Fclass reloading question

Whenever I develop a testing process, I ensure that each step is repeatable and reproduceable. By that I mean anyone, anywhere can use the steps and get similar results. That is a proper process.

ES/SDs are not that and I demonstrated that to myself years ago.... Like it is popular today, I used this metric to predict my LR results. Sometimes is worked, sometimes it didn't. And because it was not 100% reliable nor reproduceable, I removed it from my process.

For those who feel it has value, go for it... but don't be surprised if your results can vary from platform, chamber and/or bullets.... powder and primer types and even temps.

A load that shoots very small groups with low vertical at LR will have 'low' ES/SD numbers... but a load with low ES/SD numbers that is worked up at SR, may not shoot well at distance.

So I let the targets tell me what I should use....

YMMV.

Jerry
 
SteveB said:
BCBrad
Yes, I have been experimenting around using Quickload and the concept of using QL to allow me to match my load's barrel dwell time to known nodes on barrels. It "seems" to be promising but only for getting you into general load weight areas. The interesting thing is that most of the known "sweet" spot loads for F-Class cartridges I play with are located in the 1/2 node zones right in the middle of the known zones. This simply maybe because the author of the OBT theory is using the wrong parameter for the "most" accurate node. However, is it interesting and shows promise.

BTW: for the reloader's that worry about the ES/SD of their loads. Try lubing the bullets a little bit before inserting them into the case. It really drops the ES a lot. Doesn't help the near distance accuracy but does help the long range accuracy!!

Good discussion BTW. Some crap but mostly good solid info. I like seeing discussions on facts rather than the usual personnal attacks typical on this board.
Click to expand...

I've been using QL for several years now.

What I have found, with the study of Chris Longs OBT theory and Newbury's OCW paper, is that QL can zero in on a very good load.

Weights and measures have to be exact, do not rely on defaults (only gets you sort of close), velocities have to be as close as possible to reality.

The start pressure has to be reconciled as well or the whole thing falls apart .

In club events I've been able to keep pretty much under an MOA, the two best were 0.4 moa 5 shots and 0.8 moa 10 shots good for a couple podiums at 1038 yards and 500m.

A few friends use QL as well with same or better performance.

Changes that the handloader makes can be tracked much better than ...my barrel likes this or that.
 
Barrel harmonics follow a predictable pattern... just like moving your figures to certain positions on a guitar fret produce the same note.

So there are many ways to get the barrel to vibrate in a positive way. With better scales, seaters, brass prep and understanding of internal ballistics, you can find the ideal set up in different ways.

Add in a variety of new bullet shapes and the old 'rules of thumb' may or may not work... so you test.

I now start 10 thou off the lands as my games require me to extract a chambered rd without fuss. Many bullets will work just fine at this length... some may want more run to the lands... but you figure that out when you test. \

When you find your ideal load, you can play with seating depths and if you are not using a high pressure load or a compressed charge, you will get the same results or group patterns as you change the OAL... and the distance to get back in tune can be substantial.

Just make sure the bullet doesn't fall into the case :)

Happy Testing everyone.....

Jerry
 
Mystic Precision said:
Barrel harmonics follow a predictable pattern... just like moving your figures to certain positions on a guitar fret produce the same note.

So there are many ways to get the barrel to vibrate in a positive way. With better scales, seaters, brass prep and understanding of internal ballistics, you can find the ideal set up in different ways.

Add in a variety of new bullet shapes and the old 'rules of thumb' may or may not work... so you test.

I now start 10 thou off the lands as my games require me to extract a chambered rd without fuss. Many bullets will work just fine at this length... some may want more run to the lands... but you figure that out when you test. \

When you find your ideal load, you can play with seating depths and if you are not using a high pressure load or a compressed charge, you will get the same results or group patterns as you change the OAL... and the distance to get back in tune can be substantial.

Just make sure the bullet doesn't fall into the case :)

Happy Testing everyone.....

Jerry
Click to expand...

Seating depth is a mystery to me, never considered it other than does it fit in the magazine or if single loaded anywhere between 10 and 15 thou off the rifling.

So in the past few months I decided to explore seating depth. So I load up rounds at different col's, I also change charge weight to the new depths, range testing thus far indicates nothing has really changed from say 10 thou to 35 thou, velocities stay very close to the same (within 10 ft/s).

I do realize the amount of combustion gas ahead of the bullet will have an effect on velocity thus moving away from the 'x' axis node, I haven't seen that yet though.
 
BCBRAD, small changes in seating depth will show up on target if you are testing at 300 and beyond. You may not see much at 100yds.

It is a common practise to adjust seating depth in 3 thou steps and see if there are benefits way downrange.

Good luck with the testing.

Erik Strecker from Berger did a test years ago and that info may be on the Berger site somewhere.

Jerry
 
Mystic Precision said:
BCBRAD, small changes in seating depth will show up on target if you are testing at 300 and beyond. You may not see much at 100yds.

It is a common practise to adjust seating depth in 3 thou steps and see if there are benefits way downrange.

Good luck with the testing.

Erik Strecker from Berger did a test years ago and that info may be on the Berger site somewhere.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Only zero at 100m rest of the practice is at 300m, that's how far the snow is plowed, do your charge weights remain static as seating depth is varied?
 
Mystic Precision said:
If you are going to play with seating depth, you hold powder charge and vary the length.

If you are playing with powder charge, you hold the length and vary the powder.

Jerry
Click to expand...

This is where the seating depth thing loses me.

The loading that I do takes jump or lack of it into account.

Powder charge is determined by calculation to a vibration node, eg: for a 26" bbl it would be 1.1905 mS or 1.3295 mS being most useful taking a 260 Rem as an example.
 
In my experience I have found that certain bullet designs react to the seating depth changes a lot while certain don't. In general VLD designs are more finicky to seating depth but not always. Tangent designs are easy and Hybrids can be in between. However, VLD's can shoot extremely well seated .080 to .100" jump. Don't accept the dogma that you only seat X" from lands. I always test for best accuracy from touching to .100" jump. Right now with the bullets I am using in my 6.5's anywhere from .030 to .100" jump makes no difference.
 
For S&G, I just came back from the range and trying Erik Cortina's approach to load dev.
We'll see what gives in the end as I may have 2-3 low round count visits to dial in using these instructions.
The big one is, to ignore the lands. Where the lands start ''allegedly'' has next to no impact, you want to know instead where the hard rifling starts, the JAM.

So I did the test, 5-6 times, and results we're very repeatable.
The test being, load a dummy bullet 50-70 thous too long, lightly lube the ogive, chamber the round, slap the bolt open, take out and measure.
This will give you jam. In 6 tests of 6 different cases, I only had a 3 thous variance in all of them, we can say I know for sure where jam is at now.
And for powder load dev test, you do this at jam - 20 thous.

This is what I did today, load a broad range of ammo, 3 shot groups, 200M, at JAM -20, and try to see a pattern develop.
First thing I noticed, by loading at jam -20 instead of touch lands -20, my ammo is now 36 thous longer.
And the result was a moving of the sweet spot and lower velocities. My old sweet spot was 38.0gn, which was about 2710 at the time.
Hence why I'll have to do another powder run before going into a Jam minus run.

Here is the target and here is the plan, does it make sense?

JoEMlE8h.jpg


The plan : next visit (visit #2), 200M, 4 targets. 4 loads, 5 shots each this time. Jam -20 thous for all of them.
38.2
38.4
38.6
38.8

If my prediction is right, at 38.8gn, the group will slightly open up again, and the powder sweet spot will be at 38.6gn.
Then on visit #3, still at 200M, all ammo will have the same powder charge, but only 3 shot groups.
Would look like JAM -20,-23,-26,-29,-32,-35,-38
I should see a pattern of opening and closing going on.

Select the middle of the sweet spot pattern, visit #4, 5 shot groups only 4 groups in middle of sweet spot, confirm things.
Once sweet spot determined, I will go the longest I can withing that sweet spot -1 thou. So I could theoretically stay in sweet spot longer.
Once every 200-250 after this load a group 3 thou longer and see if I'm still tight, if yes my ammo will now be 3 thous longer, if no keep it as it is.

I tried to explain this to the best of my ability, by all in all does it make sense?
 
Last edited:
Hi Marty

When looking at your groups I notice that the shape of the groupings are shifting. Up to 38.0 your groups show a vertical trend then they shift to a horizontal trend and then tend to get smaller. This indicates to my that the node is being approached. After you run test from 38.2 to 38.8 I would run the OAL testing exactly like you say but at this stage I wouldn't run so tight IMHO. I test in .010" increments from +020" down to -.080". Then I look for a big stable range say from .030 to .050" to retest and use for my loads. This final testing is done at long ranges or 300 and 500 M. Sometimes the trends don't show up until 500M so don't accept loads at 300m without testing at 500.

I personally feel that .003" increments is too tight to test in although I have seen changes. You "could" wear this much during a long match so I want a large stable zone and will give up a little accuracy for stability over the long term.

I used to setup my 300's with .020" jam and let the barrel wear in until it shot well. I found that once it "wore" in then it was stable for the rest of the barrel life.
 
Test same seating depth as the pictures - 38.5, 38.6, 38.7 and 38.8... if you really want to prove the backside of the node, add in 38.9 and 39.0. 4rds each step

If you are in the 1/4 MOA range at 200m, I sincerely doubt the set up is going to shoot any better... on average.

Go enjoy the barrel...

Jerry
 
Steve,
Yeah I have noticed that too, how all of a sudden the vertical switched for horizontal.
It’s the first time the switch is so pronounced.
I think it may have to do with 30+ thous of less jump than what I used to do.
I am ready to try both oal methods, 3 thou increments and 10 thou increments.
Just want to bring the Cortina load dev finished to its term, and see if results are good.
I do take the method with a grain of salt, as he is trying to get paid subscriptions on his channel, and don’t know what to think of him right now.

His logic of 3 thous increments is...
You must find 2-3 consecutive tight spots in a row.
Load to the longest oal node -1 thou, this way you have a few thous in the good spot while the barrel wears.
Once every 200-250 rounds, load 3 thous longer and shoot 1-2 5 shot groups, if it’s as tight as before this is your new oal, if it doesn’t shoot as good keep your load as it was, and repeat the process later.
To my ears, it sounded like a no BS approach to this seat depth tuning, but still, I don’t fully trust the guy (read agenda subscriptions for $$$).
Nothing like trying and seeing.

I did look many many reload videos during the holidays and read a few forums, did try to target Fclass shooters as they strive for perfection, and have come to the conclusion that my reload process is spotless. It’s the load tune that needs a little refinement.

The only things I do not do and am maybe not ready to do, is pointing bullets and weight sorting components.
For what I do, I wouldn’t reap the benefits.
But... if 2021 competition season doesn’t start, heck I’ll try it because nothing else to do, may as well continue striving for the perfect process.


Jerry,
Sure thing I can go .5/.6/.7/.8, all with jam -20 like tested before.
If the groups follow the same tendencies as previously posted,
And let’s say I keep the 38.6gn powder charge as an example,
What would be your approach in regards on seating depth tune?

Myself am not looking to beat 1/4 minute to be honest,
As this is a basement/no gunsmith build using a prefit I got from you.

But... while doing the seating depth tune I may notice that I’m 3 thous away from falling out of the node and should look into a the longer end of another wide node to have some load durability?

To be honest there’s lot of presuming here, as bullet seat depth tuning is still voodoo to me I am coming to understand just lately what’s going on on that end.
 
Marty

I like, respect and have known Erik for many years. Shot with him since 2013 and for years after that was always squadded with him. Every year we get together for dinner at least once at a match somewhere. He knows his stuff and if he wasn't paid for the videos would still do then for S&G.

His logic is good except I personally like a larger node or sweet spot if I can find them. Just my preference that is all and if I can find this then I never have to worry about retuning. I get lazy over time.

I really get a chuckle every time I test loads and then setup to load match ammo in bulk. I test to find the biggest widest node I can find and spend huge time and efforts to do so then come into my loading shop and weigh my charges to 1 kernal, weigh my bullets to .2 grain batches and brass to 1 grain. I frequently take my rejects, randomly throw them together and find they shoot as good as my "match" ammo.
 
OCW in .3 grain steps, find the middle, OSD ( optimal seating depth ) in .003" increments, and find the middle. Shoot 3 round groups, test to narrow down the seating depth at 300. The start of the node may work good for you Marty as you have some better equipment than myself. I need to stay in the center.

Edit: I am far far from an F class shooter btw.
 
SteveB,
Well that is good to hear about Erik for sure.
I spend lot’s of time at the 200M line, so if I have to lengthen my ammo by 3 thous a few times a year I don’t see it as a big deal.

Funny thing, I keep my rejects for guests to shoot, and sometimes they whipped some pretty bad ass groups out of them, I can relate!

Lead hammer, the process you mention ressembles pretty much what I am going for. I’m just using smaller powder increments.

For now testing has come to a dead stop, as I don’t load dev under 35F.
Small primers and frozen index finger don’t yield best results.
 
The mechanical accuracy of our bullets is the hard limit to what any rifle can do on paper. Why I suggest 1/4 to 1/3 MOA at distance is good enough.

If you can keep 1/4 MOA at 200m in that powder charge range, just shoot the barrel and stop testing. As you test, your barrel wears and very soon, it will get harder and harder to maintain what you already have.

Wind is your biggest foe... all the resources in the world MIGHT gain you another 1/10 MOA... miss a 2mph gust and you are moving 10 times that further off target.

Where do you think you will gain the most for on target performance?

Jerry

PS... most shooters that have 1/4 to 1/3 MOA rifles can't drive to MOA performance when the wind is blowing. Often, they are 2 or 3 MOA shooters.
 
MartyK2500 said:
SteveB,
Well that is good to hear about Erik for sure.
I spend lot’s of time at the 200M line, so if I have to lengthen my ammo by 3 thous a few times a year I don’t see it as a big deal.

Funny thing, I keep my rejects for guests to shoot, and sometimes they whipped some pretty bad ass groups out of them, I can relate!

Lead hammer, the process you mention ressembles pretty much what I am going for. I’m just using smaller powder increments.

For now testing has come to a dead stop, as I don’t load dev under 35F.
Small primers and frozen index finger don’t yield best results.
Click to expand...

Marty, after I selected my powder based off of .3 grain increments, I test on either side of my selected charge, so .1 before and after. I am in the process ( might take till spring ) of making another load for my 270, hopefully it goes smoothly like the Creed did.
 
Check out episode 14 of the Modern Day Sniper podcast with Scott Satterlee. It’s not F class centric but has some good wisdom. Specifically when trying to find a robust load that is good in all conditions. Also there’s some more info on the benefits of a little more jump. I think he starts around 0.050” jump. A super tight load is awesome but I’d also assert that it needs to be good in all conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom