Painless load development (mine)

[Bluumoon]

I believe that bullet is a clone of the 75 grain Hornady, which is very particular about seating depth
Are you limited to magazine length?

Kind of the antithesis of this thread, but I can seat them deeper and see if that helps. Stupid to say, but it looks like it should be an accurate bullet.

 

[seand]

For the lee measure, Titan reloading has a baffle. Mitigates the variance due to powder level in the hopper.

TITAN POWDER BAFFLE 2

TITAN POWDER BAFFLE 2 PLEASE CHECK AVAILABILITY (upper right corner). LIMITED SUPPLY-NO BACKORDERS. ABSOLUTE 4 PER ORDER LIMIT DUE TO PRODUCTION RATE The TITAN POWDER BAFFLE 2 is a PLA plastic “3D printed” Powder Baffle that is custom designed to fit tightly in the Powder Measure Bottle Adapter...

www.titanreloading.com

 

[wind gypsy]

I believe that bullet is a clone of the 75 grain Hornady, which is very particular about seating depth
Are you limited to magazine length?

If you're referring to the 75 ELDm, i dont think so. Its like a low 0.3's G1 BC. The 75 ELDm is 0.46 and the 73 ELDm is around 0.4. That tells me they are significantly different form factor and you can tell as much by looking at them.

I've heard it said construction is similar to vmax but that's about it.

 

[JF_Idaho]

When I hear the words 75 grain the first thing that pops in my mind is 8208 xbr. I know it's been harder to come by, but if you have any sitting around, try it.

 

[Castle Rock]

If you're referring to the 75 ELDm, i dont think so. Its like a low 0.3's G1 BC. The 75 ELDm is 0.46 and the 73 ELDm is around 0.4. That tells me they are significantly different form factor and you can tell as much by looking at them.

I've heard it said construction is similar to vmax but that's about it.

Yeah I was referring to the ELDM, I must have my wires crossed about this bullet

 

[Castle Rock]

Kind of the antithesis of this thread, but I can seat them deeper and see if that helps. Stupid to say, but it looks like it should be an accurate bullet.

Sorry I had that bullet confused with something else

 

[HighUintas]

Someone else did a whole chart earlier in the thread about consistency for the Harrels.
I threw 100 rounds w ball powder and didn’t need to add or subtract powder on any of them for my purposes. I don’t want to make up numbers, but there is very little variation.

The Harrels will make you want to throw the Lee in the trash. There’s no half full, tighten screws, weigh, trickle, yada yada. The thing just works.

I've not seen the need to do any fiddling or weighing with the ball powder in the Lee. Only keep the screw pretty snug and clean it occasionally. I don't trickle or weigh with ball. Just throw them and go. I remember the data you're referring to and I believe the Harrell's number are very very close to what I measure with the Lee. Most of the "tricks" are employed when using h4350.

Maybe someday I'll upgrade, maybe not.

 

[Bluumoon]

I've not seen the need to do any fiddling or weighing with the ball powder in the Lee. Only keep the screw pretty snug and clean it occasionally. I don't trickle or weigh with ball. Just throw them and go. I remember the data you're referring to and I believe the Harrell's number are very very close to what I measure with the Lee. Most of the "tricks" are employed when using h4350.

Maybe someday I'll upgrade, maybe not.

Fair enough. It’s one of those things I found to be worth the expense your milage may vary. I agree the Lee works and w ball powder did fine. If I wasn’t wanting to load 500-1000 rounds at a time I might not care. It’d be like rolling in a 93 Corolla vs a new German machine, both are gonna get you there one does it smoothly and w speed. If all I had access to was the Corolla I’d be just fine.

 

[Alpha Echo]

Not needed on bolt action ammo as there is pretty solid neck tension from these. For semi autos I have crimp dies or adjust regular dies to do it.

Apologies if I missed this in the thread, but I'm trying to pick one expanding mandrel per caliber to set my neck tension, and not fiddle with that during the reloading process. What would the recommendation be for consistent neck tension? In my 270 I've been running a -.002, or .275, mandrel, based on a friend's recommendation since I'm fairly new to reloading, but wondering if there's a better choice / rule of thumb --optimally universal across calibers.

 

[Formidilosus]

Apologies if I missed this in the thread, but I'm trying to pick one expanding mandrel per caliber to set my neck tension, and not fiddle with that during the reloading process. What would the recommendation be for consistent neck tension? In my 270 I've been running a -.002, or .275, mandrel, based on a friend's recommendation since I'm fairly new to reloading, but wondering if there's a better choice / rule of thumb --optimally universal across calibers.

That’s not my thing- I would buy a RCBS FL sizing die and be done.

 

[david2duck]

They’re usually 1 thousandths under

 

[ljalberta]

I’ve been using this method, albeit I’ll generally still load a ladder of .5gr increments somewhere in the middle up to 1gr past max. Then I’ll just shoot until I hit pressure and back down .5 or 1 gr.

Recently loaded for a .308 with 150gr FMJs. Book max of 44.9gr varget. I picked to load them with the Cannelure just meeting the top of the brass neck (easy visual guide). I loaded 10 total rounds from 41.5-46gr. Sharpied and loaded one to check for the lands (no marks). Shot the ladder and didn’t see any visible signs of pressure. Loaded 90 at the book max of 44.9gr and the first 8 round group was 1.2 moa. Slipped the turrets and was smacking the 10” gong at 500.

I’ll true it next time I’m out, but this method sure takes the hassle out of everything.

 

[Matt5266]

I know there is multiple ways to true at distance. What is the the easiest way you folks have found?

 

[Harvey_NW]

I know there is multiple ways to true at distance. What is the the easiest way you folks have found?

Most importantly make sure all my inputs are correct, use published BC values or select the bullet in the program. Use chronograph or estimated book velocity for my initial solution and shoot at a waterline at 800. Adjust velocity in the calculator accordingly.

 

[lak2004]

Most importantly make sure all my inputs are correct, use published BC values or select the bullet in the program. Use chronograph or estimated book velocity for my initial solution and shoot at a waterline at 800. Adjust velocity in the calculator accordingly.

You adjust velocity even if you know it instead of BC?

 

[Harvey_NW]

You adjust velocity even if you know it instead of BC?

Yes. My chronograph is optical and sits 12+' in front of the muzzle, and was $100. It's great for checking consistency and somewhat valuable as a pressure gauge, but I put more merit into the numbers published by people who've sent hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange in front of million dollar doppler radars. YMMV.

 

[huntnful]

You adjust velocity even if you know it instead of BC?

Yes. My chronograph is optical and sits 12+' in front of the muzzle, and was $100. It's great for checking consistency and somewhat valuable as a pressure gauge, but I put more merit into the numbers published by people who've sent hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange in front of million dollar doppler radars. YMMV.

I have a load that I adjusted the BC on to meet my impacts at 1200 yards. Because I was using a chrono, and had a slow twist for the bullet.

But I just decided to go in my calculator and switch it back to factory BC, and adjust velocity to align with the same exact drop data at 1200 yards.

The adjustments from 0 yards to 1200 yards, every 100 yards, still line up almost exactly (within 1/2” at each yardage) with either calculation.

So in conclusion, it just simply does not matter on a calculator (at least out to 1200 yards) as long as you’re truing based off actual impacts.

But that is also truing at extremely long range. If you’re truing at say 500 yards, and your 3” low, that is a HUGE BC adjustment to correct those impacts and your data is probably going to be way off at long range.

IMO it’s very important to true your data, at your max intended range. Not shorter and then planning to have the calculator extrapolate it out, in the field thinking it’ll just line up.

 

[lak2004]

Yes. My chronograph is optical and sits 12+' in front of the muzzle, and was $100. It's great for checking consistency and somewhat valuable as a pressure gauge, but I put more merit into the numbers published by people who've sent hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange in front of million dollar doppler radars. YMMV.

I have a load that I adjusted the BC on to meet my impacts at 1200 yards. Because I was using a chrono, and had a slow twist for the bullet.

But I just decided to go in my calculator and switch it back to factory BC, and adjust velocity to align with the same exact drop data at 1200 yards.

The adjustments from 0 yards to 1200 yards, every 100 yards, still line up almost exactly (within 1/2” at each yardage) with either calculation.

So in conclusion, it just simply does not matter on a calculator (at least out to 1200 yards) as long as you’re truing based off actual impacts.

But that is also truing at extremely long range. If you’re truing at say 500 yards, and your 3” low, that is a HUGE BC adjustment to correct those impacts and your data is probably going to be way off at long range.

IMO it’s very important to true your data, at your max intended range. Not shorter and then planning to have the calculator extrapolate it out, in the field thinking it’ll just line up.

Thanks, I had adjusted my velocity in my calculator when my shots weren't lining up at 800 yards but then had someone suggest changing my bullet bc instead. Was not sure if it mattered or which was correct. I had originally dialed to 6.3 mils at 800 and had to back down to 5.7 mils. Which was about 120 fps velocity change in the calculator.

 

[huntnful]

Thanks, I had adjusted my velocity in my calculator when my shots weren't lining up at 800 yards but then had someone suggest changing my bullet bc instead. Was not sure if it mattered or which was correct. I had originally dialed to 6.3 mils at 800 and had to back down to 5.7 mils. Which was about 120 fps velocity change in the calculator.

If you’re not actually using a chronograph, 120fps isn’t unreal. If you are using a chronograph, something else is possibly off in your system. I’d certainly double check the zero before making a 120fps change from what the chronograph read.

And then if the zero is good, and the groups at 800 are good, and shot under good clear and calm conditions, THEN I would feel comfortable making a 120 FPS change.

If you’re just spraying lead all over the target, in the middle of a summer day with mirage distortion the image and what not, none of that info is relevant and I wouldn’t make any drastic changes like that.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Thanks, I had adjusted my velocity in my calculator when my shots weren't lining up at 800 yards but then had someone suggest changing my bullet bc instead. Was not sure if it mattered or which was correct. I had originally dialed to 6.3 mils at 800 and had to back down to 5.7 mils. Which was about 120 fps velocity change in the calculator.

Something else to note that's bitten me in the past, when truing (or getting any ballistic solution for that matter) you have to input the line of sight range and shot angle into the calculator so it solves for time of flight, angle modified range is not accurate and the error gets amplified the farther and steeper the shot angle. Not unrealistic to have to adjust velocity a little bit but typically when all my inputs are spot on and I use the box BC and chrono velocity everything lines up damn close.

Also, known repeatable scope? Might be worth doing a tracking or tall target test to be sure there's no error there as well.