Seeking empirical evidence to support or refute powder/seating-depth nodes

[sjt18]

I think "science" is used to answer the why. Why does the earth orbit the sun? Why did the apple fall to the ground? Curious people, much smarter than I, have been asking why? for thousands of years and then applying science to find an answer. I am just looking to do the same with my reloading methods.

Science never answers "why" questions. I think the word you might want to use is "how".

It works... so "how" does it work.... or maybe "what makes it effective"? Probably not going to be profitable though if folks turn to parsing sentences.

I think several of us get exactly what you mean. I wish you were getting more helpful responses. I could use some of that wisdom too.

 

[RichCoyle]

Equalizer,
I meant animosity towards the OP. I practice what he preaches.

 

[Csafisher]

Nah, I get what you were saying. The joke is on you.

The joke is thinking that old reloading techniques work better for old guns…..

 

[Equalizer]

Equalizer,
I meant animosity towards the OP. I practice what he preaches.

I believe you sir and the only reason I quoted your post was that you summarized his goal. I was referring to the less than cordial responses that had no informational value, other than a possible glimpse of that person's lack of character.

 

[FireFlyFishing]

The joke is thinking that old reloading techniques work better for old guns…..

I can go round and round with your superior intellect…but as you say why waste the time, right? Perhaps you should contribute to the community rather than throw stones at folks who have legitimate experience. I've been waiting to see anything of substance come from your posts. I'm sure they'll never surface as you troll away.

As others have noted prior to me, this thread sucks. Nothing to learn here.

I have better things to do like produce groups like these…with antiquated loading practices…

 

[Mike6158]

I can go round and round with your superior intellect…but as you say why waste the time, right? Perhaps you should contribute to the community rather than throw stones at folks who have legitimate experience. I've been waiting to see anything of substance come from your posts. I'm sure they'll never surface as you troll away.

As others have noted prior to me, this thread sucks. Nothing to learn here.

I have better things to do like produce groups like these…with antiquated loading practices…
View attachment 606902

I don't think it completely sucks
I mean.. there are those two targets that I posted. Aside from not terrible, probably one off groups, they also show the rotation of the shot string as powder charge increases, finally culminating in one group being less than 1/4 MOA, out of a new, mass produced, poorly made rifle. that demonstrates barrel timing or harmonics or whatever buzz word works.

Maybe I can improve that with seating depth? (probably can but won't). I guarantee you that I can make it worse

Or maybe I flinched perfectly (nope) but one doesn't flinch shooting a .223 bolt gun or subs in a .308 bolt gun. If they do, it's time to take up archery slingshots (don't want to get ripped up by a sensitive archery hunter. I used to bow hunt. When I moved back home from LA the trees were too crooked for my climbing stand and I kept falling out of it).

 

[biednick]

I'm probably going to regret wading into this dumpster fire, but the short answer is it doesn't exist. There's no good evidence seating depth has an impact on precision with modern hybrid ogive bullets. Secant VLDs are a different story, but that's part of why they're falling out of favor. lack of proof for the positive is not proof of the negative, so that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

That's the academic answer. The practical answer is to spend less time at the loading bench chasing that last 3% and more time at the range practicing in challenging conditions. That'll gain you significantly more than worrying about most of the tweaks folks try while reloading.

 

[Equalizer]

I have better things to do like produce groups like these…with antiquated loading practices…
View attachment 606902

Neat. We all got bug holes bro how many rounds did that take?

It's been stated over and over but I'll make it stark for those who don't get the point…


Is there a way to obtain this result, repeatedly, in fewer components and less time. Dude didn't say he couldn't get a tight group at 100

 

[Equalizer]

That's the academic answer. The practical answer is to spend less time at the loading bench chasing that last 3% and more time at the range practicing in challenging conditions. That'll gain you significantly more than worrying about most of the tweaks folks try while reloading.

Great post!!!

 

[Beluebow]

I shot this seating depth test two days ago because of this thread.

I screwed this 300wsm barrel on and used ammo from another gun that was pretty warm in this one,..think clickers/swipes hot. Row H--shot 10 foulers to start....then proceeded to shoot 1 shot per seating depth (.003 increments) in a round robin fashion. RL16/Berger 215Hy 2940ish. Mirage and wind moved the bullet more than the seating depth changes. IMO the whole test shows a big nothing burger with Hybrid style bullets. Powder charge is still number 1 priority for me....if you're struggling a seating depth change may help with other style bullets. But don't expect miracles with the hybrid style.

 

[Joe-boy]

Interesting topic though the OP definitely somehow managed to sound like a jerk

I've been reloading for >10 years which is not much, but my school of thought has moved towards thinking most of the tiny adjustments don't really make a difference. It's easy to test all kinds of stuff, but actually figuring out if there is any real difference is difficult. If I shove my cock in the left trunk or the right trunk of the trouser while shooting I'm sure I can fire a 5 or even 10 round group and prove this rifle prefers having the dick on the left. The target doesn't lie etc...

If you want to *consistently* shoot woth adequate accuracy, I'd say you need
- Good shooter
- Good quality barrel that is stiff=thick
- Consistent bullets
- Repeatable velocities which require repeatable powder charges.

I totally think barrel harmonics is true and one can adjust the load to match the harmonics. It is just a lot easier and more forgiving when the barrel is stiff, action is solid and the recoil is light. I have a .223 Varmint rifle that is almost immune to the load. It shoots anything pretty good and the effect of tweaking is minimal. Whereas my 30-06 pencil barrel may triple the group size if I change something.

I think a good rifle shoots almost anything good so it is insensitive for changes. Whereas a finicky rifle is very sensitive for any changes. A bad rifle benefits more from tweaking than a good rifle, but it won't last as something is always going to change and you'll have to tweak again.

I find this video interesting. He's not a benchrest shooter but he's been winning precision rifle contests so he can't be that wrong. His reload methods are less refined than mine and his load development is simpler than mine. Yet his groups are a lot better than mine. I think the reason is he has a custom built precision rifle whereas I mainly shoot 50 yo factory rifles. I don't think I can reach similar accuracy with tweaking my loads. I may get lucky and fire a real nice group occationally, but it just won't last.