Two primers different results

[Hatrick]

I am very interested in muleys testing. He was the one I followed to find my accubond load. If you can pry him away from his 200 gr load I am impressed. Again

 

[mtmuley]

Yep, that was me. Sometimes things fall together. Steve is right. I don't weigh or sort any component. Never have. I am meticulous though in my brass prep as he said. I chase velocity (don't we all?) so I tend to use powders that exhibit the best speed for a given bullet from the get-go. I did run the 199 up to about a 3200 fps average with good accuracy. This using a temp sensitive powder, Remington brass and a factory rifle from 1999 with (get this) a J-lock action and 10 twist. I'll take sub one inch in this ol RUM. I am going to push them a bit more as I haven't found pressure. I'm no expert, but sometimes it doesn't pay to sweat the small stuff. mtmuley

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Shooting at 100 yards, bullets would have to be really bad to see a difference. Your typical .003-.005 bearing surface variation in Bergers hardly shows up even at distance with a hunting rifle.

 

[mtmuley]

I am very interested in muleys testing. He was the one I followed to find my accubond load. If you can pry him away from his 200 gr load I am impressed. Again

I've killed a lot of elk with that Accubond load. But, Steve and I have been buds a long, long time. I think it will be pretty cool to smack a big Breaks bull with a Hammer. So, that's what I'm gonna do. mtmuley

 

[Rich Coyle]

Well... do you have a load that shows the capability of the rifle?
How do you know the velocity variance and fliers isn't from inconsistent brass capacity? How do you know it wasn't from inconsistent neck tension?
How do you know it wasn't from inconsistent bullet length/weight?
Positive standard should be,
Same weight sorted brass annealed effectively should be used every time, bullets sorted for weight length, and chamber/barrel temp kept the same. If not, then there can be reasonable doubt in your test.

I didn't read past your post, but will in a moment. Thanks for taking the time to help. When I was a boss I liked to be challenged by others. You aren't subordinate, but you made a sale. Up till now I used ignorant prejudice and sometimes it works. The targets confirm that.
Question 1, I don't.
Question 2, I don't.
Question 3, I don't.
Lucky for me, some of the loads are excellent for a wanna be. Because the velocities of the CCI250 are more consistent that is the primer I most likely will use. I think it will do about 3" at 500 yards.

After I take Sue to town I will fool with answering your question for myself.​

My flag.

 

[gohring3006]

I didn't read past your post, but will in a moment. Thanks for taking the time to help. When I was a boss I liked to be challenged by others. You aren't subordinate, but you made a sale. Up till now I used ignorant prejudice and sometimes it works. The targets confirm that.
Question 1, I don't.
Question 2, I don't.
Question 3, I don't.
Lucky for me, some of the loads are excellent for a wanna be. Because the velocities of the CCI250 are more consistent that is the primer I most likely will use. I think it will do about 3" at 500 yards.

After I take Sue to town I will fool with answering your question for myself.​

View attachment 100266

My flag.
View attachment 100267

Nothing personal Rich, One of my bad habits is questioning everything. I can't sleep knowing unanswered variables are injected into my tests. If I have doubt, then my test results are flawed and I won't use the resulting data.

Like I said, the test has to satisfy the tester, that's all that really matters.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I weighed several of the cases with the most velocity spread. There is .6 grains difference in water weight from the lightest water to the heaviest.

Since this is new to me, is this significant?

 

[gohring3006]

I weighed several of the cases with the most velocity spread. There is .6 grains difference in water weight from the lightest water to the heaviest.

Since this is new to me, is this significant?

To me, yes.
Is this over 5 cases? Or???
I would want my five standards to be with in .5 grain of water weight or less. It's easy enough for me to find five with in that range with a large lot of brass. Over a 100 cases, I would sort into probably three groups and depending on the rifles job will dictate how picky I am. I would aim for a three grain variance or less.
Edited to add; sorry Rich, I didn't read the decimal in your response. I thought it was a 6 grain variance. At .6 I would be confident I would get good data.

 

[Rich Coyle]

gohring3006

Thanks. It was nine cases. I weighed the two groups that had the most variation in velocity.

 

[David Lindler]

Interesting the slow Rem 9 1/2M hit outside the group. I like the hold on every shot.

View attachment 100234

I have always had best results federal gold medal match primers. More consistent groups.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I have always had best results federal gold medal match primers. More consistent groups.

In my .223 they came in last of the seven I tried. Every rifle is a new story.

 

[brentc]

I have always had best results federal gold medal match primers. More consistent groups.

The FGMMs are one of many great primers available. Often times they are the most consistent, but just as often they are not. It's best not to shortcut your load development based on the assumption that the "premium" product is the best.

 

[Rich Coyle]

In my .223 they came in last of the seven I tried. Every rifle is a new story.

Sorry, boys. I made a mistake. It came in next to last. The regular Federal came in last.

 

[HARPERC]

.......No bullet sorting needed. They are all the same within .0002". I took care of that when they were made. Only reason to sort Hammers is if you need the therapy. ......Steve

I've watched the process, and this is true.

I did weigh them etc. initially, but no more.