I have a question for some of you seasoned reloaders. I am working up a load for a 165gr in my 30-06 and am just finishing up a load with a 150gr bullet. My question is this: When working up a different load (changing powders or bullet weights), is it to be expected that the new nodes will occur at the same velocities as the previous nodes where the charts overlap? What I am getting at is this: If I have a previous load vs. velocity chart and I have reason to believe that my new load will produce a given node velocity at a given powder charge, I may be able to speed up the new load development and reduce supply used by choosing to only load a smaller subset. Of course the assumption here is that the bullet weights are close enough (or the same) so that velocity curves overlap significantly.
Choosing powders and loads using Chronograph
- Thread starter RDK
- Start date
- Status
Blue68f100
Member
Some times yes some times no. All guns are unique when comes to what they like. It's more about the sock wave going down the barrel. Different powders peak/ramp differently, as well as bullets friction going down the bore.
So You can try but depending on the powder you may not be able to reach the said velocity.
So You can try but depending on the powder you may not be able to reach the said velocity.
No, you don't have enough information to assume anything. Hornady has a theoretical ballistic computer program you can throw some numbers into and see if there is a similarity. I think you answered your own question in your last three sentences. Is velocity your only consideration? How about mild recoil, point of impact, tight groups? The bullet has changed. The seating depth has changed. The ogive has changed. All powders have different characteristics. The powder weight will be different if you want the same velocity and/or the same point of impact. All these differences will have some effect on your "subset" of shooting. And let's not forget the ballistic coefficient will change too.
If you want more information, give us your load recipe of each cartridge and try to answer all the questions I put before you. And there may be more questions, like which primer do you use and is all your brass the same and were shooting conditions the same, like temp, wind, humidity and barometric pressure, distance to target and sea level you shoot at.
And if you are interested, I have also tried to go down this road with 3 different 30.06 rifles. "Come to the dark side, Luke. May the force be with you."
If you want more information, give us your load recipe of each cartridge and try to answer all the questions I put before you. And there may be more questions, like which primer do you use and is all your brass the same and were shooting conditions the same, like temp, wind, humidity and barometric pressure, distance to target and sea level you shoot at.
And if you are interested, I have also tried to go down this road with 3 different 30.06 rifles. "Come to the dark side, Luke. May the force be with you."
Last edited:
NMexJim
Member
Uh oh. You've opened a discussion into a major topic. There are so many variables that pages would be required to answer your question.
But, let's just take the information you've given us and see what we can stir up.
Barrels like certain velocities for a specific bullet weight and this is the basis for barrel harmonics. There may be several of these nodes for that bullet and powder as a result of internal ballistics and controlled by odds and ends like barrel length, taper (stiffness), bedding, and so on. Change the bullet weight and you change the harmonics. Speaking offhand, I'd say going to a 165 grain will change the harmonics, and require you to redo some of the powder work.
Personally, I find it easier to change powder than change bullet weight. If I pay attention to some details like powder density, then a different powder loaded behind the same bullet and seating depth, and loaded to the same (or near as) velocity, will give pretty decent results. For instance, when the 6mm crowd sucked up all the 4350, I changed over to RL 19 with a minimum of bother.
Changing bullets has always caused me to start powder development over. Well, I'll amend that and say that I start somewhere above mid-level load for that bullet and go up. Stay back off the lands, do the powder ladder with the new bullet seated at one depth, ignore accuracy and concentrate on velocity, decide on the powder load based on what shows up, and then play with seating depth to fine-tune. This is pretty standard for the long-range boys, I think. Too, what you get at 100-yards may change moa out at 300 - 400 yards. Some get out to that distance as soon as possible.
At one time, I played a bunch with bullet weights and/or different bullet manufacturers. I lost weeks down the rabbit hole due to Creighton Audette when he first printed his ladder logic. I eventually found it more work than it was worth. I settled on a couple of weights, bought quality components that lessened the work, worked up the loads, and stuck with those bullets until I thought there was a significant advantage in changing the bullet - changing bullet profiles coming quickly to mind.
But, you never know. Change the bullet weight and see what happens. I'd be interested in your results.
BTW, look up Scatterlee load development method and OCW (Optimum Charge Weight) by Newberry as well as Audette's ladder test.
But, let's just take the information you've given us and see what we can stir up.
Barrels like certain velocities for a specific bullet weight and this is the basis for barrel harmonics. There may be several of these nodes for that bullet and powder as a result of internal ballistics and controlled by odds and ends like barrel length, taper (stiffness), bedding, and so on. Change the bullet weight and you change the harmonics. Speaking offhand, I'd say going to a 165 grain will change the harmonics, and require you to redo some of the powder work.
Personally, I find it easier to change powder than change bullet weight. If I pay attention to some details like powder density, then a different powder loaded behind the same bullet and seating depth, and loaded to the same (or near as) velocity, will give pretty decent results. For instance, when the 6mm crowd sucked up all the 4350, I changed over to RL 19 with a minimum of bother.
Changing bullets has always caused me to start powder development over. Well, I'll amend that and say that I start somewhere above mid-level load for that bullet and go up. Stay back off the lands, do the powder ladder with the new bullet seated at one depth, ignore accuracy and concentrate on velocity, decide on the powder load based on what shows up, and then play with seating depth to fine-tune. This is pretty standard for the long-range boys, I think. Too, what you get at 100-yards may change moa out at 300 - 400 yards. Some get out to that distance as soon as possible.
At one time, I played a bunch with bullet weights and/or different bullet manufacturers. I lost weeks down the rabbit hole due to Creighton Audette when he first printed his ladder logic. I eventually found it more work than it was worth. I settled on a couple of weights, bought quality components that lessened the work, worked up the loads, and stuck with those bullets until I thought there was a significant advantage in changing the bullet - changing bullet profiles coming quickly to mind.
But, you never know. Change the bullet weight and see what happens. I'd be interested in your results.
BTW, look up Scatterlee load development method and OCW (Optimum Charge Weight) by Newberry as well as Audette's ladder test.
Last edited:
NMexJim
Member
Given that accuracy is not considered the most important objective during powder work, .030 - .050 is appropriate. You're really just trying to stay off the lands and the pressure increases from jamming into or being right on top of them. Really, powder work should be a fairly quick process. I tend to fire a few more rounds than, say, the Scatterlee method, and certainly less than Audette, but that's what makes me comfortable w/ results.
You can use this workup to fire-form cases. I'm assuming you've developed a good case prep routine. And that you've got a reliable chronograph.
Again, I suggest researching OCW and Scatterlee methods, and adjust methods to suit your results and needs.
Understand too that there are folks out there that have found accurate loads quickly with little bother and therefore don't subscribe to ladder methods period. I'm surprised we haven't heard a couple of poo-pahs by now.
And, we have to realize that some firearms aren't going to be sub-moa.
You can use this workup to fire-form cases. I'm assuming you've developed a good case prep routine. And that you've got a reliable chronograph.
Again, I suggest researching OCW and Scatterlee methods, and adjust methods to suit your results and needs.
Understand too that there are folks out there that have found accurate loads quickly with little bother and therefore don't subscribe to ladder methods period. I'm surprised we haven't heard a couple of poo-pahs by now.
And, we have to realize that some firearms aren't going to be sub-moa.
NMexJim
Member
Expanded 10-Shot Load Development for 6.5 Creedmoor – Ultimate Reloader
As a post note, I wanted to include this for you. I couldn't put my hands on it the other day.
As a post note, I wanted to include this for you. I couldn't put my hands on it the other day.
How about starting by taking a bullet you want to shoot and holding just over a lit candle and make the whole thing sooty black. Gently barely fit on a loose neck of empty case, measure it and chamber it. Then slowly remove it and measure the length up to where the soot has been rubbed off. Bullet may be pushed back into the case and that is good. That will give you a good idea where your rifling starts. Should the bullet get stuck in your barrel, lightly tap it out and put back where you started and measure it to the rubbed off soot and subtract the original measurement. Not exact, but also a good start. Now back off that distance with your loads.
Now I shoot a 1970 Remington 700. My sweet spot for shooting a Hornady 165 grain Interlock soft point is 3.257. I think Horandy says to start around 3.210. If you have the ammo, you choose where to start. I set some bullets at 3.225, 3.235 and went up from there. I did shoot some at 3.250 and at 3.260 and eventually loaded some in between. My sweet spot for the same in 150 grain is around 3.225. My brother just bought a Tika T-3 in 30.06 and it loves my loads, however, my Garand's sweet spot is 3.250.
Now bench rest and eliminate all variables shooting your groups. One way is to set up a target for each group. Shoot 1 bullet at the first target and then shoot 1 bullet from the next group at the second target etc. Repeat until you are done. This will eliminate flinching and shooting too fast etc. because all your screw ups won't be on just one target.
Now I shoot a 1970 Remington 700. My sweet spot for shooting a Hornady 165 grain Interlock soft point is 3.257. I think Horandy says to start around 3.210. If you have the ammo, you choose where to start. I set some bullets at 3.225, 3.235 and went up from there. I did shoot some at 3.250 and at 3.260 and eventually loaded some in between. My sweet spot for the same in 150 grain is around 3.225. My brother just bought a Tika T-3 in 30.06 and it loves my loads, however, my Garand's sweet spot is 3.250.
Now bench rest and eliminate all variables shooting your groups. One way is to set up a target for each group. Shoot 1 bullet at the first target and then shoot 1 bullet from the next group at the second target etc. Repeat until you are done. This will eliminate flinching and shooting too fast etc. because all your screw ups won't be on just one target.
Last edited:
Archie
Member
If this is for a magazine (box type, not tubular) rifle, one must make sure the loaded rounds fit and operate from the magazine. Unless one decides to single load them.
Very interesting and I'm a math guy
Thanks for the info. I started getting poor groupings when I went close to the lands (3.369 OAL w hornady 150 sp interlock) and started seeing flattened primers. Before I was set at 3.34 OAL when I was working up powder load. I really surprised at how far off the lands you are. My 700 is also probably in that age range. I measured the lands at 3.384 using Hornady lock and load OAL gauge. Wanna get this dialed in before going to 165gr.
I don't think sub MOA is possible with this rifle but I may be able to get 1 MOA. It has had a lot of rounds through it.
NMexJim
Member
In the original Sinclair International's Precision Reloading and Shooting Handbook (good luck finding one of these in good condition for under a few hundred dollars today), Fred Sinclair says his greatest pleasure was in wringing all the accuracy he could from a production rifle. I've always taken his words to heart, and his work with co-author Bill Gravatt has driven my reloading over the years. Enter Creighton Audette and the rest.
Way back, I was able to re-barrel a favorite rifle with a top-notch machinist at a local community college machine shop for little more than the cost of a barrel which was discounted through the college with Brownell's. Actually, we started out putting a muzzle brake on a super light .280 that kicked like a mule. Even back then and even though it was labeled a "gunsmithing" workshop, you had to be damn careful about bringing an assembled rifle on school property, and I did all the teardown off-premises. Anyway, that really lit a fire under me, and I was a frequent student. Blueprinting, pillar bedding, all kinds of such silliness.
Of course, accurate rifles are easier to find and cheaper today, but even so .......... Just in case the fire gets to you.
Way back, I was able to re-barrel a favorite rifle with a top-notch machinist at a local community college machine shop for little more than the cost of a barrel which was discounted through the college with Brownell's. Actually, we started out putting a muzzle brake on a super light .280 that kicked like a mule. Even back then and even though it was labeled a "gunsmithing" workshop, you had to be damn careful about bringing an assembled rifle on school property, and I did all the teardown off-premises. Anyway, that really lit a fire under me, and I was a frequent student. Blueprinting, pillar bedding, all kinds of such silliness.
Of course, accurate rifles are easier to find and cheaper today, but even so .......... Just in case the fire gets to you.
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,020
——
I tried this approach with.303 British loads for a service-comp rifle and it never produced a predictable curve. One interesting thing I noted in that barrel was that flat based bullets outperformed predicted velocities and boat tail bullets underperformed both for velocity and accuracy. In that sense, the failure to produce predictable results reduced the need to experiment further... so maybe that will help you??
GeoDudeFlorida
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,020
——
Two words: Dykem Blue. Or Red, if you prefer. Much easier, faster and cleaner than smudging.
I would consider a new barrel but it is an heirloom. My father-in-law gave it to me a few years before he died and it just wouldn't be the same. I have thought about bedding it however.
NMexJim
Member
Get thee to the Learn section of Brownell's and take a look through their bedding videos. Consider pillar bedding if you have the equipment - it's not hard. Really, a hand drill will work if done carefully. Stock refinishing is also in there should you think of that. Great resource, Brownell's as is Midway.
Scopes cause a lot of unknown problems even if you think you have them mounted correctly. The scope mounting surfaces front to rear on Remingtons are not dead on. I've seen as much as .020 between front and rear which wraps your scope tube. They are not true side to side either due to hand polishing. There are a group of scope mounting methods out there with YouTube having a couple of good ones. This all really depends on scope quality and powder and how much work to put into it. but, some excess time and a set of feeler gauges might prove worth your time as well. I use JB Weld with a release agent so that nothing sticks to the gun itself but rather to the mounts.
Scopes cause a lot of unknown problems even if you think you have them mounted correctly. The scope mounting surfaces front to rear on Remingtons are not dead on. I've seen as much as .020 between front and rear which wraps your scope tube. They are not true side to side either due to hand polishing. There are a group of scope mounting methods out there with YouTube having a couple of good ones. This all really depends on scope quality and powder and how much work to put into it. but, some excess time and a set of feeler gauges might prove worth your time as well. I use JB Weld with a release agent so that nothing sticks to the gun itself but rather to the mounts.
FROGO207
Member
Through the decades I have not noticed any particular trend in load development in practical terms. There are so many variables in each firearm that the next might act exactly opposite. The only thing that holds true is twist rate and bullet weight/length do follow the guidelines at least loosely.
Thanks. I noticed that Berger has a calculator on their website for bullet stability.
41 Mag
Member
around. I've found choosing a mid to slower powder for the bullet weight, starting my seating to fit the mag, working up in .02 - .05gr incriminates. Once i hit my max charge weight, I'll start working on seating shorter in .005 increments.
I have seen some rifles hit a node with a .125 jump to the lands and some liking far less. Also like mentioned above some great results at a specific range might be spread at a closer or further range. What I hope for is a stable load that groups within 1 - 2" from 100 out to 300 in most of my rifles and a touch tighter in a couple others.
All of my stuff is for hunting but I want it as good as I can get it. That takes out the minute errors from my misjudged range estimate or wind or possibly the dreaded buck fever...
I have seen some rifles hit a node with a .125 jump to the lands and some liking far less. Also like mentioned above some great results at a specific range might be spread at a closer or further range. What I hope for is a stable load that groups within 1 - 2" from 100 out to 300 in most of my rifles and a touch tighter in a couple others.
All of my stuff is for hunting but I want it as good as I can get it. That takes out the minute errors from my misjudged range estimate or wind or possibly the dreaded buck fever...
Be careful about bedding that rifle. Remington 700 has a barrel rest type block just under nose cap. The rifle is not a true free floating barrel. You screw that up and you might it much worse than it really is. Run a dollar bill under the barrel and the stock and you will find it. You may want to check the tightness of the receiver/stock screw just forward of magazine plate. That screw wears with age and needs to be tight. I found I tightened so much I needed to remove a few screw threads with a file. It did make a big difference in accuracy.
One other question regarding seating depth. After more reading I came across the statement that you want one caliber's worth of bullet seated into the case which would be .308" in my case with Flat base or .408 with the boat tail I am getting ready to work up. This would put me .092 off the lands much deeper than the 0.030-0.050 I have been reading. Thoughts?
I actually took a dremel tool and removed it on my .243 free floating the barrel and it started shooting so much better.
Blue68f100
Member
Bolt gun? single feed or magazine feed. Target or hunting.
If it's just a bolt gun used for target shooting load to distance off the lands, single feed. You can also run lighter neck tension.
For a hunting round I would seat so it fits the magazine. Then work the load up from there. Some bullets prefer the jump. A lot of variables, but test and see what your gun likes.
Its a bolt remington 700 hunting gun.
- Status
