Targets Don't Lie!

[kmw1954]

Or so I have been told!

As some may remember I have been working up some new bullets to shoot in our winter rifle league and after shooting four different bullets, all the same weight, I finally chose the Sierra 69gr Match King as it produced the smallest groups of the bunch from my rifle.

During all this I made many powder charge adjustments; from 22.6 to 23.2 in .1gr increments and also played with seating depth. in .020" increments.

The best accuracy node seems to be at 23.0/23.1gr and the seating depth change didn't seem to change anything. During this time I have shot many variations or this load and haven't seen a whole lot of variation on the targets. When I say many firings I can say I have fired over 100 rounds of this bullet with slight adjustments.

At 100 yards the load with 23.2gr of A2460 and seated to 1.900" base to ogive has produced the best groups but at 200 yards it opens up some.

At 200yds the 23.1gr of A2460 also seated to 1.900" produced the best results. But in general the 23.0gr load shot on par or equal to the other 2 loads.

At 100 yards all loads in this range were producing just under 3/4 MOA of 3/4" groups and then at 200 yards all were consistently shooting 1/2 MOA or 1" groups. Discounting the 2 shot that I fired yesterday and knew as soon as I pulled the trigger that I jerked them way right.

So from all this my conclusion is that in these I have found the most accurate loads for this gun and the weak link is me the shooter. I say this because while doing this testing there have been volleys that at 100yds there were many 3shot groups that were under .5" and some with only 2 holes and at 200 yards there are a number of 3 shot targets that are .5".. Just not enough of these small groups to count as the norm. Sadly at 200yds the one 3 shot target had just on hole at about 2:30 high, right .5" with the 3rd shot completely off the 3" target. Yes that is one I know I jerked.

So I think I have the load that is most likely more accurate than me and now in stead of chasing a new/better load it is time to work on my shooting skills. We start league in just 4 weeks!

 

[Charlie98]

and the weak link is me the shooter.

As much as some of us love to chase load development as a means to an end, I really wonder if time behind the trigger wouldn't net very much the same results.

When I finally got some good glass for my .308 Savage 10, I realized I had a LOT of work to do just learning how to shoot it properly... I'm not a natural scope person. Sure, I've been working on handloads... but I've tried to give at least a few rounds of each range session over to just focusing on shooting as well as I can for each shot. I'm actually approaching (I hope) the end of basic load development for this rifle... I have about 14 different loads to test when I head to NV for Christmas in a few weeks. We will get to see... a) how good my handloading is, and b) whether or not all that extra time focusing on the actual shot is panning out.

 

[Varminterror]

Just not enough of these small groups to count as the norm.

Don’t (unduly) be too hard on yourself. Recall, even if we’re perfect behind the rifle, over 2/3 of shots will fall into 1/3 of the total potential group size, and over 95% of shots will fall into 2/3 of total potential group size. And the opposite as well - out of 1000 perfect shots, THREE are going to spray thrice or more as far from center as did 682 others… So we can’t be surprised when we print itty bitty groups with good ammo and rifles, but we also can’t be surprised when a shot bleeds 50-100% farther from group center than the rest.

 

[kmw1954]

Don’t (unduly) be too hard on yourself. .

Oh by no means am I unhappy with what I have achieved so far. I truly believe I have reached as far as I can with just the best loads and the equipment on hand. Actually right now I am at the point that I don't believe that even a custom rifle would improve my outcome that much or at least not as much as some good trigger time. Working on fundamentals like breathing, trigger pull and posture.

Though I have to also add that while shooting yesterday it was refreshing to see that even my mentor was struggling a bit. So I have 4 weeks to get ready and then 10 weeks to show what I have achieved. Hoping I finish better than last year!

 

[Varminterror]

Dry fire it a few nights per week until your finger falls off. Watch your reticle on the target. Grab a DFAT or IOTA to bring your focus down short enough if you need to.

 

[kmw1954]

A few things that I know need work are;
Seating posture, not finding a consistent position or cheek weld
Hand grip position and pressure, need to cease having a death grip on the stock
Finger to trigger contact point

Also I have been told that the rear bag can have an effect when shooting from a bench with a front Bi pod. Many times I find I need to move the bag so far back that it is at the end of the stock and against my body. I believe this is one factor that is effecting my horizontal spread. I seem to have controlled most of my vertical dispersion and most now are horizontal.

Just watched a few video's on the DFAT and IOTA's and looks like something I can use.

 

[Ifishsum]

Most of the Sierra Match Kings below 80gr don't really care about seating depth. They just shoot! Magazine length minus a few thousandths, good to go. I do work up powder charges though

 

[Remington1911]

Personally I put little stock in a three round "group".

My tests are generally 10 rounds, and if I am trying off the wall stuff I will do a 5 round group, I see that as the minimum to give you a good idea. Just last Sunday I shot one rifle in a 5 round test group. Three could be covered by a silver dollar, the last two off in left field.....or left and right field. The last two shot. Now I do think those two are me and my issues with seeing the sights, but just my two bits.

Things are so darn expensive and hard to find it is painful to whip up 10 rounds for a "test" not knowing if they will work, but pulling down total duds is not that hard.

Just my two bits.

 

[kmw1954]

Personally I put little stock in a three round "group".

My tests are generally 10 rounds,
Just my two bits.

No argument that a 3 shot group of and by it's self proves nothing. Unless maybe trying to prove Cold Bore Shots or adjusting a scope.

When I test I always shoot three shots a one target and then repeat that three shot volley at separate targets until I have 3 to 4 targets that I can make a composite from. It is easier to keep track of three holes in one target than to keep track of ten holes in one target. I in this instance want to see those two hole targets from three shoots. I want to see those flier shots.

I also do this while doing load developments where I may have 3 or 4 different loads in which case I will set up a target with sticky targets in rows. So if I have 4 loads each with 9 rounds I will set up a target with 3 rows of 4 targets. Then each row of 3 will all be one load.

Then also when I find a load that looks promising I repeat it along with a load charge to each side + and - .1gr.. Then I repeat again.

So it is not like I am relying on just one 3 shot group to make a judgement on. I have 3 or 4 three shot targets. As a matter of fact this past session I shot two loads, 15 rounds at 5 targets 3 shots at a time round robin just to evaluate which of the two was most consistent. And yes I think this also takes into account my own shooting ability by having to move from target to target and stopping to reload three rounds with each target.. Results were that the one load had more rounds touching each other than the other one.

 

[Remington1911]

No argument that a 3 shot group of and by it's self proves nothing. Unless maybe trying to prove Cold Bore Shots or adjusting a scope.

When I test I always shoot three shots a one target and then repeat that three shot volley at separate targets until I have 3 to 4 targets that I can make a composite from. It is easier to keep track of three holes in one target than to keep track of ten holes in one target. I in this instance want to see those two hole targets from three shoots. I want to see those flier shots.

I also do this while doing load developments where I may have 3 or 4 different loads in which case I will set up a target with sticky targets in rows. So if I have 4 loads each with 9 rounds I will set up a target with 3 rows of 4 targets. Then each row of 3 will all be one load.

Then also when I find a load that looks promising I repeat it along with a load charge to each side + and - .1gr.. Then I repeat again.

So it is not like I am relying on just one 3 shot group to make a judgement on. I have 3 or 4 three shot targets. As a matter of fact this past session I shot two loads, 15 rounds at 5 targets 3 shots at a time round robin just to evaluate which of the two was most consistent. And yes I think this also takes into account my own shooting ability by having to move from target to target and stopping to reload three rounds with each target.. Results were that the one load had more rounds touching each other than the other one.

That sounds like a good system, generally what I do is two targets with 5 rounds on each target. I don't use "shoot and see" type targets just normal paper. I have on my range bag three spools of tape to tape the holes from load to load, black, white, and that tan-ish colors that are on most targets. Got a tape holder that is usually used for electrical tape and put that on the range bag, so the tape always comes with me. The photo does not have the white tape, but trust me I hit the white quite often.

 

[dranrab]

Personally I put little stock in a three round "group".

My tests are generally 10 rounds, and if I am trying off the wall stuff I will do a 5 round group, I see that as the minimum to give you a good idea. Just last Sunday I shot one rifle in a 5 round test group. Three could be covered by a silver dollar, the last two off in left field.....or left and right field. The last two shot. Now I do think those two are me and my issues with seeing the sights, but just my two bits.

Things are so darn expensive and hard to find it is painful to whip up 10 rounds for a "test" not knowing if they will work, but pulling down total duds is not that hard.

Just my two bits.

I think 3 shot groups are a great way to rule out loads that don't have potential. I don't think I have ever fired 2 different 3 shot groups that were over MOA and had them do better over time. I shot 4 different 223s last week, trying various factory and handloads. Those that gave large groups 2 different times were ruled out for those rifles. Those that gave good 3 shot groups are worth spending more time with.

 

[kmw1954]

This is what I shot Sunday @200yds. 69gr SMK over 23.1 and 23.2 of Accurate 2460
Conditions were dark overcast, 34* with calm winds about 2/4mph head on.

The center group were left over 23.0 with sighters and cold bore after cleaning.

 

[igotta40]

Unless I missed it in the the thread, I didn’t see caliber. I’m guessing.223 Remington? This all pretty much sums up my efforts as well. I’m making my targets from butcher paper and red magic marker. I write the load next to the bullseye.

 

[kmw1954]

Unless I missed it in the the thread, I didn’t see caliber. I’m guessing.223 Remington? .

That would be a correct guess. Been working with this for so long I took for granted the caliber.

 

[Bfh_auto]

As much as some of us love to chase load development as a means to an end, I really wonder if time behind the trigger wouldn't net very much the same results.

When I finally got some good glass for my .308 Savage 10, I realized I had a LOT of work to do just learning how to shoot it properly... I'm not a natural scope person. Sure, I've been working on handloads... but I've tried to give at least a few rounds of each range session over to just focusing on shooting as well as I can for each shot. I'm actually approaching (I hope) the end of basic load development for this rifle... I have about 14 different loads to test when I head to NV for Christmas in a few weeks. We will get to see... a) how good my handloading is, and b) whether or not all that extra time focusing on the actual shot is panning out.

I view load development as shooting training as well. I focus a lot better when I'm trying to make sure I'm not the reason for a flyer.
Lately I've started to realize the SMK is the easiest bullet to tune a great load for. The OP chose wisely. I'm using the 77 version of it as my mainstay. But it's similar.

 

[kmw1954]

I view load development as shooting training as well. I focus a lot better when I'm trying to make sure I'm not the reason for a flyer.
Lately I've started to realize the SMK is the easiest bullet to tune a great load for. The OP chose wisely. I'm using the 77 version of it as my mainstay. But it's similar.

Absolutely, I too use load workups to help train to be repeatable in my actions and movements. I believe one of my biggest issues is body posture. Seems each time I sit I am in a different position and not getting behind the rifle the same way.

Last year I shot the RMR 69gr and did pretty well with it. But for some reason this new barrel does not seem to like it. As I am now just weeks away from league shooting I don't feel I have time to completely start over, working up a new load with the RMR for this rifle. also if I had a couple hundred more of the Nosler 69gr Custom Comp I would have stuck with that bullet and shot it but at this time they are almost twice as costly as the Sierra's.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Absolutely, I too use load workups to help train to be repeatable in my actions and movements. I believe one of my biggest issues is body posture. Seems each time I sit I am in a different position and not getting behind the rifle the same way.

Last year I shot the RMR 69gr and did pretty well with it. But for some reason this new barrel does not seem to like it. As I am now just weeks away from league shooting I don't feel I have time to completely start over, working up a new load with the RMR for this rifle. also if I had a couple hundred more of the Nosler 69gr Custom Comp I would have stuck with that bullet and shot it but at this time they are almost twice as costly as the Sierra's.

It's funny. The CC will be cheaper than the SMK. Then the role is reversed. It seems people swap back and forth and drive the price along with it.
Good luck in league shooting. I've only done informal competition where a beer was the prize. It sounds fun. But I have little children that need to be raised properly at the moment.

 

[kmw1954]

Oh believe me this informal league is a blast. It is limited to 20 people and open to any center fire caliber from 20cal to 30cal and any platform you want to bring. Last winter we had 2 women finish in the top 5 and a high schooler that finished 11th. We shoot once per week for 10 weeks , 2 weeks at 100yds, 4 weeks at 200yds and 4 weeks at 300yds and each week is a different target. There is no fixed timer or day to shoot, only that each weeks target is shot and turned in and each target must be signed by an RO. and dated.. Each week the format is 20 shots for score and then there is a "beer frame target" for cash if you want to enjoy that too.

This league cost $75.00 to cover costs and end of year awards, trophies and cash. All is paid out so the league ending balance is Zero$$$.. The Beer Frame sub-target is $50.00 so $5.00 per week and then the the weekly range fee. As I work PT for the range I shoot for free so I contribute the $50.00 to the bonus shot. Last year I go beat out twice by cm. Of 20 shooters last year, my rookie year I finished 15th.

 

[Remington1911]

I think 3 shot groups are a great way to rule out loads that don't have potential. I don't think I have ever fired 2 different 3 shot groups that were over MOA and had them do better over time. I shot 4 different 223s last week, trying various factory and handloads. Those that gave large groups 2 different times were ruled out for those rifles. Those that gave good 3 shot groups are worth spending more time with.

So in total you shot 6 rounds of a given load? Those that gave large groups 2 different times were ruled out. So you are really shooting 6 rounds before you rule out a specific load? And what do you do if you have one good and one bad? Or better said one you like and one you don't.

 

[JFrank]

Personally I put little stock in a three round "group".

My tests are generally 10 rounds, and if I am trying off the wall stuff I will do a 5 round group, I see that as the minimum to give you a good idea. Just last Sunday I shot one rifle in a 5 round test group. Three could be covered by a silver dollar, the last two off in left field.....or left and right field. The last two shot. Now I do think those two are me and my issues with seeing the sights, but just my two bits.

Things are so darn expensive and hard to find it is painful to whip up 10 rounds for a "test" not knowing if they will work, but pulling down total duds is not that hard.

Just my two bits.

If three round per increment load testing was a poor method world champions wouldn’t use it. If your spitting shots you have other issues.
When developing a load it’s best not to chase the smallest group, continue the process to the end.

 

[Varminterror]

I've only done informal competition where a beer was the prize. It sounds fun. But I have little children that need to be raised properly at the moment.

A thought:



If he’s not able to shoot with me, he’ll run a squad, or shag brass to help out.

 

[kmw1954]

So I was just talking with our 3 peat league champion and my mentor about shooting the Satterlee Load Test. So he showed me his last Satterlee round. Just like he explained this showed increases in pretty even steps with about 10-13fps difference between shots and mixed in that group were 4 shots total that were 2X2 that were almost exactly the same. So he explained that is what he was looking for.

Now after shooting with him and watching his work I know that his gun produced ES in single digits so then I asked what to do if like some of mine there is an ES of 60-80 between all of the different powder loads. he could no give a good answer other than that doesn't work.

So yes I agree that components have gotten expensive ans scarce but I know I still need to work-up loads in a way that is familiar and makes sense to me.

For instance say a bullet powder combination has a start of 21.1gr and a max of 23.4gr I will start at 21.1 and load up in .3gr increments loading 6 rounds each. in this case for a total of 8 different samples, total of 48 loads. Sure that seems like a lot but I am looking for target loads, not hunting or blasting loads. I then shoot them into 3 shot separate targets and look for the smallest group. When I find that I go back and load 6 more in .1gr increments above and below that load and many times I will load that same sample load again to reshoot and verify..

Again I have to perform it this way because I am not shooting a Match Grade barrel with a Match grade Action and Trigger in a Chassis. Sure it is a lot of work and a lot of components but it has proven to produce the best results for me that is the most repeatable.

 

[Remington1911]

If three round per increment load testing was a poor method world champions wouldn’t use it. If your spitting shots you have other issues.
When developing a load it’s best not to chase the smallest group, continue the process to the end.

I put little stock in what "world champions" do. Their world is not my world. It is like asking a Baja 1000 mechanic to setup the suspension on your daily F150. Everything he does on his race truck is not going to be applicable to your road vehicle that has 25lbs of mulch in the back. Sure he knows more then most how suspension works, but I am not putting $40,000 shocks on my daily driver, just like I am not shooting the guns that world champs shoot.

For the record this is what I do, be it a 200 year old trapdoor springfield, or a new CZ 223 rifle out of the box. The process for me is the same.

Much like @kmw1954 said, I will work up loads in a progression like he described. It will depend on max and min loads for that given powder and weight bullet on how big those steps are. But using his numbers this is what I would do.

5 rounds at 21.1
5 rounds at 21.4
And on from there.

I have set limits that depend on the rifle being shot. I never, as in NEVER go anywhere near a max load on my old rifles, I stop all of them roughly 20% shy, some a bit more, others a bit less. I don't care if I am leaving money on the table, I am not going to take the chance with the old rifles. Just me.

At this stage I am looking for good numbers over the chrono, if I am getting wacky numbers I am going to figure I am not getting a good powder burn for one reason or another. If I suspect that I will full stop there, and change something, perhaps primers, usually different powders. But in shooting 5 it gives me a good string of numbers to work off of.

After they start to fly in a consistent manner that is when I start looking at where they hit. I don't kid myself, I still look with all of them, but again I have NEVER had a load that has numbers all over the place shoot well at anything past 100 yards. And that really rings true. If a major league pitcher throws a pitch that is 93, then tosses the next one at 73 he is not going to hit the same place unless he changes his "point of aim" With a rifle if you don't know how fast they are flying there is no way to tell where the heck they are going to hit.

Bottom line is no matter what sample size is everything. The larger the sample size is, and the more consistent the items in that sample size are the more accurate your results are going to be. It does not matter what you are looking at. If I sample people in Texas during July and want to know what percentage gets heat stroke, and then sample people from Maine for the same thing, then come back and say X% of Americans get heat stroke in July, that is just pointless.

When playing with this stuff, everything matters.....now depending on you and what you do that depends on how deep that rabbit hole goes. Norma is not the same as Starline brass, they will be different. Each bit of brass is different, this is why people that are "world champions" check internal volume on everything, the more the same the better. Us "normal" folk doing that may be fun, but I doubt it is what is holding me back.

 

[lightman]

You have tried different brass, bullets, powders and charge weights. Maybe seating depth. Have you looked at how concentric you are seating bullets? I personally consider this as important.

 

[Bfh_auto]

A thought:
View attachment 1120923 View attachment 1120924
View attachment 1120925

If he’s not able to shoot with me, he’ll run a squad, or shag brass to help out.

I agree with you. But mine are 3 and 4. I can't completely trust them so I've been taking them squirrel hunting to learn the rules of being around guns without it being boring for them.
They're getting pretty good at not walking in front of the person with a gun.