Polishing a body die?

[Mikecr]

Let me try this one Larry.
-If you adjust the body die down carefully to just sneak into your bump, you're doing as good as you can with that die(good results or bad).
-If you go past this a schmidge, and depending on your shoulder angle & clearances, it's possible to lose that normal shoulder bump, as the shoulder-body area is taking energy to counter the bump. The body wants to squeeze the shoulder back forward. And if you pull a case and measure at that point, you might get the notion that your case needs FURTHER insertion to bump.
-So, if you now adjust the die down further, you reach a point of re-forming the case body, and yes, your bump returns(but not with any precision/consistency). The side effect you might notice here, is excess sizing low on the case(cause you're trying to re-form the poor thing).

Bumping can be tricky. Throw different lubes into it, and different presses, and precision in bumping can amount to local skill..
I have everything hammered out just right, for each chamber, and I keep every tool in a kit for each chamber. This includes separate dies, shell holders, any shims, gizzys, etc.
I like custom dies and they're actually less expensive than the top factory dies.

 

[Mikecr]

It just happens that a thread was just started here, and a new reloader illustrates my point above:

I have tight match chamber and when I use my body die to re-size the bodies, most of the time it leaves me with a fairly difficult to close bolt. I called Redding to ask why their die would not resize my brass, and they said, that because of my chamber I need to turn my die down incrementally until the brass fit in with just a very small amount of resistance. I have done that and now the brass fits in there perfectly.

He just went a schmidge past where he needed to be with the die.

 

[Innovative]

Mikecr .....

- You should not be able to "feel" the bolt close on your handloads - not even a little bit.

- I don't know what a smidge measures, but I suspect the dimension of most smidges would account for inconsistent results. (It's much more accurate to deal with thousandths of an inch.)

- A case shoulder should NEVER have lube on it - not even a little bit.

- Your case necks should have the absolute least amount of lube possible.

- If you "Measure" your shoulder clearance, you'll quickly see how easy it is to get consistent results.

 

[Pdvdh]

Mikecr .....

- You should not be able to "feel" the bolt close on your handloads - not even a little bit.

- A case shoulder should NEVER have lube on it - not even a little bit.

- Your case necks should have the absolute least amount of lube possible.

Been reloading for 40+ years. I knew the concern about loading the bolt with pressure could negatively affect consistency and accuracy. Although I sometimes allow the faintest hint of bolt closing resistance before bumping the shoulder back.

Never read or heard about the no lube on the lube on the case shoulder recommendation. I suppose that's to avoid indentations on the shoulder while resizing? I usually lightly lube my case necks after cleaning the carbon off and resizing with bushing dies.

 

[Bullet bumper]

One thing I do notice is that between Larry and Bart all other opinion is stifled and stompped on .
There is nothing wrong with having very slight resistance as the bolt closes been doing it that way for ever . At least you know you have not got excess " HEAD CLEARANCE "
I don't see BR shooters resizing the case body after every shot which is what you would have to do to maintain a perfect shoulder clearance anyway on every shot so it's going to tighten progressivly anyway shot after shot .
I think the big problem here is you don't need some expensive tool to do it that way .
Some reloaders are so fanatical that they NEED to measure everything and need that number to quote to the world to convince themselves that there is no other way .
I don't have a problem with that as one size does not fit all and everyone has their favourite way to do things but notice how it's always the fanatic that says there is only one way .

 

[Bart B]

My issue with any bolt binding on chambered rounds is, the bolt won't lock up to the exact same place for each shot. This is a common issue with tight fitting bottleneck cases in rifles whose bolt faces are not squared up shooting previously fired cases with out of square case heads. However, if one accepts the accuracy such processes produce, fine. I'm only mentioning a pit fall.

More and more benchresters are full length sizing their fired cases bumping shoulders back about .001" and sizing case bodies down the same amount; check this link out:

6PPC Cartridge Guide

Then pay close attention to the part that reads:

Most top 6PPC competitors run their ammo at pretty high pressures. Such pressures demand that cases be full-length sized each time they are loaded. But the trick is sizing the case just enough to allow proper feeding/extraction and no more. To achieve this perfect fit, nearly all the "top guns" use custom dies, precisely fitted to the dimensions of fired brass. Typically, a custom sizing die will reduce the case diameter at the shoulder .00075" to .001". The die will also allow for a little bit of shoulder bump. Nearly all the top shooters use bushings for neck-sizing. Having a variety of bushing allows you to compensate for brass that becomes work-hardened. You can also use bushings to tune loads for different bullets or conditions (tighter "grip" tends to increase pressure).

The top competitors shooting rifles of their shoulder in position matches have been winning them and setting records with proper full length sized cases for decades. Their ammo in their guns shoot just as accurate as the long range benchrest rigs do.

I've always lubed case shoulders; necks, too. Nary a problem doing so that caused any bad things whatsoever.

 

[TOM H]

My issue with any bolt binding on chambered rounds is, the bolt won't lock up to the exact same place for each shot. This is a common issue with tight fitting bottleneck cases in rifles whose bolt faces are not squared up shooting previously fired cases with out of square case heads. However, if one accepts the accuracy such processes produce, fine. I'm only mentioning a pit fall.

More and more benchresters are full length sizing their fired cases bumping shoulders back about .001" and sizing case bodies down the same amount; check this link out:

6PPC Cartridge Guide

Then pay close attention to the part that reads:



The top competitors shooting rifles of their shoulder in position matches have been winning them and setting records with proper full length sized cases for decades. Their ammo in their guns shoot just as accurate as the long range benchrest rigs do.

I've always lubed case shoulders; necks, too. Nary a problem doing so that caused any bad things whatsoever.

Bart B, your comments really surprise me and I'm glad that you acknowledge the BR shooters and their winning and setting record with proper full length sizing dies for decades and their guns shoot just as accurate as the LR Benchrest rifles.

I'm sure you go back and correct this post about the new record of .0077" as just being
luck as you called in and case you forget here it is

Such groups are mostly luck, in my opinion, otherwise they would be commonplace. They happen about as often as the largest group fired by the rifle and shooter producing the record smallest one. All the other groups' sizes are between those extremes. Having once put 5 shots into about an inch at 1000 yard using aperture sights slung up in prone, there's no way I would claim that any sort of accuracy excellence; it was pure luck as the shots were not called that close together.

 

[Bart B]

I'm glad that you acknowledge the BR shooters and their winning and setting record with proper full length sizing dies for decades and their guns shoot just as accurate as the LR Benchrest rifles.

I never said nor put in print that BR shooters won and set records with full length sizing dies for decades. You got mixed up reading my comment that another rifle shooting discipline had done that. Proof's shown in my comments you quoted. Please read them again, then figure out how you got mixed up.

I'm sure you go back and correct this post about the new record of .0077" as just being
luck....

No, I won't. Here's why.

Both the biggest and smallest groups shot by benchresters or any other shooter, statistically speaking, are luck. It's like rolling dice. Out of 100 rolls, the fewest results will be snake eyes and boxcars as the odds are equal for each; one a big number and the other's a small one. One extreme happens just as often, statistically, as the other. No benchrester knows ahead of time what size group will be shot. Their shooting system has a lot of variables. Only when they all cancel each other out or all are at zero spread are single few-shot groups the smallest; there's no way to tell which one it is.

The facts are that their largest ones shot in aggregate matches exist, but are rarely publically acknowledged nor considered by people talking about accuracy. But it's easy to estimate how much bigger the largest group was in agg. records or scores. And the more groups shot in an agg. match, the bigger the average is that's put on the board. To say nothing about the fact that everyone elses agg. and individual groups are larger than the records. And rarely does a single few-shot record holder also hold a many-group aggregate record; which should tell folks something about the odds that allowed that record to come out of a system comprising rifle, ammo and shooter.

All the above aside, the odds of a good shooter, ammo, rifle and conditions all coming together at the same time increase the odds of a single, few-shot group being the tiniest ever. So all the stuff involved has to be the best available. When it happens, it's still at the small end of that system's statistical curve. When all the variables add up in the same direction, the single group size or many group aggregate size will be the biggest ever.

I don't think all of this is very hard to understand and acknowledge. Which is why I'll applaud the person who shot the smallest aggregate group average comprising the most many-shot groups. For example, the NBRSA 1000-yard six 10-shot group agg record's 6.406 inches. Which tells me his groups ranged from about 9 inches (or more) on down to around 3 inches (or less). Compare that to the record single 5-shot group of 1.473 inch.

 

[TOM H]

I never said nor put in print that BR shooters won and set records with full length sizing dies for decades. You got mixed up reading my comment that another rifle shooting discipline had done that. Proof's shown in my comments you quoted. Please read them again, then figure out how you got mixed up.

No, I won't. Here's why.

Both the biggest and smallest groups shot by benchresters or any other shooter, statistically speaking, are luck. It's like rolling dice. Out of 100 rolls, the fewest results will be snake eyes and boxcars as the odds are equal for each; one a big number and the other's a small one. One extreme happens just as often, statistically, as the other. No benchrester knows ahead of time what size group will be shot. Their shooting system has a lot of variables. Only when they all cancel each other out are single few-shot groups the smallest.

The facts are that their largest ones shot in aggregate matches exist, but are rarely publically acknowledged nor considered by people talking about accuracy. But it's easy to estimate how much bigger the largest group was in agg. records or scores. And the more groups shot in an agg. match, the bigger the average is that's put on the board. To say nothing about the fact that everyone elses agg. and individual groups are larger than the records. And rarely does a single few-shot record holder also hold a many-group aggregate record; which should tell folks something about the odds that allowed that record to come out of a system comprising rifle, ammo and shooter.

All the above aside, the odds of a good shooter, ammo, rifle and conditions all coming together at the same time increase the odds of a single, few-shot group being the tiniest ever. So all the stuff involved has to be the best available. When it happens, it's still at the small end of that system's statistical curve. When all the variables add up in the same direction, the single group size or many group aggregate size will be the biggest ever.

I don't think all of this is very hard to understand and acknowledge.

Well since you don't post on the BR site or follow it but they do post match results here is good example
2013 Super Shoot Results

I can say the same for what you shoot which is a score shoot bases on points vs group. Your agg on 3 targets 15 shot each @ 800yd/900yd and 1000yd if it was based on group would agg maybe 3ft that be 36" group and it could go higher and it may go to 20"

Your on a long range hunting site giving advise about accuracy when we all shoot groups. Your X ring is 10" and 10 ring is 20" and 9 ring is 30". I don't know many here that would consider 30" groups at 1000yd an accurate Long Range hunting rifle or consider loading for a rifle like that.

I guess if we all hunted with F-Class Palma rifle and shot prone we be talking apples to apples.

 

[Bart B]

Your on a long range hunting site giving advise about accuracy when we all shoot groups. Your X ring is 10" and 10 ring is 20" and 9 ring is 30". I don't know many here that would consider 30" groups at 1000yd an accurate Long Range hunting rifle or consider loading for a rifle like that.

They might shooting off the shoulder slung up in prone without a rest shooting 20 to 30 shots in a string.

Few, if any, folks shooting a benchrest rig in a shoulder-fired prone match on bullseye targets would place in the top half of the scores.

Thanks for posting that link to some groups at a match. I've asked several stool shooters (some record holders) to send me such a link so I could see all the group sizes shot. One agg record holder did not tell me the largest group size shot in that record; he wouldn't even go close to letting me know that 'cause it was probably huge. Nobody's done that, 'cept for you. I appreciate that.

 

[TOM H]

They might shooting off the shoulder slung up in prone without a rest shooting 20 to 30 shots in a string.

Few, if any, folks shooting a benchrest rig in a shoulder-fired prone match on bullseye targets would place in the top half of the scores.

Bart B, were talking about what you shoot which is score vs group and this is a long range hunting site you may have forgotten that and we do base accuracy on groups not score.

Your the one that claiming all this reloading experience but based on score shooting and the point system your loads are accurate for what you shoot. Maybe some here don't realize the size of the target you shoot and when you figure 10 points = 20" and that shot could be anywhere within that dia.

 

[Bart B]

Your the one that claiming all this reloading experience but based on score shooting and the point system your loads are accurate for what you shoot.

Wrong again.

I base my experience and methods in reloading in group shooting testing rifles and ammo. Included are what other who shoot bullseye targets for score but base their reloading methods and experience on testing rifles and ammo shooting groups. Why do you think many would test their rifles and ammo from a machine rest to eliminate all the human variables? But a good marksman can fairly accurately determin the group-shooting ability of a 1/2 MOA rifle and ammo system when he shoots it into 1.5 MOA on a bullseye target. I think you're smart enough to figure out how this is done without me having to explain how. And shooting prone like the F-class folks do, slung up with fixed support under the stock's fore end and toe, an otherwise bullseye shooter can have a hold area on paper under 1/10th MOA; sometimes smaller. While not virtually zero MOA like benchresters have with their rifles resting still atop bags and rests, that's good enough to eliminate 95% of the human error.

A lot of my insights into reloading for accuracy came from from an old friend I've shot many a match with, Martin James Hull, Sierra Bullets' first ballistic tech. He's probably reloaded more rifle cartridges of all types and shot them in more rifle types, as well as rail guns testing them for accuracy standards, than anyone else on this planet. If he got their best match bullets shot into the ones at 100 yards from unprepped cases and no load workup for different lots of components using good full length sizing tools and techniques, that carries weight in my judgement bag.

It may not matter that a bullseye shooter testing his stuff group shooting several sub 1/4th MOA 10-shot groups at 600 yards with the rifle free recoiling, has, at his best, kept all 60 shots over three 20 shot matches shooting prone off the shoulder inside 1-1/2 MOA on all three targets shooting prone. While my own long range prone rifles and ammo will shoot sub 1/2 MOA in near free-recoil tests at 800 or 1000 yards, my best scores on bullseye targets had group sizes a bit about 2 MOA.

 

[TOM H]

Wrong again.

I base my experience and methods in reloading in group shooting testing rifles and ammo. Included are what other who shoot bullseye targets for score but base their reloading methods and experience on testing rifles and ammo shooting groups. Why do you think many would test their rifles and ammo from a machine rest to eliminate all the human variables? But a good marksman can fairly accurately determin the group-shooting ability of a 1/2 MOA rifle and ammo system when he shoots it into 1.5 MOA on a bullseye target. I think you're smart enough to figure out how this is done without me having to explain how. And shooting prone like the F-class folks do, slung up with fixed support under the stock's fore end and toe, an otherwise bullseye shooter can have a hold area on paper under 1/10th MOA; sometimes smaller. While not virtually zero MOA like benchresters have with their rifles resting still atop bags and rests, that's good enough to eliminate 95% of the human error.

A lot of my insights into reloading for accuracy came from from an old friend I've shot many a match with, Martin James Hull, Sierra Bullets' first ballistic tech. He's probably reloaded more rifle cartridges of all types and shot them in more rifle types, as well as rail guns testing them for accuracy standards, than anyone else on this planet. If he got their best match bullets shot into the ones at 100 yards from unprepped cases and no load workup for different lots of components using good full length sizing tools and techniques, that carries weight in my judgement bag.

It may not matter that a bullseye shooter testing his stuff group shooting several sub 1/4th MOA 10-shot groups at 600 yards with the rifle free recoiling, has, at his best, kept all 60 shots over three 20 shot matches shooting prone off the shoulder inside 1-1/2 MOA on all three targets shooting prone. While my own long range prone rifles and ammo will shoot sub 1/2 MOA in near free-recoil tests at 800 or 1000 yards, my best scores on bullseye targets had group sizes a bit about 2 MOA.

Bart you just don't get it that this is a long range hunting site and majority of shooters are groups shooters and were not really into 20/15 shots 20" or larger groups.

You may shoot all the small moa at practice but for some reason you can't shot them at a match and in a LR hunting rifle first shot counts.

That's all I got to say.

 

[apexmtnman]

TOM H what does bench rest shooting have to do with long range hunting? What does shooting a 60-80 lb rail gun at a target have to do with long range hunting? Barts discipline of shooting 600-800-1000 yards with a sling and open sights has a heck of a lot more to do with field shooting than bench rest any day. Until you can put 20 rounds in 3.325 inches at 800 yards like Bart has then maybe I'll listen to you, until then I think I'll listen to Bart as I know he is very knowledgeable and has helped me with a lot of reloading questions by just reading his posts.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.guns/iL7zv-cktJc/Uow_LL-o2dwJ