Seating depth - does it even matter?

[Packmansion]

You’re condescending as hell for someone that has shown literally nothing personally produced or achieved besides listening to a couple of podcasts and watching a couple of YouTube videos.

While you’re online you should find all the precision records set by hornady bullets…. You know, since they know everything about what affects precision. The company that holds nearly every record (besides people that make their own bullets) says to test seating depths. The company that hold 0 records, say it doesn’t matter. Weird.

Sir I've done a lot more than watch YouTube and listen to a couple of podcasts. Im simply referencing data sets compiled by reputable sources.

 

[greyghostnw]

having a repeated way timing the bullets exit of barrel is the concept with the components you have and tools to do so.The target dosnt lie… Harmonic vibration in a barrel or any horizontal object caused by a disruption in its original position…a different height of frequency.. it moves up and down and the bullet releases at some point within that movement. All your doing is timing this in a area that has room for deviation in load thats repeated on target at any distance. Document the data to get there repeat, prove it at many environments…test yourself and enjoy the ride. If you cant be open minded, have tools, components, rifle systems capable well then guess stick with grandpas rifle and a box of the good stuff. Good luck

 

[willfrye027]

Still have not seen anyone, anywhere, show a statistically valid 20 shot group “in” and “out of” the node to prove that seating depth matters. It’s the same blog posts, articles, theories, pesudoscience or whatever you want to call it regurgitated over and over.

Shoot a 20 shot group at your previously determined ideal seating depth.

Shoot a 20 shot group at any other seating depth

Show that the groups are different

Pretty sure @huntnful is going to do one which I am looking forward to.

I’ve done my own tests and with that rifle/bullet combo have convinced myself not to worry about it. Should have documented it better but also figured someone else would have already done that by now

 

[Packmansion]

Still have not seen anyone, anywhere, show a statistically valid 20 shot group “in” and “out of” the node to prove that seating depth matters. It’s the same blog posts, articles, theories, pesudoscience or whatever you want to call it regurgitated over and over.

Shoot a 20 shot group at your previously determined ideal seating depth.

Shoot a 20 shot group at any other seating depth

Show that the groups are different

Pretty sure @huntnful is going to do one which I am looking forward to.

I’ve done my own tests and with that rifle/bullet combo have convinced myself not to worry about it. Should have documented it better but also figured someone else would have already done that by now

I will be documenting soon. I built a 223 wylde recently. 300 round load development piece of cake.

 

[huntnful]

Still have not seen anyone, anywhere, show a statistically valid 20 shot group “in” and “out of” the node to prove that seating depth matters. It’s the same blog posts, articles, theories, pesudoscience or whatever you want to call it regurgitated over and over.

Shoot a 20 shot group at your previously determined ideal seating depth.

Shoot a 20 shot group at any other seating depth

Show that the groups are different

Pretty sure @huntnful is going to do one which I am looking forward to.

I’ve done my own tests and with that rifle/bullet combo have convinced myself not to worry about it. Should have documented it better but also figured someone else would have already done that by now

That’s literally all it is. Test the extremes, before you say it doesn’t matter at all.

Can you genuinely just seat a bullet where the entire bearing surface is inside the case neck, and it’ll shoot exactly the same as when it’s .010 or .020 off the lands?

I’ve said it a million times, I don’t even mess with seating depth much at all. Normally being up near the lands, provides me with enough precision to do what I want to do.

I’m not sure if that can be taken as “seating depth doesn’t matter at all” though.

Also, if the groups go from .5” 5 shot groups, to 2” 5 shot groups. You don’t need to shoot a million rounds to say there’s a difference.

It’s only testing small windows and appearing to make small percentage gains, that it would take many rounds to actually prove it. The larger the apparent difference, the less rounds it takes to prove a significant change.

 

[Packmansion]

That’s literally all it is. Test the extremes, before you say it doesn’t matter at all.

Can you genuinely just seat a bullet where the entire bearing surface is inside the case neck, and it’ll shoot exactly the same as when it’s .010 or .020 off the lands?

I’ve said it a million times, I don’t even mess with seating depth much at all. Normally being up near the lands, provides me with enough precision to do what I want to do.

I’m not sure if that can be taken as “seating depth doesn’t matter at all” though.

Also, if the groups go from .5” 5 shot groups, to 2” 5 shot groups. You don’t need to shoot a million rounds to say there’s a difference.

It’s only testing small windows and appearing to make small percentage gains, that it would take many rounds to actually prove it. The larger the apparent difference, the less rounds it takes to prove a significant change.

I completely agree. It is more accurate to say "seating depth tests are a waste of time". I will always get my bullet as close to 20 thousandths off as possible unless limited by mag. The original post is about whether or not it matters as in should we be doing seating depth tests.

 

[Packmansion]

having a repeated way timing the bullets exit of barrel is the concept with the components you have and tools to do so.The target dosnt lie… Harmonic vibration in a barrel or any horizontal object caused by a disruption in its original position…a different height of frequency.. it moves up and down and the bullet releases at some point within that movement. All your doing is timing this in a area that has room for deviation in load thats repeated on target at any distance. Document the data to get there repeat, prove it at many environments…test yourself and enjoy the ride. If you cant be open minded, have tools, components, rifle systems capable well then guess stick with grandpas rifle and a box of the good stuff. Good luck

How does this concept help you get better groups? Do you measure and target a certain timing? Do you measure the frequencies and energy levels in the objects? Are you talking about barrel whip?

 

[huntnful]

I completely agree. It is more accurate to say "seating depth tests are a waste of time". I will always get my bullet as close to 20 thousandths off as possible unless limited by mag. The original post is about whether or not it matters as in should we be doing seating depth tests.

The original post says nothing about doing seating depth tests. You’re making it what you want in order to frame your opinion.



“Seating depth doesn’t matter at all”

We’ll see when I change the depth .250.



“Certain seating depth shot noticeably better than another?”

We’ll see when they are vastly different.


Broad statements require broad testing. And those statements, or questions, are broad as hell.

Nothing about fine tuning small seating depths written anywhere in there at all.

 

[JGRaider]

I could care less about Hornady bullets. I'm not a fanboy of any product. Shoot berger shoot swaged dog poop for all I care...

I do plan to do a cute little science fair experiment for rokslide one of these days just time has been tight lately.

Summary:
-3 shot groups = waste of time
-to do a true seating depth and charge test you would have to shoot far too many rounds to make it worth your while, therefore seating depth doesnt matter, charge weight doesnt matter.
-this doesnt not mean charge weight and seating depth do not matter entirely, put something together within the reasonable bounds as recommended by the manufacturer/manual/industry best practice and spend more time shooting stuff and less time developing chasing statistical noise convincing yourself that your rifle is a unicorn of the ages
-Pro shooters, navy seals, hunters etc. do not necessarily understand physics or science and they are not necessarily well suited for explaining scientific phenomena despite their experience as operators
-number of books read does not dictate intelligence, or understanding
-There is a lot of appeal to authority in the shooting community which drives me up the wall. I dont care how many competitions someone wins this does not mean they understand the science at all.

I apologize for being condescending. Thats something I should do less of.

Are you a hunter, or just some sort of scientific engineering dork? Just wondering.

 

[Wrench]

There are a lot of places guys can look to reduce flyers that rarely get discussed nor considered on the open net.

Most guns can improve ignition and end up way better off. Silly things like bolt drag or trigger sear bounce can affect groups and never be noticed.

Seating depth absolutely can make a difference, but in our world and with the typical talent in our craft, it's not really the answer to the problem typically.

We're not shooting off rests, watching flags and temperatures and trying to get the last bullet to land in the group for us is measured in 8ths of an inch.....not thousandths.

If depth didn't matter, every gun would just shoot a bullet past the doughnut and rock on.....but that's not how it goes.

 

[Packmansion]

The original post says nothing about doing seating depth tests. You’re making it what you want in order to frame your opinion.

View attachment 938799

“Seating depth doesn’t matter at all”

We’ll see when I change the depth .250.



“Certain seating depth shot noticeably better than another?”

We’ll see when they are vastly different.


Broad statements require broad testing. And those statements, or questions, are broad as hell.

Nothing about fine tuning small seating depths written anywhere in there at all.

Would love to see your results. I'll be doing a similar test just more comprehensive. Maybe we can compare notes

 

[huntnful]

Would love to see your results. I'll be doing a similar test just more comprehensive. Maybe we can compare notes

Absolutely!

Mine will be after hunting season when I’m bored and normally re-barrel my rifles anyways.

 

[Formidilosus]

The original post says nothing about doing seating depth tests. You’re making it what you want in order to frame your opinion.

View attachment 938799

“Seating depth doesn’t matter at all”

We’ll see when I change the depth .250.



“Certain seating depth shot noticeably better than another?”

We’ll see when they are vastly different.


Broad statements require broad testing. And those statements, or questions, are broad as hell.

Nothing about fine tuning small seating depths written anywhere in there at all.

Are you going to change powder charge when you change the seating depth by .25”? Because the pressure will drastically different if you don’t.


And, it a lot more than Hornady that has done blind seating depth tests with very high shot group sizes- not one has been able to show that small changes in seating depth has any measurable effect on statically relevant data sets.
There is no combination that has shown anything close to the difference between .5 MOA and 2moa due to seating depth- when taken to statistically relevant group sizes. The largest that has been shown is about .1 MOA on the extreme that wa repeatable. The issue is that to see a real, true average of .1 MOA- you have to shoot over 100 shots per group to prove that out.

 

[Packmansion]

Are you going to change powder charge when you change the seating depth by .25”? Because the pressure will drastically different if you don’t.


And, it a lot more than Hornady that has done blind seating depth tests with very high shot group sizes- not one has been able to show that small changes in seating depth has any measurable effect on statically relevant data sets.
There is no combination that has shown anything close to the difference between .5 MOA and 2moa due to seating depth- when taken to statistically relevant group sizes. The largest that has been shown is about .1 MOA on the extreme that wa repeatable. The issue is that to see a real, true average of .1 MOA- you have to shoot over 100 shots per group to prove that out.

Who are the others who have done these tests? Would love to keep a few copies in my range bag to hand out to the fudds who are always trying to explain to me how guns work.

 

[huntnful]

Are you going to change powder charge when you change the seating depth by .25”? Because the pressure will drastically different if you don’t.


And, it a lot more than Hornady that has done blind seating depth tests with very high shot group sizes- not one has been able to show that small changes in seating depth has any measurable effect on statically relevant data sets.
There is no combination that has shown anything close to the difference between .5 MOA and 2moa due to seating depth- when taken to statistically relevant group sizes. The largest that has been shown is about .1 MOA on the extreme that wa repeatable. The issue is that to see a real, true average of .1 MOA- you have to shoot over 100 shots per group to prove that out.

I don’t have any problem changing powder charge to obtain the same speeds when shooting the test. Although, as long as I’m below pressure (which I will be) that shouldn’t matter at all either. Below pressure, any seating depth, and you can’t best it by more than .1 MOA with any type of “tuning” based on others data. I’ve never tried it, so I’d like to at least see for myself.

To say something doesn’t matter whatsoever, it has to not matter at all, under any conditions. The two depths should, in theory produce similar groups. People can analyze the targets and make their own judgements on them whether it looks like there is zero difference or noisy enough to call it a wash.

I rarely even test seating depth for my own loads. I’m just shooting the test and sharing it to see what happens. I’m not going to shoot 100 rounds of each. I’ll shoot a series of groups right next to each other, and they either produce the same pattern or they don’t. And people can just see it right there on the paper.

 

[huntnful]

Who are the others who have done these tests? Would love to keep a few copies in my range bag to hand out to the fudds who are always trying to explain to me how guns work.

This a good one. Picked his best and worst small sample testing depths and tested them thoroughly. No difference.

 

[Packmansion]

This a good one. Picked his best and worst small sample testing depths and tested them thoroughly. No difference.

Im looking for more of a report format

 

[huntnful]

Im looking for more of a report format

Oh I don’t have anything like that.

 

[pbroski]

This a good one. Picked his best and worst small sample testing depths and tested them thoroughly. No difference.

The takeaway from this video is that you can't pick the best or worst loads based on 3 shot groups, even if they are verified once. Minimum 10 shots and all testing should be done at long range. What you see at 100 yards is not necessarily what you will see at 600 yards, or more. I usually see a difference of about 20 to 25% between best and worst.

 

[greyghostnw]

To simplify an approach….low es, big groups = adjust seating depth, small groups, big es = adjust powder charge. 3 key parts are combustion, harmonics and consistent bc’s.