Weight-Sorting Cases: Is it Worthwhile?

[maynard]

At one time not too long ago Federal Gold Medal match primers were man made. Yes, a person actually used a putty knife to fill the primer cups with priming compound. Back then I did know a TR shooter that weight sorted his primers on an RCBS digital scale (.1gr). He also sorted his brass and bullets by weight again on the same scale (.1gr). That year he won both the Grand Agg and the Gov. Gens match at the DCRA. Did he win because of his attention to detail? Remember he was only using an RCBS scale that will read .1 gr. Did he win because his ammo was better that everyone else?
I think that he believed that his ammo was better because of his attention to detail. He also put in hours of dry fire practice and shot a ton of smallbore and had his mental game in top form. His mental game started the year before when he told his shooting buddy that he was coming back to win both matches next year. Training started the day he got home from the match and continued every day for a year. The weight sorting of brass, primers and powder was all part of his mental management and likely had very little to do with actually winning the match.

 

[jimbo14]

Good point, maynard.

I think the mental game will outweigh primer weighing and kernel counting.

 

[Maple57]

At one time not too long ago Federal Gold Medal match primers were man made. Yes, a person actually used a putty knife to fill the primer cups with priming compound. Back then I did know a TR shooter that weight sorted his primers on an RCBS digital scale (.1gr). He also sorted his brass and bullets by weight again on the same scale (.1gr). That year he won both the Grand Agg and the Gov. Gens match at the DCRA. Did he win because of his attention to detail? Remember he was only using an RCBS scale that will read .1 gr. Did he win because his ammo was better that everyone else?
I think that he believed that his ammo was better because of his attention to detail. He also put in hours of dry fire practice and shot a ton of smallbore and had his mental game in top form. His mental game started the year before when he told his shooting buddy that he was coming back to win both matches next year. Training started the day he got home from the match and continued every day for a year. The weight sorting of brass, primers and powder was all part of his mental management and likely had very little to do with actually winning the match.

What year was that Maynard?

Was it a TR guy, or F Class?

My guess it was a TR guy shooting off a sling with a 2 minute 5 ring and a 1 minute V Bull. That's not the same as an F Class guy shooting at a 1 MOA 5 ring and a 1/2 MOA V Bull.

In F Class these days you cant afford to leak more than a couple 1/2 MOA V's. That's especially true in the stated where they shoot single string. Catch a 4 and you are in the bottom half if the winds are "typical".

Add to that... the scoring rings are round... not square... So you need real even velocities to hold the fat part of the circle... Otherwise you'll drop points out the corners. So you will not get away with 1/2 MOA of vertical on a 1/2 MOA V Bull... You need less than 1/4 MOA of vertical. So how many kernels does it take to change your velocity enough to take you out of that 1/4 MOA vertical spread? Especially when you consider that with a perfect load you will always get some vertical.

With that, I'm not talking about some lucky 3 round group. I'm talking about a 3 day weekend shooting 50 or more rounds a day. A lax attitude on the bench will reveal itself in the aggregate.

 

[South Pender]

Jerry, in case you missed it, we were discussing primer sorting not powder. The FX120 is good to about 4 kernels of Varget.... not 1 or 2.

Since Jerry found one kernel of Varget to weigh .02 grains, and since the FX-120i is accurate to .015-gr. increments, shouldn't this scale be good to ± 1 kernel (or possibly ± 2) of Varget as noted by Jerry, as opposed to the 4 kernels you have suggested?

It seems pretty clear that a different level of precision is required for weighing primers as opposed to weighing powder. It would appear that any "milligram" scale truly capable of .02-grain increments is more than adequate for very accurate powder weighing. Just not for primer weighing.

 

[South Pender]

I think it depends on the brand of primers. I've seen primers with wild weight spreads, that don't shoot well unless they have been weight sorted. (Winchester)

On the other hand, I've seen primers with a low weight variance that shoot well all the time. (Federal GMM)

Just out of curiosity, how well have you found CCI BR-2 and BR-4 primers to do with respect to weight variance?

 

[kthomas]

Maple57,

You seem to have a very rigorous reloading process.

Out of curiosity, what SD's are you looking for? A 10+ shot SD.

 

[jimbo14]

South Pender: fyi, some top level F-class shooters like F-Class John (John Masek) and Keith Glasscock (check out their youtube channels under F-Class John and Winning in the Wind), use the FX-120i. Good enough for them!

Also consider that the labradar they both use is only accurate to +/- 0.1% which means for a typical 2700fps shot, the Labradar only claims to be within +/- 2.7 fps, so an extreme spread of 5.4 fps if the ammo was truly 100% identical. Anyone using a quality device like Labradar who "insists" that their ammo is within 2fps, etc, cannot truly claim that because their measuring device doesn't claim that level of accuracy.

Yes, details matter, but getting into the minutia of all this is a deep, dark, hole where it's easy to get caught up in the myriad of details. F-class John's goal is creating 1/4 moa or better ammo, and he's doing that with the FX120i scale. If you regularly compete, and value your time, speeding up this process with automation like the "Autotrickler" or other versions, is something to look into, and it sure seems like John, Keith and others are raking in the Nationals medals just fine with this setup.

Do you want something more precise? Nothing wrong with that. Match up your goals with the tools and process. Just don't forget about things like wind (up/down, as well as side to side) and imprecise aiming due to mirage, that will affect the long path to 1000 yards, far more than 1 kernel of powder.

 

[Lead hammer]

I just got back from the field. Fighting 2-11 mph gusts, 90 degree switching wind, and mirage at 677 yards. That battle was tough, the rifle shot one, over moa verticle ( my fault, rear bag was dropping off the table under recoil ) most were around 1/2 moa + or - Was getting horizontal variance of 20” left/right with all going on. I had very few calm moments when I actually fired, body buffeting around the 6” painted mirage center. It was fun trying to figure out the flags, hold offs. At one point my target blew right over lol.
If I had more funds a good electronic scale would be nice, and I would get one, but so many environmental variables to overcome trump 3 decimal place scales, at least for me and where I shoot.
One thing is when doing an OCW, group size from fps change is not completely vertical by any means. .03 grains can go from horizontal to vertical to diagonal. So 1 fps does not equal a set vertical impact displacement. In fact over the life of my barrel so far, it trends to a great waterline, almost always. I need to tweak my load a hair hotter, see if I can “ round “ my groups up a bit.
All this is noticeable with an RCBS 5-0-5, factory barrel, factory trigger, not weight sorted Hornady brass, not primer sorted, not bullet weighed. ( only bullet btog sorted ) no neck turn. It’s a 1/2 moa rifle with my basic reloading tools.

 

[maynard]

What year was that Maynard?

Was it a TR guy, or F Class?

My guess it was a TR guy shooting off a sling with a 2 minute 5 ring and a 1 minute V Bull. That's not the same as an F Class guy shooting at a 1 MOA 5 ring and a 1/2 MOA V Bull.

With that, I'm not talking about some lucky 3 round group. I'm talking about a 3 day weekend shooting 50 or more rounds a day. A lax attitude on the bench will reveal itself in the aggregate.

Can’t remember the exact year but I do know the F-Class were still shooting the same targets as the TR shooters. If you think our 2 minute bull is so easy, throw on a jacket and sling up and show me how easy it is. Hate to tell you but us hillbilly TR shooters need accurate ammo too.

Edit to add…
WOW a whole 3 day match? Try it for 7-9 days straight. With team matches thrown in half way through, then back to individual matches.

 

[Maple57]

Can’t remember the exact year but I do know the F-Class were still shooting the same targets as the TR shooters. If you think our 2 minute bull is so easy, throw on a jacket and sling up and show me how easy it is. Hate to tell you but us hillbilly TR shooters need accurate ammo too.

Edit to add…
WOW a whole 3 day match? Try it for 7-9 days straight. With team matches thrown in half way through, then back to individual matches.

I'm not arguing that a 2 minute target isn't challenging for a sling shooter given that you use iron sights and are physically responsible to hold the rifle. What I'm saying is that your comment regarding simplified reloading is relative to that discipline and does not translate well to F Class hand loading practices.

To be honest, I suck in a sling and for the life of me cannot understand how you guys shoot as well as you do. But I'll reload my way, and you can reload yours.... All good there buddy.

 

[track]

At one time not too long ago Federal Gold Medal match primers were man made. Yes, a person actually used a putty knife to fill the primer cups with priming compound. Back then I did know a TR shooter that weight sorted his primers on an RCBS digital scale (.1gr). He also sorted his brass and bullets by weight again on the same scale (.1gr). That year he won both the Grand Agg and the Gov. Gens match at the DCRA. Did he win because of his attention to detail? Remember he was only using an RCBS scale that will read .1 gr. Did he win because his ammo was better that everyone else?
I think that he believed that his ammo was better because of his attention to detail. He also put in hours of dry fire practice and shot a ton of smallbore and had his mental game in top form. His mental game started the year before when he told his shooting buddy that he was coming back to win both matches next year. Training started the day he got home from the match and continued every day for a year. The weight sorting of brass, primers and powder was all part of his mental management and likely had very little to do with actually winning the match.

I'd say that this is the closes to scientific reloading I heard of. I believe in precision reloading and how it makes smaller groups. I think most hunters don't conduct precision reloading, and that's fine, however I do, and it's the journey that makes it fun. Do I need precision reloading and accuracy for my style of hunting?.....absolutely not! Reason: average distance of big game shot is about 150 yards, and that's from about 250 big game animals. Therefore, I give great credit to those guys who conduct precision reloading in the fields of competitive shooting, these are the science guys of reloading.

 

[maynard]

I'm not arguing that a 2 minute target isn't challenging for a sling shooter given that you use iron sights and are physically responsible to hold the rifle. What I'm saying is that your comment regarding simplified reloading is relative to that discipline and does not translate well to F Class hand loading practices.

To be honest, I suck in a sling and for the life of me cannot understand how you guys shoot as well as you do. But I'll reload my way, and you can reload yours.... All good there buddy.

I just read back 10 pages of this post and can't find anywhere that I made a comment regarding "simplified reloading relative to any shooting discipline". When I talked about the guy that won both the Grand and Gov. Gen match that year, I stated that he used an RCBS digital scale with a resolution of .1 gr. That scale at the time was state of the art and one of the best scales on the market for reloaders. I think the internet was fairly new back then and all the good information of the latest and greatest reloading kit came out of our monthly Precision Shooting magazine that came in the mail.

I do weight sort and batch brass to .5 gr for .308 and .3 gr for .223 after it has been annealed, sized and trimmmed. Powder is thrown with a RCBS chargemaster but with re-weighed on an Accu-Lab Vic 123 and weight adjusted to "0" or +.02 gr. Just because our bull is 2 MOA does not mean that we go to the line with 2 MOA ammo. With a scope and rest I would put my target rifle up against a F/TR gun any day.

 

[Maple57]

I just read back 10 pages of this post and can't find anywhere that I made a comment regarding "simplified reloading relative to any shooting discipline". When I talked about the guy that won both the Grand and Gov. Gen match that year, I stated that he used an RCBS digital scale with a resolution of .1 gr. That scale at the time was state of the art and one of the best scales on the market for reloaders. I think the internet was fairly new back then and all the good information of the latest and greatest reloading kit came out of our monthly Precision Shooting magazine that came in the mail.

I do weight sort and batch brass to .5 gr for .308 and .3 gr for .223 after it has been annealed, sized and trimmmed. Powder is thrown with a RCBS chargemaster but with re-weighed on an Accu-Lab Vic 123 and weight adjusted to "0" or +.02 gr. Just because our bull is 2 MOA does not mean that we go to the line with 2 MOA ammo. With a scope and rest I would put my target rifle up against a F/TR gun any day.

Hang on there... Now you are spinning a different web. Before you were saying the match was won with a 0.1 grain scale. Now you are upping your anti by using a milligram scale. You cant suck and blow at the same time.... Just kidding T.

You and I have fired more rounds in a summer at CS than most readers on a forum like this will shoot in a lifetime. Most guys on here would be thrilled to shoot as well as Art did 20 years ago.

But many guys want to learn what it takes to shoot better than 20 years ago. Supplies and gear has improved and for those willing to do what it takes, I would like to share the more advanced methods rather that pat them on the back for what may well be good for them, while setting them up for disappointment if they find themselves on the 1000 yard firing point with a bunch of regulars.

How many times have you seen some guy show up for a demo day with a nice "sniper" rifle topped with an expensive militaresque scope and he cant hit squat. We never see those guys again. They had nice gear but did not know what it takes to dial it in the way the regulars do.

Could be I'm laying pearls before swine (as I've been told that I often do) but hopefully some of these guys get it and take advantage of what has taken alot of time and money to learn.

 

[Maple57]

Since Jerry found one kernel of Varget to weigh .02 grains, and since the FX-120i is accurate to .015-gr. increments, shouldn't this scale be good to ± 1 kernel (or possibly ± 2) of Varget as noted by Jerry, as opposed to the 4 kernels you have suggested?

It seems pretty clear that a different level of precision is required for weighing primers as opposed to weighing powder. It would appear that any "milligram" scale truly capable of .02-grain increments is more than adequate for very accurate powder weighing. Just not for primer weighing.

Optimism... Isn't that nice.

 

[kthomas]

Hang on there... Now you are spinning a different web. Before you were saying the match was won with a 0.1 grain scale. Now you are upping your anti by using a milligram scale. You cant suck and blow at the same time.... Just kidding T.

You and I have fired more rounds in a summer at CS than most readers on a forum like this will shoot in a lifetime. Most guys on here would be thrilled to shoot as well as Art did 20 years ago.

But many guys want to learn what it takes to shoot better than 20 years ago. Supplies and gear has improved and for those willing to do what it takes, I would like to share the more advanced methods rather that pat them on the back for what may well be good for them, while setting them up for disappointment if they find themselves on the 1000 yard firing point with a bunch of regulars.

How many times have you seen some guy show up for a demo day with a nice "sniper" rifle topped with an expensive militaresque scope and he cant hit squat. We never see those guys again. They had nice gear but did not know what it takes to dial it in the way the regulars do.

Could be I'm laying pearls before swine (as I've been told that I often do) but hopefully some of these guys get it and take advantage of what has taken alot of time and money to learn.

Components and reloading gear has probably come a long ways since then as well.

Honestly, its hard to reload "bad" rounds if you use quality components on quality reloading equipment with a repeatable process.

I don't think there's any secrets to it, and we have a tendency as reloaders to really overthink things.

The more I reload and shoot, the more I realize that some stuff just doesn't matter, and conclusions that we draw from small sample sizes don't really exist when you start using larger data sets.

 

[kthomas]

I'll add that everyone is going to have their own reloading practices, and people need to do whatever makes them feel the most confident. Having confidence in your system and its ability to perform is important. How we get that confidence in our systems is going to look different from shooter to shooter.

No matter what your process is, the most important thing is to be consistent. Combine that with using good quality components and equipment, and you should be well on your way to producing quality ammo.

 

[South Pender]

Optimism... Isn't that nice.

LOL. Meaning?

 

[Maple57]

I'll add that everyone is going to have their own reloading practices, and people need to do whatever makes them feel the most confident. Having confidence in your system and its ability to perform is important. How we get that confidence in our systems is going to look different from shooter to shooter.

No matter what your process is, the most important thing is to be consistent. Combine that with using good quality components and equipment, and you should be well on your way to producing quality ammo.

I agree, but here's what happens next...

A guy feels like he's doing really well in the bean field or at the private range. Then one day he finds himself shooting long range with a bunch of guys who are hard core range rats.

That is when he finds out how he's really doing. Until that day, he can be happy with whatever.

That's what's motivating and educational about competitive environments. And that depends much on the type of competition. There's TR guys like Maynard, I'm an F Class guy (who dabbles in PRS NRL) and others are hard core PRS NRL guys. Its real hard to be good in all these shooting disciplines.

A guy can be old and over weight and shoot F Class like a god, but suck at NRL PRS because he's not physical. It's all about balance.

 

[kthomas]

I agree, but here's what happens next...

A guy feels like he's doing really well in the bean field or at the private range. Then one day he finds himself shooting long range with a bunch of guys who are hard core range rats.

That is when he finds out how he's really doing. Until that day, he can be happy with whatever.

That's what's motivating and educational about competitive environments. And that depends much on the type of competition. There's TR guys like Maynard, I'm and F Class guy and others are PRS NRL guys. Its real hard to be good in all these shooting disciplines.

A guy can be old and over weight and shoot F Class like a god, but suck at NRL PRS because he's not physical. It's all about balance.

I agree with your sentiments.

I also think its very difficult to parse out quality conclusions from the type of testing most reloaders do. Most data sets are too small to have any statistical significance. On top of that, its extremely difficult to isolate all variables but one. To test all of that in a quality and substantiative manner would require many, many tests, that would have to be conducted over multiple barrel lives. The data resolution will only be as good as your weakest link, and brass, primers, projectiles, etc. are still produced by very primitive means.

Then when you are shooting, are your bad results a result of your reloads or your shooting? Are you very consistent in applying your fundamentals? Are all parts of your fundamentals correct? Was it the wind? Was your neck tension off? Primer weight too much? One too many grains of powder in that last shot? Inconsistent runout? Non-uniform brass?

It's very difficult to understand what variable resulted in what performance gain/loss/indifference, let alone to properly isolate and test each variable. That's why there's so much myth and lore in reloading.

Every time we pull the trigger, there's many, many variables at play.

 

[jimbo14]

The more of Keith's videos I watch, the more I like him. lol!