Painless load development (mine)

[Formidilosus]

Ha! Just today realized it was a rabbit hole you hadn’t chased.

Listen. You are supposed to know what I need at all times and inform me thusly.

Don’t let it happen again sir.

 

[HighUintas]

I bet you could get some loading done on that, but I probably won't be switching in that direction personally.



The fancy scale is nice for testing, and I'm also convinced it can shrink vertical at distance some if you're being picky. It certainly isn't necessary, but I like nice tools and only have 1.3 hobbies.

Have you tested the Lee thrower at all? I realize the adjustability wouldn't be as slick as the Harrell, but I'f it throws consistent weights I'd probably give it a try.

 

[Carl Ross]

Listen. You are supposed to know what I need at all times and inform me thusly.

Don’t let it happen again sir.

Copy that.

Have you tested the Lee thrower at all? I realize the adjustability wouldn't be as slick as the Harrell, but I'f it throws consistent weights I'd probably give it a try.

So…the RCBS I used to have and the Hornady shown both cut/bind on extruded kernels pretty hard, and are behind the curve on accuracy, but have micrometer adjustments that seem repeatable. The Harrell’s will bind a little but it’s pretty mild, and has a great micrometer.

The only Lee I’ve “used” is the one that is part of the AutoTrickler, so that’s a pretty different experience. What I’ve heard is that the design doesn’t really bind even with big extruded powders, which is why Adam picked it for the AutoTrickler. I see no great repeatable adjustment available for it (though I haven’t gone looking) which really would change the use case for me. If I was really tight on funds but loading hundreds of the same load at a time (two statements that really don’t go together) I could see fiddling with it enough to get it dialed in but that’s trying pretty hard to find a situation where it might make sense.

For a regular thrower with a mostly unmarked screw for an adjustment, I feel similar to what Form initially expressed, you aren’t likely to have a good experience.

 

[Formidilosus]

The results of the 5 different seating depth rounds. From 2.662” to 2.765” COAL.

.66 MOA

 

[Harvey_NW]

The results of the 5 different seating depth rounds. From 2.662” to 2.765” COAL.

.66 MOA

View attachment 615367

@Flyjunky

 

[Firth]

The only Lee I’ve “used” is the one that is part of the AutoTrickler, so that’s a pretty different experience. What I’ve heard is that the design doesn’t really bind even with big extruded powders, which is why Adam picked it for the AutoTrickler. I see no great repeatable adjustment available for it (though I haven’t gone looking) which really would change the use case for me. If I was really tight on funds but loading hundreds of the same load at a time (two statements that really don’t go together) I could see fiddling with it enough to get it dialed in but that’s trying pretty hard to find a situation where it might make sense.

For a regular thrower with a mostly unmarked screw for an adjustment, I feel similar to what Form initially expressed, you aren’t likely to have a good experience.

The Lee perfect powder measure has a "micrometer adjustable metering chamber". I doubt it's as repeatable as the high-end measures but haven't tested. To me it just feels a little sloppy, which is what I'm basing my guess on. I used the basic model for years and then bought a deluxe. I think they are worth it for what they are.

They make an auto-drum for use on Turret presses that has no adjustment markings. That takes some guess and check to set up, but the drums are cheap so I just buy extra and set up a drum for a specific load and never mess with it again.

 

[Flyjunky]

@Flyjunky

I’ll bet that would change depending on bullet and chamber design as well. Older, sloppier chambers would probably be more finicky and then add in short bearing surface/long ogive bullets. Like Miles said, a big key to accuracy was how straight the bullet entered the lands. Add in the factors I mentioned above and it comes down to many variables where blanket statements can’t be made.

Regardless, .66 MOA is not a small amount.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’ll bet that would change depending on bullet and chamber design as well. Older, sloppier chambers would probably be more finicky and then add in short bearing surface/long ogive bullets. Like Miles said, a big key to accuracy was how straight the bullet entered the lands. Add in the factors I mentioned above and it comes down to many variables where blanket statements can’t be made.

The issue is that no one has proven it, or been able to prove it with statistical sample sizes, and proven the difference repeatable. Only those people who haven’t done blind 20+ shot groups say that seating depth in general makes any legitimate difference. Everyone that has tried has come to the same conclusion- relatively small changes- including seating depth has little to no legitimate effect on true precision. Only in small sample sizes for sit appear that way, and it can not be repeated.

Regardless, .66 MOA is not a small amount.

.66 MOA is a large group?

 

[Hagas4all]

The results of the 5 different seating depth rounds. From 2.662” to 2.765” COAL.

.66 MOA

View attachment 615367

I am sure your test is showing what you’re intending. I have bought in to your theories on cone of rifle and 10 shot minimum after seeing results.
As it relates to come size and number of shots for significance does that matter here? Would one shot at a depth need 9 more to compare against the baseline group size seating depth? And the other 4 depths needing the same?
I am not intending to come across overly technical here. Just trying to piece together how this all works.

Thanks!

 

[amassi]

I am sure your test is showing what you’re intending. I have bought in to your theories on cone of rifle and 10 shot minimum after seeing results.
As it relates to come size and number of shots for significance does that matter here? Would one shot at a depth need 9 more to compare against the baseline group size seating depth? And the other 4 depths needing the same?
I am not intending to come across overly technical here. Just trying to piece together how this all works.

Thanks!

If you did that all 50 at 5 different lengths would fall into the cone. Seating depth tinkering is a total waste of components and time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Flyjunky]

The issue is that no one has proven it, or been able to prove it with statistical sample sizes, and proven the difference repeatable. Only those people who haven’t done blind 20+ shot groups say that seating depth in general makes any legitimate difference. Everyone that has tried has come to the same conclusion- relatively small changes- including seating depth has little to no legitimate effect on true precision. Only in small sample sizes for sit appear that way, and it can not be repeated.





.66 MOA is a large group?

My bad, I thought it was saying between 2.662 - 2.765 there was a .66 difference.

 

[Hagas4all]

So if brass, primer and seating depth don’t matter what does?

Powder, bullet and barrel?

 

[amassi]

So if brass, primer and seating depth don’t matter what does?

Powder, bullet and barrel?

So if brass, primer and seating depth don’t matter what does?

Powder, bullet and barrel?

Bingo
Get the right combination and it’s gonna work.
Save the time and components on shooting for practice and not glued to a flat range chasing tenths


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I am sure your test is showing what you’re intending. I have bought in to your theories on cone of rifle and 10 shot minimum after seeing results.
As it relates to come size and number of shots for significance does that matter here? Would one shot at a depth need 9 more to compare against the baseline group size seating depth? And the other 4 depths needing the same?
I am not intending to come across overly technical here. Just trying to piece together how this all works.

Thanks!

So total group size- I.E. the cone, is not revealed with 5 rounds. However, people that are doing .1 and .2 grain powder charge “ladders” and changing seating depth changes by .005” and believing that there is a real difference between .010” off the lands and .020” off the lands are doing so with 1 to 3 rounds- they’re not even shooting 5 shots with each combination. They are just seeing the effects of small sample size variation.


That I changed seating depth by a full tenth of an inch ( .1”) and yet still shot a 5 round group that would fall squarely into the expected group size for this rifle and load (and that almost everyone would be very happy with), means that there is no way to predict real, repeatable differences in group size based on how people do load development- you would have to do 30+ shot group sizes to be confident that any difference between 41gr and 42gr is real and repeatable. And, any difference in group size with even a full grain powder change is going to be small- maybe from 1.5 MOA to 1.4 or 1.3 MOA at best. It isn’t going from 2 MOA to .5 MOA because of 1 grain difference in powder charge or .1” difference in seating depth. If it did because you somehow got a messed up rifle (because it would be a finicky, picky pain), you don’t want the load and rifle anyways because it would never stay in “tune”. This is how ridiculous the “.015” off the lands shoots like crap, but .020” shoots fantastic” thing is- are they changing their load and seating depth every 100 rounds to account for throat wear?

 

[Formidilosus]

So if brass, primer and seating depth don’t matter what does?

Powder, bullet and barrel?

Correct. If a bullet and powder combination does not shoot a 10+ round group that is satisfactory to you, change bullet or powder. If two powders don’t shoot with a certain bullet, you have to change bullets. If two different bullets don’t shoot with a certain powder, changer powder.

If you don’t find a combination with two different bullets and two different powders- change barrels.

 

[Hagas4all]

Correct. If a bullet and powder combination does not shoot a 10+ round group that is satisfactory to you, change bullet or powder. If two powders don’t shoot with a certain bullet, you have to change bullets. If two different bullets don’t shoot with a certain powder, changer powder.

If you don’t find a combination with two different bullets and two different powders- change barrels.

Thank you

 

[TheUgly]

For the past year I’ve been looking at ways to seriously increase my reloading output while spending as little time as possible at the bench. Going from a Chargemaster to throwing over 400 rounds/hr from the Dillon has been the change I needed.

I got a used Starrett micrometer head off eBay for $35 and epoxied it to my Dillon powder bar.


I also bought a RCBS Uniflow with micrometer head to play around with too


My results are very similar to Carl’s findings. Powders like 8208 XBR, Lever, and StaBALL all meter great from both the Dillon and RCBS. H4350 doesn’t look good on its face, but it had an S-D of ~15fps over 20 rounds when I chrono’d it which I find acceptable for general purpose hunting use.


The micrometer heads make it stupid simple to go back to where you were when swapping around powders. My Chargemaster has been collecting dust all year long

 

[Huntingfarandwide]

This is a great thread. I have been making my reloading "painful" instead of painless.

I found this on the Hodgdon website:

First, choose the bullet for your intended use. Review the reload data to find the velocity level you wish to achieve. As you look at the powder charges, chances are very good one of the powders that meets your velocity criteria shows a “C” beside the maximum charge and/or gives one of the highest velocities. The “C” means a lightly compressed charge of powder. That is an ideal situation, as maximum or near maximum charge weights that yield from 95% to 103% load density tend to give the most uniform velocities, as well as top accuracy.

Any comments for this approach in choosing a powder?

Blessings~

 

[Tell]

Correct. If a bullet and powder combination does not shoot a 10+ round group that is satisfactory to you, change bullet or powder. If two powders don’t shoot with a certain bullet, you have to change bullets. If two different bullets don’t shoot with a certain powder, changer powder.

If you don’t find a combination with two different bullets and two different powders- change barrels.

Is that because it can’t be made to shoot better, or because it’s a waste of time?

That could be a bitter pill to swallow, especially if you bought a barrel from a company you’d expect a good barrel from.

I’m relatively new to reloading, and I was determined that my reloading techniques were the problem with a gun I had last year. But I was determined that I was the problem because the gun was expensive and changing the barrel didn’t make sense. I’ll have to say that no combination of bullets, powders, primers, brass or seating depths ever made it much better, though some were certainly worse.

 

[wind gypsy]

Is that because it can’t be made to shoot better, or because it’s a waste of time?

That could be a bitter pill to swallow, especially if you bought a barrel from a company you’d expect a good barrel from.

I’m relatively new to reloading, and I was determined that my reloading techniques were the problem with a gun I had last year. But I was determined that I was the problem because the gun was expensive and changing the barrel didn’t make sense. I’ll have to say that no combination of bullets, powders, primers, brass or seating depths ever made it much better, though some were certainly worse.

Only thing more bitter than having to pay for a new barrel is wasting a bunch more time and money on a bad barrel before paying for a new barrel anyway. That has been 100% what has happened to me when I have a barrel that doesn't like a couple bullet/powder combos.