If your monster magnum shoots that good with 0.25 jump, why worry about 0.0005?
Seating depth variation
- Thread starter nksmfamjp
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
This will be a hard pill to swallow for many, as our personal opinions on reloading are as deeply held as many religious beliefs. I was in the same camp as everyone on this thread, fussing over seating depth. Having an engineering and medical background I approach reloading from a science based perspective. I have never been able to understand or reconcile the fact that there are so many various reloading techniques that all produce sub quarter MOA results. Everyone claims their particular technique is the best way to make small groups. But from a scientific perspective, if 4 or 5 different reloading processes produce identical results, then the process itself can't be as critical to the end result as we think. So which steps in the loading process truly affect group size?
I recently read the following article and then listened to Hornady Podcasts #50 and #52 and the answer to the question became crystal clear. I no longer worry about seating depth. What you see in 3 to 5 shot group sizes is statistically invalid, nothing but noise and not a reliable judge of what your rifle is truly doing.
Rifle Nodes: How You’ve Been Wasting Your Time and Money on Load Development
Everything you know about rifle nodes and load development might be wrong. Click here to see the results for yourself.www.outdoorlife.com
Hornady can say anything they please. And they Do.
I'll be listening to the consistent results I get on paper, steel and live targets time after time and year after year, and I won't forget the real results.
Guess I'm just " lucky"?
I'll be listening to the consistent results I get on paper, steel and live targets time after time and year after year, and I won't forget the real results.
Guess I'm just " lucky"?
Last edited:
With the Wbees I don't. Just load to mag length.
rogerstv
Well-Known Member
I do this too. I measure every bullet. Only those at the proper CBTO go in the ammo box. All others are adjusted until they match. A quality seating die produces repeatable results. Always an outlier or two which is why I measure every one. It's one of the variables I can control.
The only thing Weatherby got right was high velocity with acceptable pressure. And that was the goal.
Precision was not, is not, and never will be associated with the long free-bore design, hugely over-bore cases and screaming velocity. Freaks do exist, a tiny percentage of the total.
VenatusDominus
Well-Known Member
I don't think you are lucky, I think you have found, through testing, a powder/bullet combo that shoots well in your rifle. What the statistics show, from large sample sizes, is "that changes in seating depth, like charge weight, didn't result in any meaningful changes in accuracy" across large group sizes, and the accuracy changes you are seeing across small sample sizes are not representative of what the rifle is really doing.
Tyler Freel from OutdoorLife has no affiliation with Hornady and confirmed their science with his own independent study. That is how we do things in the world of science. We study a problem and publish our findings so that others can independently prove or disprove the accuracy (pun intended) of our results.
Last edited:
Here's the good news. If the amount of jump, for the most part, doesn't matter, then everyone is right. We'll all think we have the magic formula. And in a way we'll be right. But we may have wasted resources that could have been better spent elsewhere.
If monster bees shoot beyond great at whatever jump, then most everything will work, 0.25 or 0.025. It's extremely difficult to shoot 0.5 moa at 1,000 yards with a heavy target rifle and mild chamberings much less a monster hunting rifle.
If monster bees shoot beyond great at whatever jump, then most everything will work, 0.25 or 0.025. It's extremely difficult to shoot 0.5 moa at 1,000 yards with a heavy target rifle and mild chamberings much less a monster hunting rifle.
Last edited:
If depth doesn't matter, how do I predictably change the shape of groups with seating depth adjustments?
That goes for all my rifles.
Not the last one I tinkered with
I've never strived for adjustments lessthan .003 at a time.
That might change with better equipment though.
That goes for all my rifles.
Not the last one I tinkered with
I've never strived for adjustments lessthan .003 at a time.
That might change with better equipment though.
VenatusDominus
Well-Known Member
If you shoot larger samples sizes, 20-30, you will see that the group shape is not changing. Small sample size group (3-5 shot) shape changes are just random bullet dispersions within the cone of fire. It is all laid out in the studies I posted and makes perfect sense when you think about it.If depth doesn't matter, how do I predictably change the shape of groups with seating depth adjustments?
That goes for all my rifles.
Not the last one I tinkered with
I've never strived for adjustments lessthan .003 at a time.
That might change with better equipment though.
I am not saying that your method of reloading doesn't produce results. It obviously works for you, without dispute. What I am saying is that it may not work for the reasons you believe, and that there may be an easier way to get the same accuracy results with a lot less work. My time is valuable, as I assume is yours. If I can get the same results with fewer steps and less work, then I am all for that. For me, the way to do that is to science the @#$% out of it. I am simple trying to share some information that, while it goes against some long held dogma in reloading, has been proven through the scientific method.
Last edited:
