to the range to do more load tweaking. To me, it's a chase your tail method and Berger is in business to sell bullets. Hundreds of rounds later, Eventually I got an epiphany to try seating depths toward the lands instead of away. BINGO! The groups shrank considerably. I keep my barrels clean, use .002 neck tension, and have never had a bullet pull that was .010 or less into the lands. On a new barrel, I start powder development with the bullet .010 into the lands, find the best charge weight, then tweak seating depth, then re-tweak the powder in tenths of a grain. Then, I run the load over the chrono to make sure the numbers are good (which they usually are) and to get a velocity average for a drop chart. It works for me. Your mileage may vary.

Berger method has worked out well for 3 different loads in 2 rifles. That being said, I used a fair amount of bullets working up 2 of the loads.
Seems everyone does things a little (sometimes much) differently.
I was taught to stay at least .015-.020 off the lands for a hunting rifle and that's how I do it. Is it the only way…definitely not.

 

[Mark37082]

There has been a significant amount of good input here. As you can tell people go about load development differently. Sometimes you get lucky with a load on a new rifle. Sometimes you end up chasing your tail. With the shortage of components and prices we are now forced to pay, it can be frustrating. If you are planning on staying with Bergers in that weight and profile, you are at least limiting variables and can hopefully find the sweet spot in charge and seating depth. I like trying different bullets to find what that particular rifle prefers. If I get a consistent group around .5 MOA with minimal ES in velocity, I record this info and move on to the next challenge. However, I have found that some bullets just don't play well with a particular rifle. Good luck with your journey.

 

[Mikecr]

Where we observe in abstract so goes our understanding.
With this, there is no consensus about load development that passes all tests.
And for the past 100yrs this has not advanced one bit.

 

[JD250]

Ok guys bringing this thing back up as I finally got out to shoot today and do some seating depth testing. Had some big variations in seating depth, I took my 82.3 load and loaded from touching the lands to .100 off I'll post up the pic of the original load that was .005 off and I'll post my seating depth changes. Any input is greatly welcome and suggestions as to where to go next. I shot every round through the chrono except one round I forgot to write down my best group was .61 which I'm very happy with that if I can duplicate it.
Thanks!

 

[JD250]

 

[JD250]

I also took the advise from a lot of guys on here and shot off the bags again and send the lead sled back. I don't know if it's worth mentioning to All of these shots are being fired out of new Peterson brass. And I'll post a pic of my rifle so you guys know what I'm working with.

 

[Mikecr]

Those are crazy high ES numbers for sure.
You might work up powder now, at 75thou OTL, if your brass is finally stable.