1st 223 Chrono test

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read discussions on doing water volume testing but that seems to be much more work than I want to do as does sorting by weight..
I have a long way to go with my shooting prowess before I worry about being that precise!
I thought the same. But now I've started playing with GRT - Gordon's Reloading Tool - and I find I'm wanting to measure some of my match-fired 7.62x54r, just to find out how close to the average it is.

Speaking of GRT: so cool , so much fun, such a big rabbit hole....
 
I gave away ALL my mixed headstamped brass a few years ago.

Agree completely. Up until now I have sorted and kept for myself the PMC, GFL and LC brass but now after this I believe all that LC I have will also be going Bye-Bye. Currently I have 900 pcs of GFL brass that was given to me from a fellow at our range. It is all once fired from his gun and is all of the same lot as I received the factory 50 count boxes with it. It has all been full length resized but not trimmed yet.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned weighing the cases. Sorting cases by weight is a proxy for volume. People say LC is 'thicker' but has more volume. Really? Those are mutually exclusive. The fact is, a lot of LC actually has less volume than commercial stuff, and it varies wildly.
You seem to be correct in this case, I mentioned in post #13 that the LC case might be higher in capacity, your post made me investigate. I measured PMC and LC19 with a 62 grs barnes TTSX at 2.255 OAL, Case capacity for the LC19 case is 25.1 gr of water and PMC was 26.6 grs..

To the OP, seems you're loading that pmc at aroung 89% capacity, give or take variations, I personally go no higher then 95%, not that you have to but you seem to have room to go higher.
 
Those guys who are shooting quarter sized groups at 300 yards with a gas gun? You need to crawl in their back pocket. They can tell you what’s going on be it ammo or rifle. They’ve been through it all.

As far as being the rookie, I wouldn’t worry about that. It’s the first step in a process. I’ve not found any group of shooters that wouldn’t be willing to help. Shoot and enjoy it all.
 
I measured PMC and LC19 with a 62 grs barnes TTSX at 2.255 OAL, Case capacity for the LC19 case is 25.1 gr of water and PMC was 26.6 grs...

Yes, as I expected from my readings that the pressures and FPS should be greater with the smaller volume of the LC, which also didn't prove to be true. With that TAC load I loaded to the smallest group and until the groups started to expand again. Wasn't even concerned about % of capacity.

NMexJim those guys are mainly shooting some form of 6mm, though no one shooting a Grendel! And it was these guys that got me hooked last winter as many times I was the RO and signed their targets. Now instead of calling them friend I just call them Enablers! One of them, Brad that runs the league I have already teased him that I'm coming for him! He just laughs.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned weighing the cases. Sorting cases by weight is a proxy for volume. People say LC is 'thicker' but has more volume. Really? Those are mutually exclusive. The fact is, a lot of LC actually has less volume than commercial stuff, and it varies wildly.

There are definite case volume differences in 7.62mm (military vs commercial) but I don't know if that's a general rule with 5.56mm cases. I think there are smaller variations between mil and civil cases in 5.56mm... so much so that I wouldn't make a general statement like that.

I have read discussions on doing water volume testing but that seems to be much more work than I want to do as does sorting by weight..
I have a long way to go with my shooting prowess before I worry about being that precise!

but now after this I believe all that LC I have will also be going Bye-Bye.

Why? LC 5.56mm isn't bad brass, generally. Granted, it's not benchrest stuff... even I'll admit that... but I don't think GFL is, either. In fact, all my GFL goes in the scrap bucket... I don't like it. LC is great for general reloading; assuming you don't do that, however, I would probably just hang on to it in this Time of Waste Not Whatnot.

Seriously, though, if you want to ramp up your load testing... simply switch to a known quantity of good brass, and try a good quality bullet. You don't need to turn necks and weigh brass if you do that. I would also try a different powder... not that TAC isn't bad, but maybe try an extruded powder like H or IMR4895, or RL10x.

Those guys who are shooting quarter sized groups at 300 yards with a gas gun?

I don't think so... they would have to be bolt guns, or likely chassis guns.
 
I've used a pretty fair amount of TAC, and the ES/SD's didn't start getting good until the upper end of the load spectrum. 23.7gr with a 62gr is mid level on charge weight, a great plinking load! Also TAC has seemed to like a light or med crimp from the lee FCD for me. I'm curious if you did a benchmark 62gr or 69gr load? I had pretty darn good luck with either combo!
 
Well folks I have been busy this afternoon. Finished trimming out the PMC brass I had started and am now uniforming primer pockets. Figure I'm going to do 100 uniformed and another 100 not uniformed and then compare just that step.

I also broke down and did a water volume test on 10 each of LC 21, PMC and GFL... Not a highly controlled test but I think enough to get a fair feel for what it is. Surprisingly the GFL has the smallest volume @ 30.33gr followed by the PMC @ 31.19gr and the LC21 @ 31.30gr.... Volume ES the LC also had the smallest. LC21 @.56gr, PMC @ .64gr and the GFL @ .88gr... Remove the high and low and the LC and PMC flip position.

All in all I in my view did not see a large enough disparity in any of them that would warrant a difference. So I doubt that volume is the cause of what I am experiencing. I have no way of testing the hardness of the brass but still believe it is a neck tension issue.

IALoder I have been using a very good deal of TAC and quit going up at 23.8 because the group size started to grow again. Also according to Hornady 23.7 is just 1gr below max with a 62gr bullet. Have also loaded it with a 68gr Hornady Match and the 69gr RMR. Just recently started loading with Benchmark and so far am impressed with both the 62gr and 69gr bullets.
 
I have read discussions on doing water volume testing but that seems to be much more work than I want to do as does sorting by weight..
I have a long way to go with my shooting prowess before I worry about being that precise!
If your shooting a single manufacturer then weight and volume is less of a deal. Those of us that are brass chickens have to pay the piper by sorting weighing and volume checking. A test set of brass should be the best you can make them to remove variations to make the test data as error free and accurate as possible.
 
Those of us that are brass chickens have to pay the piper by sorting weighing and volume checking. A test set of brass should be the best you can make them to remove variations to make the test data as error free and accurate as possible.

I too am one of the habitual see it pick it up type. Though I suppose I am lucky in that I see so much of it I can be a bit selective.

To make them the best also has limitations of just how much effort does one put forth to achieve the best possible. At some point it just gets to where it is less effort and cheaper to buy good materials. So I have resigned myself to understand I am not making Prime Rib from a Skirt Steak. I fully understand that I am not using top tier components and that in itself is a limitation. I am not ready to go out and buy Lapua brass or even Star Line. Because I admit I still have a lot to learn.

So yes I am disappointed in the results that came from these loads and yes I do believe a big part of it is the brass. I have been able to shoot sub-MOA with this at 100yds and just over MOA at 200yds with it. But with these numbers I don't believe I would have achieved that with these loads. The numbers are just too erratic.
 
In this example, neck tension has very little effect on fps
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210701-061247_(1).png
    Screenshot_20210701-061247_(1).png
    434 KB · Views: 15
  • Screenshot_20210701-061302_(1).png
    Screenshot_20210701-061302_(1).png
    453.2 KB · Views: 12
  • Screenshot_20210701-061231_(1).png
    Screenshot_20210701-061231_(1).png
    426.6 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
Maybe i missed something in the thread here, but what was the methodology used to determine the charge weights thrown to perform these tests? It sounds like we’re doing statistical analysis of some arbitrarily chosen charge weights, then surprised that under-developed (undeveloped, really) loads are exhibiting instability. Did I miss something? How did the ladder each powder look with this set of cases? Were cases annealed to improve uniformity of hardness in case they weren’t all fired the same count or not worked the same extent by being fired in different chambers? What neck tension is being used? Assuming this is a gasser, are you crimping or no?
 
Maybe i missed something in the thread here,

Sorry but I do believe that at some point during this discussion each of these points and questions have been brought up. Apologies if I didn't explain it well or clearly. But just a quick recap. The gun is a Savage Model 10 223 bolt rifle with a 22" barrel. Loads had been previously shot from 100 and 200 yards will very good results. These were the best of the load development process. I was recently loaned the chrono just to double check and to observe load consistency and establish a general speed. The only change was the substitution of the Lake City brass for what I have been using.

All these were loaded for this test and on the advice of my friend who is a Bench Shooter was told 3 round groups would be adequate for what we were trying to do.

No, the previous testing was not done with anything hanging from the barrel.
 
FWIW, I often shoot just 3 rounds for a chrono reading... I just need an idea of where they are at, and particularly with handgun ammos. If I'm really looking for statistical numbers, I go to 10 rounds over the chrono. I never accuracy test and chrono at the same time... just my method.

I don't know that case volume in your case really is that much of an issue, but something IS... and I understand your need to find the root cause. I have had to go so far as to throw ALL of my data out the window, and start from scratch... taking what I've learned along the way to improve my process, but incorporating the lessons learned into a new load work up. To try to break down an existing data set, looking for the needle in the haystack... or needles... can be frustrating, and often inconclusive. Also, don't sell yourself short... you mention you don't shoot well enough, yet, to make premium components worth the cost... I say bunk! I would use the components you have to get valuable trigger time behind your rifle, while at the same time refining your reloading process, meanwhile taking small but positive steps working up a competition load. I am doing the very same thing right now with my Savage 10 in .308. I've never shot a rifle that capable, nor a scope, generally. The learning curve is pretty large... and that is just pulling the trigger. I've reloaded for the .308 for years, but I'm still learning every step I take in the load workup for this rifle, and much of the process I used to load for my M1a, and cast bullets for my Savage 99... have no application here.
 
Charlie98 I believe we are on the exact same page.

I am not delusional in believing I am going to come out and shoot the same groups as these folks with years experience and equipment and investments that put mine to shame. But I can compete and enjoy myself at the same time. In the end I can look at them and say, See I did this with inexpensive off-the-shelf parts and be proud of the accomplishment.
Yes I talk with these folks and listen intently yet there are times that they are talking over my head! But I will learn. I do keep telling them that I understand my limitations and will only advance as far as the equipment and components I am using. As I advance so will my equipment and techniques.

I can honestly say that I am not afraid to try new components, tools or techniques and my mentor also just reminded be to to get married to just one way or component. I also mentioned to him the other day that I have improved so much over the past 6 months that maybe I need to go back and revisit some of my earlier loads as they may be better than I thought!
 
Drifting a bit but yes the Savage 10 was also used ($320.00) and the scope I am using was purchased from another forum member here.

My friend and mentor was kidding me the other day that at this rate I will be shooting the barrel out before the league season starts!:eek: :uhoh: :rofl:
 
I’ve mentioned on this site many times that short range load development methods aren’t indicative of long range stability. Seems this is proven true again in this case.

You’ve seen good results in POI tests with these loads, but now realize small groups at 100 and 200 yards don’t necessarily correspond to stable velocity. Sub-MOA groups at 100 and 200yrds can easily hide 100fps or more of velocity spread. Get out to 600, 800, or 1000 and the velocity induced vertical dispersion starts revealing itself in the group.

So methinks the answer is found there - you used a short range POI test to develop loads, which don’t take you down a road to velocity stability. Can’t really blame a spelling test for not testing your math skills. For a 100/200/300 yard league, you have the luxury of asking yourself whether or not you really need single digit SD’s.

Personally, if I were wanting to shrink my groups for 100/200/300 yard competition, my first step would be away from an FMJ. I might fully disregard velocity instability - only bringing it up in conversations when folks talk about short range versus long range load work... and I’d offer the cliché brag that my short range .2-.4moa groups had 80fps ES...
 
For a 100/200/300 yard league, you have the luxury of asking yourself whether or not you really need single digit SD’s.

Personally, if I were wanting to shrink my groups for 100/200/300 yard competition, my first step would be away from an FMJ. I might fully disregard velocity instability - .2-.4moa groups had 80fps ES...

Not going to go back in this thread to find it but I have never asked for or expected single digit SD or ES. As I recall I did state that I would be happy with a spread of 25/30 but here I am seeing up to almost 100 on some while the remainder of the group is well within that range. And once again this is my first experience with shooting over a Chrono so all of this is new to me. You seem to be saying that these number are normal and I can't argue with you because I do not know because of lack of experience..

The FMJ I am using are what I have and are inexpensive. Don't know about you but I am not going to burn up $.80c match bullets trying to hone my shooting skills.
 
How are you weighing charges and on what device ?
Are your primers all the same brand and lot number?
Are your primers fully seated but not crushed ?
Are your loading the same bullets each time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top