Speer Impact Bullets

[longridge]

Just recently picked up a REM 700 in 30-06 and looking for any input from people who have experience with the Speer Impact bullets.

The guns use will mainly be mule deer, black bear and elk out to 500yds. I’m looking at both the 172s and 190s over StaBall 6.5.

My first thought and still an option is 180gr Accubonds but the price on the Impacts is very appealing.

 

[Andouille]

I have reloaded both 172 and 190s, achieved great velocities out of 30-06 and 300 WSM. Grouping was decent for both at around 1.5 MOAwith Staball 6.5, but i didnt finish fine tuning the loads as I switched up my rifles. Id have liked to try a larger jump.

I plan to try the elusive 140 6.5mm in my 6.5CM once I get a hold of them.

Pm me if youd like a deal on my remaining bullets.

 

[longridge]

I have reloaded both 172 and 190s, achieved great velocities out of 30-06 and 300 WSM. Grouping was decent for both at around 1.5 MOAwith Staball 6.5, but i didnt finish fine tuning the loads as I switched up my rifles. Id have liked to try a larger jump.

I plan to try the elusive 140 6.5mm in my 6.5CM once I get a hold of them.

Pm me if youd like a deal on my remaining bullets.

I might take you up on that in a few days.

Did you notice much seating depth sensitivity? I have plenty of mag length in the gun to play with.

 

[Andouille]

I only loaded at one depth as follows:
Browning X-Bolt 30-06 18" barrel - 172 impact: 0.050" jump, 3.323" CBTO, 57.5 gr Staball 6.5, GM210, 2771 fps, SD 8-10 ish. ~1.25" for 7 shots, stopped there.
Tikka 300 WSM 20" barrel - 190 Impact: 0.050" jump (I think), COAL 2.880", 67.5 gr staball 6.5, GM210, 2700 fps, SD 8-10 ish (typically). ~1.5" for 15-20 shots.

 

[longridge]

I only loaded at one depth as follows:
Browning X-Bolt 30-06 18" barrel - 172 impact: 0.050" jump, 3.323" CBTO, 57.5 gr Staball 6.5, GM210, 2771 fps, SD 8-10 ish. ~1.25" for 7 shots, stopped there.
Tikka 300 WSM 20" barrel - 190 Impact: 0.050" jump (I think), COAL 2.880", 67.5 gr staball 6.5, GM210, 2700 fps, SD 8-10 ish (typically). ~1.5" for 15-20 shots.

This gun has a 24” barrel so with 6.5 I should be able to get the 190s up to that 2700fps range as well.

From my use of 6.5 powder achieving velocity hasn’t been an issue. Haven’t done much work to see accuracy potential. But should be able to get something acceptable.


I’m new here so when I can DM I’ll get a hold of you.

 

[AKM]

I only loaded at one depth as follows:
Browning X-Bolt 30-06 18" barrel - 172 impact: 0.050" jump, 3.323" CBTO, 57.5 gr Staball 6.5, GM210, 2771 fps, SD 8-10 ish. ~1.25" for 7 shots, stopped there.
Tikka 300 WSM 20" barrel - 190 Impact: 0.050" jump (I think), COAL 2.880", 67.5 gr staball 6.5, GM210, 2700 fps, SD 8-10 ish (typically). ~1.5" for 15-20 shots.

I just got a new T3X in 300 wsm. Interested in your load data.

New on the forum so I can’t DM. Saw you have some dies for sale also. I’m in AK as well.

Up for a phone call if you are.

Marty

 

[AKM]

What is your twist rate? MV?

 

[Formidilosus]

I have worked with both the 172 and 190 grain bullets in my 300 Win mag and have gotten sub MOA 3 shot groups

This is your problem. All you are seeing is the reality of insufficient shot group sizes. 3 shot groups is not real data. Your 10 plus shot groups at 100 yards will be your 10 plus shot groups at 300 yards (excepting wind).

 

[Formidilosus]

I did not say I only shot one 3 shot group. I don't take it to 300 till I see consistent 100 yard data. A sporter barrel will open the group after 3 shots. What I try to determine is what it will consistently do with the first three shots at 100 before going to 500. Sometimes I allow cooling and slow fire two more shots to see what it does. At 300 the first 3 shots must be good or it's not hunting with me.

I've been loading for decades ...

3 shot groups are not data. You’re the one that believes those bullets are unstable or somehow magically straight on at 100 yards, but not 300 yards.
The only reason sporter barrels “open up after 3 shots” is because the more rounds in a group, the larger the group gets as a statistical reality. All of what you are writing is demonstrably untrue. Loading for decades doesn’t change that.

You have small sample bias going on.

 

[Steve300xcw]

Mine is a standard 1/10. Muzzle velocity for the 172 was around 3050 and 2900+ for the 190s. The 1/10 twist should easily stabilize these bullets, especially the 172s. The bullet performance as tested by "Frontline Rejects on YouTube" looks to be outstanding. I'm wondering if the bonding process has produced some inconsistencies in the bullet balance and stability. I asked Sierra one time why they don't make a bonded bullet and their response was they could but it would lower their trademark accuracy standard. However it does seem like the Accubonds can produce long range MOA accuracy in some rifles and I would settle for consistent MOA accuracy with the Speer Impact since this would be used primarily for large game. To get MOA accuracy with their performance at their price point would be outstanding ... but I have not been able to get it. Still trying ...

Can you shoot moa at 300?

 

[Andouille]

3 shot groups are not data. You’re the one that believes those bullets are unstable or somehow magically straight on at 100 yards, but not 300 yards.
The only reason sporter barrels “open up after 3 shots” is because the more rounds in a group, the larger the group gets as a statistical reality. All of what you are writing is demonstrably untrue. Loading for decades doesn’t change that.

You have small sample bias going on.

Are you speaking in such reductionist absolutisms that you might be contradicting your prior statements elsewhere and not seeing valid points made by the OP? Consider:
1. Any recorded shot is data... 1, 3, 10, or 100. "Data" is not defined by a minimum quantity of data points. Statistical significance, however....
2. 3 shots is statistically significant for making some decisions. Consider that a decision that a group is "poor" can be based on outliers that fall beyond the expected distribution, say 2-3 standard deviations. For example, A 2.5 MOA (mean radius) 100 yd 3 shot group requires no further shooting to rule out a load as being sub MOA mean radius.

If this is the case, then some of what the poster said above is not necessarily untrue, and omnipotent tone of your response seems unwarranted.

Edit: the point of my post is strictly limited to clarifying the above topics, and I'm not making any points regarding sporter barrels, etc.

 

[S-3 ranch]

Are you speaking in such reductionist absolutisms that you might be contradicting your prior statements elsewhere and not seeing valid points? Consider:
1. Any recorded shot is data... 1, 3, 10, or 100. "Data" is not defined by a minimum quantity of data points. Statistical significance, however....
2. 3 shots is statistically significant for making some decisions. Consider that a decision that a group is "poor" can be based on outliers that fall beyond the expected distribution, say 2-3 standard deviations. For example, A 2.5 MOA (mean radius) 100 yd 3 shot group requires no further shooting to rule out a load as being sub MOA mean radius.

If this is the case, then some of what the poster said above is not necessarily untrue, and omnipotent tone of your response seems unwarranted.

Molecularly fused jacket
Should have elicited a response of “pure junk and none frangable “ from the omnipotent one maybe he is reading The Emperor's New Clothes
To bolster his argument on qualitative data

 

[Dobermann]

Sort of humorous that when I used that same rifle some years ago to shoot 1,000 yds in a hunter class competition match they allowed those first 3 non statistical shots that went into 6-3/4" to be part of the total score.

That's not humorous. That's fallacious reasoning.

 

[Andouille]

Molecularly fused jacket
Should have elicited a response of “pure junk and none frangable “ from the omnipotent one maybe he is reading The Emperor's New Clothes
To bolster his argument on qualitative data

Is that addressed towards me? I can quantitatively back up my 3 shot group statement #2 with math, happy to help you understand how a bad 3 round group can rule out a "good" load.

Edit: nvm, I get your comment now. But still happy to discuss maths.

 

[AKM]

Twist Rate Stability Calculator

Our newly updated Twist Rate Stability Calculator not only tells you what your SG is, but it also lets you know if you are reaching your optimized BC.

bergerbullets.com

You can rule out stability problems with the bullet/twist rate here.

 

[S-3 ranch]

I agree. There's no twist rate issue. I've found the preferred seating depth at .040" off the lands and I'm still working on different powder combinations.

To date the best groups with the 172 grain are with H4350 in my 300 Win mag for whatever that's worth to anyone. Trying RL23 next in the 190 grain.

I bet H1000 and 190gr Speer impacts would make for a good combo
H4350 has always been good to me on lighter weight caliber and bullets

 

[Formidilosus]

Well we don't know each other so I don't know why you say what you say ...

Feel free to search this forum and you’ll see why I say what I say.

but what you infer about my methodology is dead wrong. Experienced shooters know that on sporter barrels you can get good data on multiple 3 shot groups. Barrel heat opens up sporter barrel groups.

Gotta worry about those groups opening up after 3 shots in sporter barrels.


All Tikka T3 lite contour barrels. In the last 24 hours-












Same gun as the last two above, every group shot with that rifle for the last 6 months that I can find-












Hit the 10 picture limit. Those are 8+/- pound all up rifles. How many “.25MOA” 3 shot groups are inside each of those 10 round groups…?

On a sporter rifle you want to know where those first three shots will go consistently in a variety temps over multiple range sessions. I and others will also go to the range multiple times to see where a first round cold bore impact will go. Of course this is only important data for someone who strives for a first round cold bore fatal shot.

Oh no doubt you care more about “first round cold bore fatal shots” than I. But- how does the rifle know it’s the first round of the day? And how does it know it’s the 3rd round as opposed to the 4th round- is there a chip or something in the steel that tells it’s at 3 rounds so it knows to stop grouping?

And why exactly do rifles not follow statistical reality as literally everything else does?

It's hardly newsworthy that some bullets which group well at 100 will not necessarily group well at 3-500. You can shoot some good groups at 100 with a fairly high ES and those groups will open too much at longer ranges to be acceptable.

Is that right? Bullets can shoot well at 100 yards, but then fall at 3-500? Fairly high ES (I’m assuming MV), can’t/won’t group at longer ranges?


Hmmm… it almost sounds like what someone might conclude when looking at insufficient sample sizes.

 

[Formidilosus]

Are you speaking in such reductionist absolutisms that you might be contradicting your prior statements elsewhere and not seeing valid points made by the OP? Consider:
1. Any recorded shot is data... 1, 3, 10, or 100. "Data" is not defined by a minimum quantity of data points. Statistical significance, however....

Unless in expects me to write a full dissertation for every post, then context must be applied. The poster that I responded to stated that at 100 yards he has gotten sub MOA groups” at 100 yards, but at 300 yards “they open to above 1 MOA”. And because of some 3 shot groups, he believes that the bullets are imbalanced and unstable, or if the bonding process has caused inconsistencies..

Now what more likely here- the bullets are imbalanced, unstable, the bonding process caused inconsistency…….? Or, because of 3 shot groups and small sample size he has an unrealistic belief in what his true cone of fire is?

2. 3 shots is statistically significant for making some decisions. Consider that a decision that a group is "poor" can be based on outliers that fall beyond the expected distribution, say 2-3 standard deviations. For example, A 2.5 MOA (mean radius) 100 yd 3 shot group requires no further shooting to rule out a load as being sub MOA mean radius.

Sure- small samples can prove a negative. Nowhere did I say that they can’t. I stated only that some just under 1 MOA 3 shot groups at 100 yards, and some just over 1 MOA 3 shot groups at 300 yards isn’t telling anyone much of anything. It’s just noise.

The most likely reality is that if he shot robust sample size groups, his 100 yard groups would be 1.5-2 MOA, which means, that his 300 yard groups don’t have something wrong- they are exactly what would be expected.

If this is the case, then some of what the poster said above is not necessarily untrue, and omnipotent tone of your response seems unwarranted.

There is no omnipotent tone. It’s reality- read what he wrote and his possible conclusions, my first and subsequent responses, and then ask yourself which one you would bet is more probable.

Edit: the point of my post is strictly limited to clarifying the above topics, and I'm not making any points regarding sporter barrels, etc.

 

[Andouille]

Unless in expects me to write a full dissertation for every post, then context must be applied.

No dissertation is needed to succinctly state something to the effect of "3 shot groups are not statistically significant indicators of a good group or hot sporter barrel poi shift..." Aren't semantics important when making a statistically sound statement to make a defensible point? And besides, it's clear your hands do not tire from typing.

I read that T-Stick is perhaps confusing use of 3 round group data to subjectively eliminate data and to also rule-in good groups with "cold barrels." So this gives reason to clarify when 3 round groups do and do not provide worthwhile "data," whether it is junk or statistically sound.

In the end, this discussion is for the OP's (or T-Stick's) benefit and my intent is to suggest a little context and clarity, and perhaps reduce "blunt force fact trauma" which can be a discussion showstopper for those with set practices and reloading beliefs. A quick list of hyperlinks to prior discussions with substantiated facts might be educational and save you some prose.

EDIT: Corrected OP to T-Stick in middle paragraph.

 

[Formidilosus]

No dissertation is needed to succinctly state something to the effect of "3 shot groups are not statistically significant indicators of a good group or hot sporter barrel poi shift..." Aren't semantics important when making a statistically sound statement to make a defensible point? And besides, it's clear your hands do not tire from typing.

I read that the OP is perhaps confusing use of 3 round group data to subjectively eliminate data and to also rule-in good groups with "cold barrels." So this gives reason to clarify when 3 round groups do and do not provide worthwhile "data," whether it is junk or statistically sound.

In the end, this discussion is for the OP's benefit and my intent is to suggest a little context and clarity, and perhaps reduce "blunt force fact trauma" which can be a discussion showstopper for those with set practices and reloading beliefs.

What are you talking about? The person I responded to is not the OP.