Consistent measures vs. consistent powders

[Shmackey]

Note: This is obviously the kind of thing that one could test in a controlled experiment. Maybe I'll do that one day, if I find the time and all the ingredients. Can't hurt to think out loud about it, though....

This is just philosophical without specifying metrics, but generally speaking, which would you expect to perform better: (1) a consistent, temperature-insensitive, extruded rifle powder or (2) a textbook spherical rifle powder if both were measured from a case-activated powder drop? For example, #1 might be Varget with a goal weight of 44.0 grains and an actual range of 43.7 to 44.3 grains, while #2 might be BL-C(2) with a goal weight of 43.0 grains and an actual range of 42.9 to 43.1 grains.

Obviously there are confounding variables, which might have more impact than the powders themselves. For example, if I were shooting outside in the summer, I'd probably opt for #1 just to minimize the role that temperature would play between morning and afternoon.

Bottom line: I'm looking to find a way to be comfortable loading match .308 rounds on my progressive press.

 

[cougar1717]

The words "match" and "progressive" usually aren't spoken in the same sentence. I'm not saying that this couldn't happen, but a progressive press will limit the brass prep and charge consistency that one would consider necessary for "match" ammo.

Also, the working theory has been that the reloader had an advantage over factory ammo since we can use extruded powders with consistent charge weights by weighing each charge and trickling to the exact weight. In contrast, high volume reloaders had to give up a little charge consistency and use ball powders.

Concerning the range of expected charge weights through a progressive press between extruded and ball powders, the number of variables are huge as you said. Match ammo is about consistency. If your progressive match ammo groups are off, how do you know what variable to change to gain consistency. Did a wind gust push the bullet and ruin your group? Was it that your charge weight was 0.5gr different? Were the bullets of the exact same weight? Were the case necks of the same concentricity? Were the flash holes the same size? How do you determine what the inconsistency was to diagnose the problem to reduce your groups?

 

[Deavis]

Depends on your version of what match means. Factory match ammunition isn't loaded on a single stage press and they certainly aren't trickling every charge. What is your objective? How you choose to setup your equipment will be determined by how far you want to take your prep but convincing yourself that you can load quality ammunition on a progressive is pretty simple.

Powder drop, on a 45 grain charge, 0.1gr is about a .22% change (0.1gr is .0002286oz) in the weight. A quality measure will drop that all day long with short cut or ball powder.
The quality of your bullet seating is determined by your dies and setup, get a competition seating die from any number of manufacturers and your bullet will start straight and end up straight. You'll find runout, with good components, to be less than a few thousandths if you do your part (quality case, sizing, etc)

Brass prep there may be an argument there but I think it is more for people who want to jack their jaws about how good their process is than actual reality. Spend all the time you want there, but I'm willing to wager money that for most of what people call match applications, they couldn't prove that all the brass prep in the world makes a difference if they start with quality components and use good fundamentals.

I could be wrong, but people who shoot well enough to be able to collect statistically significant data that points to a difference in group size based on flash hole reaming are the exception rather than the rule. Define match and work from there, I bet your progressive will serve you well if you choose to go that way.

 

[MtnCreek]

Bottom line: I'm looking to find a way to be comfortable loading match .308 rounds on my progressive press.

8208xbr.

If you've got a max spread of 0.6gr of Varget, that's probably going to show up on paper. Really going to depend on your sweet spot.... Varget tends to have a pretty wide sweet spot and it's typically going to be in the upper end of pressures. Load 20 the old fashon way and 20 on the progressive and compare. If you haven't yet, give 8208 a try; meters great and does pretty good with 168/175 gr bullets. If shooting 155 gr bullets, you may like Benchmark. I tried it and didn't really care for it, but I did get good accuracy (just couldn't get the speed I was looking for).

BLC2 Sorry.

 

[Nick93]

I don´t reload rifle ammo for now but why you dont use the progresive(i bet that the dillon xl650 would do the job because most service rifle shooters use them) with comptetion dies(redding are nice) and two 1500 chargermaster

you can load them in 3 steps ...
1º you run them with a universal deccaper then you clean them with STM to get the insade and primer pockets clean ...
2º you size , prime and trim with dillon power trimmer
3º you use universal charging die with a funnel to load a load while the other chargemaster is loading the next charge (so you can go faster) and seat and crimp

then a final clean to take of the lube and get the loaded rounds pretty and presto you are done

quite expensive setup but you can produce match grade ammo with no effort at all

 

[Shmackey]

Yep--my current rifle setup is a combo of a Chargemaster (just one) and a 650. I haven't loaded rifle fully progressively for a good while, but now that I switched to a case-fed 650, I realized how nice it would be to run everything through in one step from casefeed bin to ammo box. I neck-size, and my brass collection is ~1500 pieces of already-prepped military brass, so at this point I almost never have to lube, full-length size, clean, and then get them back on the press. Maybe once a year.

I spent a couple of hours last night researching rifle powders that meter well and play very well with 175 SMKs. Now I've got a pound of 8208 xbr and a pound of TAC on the way. So in theory I could run my own little experiment with press-dropped Varget and H4895 vs. 8208 and TAC. Not sure I'll really have the time to do that in a meaningful way, but at the very least I'll be able to try some things out and see how it goes.

The question "what are you trying to do" is a good one.

For the purpose of scientific rigor in this imaginary experiment: I'm trying to find a fully progressive (case feeder to ammo box without pulling the cases to hand-charge) way to make .308 Win ammo that's not noticeably inferior to the ammo I currently make with hand-weighed charges of H4895 and Varget.

 

[helotaxi]

Based on the experience of many:

The TAC will meter the best from any kind of volumetric measure and will almost always meter every charge within the incremental measurement of your scale (IOW they will all weigh the same on a normal scale). Accuracy will be OK, not great.

8208XBR will be a close second in metering, usually with no more than a +/- 0.1gn deviation. Well within the margin of a good load. Many people have had as good or better results compared to Varget. Acceptable metering consistency providing exceptional results (using thrown, not individually weighed charges) make this one the standout.

Varget and 4895 are well known for their frustrating effect on powder measure users, though I've loaded 50rnd blocks dropping low and trickling up where every thrown charge was within 0.1gn.

Plenty of very successful "match" shooters load ("load" being the operative word) their match ammo on progressive presses. They process brass (size, decap, trim, etc...) off press but prime, charge and seat bullets all on press. With the volume of shooting that many of them do, any other method would be impossible.

Also, the working theory has been that the reloader had an advantage over factory ammo since we can use extruded powders with consistent charge weights by weighing each charge and trickling to the exact weight. In contrast, high volume reloaders had to give up a little charge consistency and use ball powders.

Not sure where this theory came from, but it's the first I've heard of it. The primary benefit of reloading is the ability to tailor the load to the rifle. Something simply not possible with factory ammo. Whether that tailored load uses ball or extruded (not all factory loads use ball powder either) is immaterial. The ability of matching the powder, charge, primer, bullet, case and COAL to a particular rifle is the draw and once that magic combination is found, adapting it to mass production isn't that difficult. Depending on the stability of the load, even Varget can be used with solely thrown charges.

 

[helotaxi]

Within limits, neither did powder charge. Virgil threw his charges from a Culver conversion, and the grain-cutting operation obviously gave him reasonably consistent results with the long, little kernels, considering the excellence of the resulting groups. He did, however, later use a Belding & Mull powder measure in order to lessen the grain-cutting problem.

Powder charges, as long as they were fairly consistent and bracketed within a couple of grains, were not important, he said. On one occasion, as an experiment Virgil shot one group with his 6PPC barrel on the Cooper action using a 53 Culver setting of Winchester 748, the next 52 and the third 51. All three groups were identical.

In case you were curious about the man generally considered to be the foremost expert in rifle precision and consistency thought about the need to have every powder charge exactly the same.

From here: http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2149325

 

[7.62X?]

Well just on the powder. I got IMR4064,VARGET, extruded BLC-(2) spherical/ball. (I had to go look)So it makes sence to me that a ball would meter better. As witch one is more stable VARGET & BLC-(2) I dont know? IMR4064 from what I know it isnt but it shure works great! I still trickel every round.

 

[Jim Watson]

As helo said about TAC, I tried hard to like AA2520. It metered almost perfectly, but accuracy was less than with weighed extruded powder. I don't shoot so much first class rifle ammunition that single staging is a worry.

A friend is loading .223 full progressive for XTC. I await a report from him.

 

[amlevin]

The idea of loading "match grade ammo" on my 650 crossed my mind a couple of months ago. I got to thinking about the "issues". Consistent powder charges and uniform seating were big questions.

I've been experimenting and here's what I've come up with so far.

First I eliminated the "slop" between press and tool head by installing UniqueTek's Tool head clamp kit. It consists of some thread inserts that are installed in the pin holes of the tool head and then the head is secured in the press with two socket-head cap screws that hold it tight. No more up/down movement.

Second, I removed the powder measure and die. I now use a Lee Auto Disk Rifle charging die. Instead of the Auto Disk Powder Dispenser I merely put a Lee Powder Funnel in the top of the die.

I process and hand prime all cases in advance then put them in the case feeder.

Bullets are seated using a Redding Competition Seating die.

The process is to pull the handle down, seating a bullet. I leave the handle down and pour a powder charge dispensed by my Chargemaster into the funnel. The handle is then raised, advancing the cases. Repeat until all cases are loaded.

Run-out checks show finished rounds to be uniform within +/-.0015". COAL's when measured with a comparator are within +/-.002".

As for "productivity", I recently installed an SA Press Monitor. It monitors the ram position, keeps track of rounds loaded, and also calculates the rate of "rounds per hour". Last night's "run" showed that I was loading at the rate of 90 rounds per hour without really trying. A little tweaking of the Chargemaster could reduce the delay while waiting for powder but it's not all that bad.

I certainly wouldn't buy a Dillon XL-650 to load ammo in this manner but since I already had it I just thought I'd see how it did. Most of the time it's used for high volume loading of 9mm, .223, or standard .308.

 

[helotaxi]

I tried hard to like AA2520. It metered almost perfectly, but accuracy was less than with weighed extruded powder.

TAC and 2520 are my go-to powders, but not for .308, rather for .223. I use TAC for bulk loading mid-weight rounds for "contingency" use and range practice and 2520 for heavier bullets where I'm more concerned with accuracy. Had very good results with 2520 in .223 and .204.

I don't shoot enough .308 to really worry about it, but I do load most all of it on my 550.

 

[jerkface11]

the working theory has been that the reloader had an advantage over factory ammo since we can use extruded powders with consistent charge weights by weighing each charge and trickling to the exact weight.

In my experience volume is more important than weight.

 

[FROGO207]

In my reloading of accuracy rounds with all rifle calibers the least significant variable of all is the weight of the propellant. Casing weight/volume/flash hole,bullet weight, primer seating and OAL are all more critical in my rifles. The weight trickled .1 grain high or low with all else as close to the same as I can get and I can not detect any problems with accuracy in my 308/30-06 custom rifles. They can shoot MUCH better groups from a machine rest than I ever hope to achieve.:banghead: YMMV