|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jul 27, 2012 15:46:52 GMT -8
I suspect if you keep moving up you will hit another accuracy node. The movement in an out of grouping is fascinating as the pressures and harmonics of the various levels come in to play. And then once you get the "best" groups you start in on the seating depth.
Good shooting.
Greg
|
|
|
Post by jamesg651 on Jul 28, 2012 6:01:23 GMT -8
Thanks for the updates, keep on grinding away. I'll stay tuned...
Jim
|
|
aftcg
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by aftcg on Aug 10, 2012 14:24:06 GMT -8
Still no joy. I'd been unable to get to the range until today so I started with the same recipe I had last time (58 Vmax, N133).
Best group 1.1 and the worst was over 3". In pretend land I'm looking for nodes, but in reality the best and worst groups were only .2 grains apart - far too close to be able to report anything consistent.
Sigh. I'm going to try Benchmark next.
|
|
aspp
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by aspp on Aug 10, 2012 15:02:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Aug 10, 2012 17:03:39 GMT -8
The ladder test is used by a myriad of long range shooters. It should be shot at no less than 200 and preferably 300 yards. 100 is not enough to get a good read on it. Zediker discusses it in one of his books and how he uses three shots instead of one at each load level. Of course the ability of the shooter can really make a difference in these tests for load development. Greg
|
|
aftcg
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by aftcg on Aug 10, 2012 17:55:37 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. I just read it and it all makes sense from here.
I was just spending some time going back over my targets and in reviewing them came across my load of Varget with the 87 Vmax, with a 1.1 and a .9 five shot group. which is the most consistency I've seen yet.
I'll start at the bottom and use that powder/bullet combination and try this system out.
|
|
aftcg
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by aftcg on Aug 13, 2012 18:31:25 GMT -8
Update again. Well no real joy with the 87 Vmax and I couldn't even repeat the group sizes I had before.
I decided to back up and do some careful checking. I wanted to determine the seating depth for each bullet. I have the Hornady case guage but don't have a case tapped for it. I decided I would do the old school way and just loosely seat a bullet and push it in the chamber.
Guess what? I can't. When I've done this in the past I grab a fired case, which a bullet will slip through or have minimal drag. Then I just bump it so it will have a tiny amount of neck tension and proceed.
With my fired brass I can't get a bullet into it with my hands. The brass acts as if I just full length sized it.
That would seem to indicate that I need to neck turn my brass (not a problem) in order to allow the neck to expand properly to begin with.
From the thread on the chamber specs the neck of my barrel should be .273" and I'm about to measure a fired case and a loaded case to see where I'm at.
My dad is a very skilled machinist who has built many single hole rifles and he indicates that I should have .002-.003 between the case neck and the chamber wall (as a diameter, not all around).
I'm guilty of not having checked this from the beginning, but it sure explains why I've gotten this far with "known good loads" with disappointing results.
Hopefully next time I post I'm going to be happier.
|
|
aspp
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by aspp on Aug 15, 2012 16:47:02 GMT -8
The ladder test is used by a myriad of long range shooters. It should be shot at no less than 200 and preferably 300 yards. 100 is not enough to get a good read on it. Zediker discusses it in one of his books and how he uses three shots instead of one at each load level. Of course the ability of the shooter can really make a difference in these tests for load development. Greg As I read it I understand what is being discussed and how it should work, my biggest problem with it all is the single shot per load. There can be just a bit too much error there for my liking. Shooting 3 at the same load makes sense, but then its not much faster than the old way of trying a known good load and adjusting for your gun/desires. I guess its 6 of one and half-dozen of another. Before I write it off I will try it, likely this weekend if I get to stay home and dont have to work.
|
|
aspp
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by aspp on Aug 15, 2012 16:48:45 GMT -8
Oh and sorry for the hyjack!!! Good luck with it! I am having a hard time deciding between the 243lbc and the 6x68 for my next venture into BRD. Im hoping to hear some good things!!!
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Aug 15, 2012 17:09:45 GMT -8
[/quote]
As I read it I understand what is being discussed and how it should work, my biggest problem with it all is the single shot per load. There can be just a bit too much error there for my liking. Shooting 3 at the same load makes sense, but then its not much faster than the old way of trying a known good load and adjusting for your gun/desires. I guess its 6 of one and half-dozen of another.
Before I write it off I will try it, likely this weekend if I get to stay home and dont have to work.
[/quote]
You are right. A single bullet per load is a test of the shooter at 300 yards. Lots of guys do well with it. I know me and a 3 shooter would be my choice. I'm just going to shoot some groups at 200 and then 300 to work up my long range stuff. I shot a load sight unseen except for a 100 yard five shot group and it is doing well. Eve a blind hog finds an acorn.
When you do it get some pics and show us what it is doing. That will be VERY instructive for many of the guys on the board here.
Greg
PS: I'll have 24" 1:9 243 LBC in my hot little hands on Saturday if the USPS comes through and I will be testing it. I'll start the obligatory threads and we can all learn something form each other.
|
|
aftcg
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by aftcg on Nov 15, 2012 9:15:06 GMT -8
I haven't been shooting my .243 lbc recently but I'm fixing to take a fresh look.
I've poured over my targets and load data collected so far and it would appear that I need to focus on the 87 Vmax with Varget and the .58 Vmax with N133.
I've trimmed my brass, and prepared to load up but one thing is causing me pause, and that is seating depth.
My "internet recipe" for the 87 Vmax lists the OAL as 2.175" and that is what I've loaded so far, but now I'm wondering why. Clearly I could seat to magazine length 2.260" but instead I'm shoving it in the case darn near an extra .1" (okay .085").
I don't have a case tapped for my Hornady case length gauge so until I get one or adopt one of the more primitive methods of touching the rifling I won't know how much "jump" I'm giving it right now.
Is anyone here (echo...) seating further out with better results?
My short term goal is to revisit the two loads mentioned above and re-establish that I'm really on a node and then play with depth. Just like to see what y'all are doing.
Also, has anyone played with Benchmark for either of these two bullets?
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Nov 15, 2012 9:46:45 GMT -8
I haven't been shooting my .243 lbc recently but I'm fixing to take a fresh look. I've poured over my targets and load data collected so far and it would appear that I need to focus on the 87 Vmax with Varget and the .58 Vmax with N133. I've trimmed my brass, and prepared to load up but one thing is causing me pause, and that is seating depth. My "internet recipe" for the 87 Vmax lists the OAL as 2.175" and that is what I've loaded so far, but now I'm wondering why. Clearly I could seat to magazine length 2.260" but instead I'm shoving it in the case darn near an extra .1" (okay .085"). I don't have a case tapped for my Hornady case length gauge so until I get one or adopt one of the more primitive methods of touching the rifling I won't know how much "jump" I'm giving it right now. Is anyone here (echo...) seating further out with better results? My short term goal is to revisit the two loads mentioned above and re-establish that I'm really on a node and then play with depth. Just like to see what y'all are doing. Also, has anyone played with Benchmark for either of these two bullets? You may well be in the lands at that length. I'm not loading the 87 HPBT Hornady at 2.223 and that is 0.005 off my lands. Remember that HP's are notorious for variations in length so with that lot of bullets that is what it came out to. Measured to the ogive I am at 1.775 with the Hornady/Stoney Point tool. Without a tool I just start seating rounds in sized cases and gradually increase the length form what I was starting out. When you get one that "sticks" and gets marked up when you drop the bolt you are there. I just pull the upper and load the dummy round in the chamber and sling the BCG home by hand. Don't use the buffer spring. Once you get that length and a tool that I assume you have you can use that no mater what the length is on that bullet as the ogive is what makes it or breaks it. Greg BTW a Berger 105 hits at 2.337 on mine.
|
|
aftcg
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by aftcg on Nov 15, 2012 23:34:58 GMT -8
Thanks Greg, Funny thing happened when I went to load tonight and that is doing a double take on seating depth. Turns out that the very best groups were seated to 2.175, and that on a later occasion I repeated the load and was not as impressed.
Well, it turned out that I was loading 2.200" when the groups spread out so this time I went back to 2.175" and I'll see how it goes tomorrow. I was also sloppy about my primers and was using Federal 205s when I used the longer length instead of CCI 400 as I used previously.
In this case, keeping my targets and not just looking at my notes scratched in a dope book allowed me to recognize the sloppy procedure.
It also showed that I forgot rule number one which is to only change one variable at a time.
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Nov 16, 2012 14:42:50 GMT -8
Thanks Greg, Funny thing happened when I went to load tonight and that is doing a double take on seating depth. Turns out that the very best groups were seated to 2.175, and that on a later occasion I repeated the load and was not as impressed. Well, it turned out that I was loading 2.200" when the groups spread out so this time I went back to 2.175" and I'll see how it goes tomorrow. I was also sloppy about my primers and was using Federal 205s when I used the longer length instead of CCI 400 as I used previously. In this case, keeping my targets and not just looking at my notes scratched in a dope book allowed me to recognize the sloppy procedure. It also showed that I forgot rule number one which is to only change one variable at a time. Learning to take note s is a BIG step. With so many variables going on with the wildcat BHW barrels I'm shooting the notes make a huge difference. Consistency and repeatability are so important,. I shot some 95 Bergers the other day, I'll post pics for you, and they were a bit over 0.5. I couldn't find any of my regular bullets so I pulled up the data on that one and loaded them up based on five shots. I just shot them at 500 yards this AM and had the best scores I've ever had!! 192-2X. The 10 ring is 5" at that distance. I had one 8 that was a happy trigger moment on y part so 6 9's and and 8. That equates to almost a Master score. I need a 194/200 for that. Keep us posted. It is great to see how we all are progressing in our quest. Greg
|
|
aftcg
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by aftcg on Nov 16, 2012 16:17:03 GMT -8
Just back from the range. 87 Vmax, 2.175" OAL, 5 shots @100 yards, CCI 400 primers, Varget 28.2 - 2.5" group 28.4 - 1.6" group 28.6 - 2.6" group (lots of operator error) 28.8 - 1.8" group 29.0 - 1.6" group (3 in .45") 58 Vmax, 2.175" OAL, 5 shots @100 yards, CCI 400 primers, VV N133 26.9 - 1.75" group (note: This was my previous best load so I loaded it as a baseline. Had it been money this time I would have just called it a load). Next, I moved up to 28 grains 28.2 - 2.7" (3 in 1") 28.4 - 2.05" (3 in .9") 28.6 - .78"28.8 - 2.3" (3 in .9") So in the end I have a group I'm at least not disgusted with: I'm a little concerned that the "node" appears to be quite narrow. That would seem to imply that this load is not going to be tolerant of errors in powder measuring and might also be a bit touchy as the weather changes. Of course it's cold and raining here in WA so that's about as stable as weather gets around here.
|
|