Match Bullet Wieghts

C

coolpoolken

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Location
Cold Lake, Alberta
Recently I retired and needed another hobby. I bought a Savage12 F Class rifle in 6mm BR to occupy some time. I got things gathered up ,dies, bullets , primers etc.

I've had it out to the range to get the scope sighted in and the barrel broke in. So. today I decided to weigh my Sierra 107gr. HPBT Match bullets. Of the 70 I have left, 55 weighed right on 107 gr. and 15 weighed 106.9 gr. Not bad, I think.

So, now I grab my box of Berger 105gr. Target BT,marked "Match Grade". onto the scale they go!! Of the 100, 48 weigh in at 105grs., 36 weigh in at 105.1 grs., and 15 weigh in at 105.2 grs. with the remaining 6 weighing in at 104.9. I'm a little disappointed in the Bergers!!

Should this be of any concern when going for accuracy? Do others weigh their bullets and separate them?

Looking forward to your comments and advise.....Ken
 
Shoot the ones that weigh the same together. You got six outliers in the Bergers. More important is the consistency of the shape of the bullet.... base to ogive length and meplat size. Diameter and how close is it to bore size.

NormB
 
arcstarter, what I got out of the read that you linked on the bullet weighing, was that alot of people are not concerned with very little variations and more concerned ogive length and the meplat being trimmed.

I guess tomarrow I will check the base to ogive length with my bullet comparator. A meplat trimmer is on my "want list", along with a mic for measuring .0001", as mine is ony good to .001". I cant do much about bullet dia. with what I have to measure it with. Thanks....Ken
 
Same story with me, on retiring and needing a hobby. I bought the Savage LRPV in 6BR with a 12 twist so, more for shorter range. About all I know about weight sorting etc. is in that other thread. I think weight is not that significant, and your numbers look very good. You might find they are tighter if you weighed to 0.05 grain accuracy. I can just read my Redding balance beam scale to that degree, but am forced to round off to the nearest 0.05 grain. Have checked it with legal weights and measures test weights and it is actually accurate to that degree. Can't say I'm a believer in meplat trimming either. For sure it is not needed at shorter ranges, and I wonder about long. If you get a chance to read a book called Rifle Accuracy Facts by Harold Vaughn, do it. He is extremely knowledgeable. He discounts both weight sorting and meplat trimming. He backed it up by tests where he purposely distorted the meplat and measured accuracy.

But, I think diameter and bearing surface may have more impact. Would expect skinny and shorter to go faster, and fatter and longer to go slower. But pressure is strange so the later may build more pressure and with the same powder weight go faster??? I do plan to drop weighing and just go with diameter and bearing surface.

On bearing surface I would suggest you need to bullet comparators to do the right job on a boat tail. It doesn't seem to make sense to measure from the ogive to the base.

If you can get to a Princess Auto they sell vernier style micrometers that read to the 0.0001" for about $20. I'm an old fart and don't trust the digital stuff. I like to see and interpret the vernier scale.

On Sierra vs Berger the Berger 68's have shot best for me. I have some Sierra 75's, but have not shot them yet. I think flat base bullets can be made more accurately than boat tail, but if you are shooting long distance then you can't give up the boat tail and low drag profile, or the wind will get you.
 
I would be more inclined to do bullet pointing as opposed to meplat trimming.

If you do trim meplats you should point the bullets afterwards but you do not need to trim just to point the bullets.
 
CyaN1de said:
I would be more inclined to do bullet pointing as opposed to meplat trimming.

If you do trim meplats you should point the bullets afterwards but you do not need to trim just to point the bullets.
Click to expand...

If you go so far as to meplate trim, get a nice comparator to hook onto your micrometer and check ogive to get your best results.

Nobody said it is going to be fast, but that is why it is a hobby?

The quest for accuracy is always a great hobby especially if you have time and enjoy it.

I recently went through a box of .30 cal Sierra Game kings and found nothing less that .1 grain less and .1 grain more out of 100--Not one outside of this--I guess I got lucky considering they are just game kings.
 
Today, I went to my reloading room and set up for measuring the ogive to base measurement.

All the sierra bullets measured in a t .6800" to .6805" I am really pleased with the Sierra line. I have been shooting them in hunting rifle since I took up reloading back in about 1978. Just reaffirmed my confidence in them!!

I am a little disappointed in the measurement I got from the Bergers. The lowest measurement I got was .6820". The upper measurement went to .6855. Most of the Bergers were at the .6835 to .6840.

I think when I get weather good enough to start the load development I will stick with the Sierra's.
Thanks for everyone's input and advise.....Ken
 
As I offer all of these bullets, I have no axe to grind with any brand. They both work very well.

Most F class shooters, look for out of the box accuracy and given the volume of shooting they typically do, having to sort bullets is just another time waster. My personal feeling is if I need to sort to make a brand work, I'll use another brand cause there are a whole lot more I CAN'T see that will likely hurt the score.

So we shoot the bullet and let the target tell us what to use.

I know of several shooters that point their bullets, I know none that sort.

Jerry
 
I do not plan on sorting bullets for shooting. I did the weighing and measuring to see what was the most consistant bullet. I feel that the Sierra's were the better of the two. I will start load development with the Sierras. I will also use the Bergers later to see how the work. They will not go to waste!! Who Knows, If they shoot better then I can always change my mind and go with Bergers.
Right now my shooting will be limited to 300 meters at one range. I can go to 500 yds on the old Cold Lake range if the muskeg is dry enough to get accross. I do not plan on any competition as of yet. I am not lucky like a lot of people with access to long ranges to practice....Ken
 
coolpoolken said:
I do not plan on sorting bullets for shooting. I did the weighing and measuring to see what was the most consistant bullet. I feel that the Sierra's were the better of the two. I will start load development with the Sierras. I will also use the Bergers later to see how the work. They will not go to waste!! Who Knows, If they shoot better then I can always change my mind and go with Bergers.
Right now my shooting will be limited to 300 meters at one range. I can go to 500 yds on the old Cold Lake range if the muskeg is dry enough to get accross. I do not plan on any competition as of yet. I am not lucky like a lot of people with access to long ranges to practice....Ken
Click to expand...

Although I appreciate it is winter and not the greatest time to shoot, but I would go about it the other way around. Shoot the bullets and compare the group sizes. The targets will tell you which one is better. When you work with the bullets your gun likes better, you may then want to sort them based on bearing surface and diameter to make a further small improvement.

I have some Berger 62 and 68 grain bullets that measure essentially the same for diameter and weight variation. They are both standard target bullets with flat bases. With the same powder, primers, and velocity, the 62 grain ones shoot 1.5-2.0" groups at 100 meters. The 68 grain ones shoot 0.15-0.20" groups at the same distance. 1/10th the size.

If I had somehow decided in my shop that the 62 grain ones were the ones to shoot, and didn't try the 68's then I would have wasted a lot of time, and been thoroughly disgusted with my gun. The 62's are now used as fouling shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom