My goal is a very accurate long range rifle/load combo.
Considering this context, specific load development methods apply. Below, I’ll focus on proven methods with merit for long range shooting, discarding the “try a bunch of arbitrary stuff and see what shoots small at 100yrds, then pray it survives at 1,000yrds” methods.
Before diving into anything else, it’s fruitful to ask here: what is your shooting experience, reloading experience, and what is the level of your capabilities in both? If shooting smaller than 1.5” at 100 yards with any rifle is a fluke, we have other things to talk about besides load development. If you’ve never done any load development before, and have never developed a 1/2moa load for any rifle, then maybe expecting it from your rifle and your press right now isn’t realistic. You described in your post two 0.7” groups, beside a 1.5” with the same load, and among several 2” groups with other loads. So what is your baseline? For example - I know I can personally shoot .1-.3” groups given the proper scope and rifle, but given most of my factory rifles, especially sporters, I’ll be glad to hang onto .6-.8’moa. With my reloads, naturally, which I also know I can and have easily achieved single digit SD’s for many, many loads over the years. However, I know with factory ammo, especially in factory sporters, I might be lucky to deliver 2moa and might see ES’s over 100fps, and SD’s of 20-30 - so I KNOW my Ruger Hawkeye in 300wm shooting Federal Fusion 180’s is NOT going to reliably hit a 6” target at 1,000 yards. I know this only because I’ve done it enough to know my own limitations, and that of my gear. So what is “normal” for you, your rifle, and your loads?
Assuming forthcoming answers to those questions:
In no particular order, the Satterlee Velocity Profile, Audette Ladder, and Newberry OCW are the 3 tried and true long range load development methods. Personally, I combine Satterlee with one of the other two at a time. I shoot 100yrd OCW tests across my chrony (Satterlee), then I shoot 600 yard Ladders across my chrony so I have confirmational data. We have a few incredibly detailed threads on these tests here on THR, and there are detailed protocols available all over the web. Personally, any other method which doesn’t functionally align with these methods simply aren’t advisable for long range load development.
I've tried several loads in a used Remington 700 in 300 Win Mag I got for Christmas.
Used rifles are always a tough go. They might have come for sale simply because they couldn’t be coaxed to shoot, or because they used to shoot, and have been shot to death (especially a big belted magnum with a short barrel life). Hopefully we can prove that’s not the case for your rifle.
Nosler E-Tips and Accubonds in 180gr were typically 2"-4" at 100 yds with 1gr increments of loads with H1000, IMR4350, and IMR4831. I was really getting discouraged until I tried Barnes TTSX 180gr with 75.0, 76.0, and 77.0 grains of H1000 and got 3 shot groups of 0.7", 0.7", and 1.5" respectively at 100 yds. The two tighter groups were nearly the exact same point of impact. The TTSX shot ok with IMR4831, but not nearly as well as H1000.
Assuming your barrel has sufficient twist to stabilize your bullet at all, then powder charge weight is your biggest “knob” to tune your load. Meaning it has the most influence on performance and consistency - relatively, I would suggest this has at least an order of magnitude greater influence than the second largest knob (neck tension, in my opinion). Seating depth is NEARLY insensitive for most bullets, meaning there is commonly a very wide window for seating depth where bullets will shoot exceptionally well. Alternatively, there are only narrow nodes where varying charge weights will shoot consistently together at long range. For example, I know I will miss a 6” target at 1000 yards if I have more than .2grains of error in my 6 creed load, 0.48% error in charge weight, whereas I know I will still shoot the same zero and same small groups whether I am jumping 5 thou or 125 thou, 4.3% error - literally an order of magnitude higher sensitivity to powder charge than seating depth.
Jumping by 1 grain increments, even in belted magnum cases, won’t tell you anything about your load. They’re nearly arbitrary points in space - throwing spaghetti at the wall and praying something accidentally hits and sticks. You’re simply missing too much data in the middle - and frankly, not getting nearly enough data at all. Your first foray at powder charge development with a 300win mag should be something on the order of 3 shots each of 0.3-0.4grn increments, no larger than .5grn each, and covering 8-10 increments. Considering, for example, the Nosler bullets with H1000, I would test from 78-81grn at .3-.4 grain increments; 8-11 loads, 24-33 shots. Personally, I would shoot these across a chronograph at 100 yards, firing at an OCW type target array. I would do my second round at 600 yards with a smaller window and 0.2 grain increments, trying to determine the exact edges of my nodes.
Also, I tend to shoot Retumbo and H1000 in 300wm. I do usually shoot heavier bullets than 180, but I wouldn’t personally dig very hard into 4350 or 4831. Others might be able to confirm success with it, but I’d consider them a bit faster than I want for 300wm.
Use KG-12 to remove copper fouling (already done, that stuff really did the job!)
In my experience, after I was coaxed to convert on the advice of many others, pushing copper out of your barrel often does more harm than good. Since it was a used rifle, if it were visibly copper fouled, I can understand pushing it out to bare steel, but I would not personally do so again for several hundred rounds at the soonest, if I ever did it again on this barrel at all.
Try those same powder charges but with increased OALs beyond the 3.3 that I did originally. My test case indicated an OAL of 3.552" with the E-Tips. Thoughts on what increments in OAL I should try? I have plenty of room in the mag well for length.
These statements feel like you are throwing more spaghetti at the wall. If your lands are at 3.552” with a given bullet, loading at a book standard of 3.300” literally meant a quarter inch of jump, and I’ve never met a bullet which told me it would shoot its best with a 1/4” jump. I’ve been happily surprised by the performance of some long jumping loads, especially in monometal bullets, but never 1/4”. I’ve typically found monometal bullets do their best work somewhere between 60 and 100 thou, but admittedly, I’ve never desired to test them at 250thou! For NAB’s, I typically run them 5-30thou off of the lands, but I have not found them to be terribly jump sensitive (again, jumping 250 thou notwithstanding).
If I’m shooting a monometal bullet which kisses the lands at 3.552” (confirmed by method below), then I would test 3.500” to 3.470” jump ONLY AFTER I SETTLED ON A POWDER CHARGE WEIGHT. With NAB’s, I would test from 5thou off to 45 thou off - again, only after confirming a stable velocity node with powder charge development.
This method below is about as simple as it gets - determine your appropriate BTO length with this method, then back off by a targeted jump.
I'll also be sorting the cases and bullets by weight and cleaning primer pockets to try and get a little more consistency.
These 3 activities will be a complete waste of time for your rifle. These are some of the smallest “knobs” we can turn in precision reloading. I can tell you, every .1-.3” group I have fired in the last 10 years has happened without weight sorting bullets or cases. And I only brush my primer pockets if they are exceptionally dirty - as in to the point I think my cup or anvil will seat notably different from the others. Lots of folks pass weight sorting of cases and bullets around online like it’s some part of an old world, mystical voodoo to solve the accuracy riddle, but it’s not. Weight sorting can actually increase your inconsistency, as it has been proven there is not a reliable correlation between case volume and case weight. Case sorting by INTERNAL VOLUME sorting at least has some merit, but at its core as well, it would be a waste of time and energy for you. It’s an exceptionally small knob, with exceptionally small influence. You will see FAR, FAR more significant results by adding a mandrel expander to your turret than you will see from weight sorting.
For sizing the brass, what is the best way to set up to FLS? I've read a good bit on FLS vs neck sizing only, and minimal FLS seems the way to go.
Bumping the shoulder 2-3thou in a full length sizing die IS the way to go. Neck sizing only was a misguided fad which never panned out as a true advantage. A lot of folks also misbelieve that they are neck-sizing-only or “partial sizing” when they run their full length die down only far enough to close the bolt on their sized brass - that’s the goal of full length sizing with a 2-3thou bump, bumping size down sufficiently to close the bolt without risk of simple fouling from causing it to refuse a round. Setting your die any deeper than this is not called “full length sizing,” it’s called “excessive and unnecessary sizing.”
I'm using a Lee turret press and Lee dies.
Nothing wrong with this. You won’t have the best control offered by some dies, but there’s nothing about an LCT or Lee dies which will prohibit shooting small at long range.
Since you’re loading on a turret press, I’d recommend pulling the expander ball from your sizer and using an expanding mandrel instead - especially with the 300win mag. Sending your sizing die to Lee to have the neck honed to match your brass and desired neck tension is a good plan also, but the expanding mandrel die will get you there also.
At some point I plan to toss that stupid synthetic stock, take a walnut blank and fit it to me, free float the barrel, and epoxy bed the action. I assume this should only improve things as I long as do it right.
If you want to “do it right” when you get the wooden stock, or rather, if you want to know how much it will improve things to do so, I would recommend you go ahead and free float, pillar block, and glass bed the rifle NOW in the synthetic stock - and stiffen the forend. You’d only be out $50 and a weekend of your time to do it, and you’ll have invaluable information to know whether spending money for the wood stock will be wasteful or fruitful. If the barreled action simply doesn’t shoot, dropping it into a new stock material won’t fix it. So give it all of these advantages NOW.
