How much can i expect handloading to change the accuracy with a given bullet? And what are the performance of the average factory rifle with a variety

[stanginthe11s]

what theory did I present? again, I asked a ridiculously simple question that not one person can answer and now a question is a theory?

to answer your questions
1) 312 degrees
2) 2 thou. on the outside, just over .005 on the bore. micrometers
3) no, because its pointless and doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

are you able to answer the only question I asked?

 

[stanginthe11s]

ya know what, this is an issue with a lot of people here on the slide. no one ever cares to read the thread and then they jump to conclusions on what a person must "really" be saying. why not just read what was written and respond accordingly?
the question I asked was to one person only, but all you guys decided it must have meant something else. we'll let me tell you it didn't. but I'll gladly go with it and have some fun.

you guys spent all this time talking about how heat doesn't matter, then talking about how heat matters, then talking about how its physics but not, maybe it's a theory. and for what? just to prove that your own thoughts are valid? lol

since you guys have decided you know me better than I do, let me just correct you a little.
I don't blame poor shooting on heat or any one thing. can heat affect a barrel to a noticeable degree? yes
this has been proven and even form stated it. do I think you need 100 shot group to determine if a load is good or a rifle is reasonably accurate? not at all. do I think a 3 shot group is the best? no, that's why I don't use it. have I used 5 shot groups to determine a rifles ability? yes and my required accuracy can certainly be seen in those 5 shots. if you can't figure it out then that's a you problem not mine.

 

[grappling_hook]

are you able to answer the only question I asked?

The answer to at least one of your questions is as follows, which point has already been made in this thread: when shooting from field positions with a lightweight hunting rifle with a good stress-relieved barrel that is free floated and properly bedded, with sufficient group size, the groups shot on paper while the barrel is hot cannot be picked out from groups shot while the barrel is cold.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

@stanginthe11s

so you believe that a linear coefficient of thermal expansion, such as that for steel, produces a larger overall dimensional change for a smaller initial dimension than it does on a larger dimension? Or that heat constricts a hole in tube? Or are your bores somewhow larger than your external barrel? The dimensional changes you are guessing are completely and totally incorrect. Heating a tube makes the inside diameter larger, not smaller, but the inside diameter does not grow as much as the outside diameter.

Furthermore, you theorize that a symmetrical dimensional change somehow induces an unbalanced internal force and stresses changes the direction a cantilever beam is pointing? Use a free body diagram and try to defend that conclusion.

you have literally no idea what you're talking about on any of these points, and that's why people haven't been responding do you. you are incorrect on multiple basic scientific principles, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your assertations. Heat and harmonics exist. Lots of things exist - that doesn't make them causal to the issue at hand.

 

[Harvey_NW]

why not just read what was written and respond accordingly?

All of your questions have been answered accordingly, in fact most had pictures, data, source references, etc.

if you can't figure it out then that's a you problem not mine.

The fact that the answers don't align with your beliefs is definitely no one else's problem.

 

[stanginthe11s]

The answer to at least one of your questions is as follows, which point has already been made in this thread: when shooting from field positions with a lightweight hunting rifle with a good stress-relieved barrel that is free floated and properly bedded, with sufficient group size, the groups shot on paper while the barrel is hot cannot be picked out from groups shot while the barrel is cold.

I agree, thanks. never disagreed. wasn't the question I asked. next

so you believe that a linear coefficient of thermal expansion, such as that for steel, produces a larger overall dimensional change for a smaller initial dimension than it does on a larger dimension? Or that heat constricts a hole in tube? Or are your bores somewhow larger than your external barrel? The dimensional changes you are guessing are completely and totally incorrect. Heating a tube makes the inside diameter larger, not smaller, but the inside diameter does not grow as much as the outside diameter.

yes, heat can constrict a hole because simple physics dictates it. every action has an equal and opposite reaction. also, where again did I say the bore got smaller or larger? are you now telling me you acknowledge that metal expands and contracts when heated or cooled? or are you still saying dia. doesnt change and its not the most common way of fitting pressed parts.

Furthermore, you theorize that a symmetrical dimensional change somehow induces an unbalanced internal force and stresses changes the direction a cantilever beam is pointing? Use a free body diagram and try to defend that conclusion.

at no point did I theorize anything or even state that a barrel will change direction. that was all on you and your assumptions.

you have literally no idea what you're talking about on any of these points, and that's why people haven't been responding do you. you are incorrect on multiple basic scientific principles, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your assertations. Heat and harmonics exist. Lots of things exist - that doesn't make them causal to the issue at hand.

so im wrong on scientific principals? which ones are those? that metals expand and contract? but you just said they did, now its wrong? hmmm

All of your questions have been answered accordingly, in fact most had pictures, data, source references, etc.

all of my questions? I only asked 1 question. and in fact it was about a pic that was posted.
it had nothing to do with any of the crap that you guys have spouted out. READ

The fact that the answers don't align with your beliefs is definitely no one else's problem.

the answer to the question I asked has nothing to do with beliefs. I dont have any beliefs or care one way or another how many shots you guys take or where and how you do it.
you clearly have me confused with someone else.

 

[stanginthe11s]

again, learn to read. the question I asked was to 1 person only and had nothing to do with any of the stuff you guys are talking about.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

2) 2 thou. on the outside, just over .005 on the bore. micrometers

that's you making an objectively false assertation. I'm gonna go ahead and click my favorite rokslide button now, goodbye.

 

[stanginthe11s]

in my aggravation I will give you the fact that I left off a 0. it was supposed to be .0005 or half a thou.
go figure, the one thing that gets read is the simplest typo lol

 

[Harvey_NW]

all of my questions? I only asked 1 question. and in fact it was about a pic that was posted.
it had nothing to do with any of the crap that you guys have spouted out. READ

Well you asked multiple questions in this thread, but since you're being specific

ok, I'm confused about one thing. @Formidilosus, you are showing multiple targets and asking which one is cold vs hot. all are visually different, yet you say there is no difference hot or cold. so what's up?

Ok. Which one is which? This should be easy if a hot barrel resulted in the groups “walking” or opening up. That is, if cold barrel produces a result that is different in point of impact, or relevant group size, then it should be no problem to say which is cold and which is hot.


Guns do not shoot to a point, the shoot to a cone. Shoot enough rounds and they produce a round group. Overlay the two 5 round targets and it starts to look more round because you are starting to see the cone fill in. The reason the groups “look” different is because 5 shots isn’t enough to see the real group size- it’s random impacts inside the total cone.

Post #92 - your question, his response. READ.

 

[stanginthe11s]

harvey, I did not ask multiple questions. I understand that between us I put things in a question form, but they were not actually meant to be real questions.

the one question I asked, you finally found, but answering a question with a question is not an answer.
at no point did I say anything about heat changing point of impact in that question. nor did I debate it or debate group size. that was something that everyone here just decided must be what I meant. it's not.
I even stated that it didn't matter which was which, and that barrel heat may or may not make a noticeable difference.
so again, what is the point of posting groups of hot vs cold if it doesn't matter? why make people guess? and if someone wants to debate it, then visually the 2 are different so it does nothing to prove a point. in fact, since one can see a difference between those 5 shot groups one could easily assume heat could have caused that, whether it's true or not.
so, this is why I asked, it would have been better to just not post the pics and explain it because it didn't help. honestly, I expected form to say he shot all of those groups the same way and it was just a test.
instead, you guys went off on some assumption and continued to make even more.
again, I never debated anything or had beliefs about anything. yes, I stated that heat plays a part in all of it, because it does however small it is. and a crappy pencil barrel can walk due to heat, but a good barrel should not. the only way to know what you have is to get it hot and see what happens. or just buy a good barrel. so, when guys say heat caused a problem, well it very well could have.

also, I will admit I continued to pour gas on the fire. it gets annoying to constantly see people make assumptions and then debate it. the OP asked 2 simple reloading questions and it turned into 3 vs 5 vs 30 shot groups and heat issues. I don't even know if the OP got any good answers to his questions.

 

[stanginthe11s]

no, I was asking why he put those pics up and try to get people to guess which is which. it is pointless and would prove nothing. the fact that visually they are all different just leaves it open for interpretation and someone could easily say that heat or cold caused those variations. showing visually different groups and then saying one was hot and one was cold goes against the statement that heat has no bearing.
I was not saying heat caused the differences, many things make a group from the shooter, the gun and environment but without being there someone can only go by what has been said and shown, which is 2 visually different groups. the expected answer was all groups were shot the same therefore proving it doesn't matter. or at the very least tell everyone which is which, so they see it doesn't matter.

 

[philos]

Not to take sides or interfere at all but once a thread disintegrates like this one has-you may be better served creating a new thread with a simplified specific post. Once folks get all emotional and keyboard riots break out the useful information goes awry.

 

[fwafwow]

lol, I need to hire a meme master.

 

[ssimo]

Also, what's the moa of a 1 shot group? Isn't it zero by definition?

You must be joking

 

[ssimo]

Not to take sides or interfere at all but once a thread disintegrates like this one has-you may be better served creating a new thread with a simplified specific post. Once folks get all emotional and keyboard riots break out the useful information goes awry.

I agree 100%. Everything went OT very quickly. By the way a 3 shots group is plenty to.. ahah i am joking.

 

[Turkeytider]

For a hunting rifle, the only shot that matters to be sub-moa is the first shot, cold barrel.

I agree. That`s why accuracy ( POA vs. POI ) is more important than precision ( group size ) in a dedicated hunting rifle IMHO.

 

[Harvey_NW]

I agree. That`s why accuracy ( POA vs. POI ) is more important than precision ( group size ) in a dedicated hunting rifle IMHO.

The 2 coincide, you can't be accurate with poor precision.

 

[FLHunter87]

Loaded question and a lot of different answers.

For my opinion.
Factory lot to lot can be a big difference in zero. But usually group size can be nearly the same. My mom uses the Hornady Superformance SST for her 243. We shot different lots and the average zero change has been 3" high or 3" low and usually 2-4" either left or right. Which I found to be pretty crazy. But grouping was consistent at .5" with the factory ammo.

Reloading will always give you the most consistency. You will develop to your rifle and make everything exactly the same. I haven't found a bullet I bought that I couldn't tailor to. In my opinion, powder plays a bigger role to finding accuracy at first.
An example is my 6.5 PRC I was loading with 142ABLR. I started with Retumbo powder. After seating tests( I tried roughly 10 different depths) the best accuracy I got was .8" and I believe that was the best because I got multiple seating depths at that size. I went to a little faster powder in H1000 and started over. Immediately noticed groups cut down to .5" down to .3". All I did was switch powder and start at the base of seating depth that was recommended for bullet. With Retumbo, I shot roughly 140x. With H1000 I shot 40x. Now I learned this, and I'm a bigger believer in powder makes a difference. Seating can fine tune the load. But after so much you'll see the pattern.

 

[Pony Soldier]

I have avoided threads like this as there are substantialy more opinions than I like to play with. I have found over the years that testing loads on 0.1 gr intervals, the groups would open up and then close and then open up again. By doing these intervals, I found I could load to my maximum accuracy on a consistant basis.

The probability of a commercial load reaching that consistancy by accident is not reasonable. The last commercial box of shells I shot had a vertical variance of 3 inches. My reloaded shells at worst are .3-.5 moa. Last year I shot 3 rounds through the same hole at 100 yds. I would guess part of that is my testing and the rest is what my barrel likes.

Reloading has worked for me for 60 years. I don't think I could ever go back to commercial shells.