Reloading 6.5x55

OP - go here: http://www.ocwreloading.com

Should be a write-up by Dan Newberry - his explanation is called "Optimal Charge Weight" - "OCW" - the idea is that in your rifle, between Start and Maximum, there will be one or more loadings that are very "stable" - increase or decrease powder charge 0.3 grains and still get same point of impact - but also other loadings where point of impact very sensitive to charge weight - his article has an explanation for why that might happen.

Is perhaps why Post #6 above is a good answer - if your loading happens to be "OCW" - a few granules one way or other not making impact point difference - however, at other loading weights, it can be very sensitive to that. Is not at all about velocity - the bench rest guys tend to be focused on this bullet through previous bullet's hole - do not likely care how fast it is going, when it does that.

I do not know how much credence or currency that Newberry's theory has today - but has helped to guide my thinking on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
OP - go here: http://www.ocwreloading.com

Should be a write-up by Dan Newberry - his explanation is called "Optimal Charge Weight" - "OCW" - the idea is that in your rifle, between Start and Maximum, there will be one or more loadings that are very "stable" - increase or decrease powder charge 0.3 grains and still get same point of impact - but also other loadings where point of impact very sensitive to charge weight - his article has an explanation for why that might happen.

Is perhaps why Post #6 above is a good answer - if your loading happens to be "OCW" - a few granules one way or other not making impact point difference - however, at other loading weights, it can be very sensitive to that. Is not at all about velocity - the bench rest guys tend to be focused on this bullet through previous bullet's hole - do not likely care how fast it is going, when it does that.

I do not know how much credence or currency that Newberry's theory has today - but has helped to guide my thinking on the matter.
Click to expand...

Thank you for all the info that you offered! I see that you are in MB ...... I still miss the flat lands, even after 10 years!
 
Odinson said:
Thank you for all the info that you offered! I see that you are in MB ...... I still miss the flat lands, even after 10 years!
Click to expand...

Ha! "flat lands" - I grew up and spent my working career in Saskatchewan - when we retired, we moved a whole 5 miles into Manitoba, from Saskatchewan. My wife is from Vancouver Island; a brother lives near Grande Cache, Alberta - I thought, from having been at those places, that I knew what a "mountain" looks like. We live not terribly far from "Riding Mountain National Park" - after 7 years here, not sure that I have seen that "Riding Mountain", yet ... Manitoba might have different idea what is a "mountain"??
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
Ha! "flat lands" - I grew up and spent my working career in Saskatchewan - when we retired, we moved a whole 5 miles into Manitoba, from Saskatchewan. My wife is from Vancouver Island; a brother lives at Grande Cache, Alberta - I thought, from having been at those places, that I knew what a "mountain" looks like. We live not terribly far from "Riding Mountain National Park" - after 7 years here, not sure that I have seen that "Riding Mountain", yet ... Manitoba might have different idea what is a "mountain"??
Click to expand...

I used to travel to various locations in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, lived in Winnipeg and area for a lot of years, matter of fact, I was born in Manitoba. Being the adventurous type, after retirement, moved to northern Ontario. ...... Some people say that there is good fishing here ......... some people say . I'm a better marksman than I am a fisherman.
Mountains ??? Could never figure out why that village north of Winnipeg is called Stoney "Mountain" Yup, some folks version of mountain differs from others.
 
IMG_0637.jpg

Here is the scale that I'm using ..... It has more adjustments than I've ever seen on a scale.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0637.jpg
    IMG_0637.jpg
    104.7 KB · Views: 84
Odinson said:
This "goof" has been "behind the trigger of plenty of firearms over the last 60 or so years, fairly good at it too. The rifle itself is pretty much new except for the receiver. All I was looking for was opinions on the tolerance, the plus or minus normally allowed by most competent shooters. The original question stated that I was questioning whether 1/10 of a grain would make a difference.
Click to expand...

I was not calling you a "goof," I was suggesting that human error (not you specifically) is a larger factor than 1/10 grain of powder, and probably more than three times that... but went on to clarify that every step toward precision has the "potential" to result in improvement.

Also, the fact that your rifle is "sort of new," has ZERO bearing on whether it has potential for good to excellent accuracy. There are many factors that combine to make a rifle accurate and "newness" is not one of them.
 
hoytcanon said:
I was not calling you a "goof," I was suggesting that human error (not you specifically) is a larger factor than 1/10 grain of powder, and probably more than three times that... but went on to clarify that every step toward precision has the "potential" to result in improvement.

Also, the fact that your rifle is "sort of new," has ZERO bearing on whether it has potential for good to excellent accuracy. There are many factors that combine to make a rifle accurate and "newness" is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes that label is appropriate.... I've discovered that I'm never too old to do stupid things but now, I typically do them slower....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom