Concentricity -- A theory?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thomasss

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
1,591
Location
Wisconsin
On another thread, I received a reply that said "Do I believe in the concentricity theory'?
Well, to me it's not a theory. This week I loaded 16 rounds for my 30.06 Danish Garand that has a National Match peep.
All were loaded the same, the run out was the same, etc. The only difference was I adjusted 8 with my Hornady Concentricity tool. I shot two different targets at 100 yrds.
The results were as I expected. The ones that were not adjusted for centering on the bore shot a wider group than the ones that were not adjusted at all.
Now I did check all the cartridges. I had most cartridges under.0015 variance. There were 3 in each group that were over .002 out of alignment. And one group wasn't corrected for alignment.
If you are interested, a former Army Ranger watched me do this testing and made suggestions as I shot these groups. He on the other hand had his M1A1 and was shooting groups at 1/3 MOA and some where touching each other in a couple of different targets. He loads the same as me, but shoots a cryogenic barrel, has a nice Leopold scope on his rifle and built a nice deflector over the ejection port. He also added a Boss extension to his muzzle this week.
 
Do I believe consentricity matters, yes I do. Do I believe using the "hornaday tool" to adjust them does more damage than good yes. The information should be used in a systematic way to find and address the problem, be it the sizing or seating die, not to bend and tweak less than optimal loads into something that measures true. How does those adjustments effect neck tension.
 
I believe it matters too! I've done quite a bit of testing, mostly in some pretty accurate Varmint rifles and one Benchrest rifle.
 
Do I believe consentricity matters, yes I do. Do I believe using the "hornaday tool" to adjust them does more damage than good yes. The information should be used in a systematic way to find and address the problem, be it the sizing or seating die, not to bend and tweak less than optimal loads into something that measures true. How does those adjustments effect neck tension.
For AJC1: If the Hornady tool "does more damage than good" then why did I get such great results? How would you think it would do "more damage"? I don't see how anyone could find all the problems all the time and this tool helps solve an unknown issue. All dies are Hornady Custom dies with taper crimping and considering the lack of powder, primers and cases these days I'm glad to be able to correct a problem rather than discard a loaded cartridge. The Army Ranger that helped me with the test also considered neck sizing and we found that there was no repeating issues associated with the adjusted cartridges. Therefore, I feel neck sizing is a non issue at this time.
 
All were loaded the same, the run out was the same, etc. The only difference was I adjusted 8 with my Hornady Concentricity tool. I shot two different targets at 100 yrds.
The results were as I expected. The ones that were not adjusted for centering on the bore shot a wider group than the ones that were not adjusted at all.

I think I am confused, you loaded some with more runout than others then adjust them so the “bad” ones were the same as the “good” ones or you didn’t adjust any at all and they shot different?

I don’t think I could draw any conclusions off of just 8 rounds, even less likely with just two 4 shot groups.

FWIW, I have seen ammunition that had substantial runout, only to be straightened when chambered. If your combination does that you can’t tell the difference, because they are fixed before you can pull the trigger. You might measure them, chamber/eject and remeasure.
 
For AJC1: If the Hornady tool "does more damage than good" then why did I get such great results? How would you think it would do "more damage"? I don't see how anyone could find all the problems all the time and this tool helps solve an unknown issue. All dies are Hornady Custom dies with taper crimping and considering the lack of powder, primers and cases these days I'm glad to be able to correct a problem rather than discard a loaded cartridge. The Army Ranger that helped me with the test also considered neck sizing and we found that there was no repeating issues associated with the adjusted cartridges. Therefore, I feel neck sizing is a non issue at this time.
How much runnout are we talking? Anything less than .003 tir has proven by several testers to be almost meaningless. If your fixing rounds .010 out you need to find the source of the error.
 
I know for a fact that my LR-10 in 6.5 CM bends the bullets if fed from a magazine. Easy to verify, just load and eject and measure. Now on the target it's a big POI shift from single loading. At 200 yrds it will shift the POI up 2" and 1.5" to the right. The mags are for a 308W which have a shorter bullet than the 6.5CM.
 
I looked all over for this article about "bullet tilt" and, go figure, I found a copy of it here at THR posted back in 2011 by Clark.

from "The American Rifleman" ~ 50 years ago, and the NRA says it is ok to quote.

"Gauging Bullet Tilt"

THE MOST PRECISE AMMUNITION
FROM A LOT CAN BE SELECTED
WITH A BULLET ALIGNMENT GAUGE.

By A. A. ABBATIELLO

Other factors being normal, bullet
tilt with respect to the case center-
line affects group size. If the barrel
length and twist are known, it has been
found possible to predict the direction
from the group center in which the tilted
bullet will strike. If the amount of tilt
is known, the distance from the group
center can be predicted.
Significant score improvement has
been noted by those who have tried
such gauged ammunition.
In cal. .30 long-range shooting, the
best match-grade ammunition will group
in one to 2 minutes of angle under test
conditions. Part of this spread is due
to the bullet tilt with respect to the
case centerline, imposed by the bullet-
seating tool. This tilt displaces the bul-
let’s center of gravity slightly to one
side; in bullets such as the cal. .30 Ml,
the amount is about 1/8 the displace-
ment of the bullet point. It enlarges
groups by amounts up to one minute.
These deviations become proportion-
ately less as the tilt is reduced. Tilts
over .O04" do not seem to increase the
dispersion of the group beyond the ex-
pected one minute. Perhaps this is
because a well-fitting chamber has a
tendency to straighten any rounds
which are excessively tilted. Other ex-
planations are possible.
The gauge consists of a V-block
which permits rotating the round about
the bullet point and 2 tangent spots
near the case head. A dial indicator
which reads in tenths of thousandths of
an inch (.0OO1") bears on the bullet
near the case neck. Half the total indica-
tor reading is used as the displacement
for determining the classes into which
the rounds are separated. The high point
is also marked at this time for orienta-
tion of the round in the rifle chamber.
Rounds with .0O2" tilt or less can
be considered good enough for long-
range use, while those with .O03" and
.OO4" tilt are best used only at short
ranges. In general, it was concluded
from target results that each .0Ol" of
tilt will increase the group spread about
1/4 minute of angle, up to a maximum
of .OO4" as mentioned above.
Under test conditions, it was found
that when the rounds were chambered
with the high point always in the same
orientation, the groups were smaller
than when it was randomly oriented.
Gauging and orienting the rounds can
produce the smallest groups of which
that ammunition is capable.
These ammunition refinements are
becoming important, particularly in
long-range matches.
The essentials of the tilted bullet were
discussed in detail no less than 50 years
ago by Dr. F. W. Mann in his book
"The Bullets In Flight". He pointed out that
the balance of the bullet and the spiral
path of the center of gravity are of
high importance in accuracy.

Following a discussion between
George L. Jacobsen of Frankford Arse-
al and the writer at the 1959 National
matches, a trial of the effect of neck
concentricity was carried out by Jacob-
sen. He described his results in ".30-’O6
Cartridge Cases And Accuracy", which
appeared in THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN,
January 1960, page 20.

SEATING TOOL A FACTOR

The effects which Jacobsen found,
though small, are essentially in agree-
ment with the work reported here.
However, he did not separate the effects
of neck eccentricity and the bullet cen-
ter-of-gravity location with respect to
the bore. The angular direction of the
bullet seating tool is a controlling factor
in the initial position given to the bullet,
rather than merely case neck eccen-
tricity. Case necks can be centered or
eccentric, and the bullet can be inclined
in completely random directions. The
tilted bullet is believed to be the main
cause for center—of-gravity side shift.
The cal. .30 boattail bullet of 173 grs.
weight was selected for these tests be-
cause it is in common use and is of
sufficiently high quality for use in the
National Matches.
Using the gauge shown, 42 ammuni-
tion lots were sampled and the high
point was marked on each round gauged.
These rounds were grouped in steps of
.OO1" bullet tilt, and the data tabu-
lated. The results gave a bell—shaped
curve for 829 rounds of match ammu-
nition, peaking at about .0O2" (see
illustration). Measurements on Service
ball ammunition produced a curve of
similar shape, but peaking at about
.0025" tilt.
This graphically illustrates that even
match-grade ammunition has appreci-
able variations. There is a large spread
among particular lots and boxes. In
general, 10% to 20% of each lot, de-
pending on ammunition quality, falls
into .0O3", .0O4" or even up to .O10"
tilt. Run-of-the-mill ammunition can
thereby enlarge groups to about twice
the size which the same ammunition
can show when it is gauged before firing.
Since the tilt angle of the bullet is
so small (about 1/4 °) it is difficult to
perceive visually. The gauge, however,
makes the sorting a fast, routine step.
A mathematical solution of this prob-
lem was also tried (see box) and is in
good agreement with the results ob-
tained. It is gratifying to find the math-
ematical solution and the experimental
results in agreement.



MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION

A laterally displaced center of
gravity moves through the rifle bore
in a helical (screw) path. The pitch
of this helix is the pitch of rifling,
and its radius is the lateral displace-
ment of the center of gravity. On
leaving the muzzle, the center of
gravity continues in the direction it
had at that point. For example, if it
leaves at top of the bore and rifling
is to the right, the departure will be
to the right. The bullet travels ap-
proximately 2l.5" in a 24" barrel,
making 2.15 turns in the 10" twist
of rifling. The number of turns
shows the orientation on emergence
compared with that in the chamber
before firing. The angle of emer-
gence is that angle whose tangent is
2 pi times the lateral displacement
divided by the rifling pitch. For
.004" point displacement and I0"
rifling pitch, the tangent is 1/8(2·pi)
(.004)/l0 and the corresponding
angle is 1.1 minutes.
The displacement on target from
this cause is proportional to the
range and can be obtained without
noting the angle. For example, ,004"
point displacement gives in l0"
rifling pitch, so far as this mecha-
nism goes, a target displacement at
100 yds. (3600") indicated by the
proportion .00l· pi /10=X/3600, from
which x =1.1".

Clark, Oct 1, 2011Report
#3Unlike
 
Until you can measure bullet concentricity, that is the thickness of the jacket, and if the center of gravity is in the axis of rotation, you really don't know if your 8 rounds of good, and 8 rounds of bad, proved anything. Eight rounds is not exactly a large data sample.

And for the results of 50 years ago, the bullets back then were horrible. And their action and barrel bedding concepts stunk. Full length barrel bedding in the channel was the standard, my pre 64's have barrel bands, with screws!. The band was screwed into the stock to keep the barrel from moving. All that did was create weird and chaotic vibration patterns. Did you notice that the author is accepting 2 MOA groups as the standard for target accuracy? Those old shooters were seeing patterns that did not exist.

F Class shooters might be able to provide a good guess as to the affects of cartridge concentricity, they are shooting sub MOA, they might see something on target with bent rounds and off axis bullets.
 
Until you can measure bullet concentricity, that is the thickness of the jacket, and if the center of gravity is in the axis of rotation, you really don't know if your 8 rounds of good, and 8 rounds of bad, proved anything. Eight rounds is not exactly a large data sample.

And for the results of 50 years ago, the bullets back then were horrible. And their action and barrel bedding concepts stunk. Full length barrel bedding in the channel was the standard, my pre 64's have barrel bands, with screws!. The band was screwed into the stock to keep the barrel from moving. All that did was create weird and chaotic vibration patterns. Did you notice that the author is accepting 2 MOA groups as the standard for target accuracy? Those old shooters were seeing patterns that did not exist.

F Class shooters might be able to provide a good guess as to the affects of cartridge concentricity, they are shooting sub MOA, they might see something on target with bent rounds and off axis bullets.
Dragging in axial alignment and jamming going to make some heads explode. The assumption in these tests are all other factors are known and controlled but we know that to be false.
 
Yes, concentricity matters. I’m not sold on the Hornady method of “fixing” them, I would have to see a really good test.

Measure it at every step, find out what is making rounds crooked, and fix it. Chamber? Sizer? Expander? Seater? Etc. Was the brass straight when new?
 
I'm with AJ and walkalong. I use a gauge to make sure my setup is correct on my long range ammo. 600yards plus. If you are feeding from a magazine then what's the point. the action of stripping the round from the mag and forcing it into the chamber is going to bend it more than a few thousands. Especially with a auto loading rifle. try this test, measure a round then load it from a mag, unload and check it again.
 
I use an RCBS case master to sort factory ammo. I'll use the rejects for close range point shooting. I'm certain it matters.
 
If you are feeding from a magazine then what's the point. the action of stripping the round from the mag and forcing it into the chamber is going to bend it more than a few thousands. Especially with a auto loading rifle.

I agree. And it depends on the type of shooting. When I was competiting in NRA Highpower, we shot prone with a sling and used irons. There were people around with 1/8 MOA holds, but I am quite sure, even with that level of hold, they did not see anything on target due to runout in thousandths. And, as no one shoots in a vacuum, wind irregularities move the bullet one heck of a lot. And then bullet stability is huge, and everyone who has shot Smallbore Prone has seen, rounds do have a mind of their own.

Now when shooters use a rest, bipods, and sand bags, they will observe ammunition issues that a sling shooter will not.
 
When a case is sized correctly it will allow the projectile to self center in the bore without influence, whether jumped or jammed, shouldn’t really make much difference. I think testing the effects of run out requires a straight chamber to action connection and a straight barrel to begin with coupled with near perfect conditions and maybe even a rail gun.
I had the Hornday tool at one time ( pos) compared to an accuracy one or 21st century tool , even so I have not been able to document any variance on paper out to 600 yards just from a couple extra thousand of run out.
Along these same lines of thought begins the discussion of in bore yaw and whether the effects cancel or contribute to run out and point of impact.
 
Last edited:
I think I am confused, you loaded some with more runout than others then adjust them so the “bad” ones were the same as the “good” ones or you didn’t adjust any at all and they shot different?
Yes, you are confused. I loaded identical 16 rounds. I corrected 8 rounds for concentricity and shot two groups of 8 at different targets.
I found a tighter group for the ones that were corrected then the ones that were not corrected for concentricity.
 
What was the relationship in thousandths between ‘amount corrected” and group size, that you observed?

You know, another on worth answering would be, if ‘Good’ rounds, culled from normal operations, shot any better or worse than ‘corrected’ ones.
 
Last edited:
I used to use the Hornady concentricity tool to measure and correct run out on anything that was greater than 0.003” TIR.

What a tedious process.

I made the decision to correct it at the source and focus on the root cause, namely the sizing dies.

As a result I don’t make anything greater than 0.002” total indicated runout and don’t even measure for it anymore.

My Hornady tool is collecting dust now and I’m happy
 
I used to use the Hornady concentricity tool to measure and correct run out on anything that was greater than 0.003” TIR.

What a tedious process.

I made the decision to correct it at the source and focus on the root cause, namely the sizing dies.

As a result I don’t make anything greater than 0.002” total indicated runout and don’t even measure for it anymore.

My Hornady tool is collecting dust now and I’m happy
Sounds exactly like the right path to me!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BWS
I used to use the Hornady concentricity tool to measure and correct run out on anything that was greater than 0.003” TIR.

What a tedious process.

I made the decision to correct it at the source and focus on the root cause, namely the sizing dies.

As a result I don’t make anything greater than 0.002” total indicated runout and don’t even measure for it anymore.

My Hornady tool is collecting dust now and I’m happy


If you don't mind me asking, What sizing die are using?
 
You know, another on worth answering would be, if ‘Good’ rounds, culled from normal operations, shot any better or worse than ‘corrected’ ones.
I wasn't making that comparison, so I cannot give you an answer to your question. I had some good rounds in each group as sort of double blind test, to prevent me from unintentionally corrupting the results.
After reading everyone's replies, I'm not sure if it is even possible to do everything that would make everyone happy. I feel I have been doing a NIOSH experiment by checking every specification that came to mind. This has not been just one experiment, rather it has also been with all the ammo I have loaded for myself and for others for over 2 years It's hasn't been a lot of improvement, but some improvement and it can be seen by comparing targets. My Army Ranger buddy, who happened to be an armorer while serving in the arm forces is a mentor and has made many suggestions along the way. I was looking primarily at group size and noting the irregular shot placements with certain cartridges that we determined were out of place. All loads are full length sized with Hornady Custom dies that taper crimp. We did use wind flags, and watched for better days in temperature and barometric readings. And we take into account for the Coriolis affect.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't making that comparison, so I cannot give you an answer to your question. I had some good rounds in each group as sort of double blind test, to prevent me from unintentionally corrupting the results.
After reading everyone's replies, I'm not sure if it is even possible to do everything that would make everyone happy. I feel I have been doing a NIOSH experiment by checking every specification that came to mind. This has not been just one experiment, rather it has also been with all the ammo I have loaded for myself and for others for over 2 years It's hasn't been a lot of improvement, but some improvement and it can be seen by comparing targets. My Army Ranger buddy, who happened to be an armorer while serving in the arm forces is a mentor and has made many suggestions along the way. I was looking primarily at group size and noting the irregular shot placements with certain cartridges that we determined were out of place. All loads are full length sized with Hornady Custom dies that taper crimp. We did use wind flags, and watched for better days in temperature and barometric readings. And we take into account for the Coriolis affect.
A good test would be to test your fired brass to see if you have a good consentric bore. The next thing I would check is the evenness of your brass neck thickness. Finally as a test, do a partial seating and rotate the case and finish seating and see if that changes your product. My first inclination is your sizing die. The easiest one to fix for you would be the seating die. Does your bullet fit the seating stem good. Do you get different results with a different stem. The great part about hornaday is their seating stems are cheap and readily available.
 
My largest issues were solved by annealing and bullet seating. The latter is more interesting than the annealing.

We have a pretty durn nice machine shop. I've made lots of tooling for the loading bench. The problem,which is very easy to replicate was how the seating stem interfaced with the bullet nose.

I started making new,threaded stems to match up with the die. Went down that rabbit hole to the point of making several different stems. Even got to where I was pressure/heat swaging the biz ends of these stems. And yes,did the epoxy thing which really is sorta chickenchit compared to other ways(we do internal grinding).

It wasn't until I started using stepped mandrels,ripped off Lyman M die design.... custom turned of course. That I saw the correlation between how the bullet is "pre seated", before it goes into the seater die,and the amt of runout after seating.

Yes,I've made whole seating dies that use sleeves,yadayada. They're of a hybrid design,that honestly is way too hard to describe. But even those,won't 100% guarantee 0 runout if the bullet isn't durn near perfect beforehand.

I now use a bench block,stood up on edge,that has a milled "V" vertically. Faster than you can say your name,the bullets are placed in the top of the case.... which is in the V,and you roll it with your right thumb. Get that bullet dead nuts visually,and then go to the seating die. Skip this step,and I was still getting an occasional finished round with 001,002" runout. Say 1 in 5 or so.


Changing lanes a bit.... your chambers neck ID,and your loaded round's OD plays a role in how much,runout shows up on paper. This is one(of a cpl) reasons why some folks can shoot .005" runout and it doesn't show up on the target. Next guys rig will start flinging flyers with demonstrably less runout.

I rarely check runout anymore because; not that it's a waste of time but.... they're too close to measure with a typical D.I. And will be danged if I'm gonna put a "tenths" indicator on there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top