thump_rrr
Member
You may have missed it but I mentioned earlier that with the hornady at magazine length (2.880) I am still 0.040” from touching the lands while with the 168 SMK at 2.860” I’m only 0.010” from the lands.
I’m nearly at the end of my rope with my 308.
- Thread starter thump_rrr
- Start date
AJC1
Member
I think seating depth is a fine knob while barrel, bullet and powder are course knobs. If resolving at the fine adjust the berger seating test remains unbested.
thump_rrr
Member
Thanks for this information.
I was unaware of the methodology used by Berger.
I read up on it and they state that secant ogive bullets are very sensitive to seating depth changes and provides a method to find the best starting depth.
I will be using their method in my next test hopefully this weekend.
Charlie98
Member
With the 168's, and my initial ladders, that's where I was getting into trouble... my ladders were pushing 2750fps and above, and I was getting dismal results. As soon as I brought it back down to ~2700fps, things started to behave. It seems like 2600fps with the 178's seems reasonable.
I may need to look at that as well... I'd heard about the issues with secant ogive bullets, of which Hornady is in love with. I read a discussion about it over on the M14 forum, which kind of woke me up to it. If memory serves, it started as a discussion about the 169grn SMK.
thump_rrr
Member
I ran the 168’s all the way up close to 2800.
My 175 SMK’s liked 2625 fps.
I pushed the 185 Juggernauts a little harder at 2659 fps.
My 175 SMK’s liked 2625 fps.
I pushed the 185 Juggernauts a little harder at 2659 fps.
Last edited:
Charlie98
Member
I probably could have done that... in fact, that was my goal... but once the accuracy started to fall apart, I decided it was a fools errand given my current reloading technique. My long-term goal was to get to 1000yds, but reading into it more, realized I would have to push the 168's likely too far to get there, that the 175's and up were the ticket for 1000yds. I think my 168 FGMM clone load should get me to 500yds, and then I'll move to the heavier bullets. Of course, I'll probably need a new barrel by then...
AJC1
Member
The 168s almost always go transonic before 1k even if pushed to dangerous levels. 175-200s are what most use to get there.
I probably could have done that... in fact, that was my goal... but once the accuracy started to fall apart, I decided it was a fools errand given my current reloading technique. My long-term goal was to get to 1000yds, but reading into it more, realized I would have to push the 168's likely too far to get there, that the 175's and up were the ticket for 1000yds. I think my 168 FGMM clone load should get me to 500yds, and then I'll move to the heavier bullets. Of course, I'll probably need a new barrel by then...
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,256
Stepping back into this mess.
@thump_rrr
You have a load that shoots a 0.6 MOA 5 shot group at 300m using 185 Juggernauts
You can’t find anything that shoots better.
Other than helping your source more 185 juggernauts, what are you asking this this forum to do?
@thump_rrr
You have a load that shoots a 0.6 MOA 5 shot group at 300m using 185 Juggernauts
You can’t find anything that shoots better.
Other than helping your source more 185 juggernauts, what are you asking this this forum to do?
thump_rrr
Member
@Nature Boy
I am trying to pool the experience of fellow shooters who may have some arcane piece of knowledge that I may not.
I believe AJC1 may have just pointed me in the right direction by mentioning the Berger Seating Test.
That led me to another forum which then led me to this article by Eric Stecker.
https://bergerbullets.com/getting-the-best-precision-and-accuracy-from-vld-bullets-in-your-rifle/
The 178 BTHP has a secant ogive like the Berger VLD.
Here is an excerpt from that article.
Remember the old adage “you learn something new every day”.
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,256
Here’s my journey with a .308 from 2017. It’s oriented toward a process that’s different from yours. I hope you find it helpful. It made both me a my daughter NRA high masters at 600 yards
.308 long range load development results
I've been focusing on 185 Berger Juggernauts but what would look good at 100 wouldn't hold up at longer distances. I think I found it this weekend when I switched to 180 SMKs 100 yards on left, 1000 on the right I loaded the 180g SMKs .015 off the lands with 43.5g Varget, Lapua brass and...
www.thehighroad.org
thump_rrr
Member
The 180SMK was my bullet of preference when I was shooting this rifle with the original Savage barrel. I put over 3,000 of them through it.
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,256
There are multiple methods out there for how to develop a load. They all work. Pick one and follow it. 5 shots in a paper plate isn’t a process.
If your objective is to see what you, your load and your rifle are capable of you need to follow a process. Be objective and read that data. Adjust accordingly from that.
There are people that will help you in forums like this. They have helped me tremendously in my journey. You have to not only be open to listening, but be discerning in who you listen to.
If your objective is to see what you, your load and your rifle are capable of you need to follow a process. Be objective and read that data. Adjust accordingly from that.
There are people that will help you in forums like this. They have helped me tremendously in my journey. You have to not only be open to listening, but be discerning in who you listen to.
thump_rrr
Member
I have been able to develop plenty of accurate loads with different bullets and rifles.
Maybe not NRA High Master level but decent just the same.
These bullets seem to be throwing me for a loop
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,935
Erik Cortina has a video out in the last year or so, just a talking head piece, titled "Precision Reloading is Easy. YOU Complicate it!"
After loading for long range and precision for now >25yrs of my life and chasing countless ideas and theories and spending tens of thousands of dollars on gadgets and gizmos, I'm absolutely convinced this is the case, ESPECIALLY with the results of science being published in the last decade. We're finding out over and over that more and more of the ideas we've chased for decades as a reloading/shooting society have been smoke and mirrors mixed with snake oil and voodoo.
So as a matter of course, if you're finding yourself seeking some arcane piece of knowledge to solve some unsolved reloading mystery, you're probably NOT going to solve it, because it really can't be and shouldn't be solved.
Seating depth is a very, very small knob, with very, very generous windows. Read on Berger's page about their VLD's (Secant ogives) and seating depths - for a long time, folks were convinced secant ogives shot best only when jammed, or given a very short jump. The idea was that the case neck needed to still be supporting the bullet fully while it engraves itself onto the rifling... but then shooters tried jumping them a LONG way, and realized they shoot fine there too! Why? Because the bullets want to shoot well..
Don't trick yourself into thinking a few 3-5 shot groups will indicate truth. Very, VERY commonly, reloaders let themselves get convinced by results which are 100% coincidence - they shoot some comparison test and one group is smaller than the rest, one group is bigger, and they say "that seating depth is the best, and that one is worst" - but very often, that shooter could shoot any one of those individual combinations over and over and end up with smaller and larger groups than anything from the first test, and very often, that shooter could reshoot the same test and end up with contradictory results to the first. We'll say things like, "well, it WAS in tune, but then it fell apart," or "it wants to shoot well, but it throws flyers," or worse, we convince ourselves to chase smoke because we convince ourselves that doing a little more work to our brass or to our bullets or measuring more precisely our powder or sorting components by any number of variables that we might be able to turn whatever 1.5MOA group we have into a 0.01moa group... and in reality, that just doesn't happen.
So don't let yourself chase smoke, or arcane pieces of knowledge... if one dog don't hunt, the other does, hunt the good dog, and don't waste time on the laggard.
MarshallDodge
Member
All good points but seating depth can affect a group, some bullets/chambers are more sensitive than others.
JFrank
Member
I’m would agree with this.
I like to think seating falls into the second group.
Combustion
Harmonics
Ballistics
JFrank
Member
I’ll post something that may take a while to absorb but I find it good food for thought, and the guy that sent this to me during a tuning session went on to win the national 1000 &. 600 yard br within one month of each other.
This is a seating review shot at 900 yards, you’ll see a shot number next to a depth number + and -
When you think about fliers and spit shots and wonder why, maybe it’s the seating depth and maybe not but remember ..
1 flier in a 5 shot group = 20% fliers
This is a seating review shot at 900 yards, you’ll see a shot number next to a depth number + and -
When you think about fliers and spit shots and wonder why, maybe it’s the seating depth and maybe not but remember ..
1 flier in a 5 shot group = 20% fliers
Attachments
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,935
Seating depth influences groups WAY less than most folks convince themselves it does. And for 99.9% o the world, even the vast majority of competitive shooters, it's a far better option to simply pick a less jump sensitive bullet than to try to chase lands and keep a jump sensitive bullet happy. That game is a losing battle, and will always bite us in the ass.
Most folks just shoot a few 3-5 shot groups and choose to believe that the smallest group on the page is meaningful, rather than acknowledging that they really don't have enough information to support the claim... Shoot the test again, are all of the groups the same size and shape? Are all of the sizes relative to one another the same? How much dispersion exists when shooting the same load repeatedly, rather than multiple seating depths? "Distinctions without real differences" too commonly give people confidence in coincidence, rather than actual distinctions. We WANT to believe that one small group is small because that is the PERFECT seating depth, when usually, repeating the test won't repeat the result...
Especially when we're talking about bullets which just don't shoot... shooting jump sensitive bullets is like marrying a woman who hates you - it's rarely a path to happiness...
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,935
Jim, correct me if I'm reading that target incorrectly, but it looks like he shot 12 shots into ~1/2moa which went from 8thou jam to 14thou jump. Looks like all of the Jams out to touch would have been about ~1/3moa, and all of the jumps would have been ~1/3moa, but for that 22thou test, his ~1/2moa group is still smaller than 99.9% of gunowners would ever dream of shooting, and it took a dude who won Nationals to shoot small enough to even have a chance of showing a difference might exist.
What would you think his normal 900yrd group size would be? The human brain wants to look for a pattern in this, so let's say he picks the -10 jumper as "ideal", what's his normal group size? Just based on that target, there's an 8thou span where that bullet doesn't care about seating depth consistency, but knowing how big the groups around each bullet hole would usually be would give more info as to whether the difference between the vertical POI position is indicative that those single shots of 7 different jump distances is really differentiated from the 5 shots which were jammed + touching. That cluster from -6 to -14 looks like something, but like you said, maybe it is, maybe it isn't - understanding his regular "error" in group vertical would paint a more clear picture. Like @Walkalong says, the wind pushes bullets into the group as often as out, so maybe luck spread the -2 to -6, and the same luck clustered the -6 to -14?
(And we know it happens, but what are the odds of #11 and #12 falling in the same hole, eh?!?!)
JFrank
Member
I’m downtown running errands but quickly I’ll say many depths were eliminated giving him a window to concentrate once he arrived at Deep Creek, I can’t tell you exactly which depth he chose but I’m pretty certain it was one of the 9,10,11 or 12 shots that fall within that vertical ( horizontal) plane.
Two shots in the same hole is strictly a coincidence at that distance.
BTW he shoots Toms Vapor trail bullets ( the best in the world IMO)
Two shots in the same hole is strictly a coincidence at that distance.
BTW he shoots Toms Vapor trail bullets ( the best in the world IMO)
Last edited:
thump_rrr
Member
I’m glad you mentioned the Eric Cortina “Reloading Is Easy” video.
In that video he states that if your E.S. Is good don’t touch your powder charge,
fix your harmonics with seating depth or a barrel tuner. I actually have one of his barrel tuners on that rifle
Berger themselves are telling you to use 3 shot groups for the coarse seating test while the statisticians are telling you to use 10 or 20 shot groups.
Why doesn’t Berger tell you to use 20 shot groups that sell more bullets?
I’m going to try their test to see if it does anything.
Worst case I wasted some time and 24 more bullets, primers and some powder.
Last edited:
JFrank
Member
the Berger test is no more than the one I just posted but with a couple more shots each. So what are you looking for with seating depth testing?
Small groups
Group shape
Vertical dispersion
Myself I think it may be important to consider a seating window that doesn’t demonstrate a tendency to throw shots, that may not be the smallest groups nor the ideal shape but what’s the most important aspect of long range shooting ? I think VT is correct when he says smallest groups don’t always repeat.
Small groups
Group shape
Vertical dispersion
Myself I think it may be important to consider a seating window that doesn’t demonstrate a tendency to throw shots, that may not be the smallest groups nor the ideal shape but what’s the most important aspect of long range shooting ? I think VT is correct when he says smallest groups don’t always repeat.
Last edited:
thump_rrr
Member
As is mentioned in the Berger article, this is just a coarse seating depth test.
They claim that one group will stand out.
Then a fine seating depth test should be done in .002” or .005” increments.
JFrank
Member
In .040 increments one depth should darn sure better stand out. But what does that mean to the shooter ? What is the shooter looking for in relationship to the adjoining groups on each side of the chosen depth?
FLIGHT762
Member
I have a 24" Hart 1-12" on a Remington 700. It does like the Hornady 178 OTM's. 41.0 IMR 8208 XBR / Federal GMM cases / Fed. 210 primer / C.O.L 2.815" /
ES-21 / SD- 8 / AVG. 2642 FPS. Shoots under .75 MOA.
In my Remington 27" 40XBKS 1-12" with the 178 Hornady OTM / 42.0 Grs. IMR 8208XBR / Winchester cases / Fed 210 primer / C.O.L. 2.815" / SD-3 / ES- 8 / 2659 FPS Avg.
also shoots under .75 MOA.
Worth a try in your Rifle.
ES-21 / SD- 8 / AVG. 2642 FPS. Shoots under .75 MOA.
In my Remington 27" 40XBKS 1-12" with the 178 Hornady OTM / 42.0 Grs. IMR 8208XBR / Winchester cases / Fed 210 primer / C.O.L. 2.815" / SD-3 / ES- 8 / 2659 FPS Avg.
also shoots under .75 MOA.
Worth a try in your Rifle.
