Well, crap. WTF.
- Thread starter mr.orange
- Start date
saskgunowner101
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- near Prince Albert
I was thinking the same. It could very well be the equipment, but people are quick to blame everything and anything first, and never the shooter. I have the exact opposite problem (not really a problem, as I'm aware) where I don't actually try as hard at closer ranges in favor of speed, and out further I try harder, and the groups are smaller than you would think they should be. Then, when I come back in to a closer range, my groups tighten up.
So I've done a few things to start eliminating potential issues:
- cleaned the barrel extensively with Wipeout & Accelerator (amazing stuff btw)
- removed the bipod; will shoot from sandbags only next range day.
- cranked down the front and rear action screws, and used a touch of blue lock tite. Made the middle action screw just snug.
- made up 10 more rounds of the original 180 grain Nosler partition load, and will let my buddy test it (to remove the operator error option)
- had the bore scoped by Alberta Tactical Rifle Supply. In their opinion, it's stunningly mint.
- made up 30 rounds of 165 grain Hornady BTSP to test. If I get the same results, ATRS suggests using a much heavier bullet given the rate of twist of 1:9.25
I will post photos of the targets after my next range day.
- cleaned the barrel extensively with Wipeout & Accelerator (amazing stuff btw)
- removed the bipod; will shoot from sandbags only next range day.
- cranked down the front and rear action screws, and used a touch of blue lock tite. Made the middle action screw just snug.
- made up 10 more rounds of the original 180 grain Nosler partition load, and will let my buddy test it (to remove the operator error option)
- had the bore scoped by Alberta Tactical Rifle Supply. In their opinion, it's stunningly mint.
- made up 30 rounds of 165 grain Hornady BTSP to test. If I get the same results, ATRS suggests using a much heavier bullet given the rate of twist of 1:9.25
I will post photos of the targets after my next range day.
Last edited:
It's unfortunate you did not test at 200 the first time out, but that's not something one usually does.
Scopes, specifically parallax issues, normally or usually are worse at close range. You mentioned that accuracy is good at 100. That narrows the potential problems like scope mounting, action bedding and such. IOW, the gun is OK or mostly OK. Before you get stuck going down a mud road you had no business being on, I'd rethink the issue.
The rifle is a 1972, what ammo have you used in the last almost 50 years and what did it shoot like at 200 yards?
I'd suspect the bullet and the first thing I'd do is eliminate that, IOW try another, different brand 180 gr bullet, if you're stuck on 180's. I've owned a few 30-06's as I'm sure some of the other respondents have as well, and I have some preferences when it comes to 30-06 handloads. First, although 4895 will give good accuracy, I prefer a slower burning powder. An old school fav for a 180 would be H4831, but I don't believe that is your issue. I also prefer a 165, but not the Hornady 165 BTSP, that one is my least favorite. My choice for testing would be a Sierra HPBT Gameking. I use this one for hunting as well. In addition, I'd load it with IMR4350, and most rifles like 57 gr of it.
A copper fouled barrel will shoot like crap, have an -06 that will not group after about 20 rounds. It gets cleaned fairly often, or stays in the safe. Lately it just stays in the safe, I'm not one that likes to spend time cleaning stubborn copper fouled barrels.
I've also had bedding issues that would have groups open up after 100, the worst was a warped forend. Since then most of my hunting rifles have some forend pressure, IOW the tip is bedded.
Lastly, with older rifles, the crown can be an issue. I'd check the crown, it can cause bullet yaw and effect groups at distance.
Keep us posted.
Just me, but I avoid 180's like the plague, they never seem to work for me. I like 165's, or 220's. I use the Nosler 220 partition with H4831 (Scotland) and it shoots real nice. My bush walking days are behind me, but back in the day my -06 Sauer 80 and I loved to hunt whitetails. When I switched from the Hornady 165 BTSP to the Sierra 165 HPBT life got even better.
Scopes, specifically parallax issues, normally or usually are worse at close range. You mentioned that accuracy is good at 100. That narrows the potential problems like scope mounting, action bedding and such. IOW, the gun is OK or mostly OK. Before you get stuck going down a mud road you had no business being on, I'd rethink the issue.
The rifle is a 1972, what ammo have you used in the last almost 50 years and what did it shoot like at 200 yards?
I'd suspect the bullet and the first thing I'd do is eliminate that, IOW try another, different brand 180 gr bullet, if you're stuck on 180's. I've owned a few 30-06's as I'm sure some of the other respondents have as well, and I have some preferences when it comes to 30-06 handloads. First, although 4895 will give good accuracy, I prefer a slower burning powder. An old school fav for a 180 would be H4831, but I don't believe that is your issue. I also prefer a 165, but not the Hornady 165 BTSP, that one is my least favorite. My choice for testing would be a Sierra HPBT Gameking. I use this one for hunting as well. In addition, I'd load it with IMR4350, and most rifles like 57 gr of it.
A copper fouled barrel will shoot like crap, have an -06 that will not group after about 20 rounds. It gets cleaned fairly often, or stays in the safe. Lately it just stays in the safe, I'm not one that likes to spend time cleaning stubborn copper fouled barrels.
I've also had bedding issues that would have groups open up after 100, the worst was a warped forend. Since then most of my hunting rifles have some forend pressure, IOW the tip is bedded.
Lastly, with older rifles, the crown can be an issue. I'd check the crown, it can cause bullet yaw and effect groups at distance.
Keep us posted.
Just me, but I avoid 180's like the plague, they never seem to work for me. I like 165's, or 220's. I use the Nosler 220 partition with H4831 (Scotland) and it shoots real nice. My bush walking days are behind me, but back in the day my -06 Sauer 80 and I loved to hunt whitetails. When I switched from the Hornady 165 BTSP to the Sierra 165 HPBT life got even better.
So, the plot thickens, duhn duhn duhn. Below are some pictures of targets.
https://urbanpulse-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/jsmith_urbansystems_ca/Eg7y3Jgi2RRHu20CY9BeoBQBANg_lsuLa_0bCY-NUKMUPw?e=pbSaeQ
Target 1: 49.0 grains imr 4895, 100 yards - fouling shot, shots 2,3,4 within a half inch of each other. Shot 5 pulled a little.
Target 2: 49.5 grains imr 4895, 200 yards - 5 shots, 4 inch spread left to right inch and a half vertically
Target 3: 50.0 grains imr 4895, 200 yards - started out promising...
Yes, started out promising, but then I decided to take a break, and unloaded. Unfortunately the bullet had become wedged in the lands, and extracted the case only. Most of the powder ended up on the shooting bench. Umm, what?
Yes, it seems that the reload data I was using from Lee set the Max OAL to 3.34, and the Min OAL to 3.30, so I seated the bullet at 3.32...right in between.
Got home. Pushed out the wedged bullet from the lands; two taps and it was out. So then I resized a piece of brass with no primer and powder, and just ever so slightly seated a bullet, and then very gently chambered, extracted, and measured it. Guess what the length was?
3.239 - Effectively 6 100th's shorter than the min OAL from Lee. I've been making cartridges too long for the gun, and jamming the bullet into the lands, or worse pushing the bullet back further into the chamber and creating higher pressures when chambering.
It appears that this particular 3006 was made for much heavier bullets as the reload data from Lee regarding Min and Max OAL starts falling into line with 200 - 220 grain bullets.
https://urbanpulse-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/jsmith_urbansystems_ca/Eg7y3Jgi2RRHu20CY9BeoBQBANg_lsuLa_0bCY-NUKMUPw?e=pbSaeQ
Target 1: 49.0 grains imr 4895, 100 yards - fouling shot, shots 2,3,4 within a half inch of each other. Shot 5 pulled a little.
Target 2: 49.5 grains imr 4895, 200 yards - 5 shots, 4 inch spread left to right inch and a half vertically
Target 3: 50.0 grains imr 4895, 200 yards - started out promising...
Yes, started out promising, but then I decided to take a break, and unloaded. Unfortunately the bullet had become wedged in the lands, and extracted the case only. Most of the powder ended up on the shooting bench. Umm, what?
Yes, it seems that the reload data I was using from Lee set the Max OAL to 3.34, and the Min OAL to 3.30, so I seated the bullet at 3.32...right in between.
Got home. Pushed out the wedged bullet from the lands; two taps and it was out. So then I resized a piece of brass with no primer and powder, and just ever so slightly seated a bullet, and then very gently chambered, extracted, and measured it. Guess what the length was?
3.239 - Effectively 6 100th's shorter than the min OAL from Lee. I've been making cartridges too long for the gun, and jamming the bullet into the lands, or worse pushing the bullet back further into the chamber and creating higher pressures when chambering.
It appears that this particular 3006 was made for much heavier bullets as the reload data from Lee regarding Min and Max OAL starts falling into line with 200 - 220 grain bullets.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
That is a good story - thanks for sharing. Really truly illustrated that Lee did not have your rifle's chamber when they published "COAL" specs. Something each of us has to determine, for ourselves, in our own chamber.
And, from higher volume target shooting guys, apparently the face ends of the lands erode - hence "chasing the lands" - so may as well figure out a quick and easy way to establish your own "COAL", because it is going to change... I do not know if the change is measurable after 100 rounds or after a 1,000 rounds - but none of my rifles get shot enough for me to worry about. However, since i am often using "new to me" bullets, I go through the commotion to establish where "hard on lands" is, almost every time I reload - is different, one bullet (brand and weight) to another.
About easiest is from Nosler book (?) or maybe a John Barsness article. Full size a brass case - cut a slit with a dremel - right down the neck into the shoulder. Colour up a bullet with jiffy marker - start it into that case by hand. Leave very "long" - chamber into your rifle - essentially lands are "seating" that bullet into the case. Withdraw - case neck has scraped off the jiffy marker. If bullet stuck on lands or if was pulled part way out, just slide the bullet so jiffy marker scrapes are covered. Measure for COAL - that is your "hard on the lands" dimension, for that bullet. Might be different for next one, so useful to do three or four before loading up that box of bullets. Can use that same case over and over - for years...
And, from higher volume target shooting guys, apparently the face ends of the lands erode - hence "chasing the lands" - so may as well figure out a quick and easy way to establish your own "COAL", because it is going to change... I do not know if the change is measurable after 100 rounds or after a 1,000 rounds - but none of my rifles get shot enough for me to worry about. However, since i am often using "new to me" bullets, I go through the commotion to establish where "hard on lands" is, almost every time I reload - is different, one bullet (brand and weight) to another.
About easiest is from Nosler book (?) or maybe a John Barsness article. Full size a brass case - cut a slit with a dremel - right down the neck into the shoulder. Colour up a bullet with jiffy marker - start it into that case by hand. Leave very "long" - chamber into your rifle - essentially lands are "seating" that bullet into the case. Withdraw - case neck has scraped off the jiffy marker. If bullet stuck on lands or if was pulled part way out, just slide the bullet so jiffy marker scrapes are covered. Measure for COAL - that is your "hard on the lands" dimension, for that bullet. Might be different for next one, so useful to do three or four before loading up that box of bullets. Can use that same case over and over - for years...
Last edited:
Firstly: LEE data is neither bullet or rifle specific. It is a conglomeration of data from other sources. When beginning to load a new bullet in an unknown rifle, it is best to follow the bullet makers data.
WRT the 180 gr Partition.
Fortunately for you Nosler publishes their data online. I took a look and the OAL posted for the Spitzer Partition is 3.310, and for the PPT it is 3.210. Most shooters choose the Spitzer, but I'm not going to assume you are.
Determining the optimum OAL for a bullet/cartridge is a book unto itself. The old school, back in the day recommendation was to load a dummy round and "smoke" bullet so you could see the impression of the lands on the ogive. That still works today, but Hornady makes a slick tool for this that works a bit easier. It appears as if you missed that important step.
For a rifle with rifling in good shape, into the lands is seldom optimum, I'd probably go app 0.010" back, or until a smoked bullet shows no marks from the lands.
I've alluded to this in my last post, and I'll repeat it here: Although a light load of IMR4895 may give you good short range accuracy, it is not the best choice for this bullet. Nosler data does not include IMR 4895 in the list. Neither does my Hornady data list it. Speer lists it for their bullets, 47 gr as max. IMHO you are setting up yourself for disappointment and you will be wasting a whole lot of expensive bullets. Again, it would be nice to see some
The gun fraternity is always willing to help, but in order to help, you have to be at a more experienced level of reloading. Sort of a catch 22, but back in the day this meant reading every loading manual available, subscribing to magazines like Handloader, and buying tools and instruments like a Chronograph.
WRT your retest with a 165 gr Hornady.
My Hornady manual list the recommended OAL as being 3.210". With a secant ogive bullet the optimum is either into the lands or about 0.100" away from the lands. Back from the lands at least 0.100" is where I like to be. The initial criteria for seating a bullet is that the shank should be fully supported in the neck, as that is the most accurate starting point for most load combinations. And again, my Hornady manual does not list IMR4895 as a suitable powder. The fastest powder they list is Varget.
I feel compelled to ask, why are you choosing to use IMR4895? Why didn't you follow the Hornady OAL recommendation?
IMHO a fresh start is needed. You need a baseline, begin by testing with some factory ammo, in the bullet weight you want to use for hunting. It's not a bad idea to have a factory ammo option anyways. It also gets you some nicely fireformed cases that match your chamber.
Nitro
WRT the 180 gr Partition.
Fortunately for you Nosler publishes their data online. I took a look and the OAL posted for the Spitzer Partition is 3.310, and for the PPT it is 3.210. Most shooters choose the Spitzer, but I'm not going to assume you are.
Determining the optimum OAL for a bullet/cartridge is a book unto itself. The old school, back in the day recommendation was to load a dummy round and "smoke" bullet so you could see the impression of the lands on the ogive. That still works today, but Hornady makes a slick tool for this that works a bit easier. It appears as if you missed that important step.
For a rifle with rifling in good shape, into the lands is seldom optimum, I'd probably go app 0.010" back, or until a smoked bullet shows no marks from the lands.
I've alluded to this in my last post, and I'll repeat it here: Although a light load of IMR4895 may give you good short range accuracy, it is not the best choice for this bullet. Nosler data does not include IMR 4895 in the list. Neither does my Hornady data list it. Speer lists it for their bullets, 47 gr as max. IMHO you are setting up yourself for disappointment and you will be wasting a whole lot of expensive bullets. Again, it would be nice to see some
The gun fraternity is always willing to help, but in order to help, you have to be at a more experienced level of reloading. Sort of a catch 22, but back in the day this meant reading every loading manual available, subscribing to magazines like Handloader, and buying tools and instruments like a Chronograph.
WRT your retest with a 165 gr Hornady.
My Hornady manual list the recommended OAL as being 3.210". With a secant ogive bullet the optimum is either into the lands or about 0.100" away from the lands. Back from the lands at least 0.100" is where I like to be. The initial criteria for seating a bullet is that the shank should be fully supported in the neck, as that is the most accurate starting point for most load combinations. And again, my Hornady manual does not list IMR4895 as a suitable powder. The fastest powder they list is Varget.
I feel compelled to ask, why are you choosing to use IMR4895? Why didn't you follow the Hornady OAL recommendation?
IMHO a fresh start is needed. You need a baseline, begin by testing with some factory ammo, in the bullet weight you want to use for hunting. It's not a bad idea to have a factory ammo option anyways. It also gets you some nicely fireformed cases that match your chamber.
Nitro
This may be irrelevant in your case, but bear in mind that provided data, whether from Lee or any other reload data source, is based on a particular bullet and hopefully on standard SAAMI or CIP chamber dimensions.
If you use a different bullet, or if your rifle isn't "standard" in some respect, your mileage is likely to vary.
There is some difference between design of bullet too, whether it be cup-and-core or monometal design, even jacket thickness and different length of bearing surface play a role in load development.
Does the load you built up using the Lee data have the exact same bullet they call for? If not, the part of the bullet ogive that touches the lands first may be in a different location in relation to the tip of the bullet, rendering their recommended OAL completely irrelevant.
I've made a habit of checking distance to lands in almost all loads I've developed over the years, whether it's by using a home-made version of the Hornady OAL gauge or by colouring a long-seated bullet with a Sharpie and repeatedly seating it slightly deeper until the rifling no longer marks the bullet as I insert the test round by hand.
Once I know at what length I have contact with the lands with a given bullet, I seat the bullet 0.020" deeper in the case and use that as my starting point for load development. All have been no less than 0.015" from the lands when I was done.
If you use a different bullet, or if your rifle isn't "standard" in some respect, your mileage is likely to vary.
There is some difference between design of bullet too, whether it be cup-and-core or monometal design, even jacket thickness and different length of bearing surface play a role in load development.
Does the load you built up using the Lee data have the exact same bullet they call for? If not, the part of the bullet ogive that touches the lands first may be in a different location in relation to the tip of the bullet, rendering their recommended OAL completely irrelevant.
I've made a habit of checking distance to lands in almost all loads I've developed over the years, whether it's by using a home-made version of the Hornady OAL gauge or by colouring a long-seated bullet with a Sharpie and repeatedly seating it slightly deeper until the rifling no longer marks the bullet as I insert the test round by hand.
Once I know at what length I have contact with the lands with a given bullet, I seat the bullet 0.020" deeper in the case and use that as my starting point for load development. All have been no less than 0.015" from the lands when I was done.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I tend to read most articles by John Barsness; I have most of his books, and have followed many of his recommendations, which have so far worked very well for me and the rifles that I have had. He used to use IMR 4350, and now, more commonly, H4350 and 165 grain bullets (most any brand) to test his 30-06 rifles for accuracy. His "go to" load and bullet weight in a 30-06. Good enough for me. In my rifles, about 4 or 5 thicknesses of computer printer paper (about .020") off of the lands seems like good starting place with most lead core bullets - if the magazine will accept that length. I have several rifles that the magazine is "too short" to get close to the lands in the barrel - so I just try to make those rounds with minimal runout - seems to work fine - nothing shot with them has complained.
I tend not to be too interested in gizmos that do nothing that I can't already do with what is at hand. I have never used the Hornady comparator system - so a part that takes a measure inside your chamber? Another part that takes a measure from your loaded round? I already have the chamber - I use it to establish whether my reloaded round is appropriate or not. I suspect many would be further ahead to buy a pound of cerrosafe and learn how to cast and measure their throats, lands and chambers - out where you can see what you are doing.
I tend not to be too interested in gizmos that do nothing that I can't already do with what is at hand. I have never used the Hornady comparator system - so a part that takes a measure inside your chamber? Another part that takes a measure from your loaded round? I already have the chamber - I use it to establish whether my reloaded round is appropriate or not. I suspect many would be further ahead to buy a pound of cerrosafe and learn how to cast and measure their throats, lands and chambers - out where you can see what you are doing.
Last edited:
