|
Post by wfa on Jun 4, 2015 14:00:03 GMT -8
I am probably the only person that didn't understand what "Lapua has a small flash hole" REALLY meant! Actually, it's TINY. The attached picture is a tool I made using a .338 (plastic tipped before the fire) bullet and a #51 drill (.067") to open the flash hole. The initial hole in the bullet was drilled with a Forster "rifle hollow pointer", the bullet held somewhere in a Forster #3 collet. Once the initial hole is drilled, open the hole up to accept the drill size you want, a bit of Loctite (pick your color), tap the drill into the hole in the bullet, and you're good to go. The bullet, obviously, has to be larger than the case mouth, and you want something your fingers can easily turn; the drill must be long enough to reach the flash hole, again obviously.
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 4, 2015 15:53:44 GMT -8
So you drilled the flash holes that help the accuracy? Why not use a PPC decapping pin from Redding? Or if I'm just dinking around I use a hand decapping rod and a hammer.
Greg
|
|
|
Post by wfa on Jun 4, 2015 17:59:12 GMT -8
Yeah, I guess I'm a barbarian. I didn't mention, 'cause I figured I'd post the results in the 264 LBC Forum, that I saved 50 "as issued" Lapua cases to see if the tiny flash hole made a difference in MY rifle. As long as I'm posting this, I'll say that so far I have found in MY rifle: No difference in accuracy or velocity when using a given load in fire formed cases (large primers), un-formed cases (large primers), or "store bought" Grendel cases (Hornady and Lapua) with small primers. That doesn't mean someone else won't have different results. My standard test load is 28gr 8208 (28.5 is a bit too hot for my tastes, at least in my rifle), 123 Amax and 123 SST. ALL of the cases I've tried put 8 shots of that load into .93 +/- MOA according to "On Target" (I use 8 shots because 7 is the minimum for statistical meaningful data, and I want wiggle room in case (no pun intended) the chronograph "burbs").
|
|
|
Post by wfa on Jun 8, 2015 14:45:34 GMT -8
So you drilled the flash holes that help the accuracy? Why not use a PPC decapping pin from Redding? Or if I'm just dinking around I use a hand decapping rod and a hammer. Greg Does anyone, other than Redding, have the "tiny decap pin" available?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 15:03:48 GMT -8
So you drilled the flash holes that help the accuracy? Why not use a PPC decapping pin from Redding? Or if I'm just dinking around I use a hand decapping rod and a hammer. Greg Does anyone, other than Redding, have the "tiny decap pin" available? Hornady 6.5 Grendel dies come with a small pin. If the die manufacture don't make the small pin it's obvious they don't know how to make dies for this particular cartridge. I wouldn't buy any dies that don't come with a small pin. Start doing some research and you will find the small flash hole is on of the reasons why the PPC shoots the way it does.
|
|
|
Post by wfa on Jun 9, 2015 19:19:49 GMT -8
Understand; I shot a bit of BR a number of years ago (when I could still see worth a hoot!), but mostly with cast bullets. I simply want to see how much, or if, the reduced flash hole has a positive effect with the AR/MSR type rifle which doesn't weigh 12+ pounds. I did some limited testing today, but no clear-cut results so far. No matter what the results turn out to be, I'll have enjoyed the handloading and the shooting.
|
|
|
Post by mosigdude on Jun 9, 2015 19:52:41 GMT -8
I drilled my 6.5 Grendel Lapua brass for my BHW 264LBC to a 0.080" flash hole so I can still use my universal decapping die to prep the brass for wet-tumbling in SS media before sizing/trimming etc., I'm not sure how much more accurate it would have been had I not done this but I still turned in two different groups that were approximately a half inch at 200 yards. I'm guessing, at least in my application, it didn't hurt a thing but it may with other combinations of different powders/bullets.
|
|
|
Post by wfa on Jun 10, 2015 4:08:39 GMT -8
In a tuned and trued bench gun I think a top tier shooter might see a difference. I'm not so sure about an "adequate" shooter, such as myself, shooting a carefully assembled, but built from off the shelf parts, AR. There is no doubt in my mind that my BHW barrel is capable of very small groups, but a rifle is much more than just a barrel; it's a "system". A Formula One engine in a cotton picker isn't going to be a winner!
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 10, 2015 5:59:15 GMT -8
I think the key is that you use all the little parts/steps to make the big system work best. You can take one aspect on a hand load i.e. the flash hole and deburr it and test after test has shown it makes a difference in many guns. Consistency and detail pay off even for the adequate shooter. If I pick up 0.005 with any change it's still a 0.005 improvement.
Each prep step will not add XXX and the total is not stacked as the total performance is not like adding water to a bucket in quantifiable steps. If you do AAA and not BBB you get YYY. If you do BBB and not AAA you get ZZZ. Doing AAA and BBB together does not give a sum total of YYY and ZZZ. You may get more, you may get less or you may get worse performance. It’s all relative.
Bad barrels will always shoot badly. Super barrels will shoot super if you feed them right. Super barrels will usually shoot great with a little effort but sometimes that extra is what makes a difference between putting the target in the trash as you leave the range or carefully cutting it out while it's hanging and putting it in your wallet.
Greg
|
|
|
Post by wfa on Jun 10, 2015 17:54:37 GMT -8
Well said, and I don't disagree. But by trying to hold other "variables" constant, sometime you can actually quantify a "variable". Does that make sense? The fun is in the hunt!
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 10, 2015 18:26:05 GMT -8
Well said, and I don't disagree. But by trying to hold other "variables" constant, sometime you can actually quantify a "variable". Does that make sense? The fun is in the hunt! Semantically if you hold a variable constant it is no longer a variable. It is a given. Greg
|
|
|
Post by wfa on Jun 11, 2015 5:49:14 GMT -8
QED
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 11, 2015 8:30:17 GMT -8
He said, "quod erat demonstrandum" Now that's good no matter who you are!! Greg
|
|
|
Post by wfa on Jun 13, 2015 11:50:53 GMT -8
I can't say definitively that the tiny flash hole is better than the .067 flash hole, but indications are that, yes, the smaller flash hole improves accuracy, but reduces velocity somewhat.
Test load was 100gr Amax, Lapua (obviously) brass, CCI 450, 29.0 gr 8208, COL 2.26", 10 shots each, BHW 18" 264 LBC (possibly a bit short in the lead, but not anything to cause any issues with me), RRA trigger
"Tiny" flash hole: Hi: 2549 fps Lo: 2515 fps Avg: 2530 fps ES: 34 fps SD: 10
"062" flash hole: Hi: 2583 Lo: 2530 Avg: 2553 ES: 53 fps SD: 17
Group size, well, my impression is that the small hole is more accurate, but the wind kicked up in the middle of testing, so there may have been problems with "the nut on the buttstock". I'd GUESS that there is (maybe) 1/16" difference. Whatever the difference may be, it's enough for me to keep segregating cases for target use.
Ok, Greg, "you told me so"!
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 13, 2015 13:11:17 GMT -8
Nice numbers to compare. Feeding the fire to teh powder over a smaller area in this particular round seems to smooth things out.
Greg
|
|