What's Left?

  • 9.2K Views
  • Last Post 03 May 2014
billglaze posted this 16 April 2014

All: I've been reading lately, (well, over the past 4 or so years) from shooters who are highly respected.  I highly respect their findings, and their judgment. They seem to be experimentally correct and as rigorous as can be expected.  I believe that what they are writing is correct and definitely works for them, as well as for others.  What I am about to write is not to be construed as criticizing their results, veracity, or experimental methods.  With that out of the way: I've read that weighing bullets is not of much practical value.  And, that blemished bullets can shoot as well and, in at least one case, better than the average of “perfect” bullets.  (My term, not the author's) Weighing powder charges seems also to be scorned for accuracy.  One author, whose ideas/writings I highly respect, states “don't make any small changes such as lube etc. and expect a quantum leap in accuracy."  (Paraphrased)  Primer changes ditto.  I've read that sizing bullets can destroy their accuracy, and I've read that bullets should be properly sized to fit the bore/groove dimensions of the barrel. It appears that linotype metal is the darling of the accuracy buffs, but I've never noticed any difference between lino and wh.wts. H.T. to my usual ~32 b.h.n.  In fact, the best groups I've shot are with WWs.  (Tempered in the rifle, as-cast in pistols.) Some say you absolutely must full-length size, (thus destroying an icon of mine for over 60 years) while others, (me) don't full-length size so we don't destroy the custom-fit chamber/case relationship. I have a friend who frequently wins at the bench, who doesn't bother to index  his cases in the rifle--says he could never tell any difference in accuracy.  I'm still doing so, however, and possibly wasting my time thereby. I could go on and on with these details and techniques, but this is more than enough to give you the idea.  In any event, I sure would like to know what really needs doing, and what is just superfluous fluff. Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Tom Acheson posted this 16 April 2014

OK, I'll bite!  To me the hand-loading aspects can be as interesting as the actual shooting. Looking for combinations that do and don't work, adopting the practices of others, learning something new, etc. And then going out to the range and shooting with your friends in friendly competition. Don't forget there is only one winner. But on the flip side Vince Lombardi once was reported to have said “Winning isn't everything but wanting to is (or something like that). There is a difference between hand-loading and reloading”¦.

 Weighing bullets---I cast large quantities and weigh them all and put them in 100-round pistol ammo boxes. I start the season with the lighter ones and work my from light to heavy during course of the season. To me that's one of the areas to remove your second guessing of yourself when looking at your groups”¦”should I have weighed my bullets?”

 Weighing powder charges---depends on the powder but generally if you have a repeatable measure AND a consistent cycling practice, the gain to weigh may be hard to identify.

 Primer selection---should be the last variable you play with. You just might find that one primer does a better job than the others. But then the guessing game”¦I chose this load and now I'll swap primers. What if the chosen load (powder/bullet) had been shot with a different primer, would it still be the “chosen load”?

 Sizing of bullets---For my BPCR loads they are used as they drop out of the mould, no sizing. Those shoot better than some that were sized 0.001 and 0.002” smaller. But that was a Paul Jones “very round mould”. Other moulds need some truing up and a small sizing application seems to help.

 Tempering of bullets---used to do it but quit years ago. Depends on chamber pressure and velocity. If I think I need a harder bullet I add mono or lino to WW. But too hard can be a detriment, watch out! And...use of the home oven can insure a steady diet of distressed looks from your better half.

 Full length sizing---in a custom fitted neck with 0.0005” clearance per side of the OD of the neck and the ID of the neck area, you may be destroying the cherished benefit of the “previously fired fit” of the case to your chamber.

 Indexing rounds---good theory but I tried for a while but saw no difference but I know others who say it is really important.

 Cleaning primer pockets---my dad got me started in hand-loading and he did it. After I clean and tumble cases it just seems strange to see and nice shiny case and a rubbish pit for a primer pocket, just one of those things. I have no scientific evidence to say do it or not”¦to me it is just small step that doesn't hurt.

 Hey, you didn't ask about bumping bullets!

 There you go. It's worth what you paid for it. But that's the fun”¦experimenting and learning that every gun/load is unique to itself. There is no one size fits all here. If there was it wouldn't be much fun, just monkey see, monkey do.

 I know there are some among us who will salivate at grinding the above up”¦but I don't care”¦it's your ship, you sail it!

  Tom

Attached Files

Maven posted this 16 April 2014

I won't take a side in this discussion except to say, as John Alexander does in his article in TFS228-3, that this is a hobby and there are many paths, though some are false, to cast bullet accuracy.  In addition, as hobbyists, we don't always have the time, desire, or even expertise to design  “bullet proof” (pun intended)  experiments to test whether weighed CB's outperform unweighed ones, for example.  In other words, we need double blind experiments in which neither the shooter nor his/her assistant knows the hypothesized result (outcome) or how the CB's differ from one another.  Lastly, social psychologist Robert Rosenthal (and many others as well) has written extensively on subconscious biases (via self fulfilling prophesies) held by researchers, which significantly affected or distorted the results of their research.  Rosenthal's book, “Pygmalion in the Classroom” is one of the better known examples of said bias.  In short, a healthy skepticism about “the conventional wisdom” and CB accuracy, as John suggests, may be exactly what's needed to ascertain what really works and what's essentially an article of faith (plausible, but lacking empirical support).

P.S. Rosenthal called the effect experimenter bias*, but it is also known as auto-suggestion, the placebo effect, self-fulfilling prophesies.

*His initial research involved trained experimenters (psychologists) who were working with lab rats run through a maze to determine how long it would take the rats to complete the task.  One group of experimenters was told the rats were bred for intelligence, the other was told they were bred for the opposite.  Both then and separately had to measure how long each group took to run the maze.  The results were as you would expect given what I mentioned earlier.  However, here's the fly in the ointment:  The only difference between the rats was what each group of experimenters was told about the rats' intelligence.

 

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 16 April 2014

I may have been misunderstood by some about my statements on weighing bullets. I specifically judge weighing bullets to match them before beginning a search for a sweetspot when doing a traditional long range ladder test as detrimental.  I believe that unmatched bullets help to define a sweet spot on the target more graphically to the eye when looking at the holes on paper. Unmatched bullets will show a larger cluster by hole count of the cluster and give a broader amount of specific specific charges in the cluster that defines a sweet spot in a ladder test at 1,000 yards.

Of course when the average charge of the cluster shots in the sweet spot is defined by charge weight, That is a turning point. From that point on, after the sweet spot center charge is defined, then sorting bullets by weight does have the effect of reducing group size when subsequently shooting for group size. Sorting cast bullets to 1% weight match works for me in that respect ( after defining sweet spot)  only.

I am saying weighing bullets to match them by weight is uncalled for until the sweet spot for the charge is identified.  I am talking about 1,000 yard ladder load tests and how I have done them to work well for me. It is very much not worth anybody's time to do this stuff if you are not a marksman with a dependable history with at least one rifle/load that you can already demonstrate sub 1 MOA shooting at 1,000 yards. You have to be that good for this kind of specifics from any bag of tricks to make a difference at 1,000 yards. That is a very lot to take for granted and judging yourself and your own skill is something lots of shooters never get past. Expecting these tips and steps to work when you don't shoot well enough to evaluate what you are doing frustrates a lot of shooters that think they are 1,000 yard marksmen.

Gary

Attached Files

muley posted this 17 April 2014

We may not agee on all points, but it sure is good to see that minds are stimulated.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 17 April 2014

tom a. sez ”
Hey, you didn't ask about bumping bullets! “

hey tom, whatcha think about bumping bullets ?

ken

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 17 April 2014 

   Bill,

  Thanks for bringing up this worthwhile subject and for being so careful and polite so as not to upset anybody.    However, anybody who gives his opinions in print whether backed up by experimental data or not should be willing to keep cool when those opinions/conclusions are challenged and counter evidence presented to show that he is wrong if such evidence is available.    I think that is especially true if the author is presenting evidence that challenges the conventional wisdom about whether some of our widely held beliefs are actually true.  Such folks probably have a thick hide and if they don't they should grow one before they write.   And if someone has evidence to support the conventional wisdom they should present it so we can dismiss the heretical contentions of the author.

This not to say that we shouldn't always be careful to be civil and respectful in these online discussions where it is so easy to be misunderstood.  But if we don't openly discuss and present evidence we are never going to learn anything new.  

Tom makes an additional important point for this type of discussion --  “its your ship, you sail it.”  Shooting cast bullets is a hobby after all and we can do it any way we want and some people aren't interested in this type of conversation and just want to do it “the way I was taught” ”€œ- we should respect that.    John

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 17 April 2014

About bumping bullets”¦.again this is my experience not something I'd attempt to lecture anyone on or claim it must be done or done this way or anything along those lines.   I shot my first CBA BR match in 1997 in the LRH category using an XP-100 chambered in 30 BR. Later that fall I sent it off to be re-barreled in 30 Kern (modified 7.62 x 39 case). The gunsmith suggested I consider bumping the bullets and he made a bump press for me. Using the bumped bullets I shot groups that were better than before the bumping thing. I had it re-chambered in 30 PPC in 2005 and still bumped bullets and that arrangement shot even better. I struggled all of 2005 by fidgeting with seating depth and neck tension. But then after much putzzing, 2006 was a very good year (as old blue eyes would say) with that arrangement. I again had it re-chambered in 30 Silhouette (30/.223) in 2012 but looking back, the 30 PPC shot better, even with bumped bullets.   While it may be incorrect, my impression of the advantages of a bumped bullet is to end up with a slight taper on the bullet that coincides with the same taper in the throat area. Your gunsmith needs to know how to do this and it really helps if your gunsmith is a competitive shooter that understands the course youhave set out on. The seating depth of the bullet is important because the bullet needs to be in the correct position when the bolt is closed. It is common to seat the bullet about 0.025” extra long and as the bolt closes, the bullet is pushed back into the case, positioning the bullet in the correct location, assuming youhave done everything else correctly. A cone (bullet) in a cone (throat area) is supposed to be the optimum alignment condition prior to ignition for achieving the best accuracy. But”¦it is one more step in the hand-loading process.   My Savage 308 Winch. seems to like bumped bullets better than un-bumped, even with the factory standard throat area. In the Savage and the 30 PPC and 30 Sil., the mould is a LBT 4-cavity 180-185-grain that Veral knew before making it that I'd be bumping the bullets.   That's my 10-cents worth on the subject.     Tom

Attached Files

LWesthoff posted this 17 April 2014

I might as well get my nickel's worth in here:

I don't bump my bullets, but I do almost all the other super anal things any of us do. I sort and weigh my cases. I sort and weigh my bullets to plus or minus 0.2 grains. I clean all the primer pockets. I index my cases AND my bullets. Indexed cases are oriented the same all the way from neck sizing through priming and chambering. I weigh every powder charge to minus zero/plus 0.1 grain.

I do all this knowing full well that shooters who are much better than I do NOT do some or all these things and still outscore me.

The reason I do them is because if I don't, and I shoot a bad score or an “oversize” group, it's too easy to blame it on something besides MY SHOOTING.

Make sense?

Wes

Attached Files

PETE posted this 17 April 2014

I'm going to have to rethink some of my fast held beliefs this upcoming season. I shoot mostly 200 yd. ASSRA competition. In the past I have bump swaged my bullets figuring that “evening” things up could help accuracy. But..... The last match of last year I ran short of time so had to shoot my bullets as cast. Shot a 248, a 250, & a 249. These were my three best scores of the year.

Guess I'm gonna have to rethink some things. Gonna be an interesting year.

Pete

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 17 April 2014

Les,

Like your outlook....very healthy!

Tom

Attached Files

muley posted this 17 April 2014

Les, I like your comments, looks like you enjoy shooting. Jim

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 18 April 2014

Wes, I think you are “sailing your ship” the way most serious cast bullet shooters do it and it works for you.  

As I have said before, my motive in trying to show that some of our common procedures aren't necessary even for competitive shooting and certainly aren't necessary for hunters and plinkers isn't to convince CB shooters to stop weighing, cleaning, indexing, etc. Everyone should do as they please and a lot of CB shooters seem to enjoy the more complicated process.  If this extra work increases the shooters confidence that is a good thing too.

My motive is to show that cast bullet can be done in a simpler way so we might be able to attract more shooters to our sport who want to spend less time at the loading bench so they can spend more time actually shooting.

My other reason is to encourage shooters who are interested in learning new things about cast bullet shooting (so we can shoot better and enjoy it more) to use the time they can save by simplifying their casting and loading method to run some semi scientific tests to learn how to shoot cast bullets better.  

For instance I and many other shooters have spent a lot of time diddling around and worrying about either the amount or the uniformity of neck tension (bullet seating pressure) and what its effect on accuracy might be.  Jerry Bottiger ran well-controlled tests to find out and reported the results in Fouling Shot #124.  In a nutshell he found that changes and inconsistencies in neck tension, within the range we usually use, have absolutely no effect on either accuracy or muzzle velocity. And his tests were preformed with a rifle and load shooting half inch groups.  

I think this is real progress. We now actually know more about shooting cast bullets than we knew before and can concentrate on other things that are more likely to make a difference.  We need more of this kind of testing if we hope to get better. John

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 19 April 2014

heh heh i stole this from another group

” why on earth would we work so hard to eliminate every last excuse for poor shooting ? “

dang that's funny ...

ken

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 19 April 2014

How about a “short” comment on neck tension? All groups/scores shot with the following: LRH match entries, XP-100 chambered in 30 PPC 15” bbl. 7-pounds, Weaver 24XEagan single cavity 165-168-grain, 50-50 lino-mono sized 0.311", bumpedVV N-133, R-P 7 1/2 primers Lapua casesmv 1950-2050

200516 (10) round groups @ 100-yards average size 1.689". Smallest 0.785” (0.984” NR)4 (5) round groups @ 100-yards average size. 1.325"4 (10) round groups @ 200-yards average size 4.226"4 (5) round groups @ 200-yards average size 3.209"Redding bushing in neck sizer 0.325” & 0.326"

200614 (10) round groups @ 100-yards average size 1.496".  Smallest 0.988"4 (5) round groups @ 100-yards average size 0.6785"4 (10) round groups @ 200-yards average size 2.011"4 (5)round groups @ 200-yards average size 1.6048"Redding bushing in neck sizer 0.324"

All groups shot at CBA matches, not cherry picked conditions.In June 2006 at the Windhill Range this gun shot (5) new CBA national records.

Comparing the above entries line for line, the 2006 entries are better but the single difference is neck tension based on the smaller ID of the neck sizing bushing, so yes I'm a believer in the influences of neck tension.

OK, so the 4-group examples aren't statistically meaningful. But 3 of the 5 2006 NR were shot at 200-yards. Our local clubs only shoot 100-yard events so my 200-yard opportunities are somewhat limited. As noted in an earlier post, maybe I should go back to the 30 PPC....

Go neck tension! Tom

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 19 April 2014

Gotta learn how to proof and put in paragraph breaks....

Tom

Attached Files

LWesthoff posted this 19 April 2014

John:

Right now, I have 65 311679 bullets set aside in a special container. The bullets are out of BOTH cavities of a 2 cavity mold (I ALWAYS keep them separate.) They are not weight segregated. One of these days when I have time and am not loading for one of Mitch's matches or a postal match, I'm going to load 'em up with thrown charges (not weighed, although my old Herter powder measure is actually quite consistent), and I'm going to take them out to the range and see what happens at 200 yds. I'll also shoot enough of the same loads that have gone through my standard super-anal process to give me an idea as to whether there's any real difference. When I'm finished, I'll let you know how it came out. And then you know what? Regardless of the result, I'll probably go right back to the way I've been doing it before, for the same reason that I've been doing it: so I won't have something besides ME to blame for that bad shot. Maybe my wife is right, and I am kinda stubborn.

Wes

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 19 April 2014

Tom, I put  some paragraph breaks in your post.  Hope they are in the right places.  I have to double space between paragraphs or when I hit send the spacing disappears.

I guess I am dense but I can't figure out what 200516 and 200614 mean. I assume the first four digits in each number stand for the years 2005 and 2006.

If I read your post correctly you are comparing the results of one year with results in the following year.  Is that correct?

I also didn't understand (.984"NR).

I wish you would write that up and send it in for the Fouling Shot.

John

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 19 April 2014

Wes, Glad you are going to do some testing.  I will be interested in what you find out. 

I suggest that you shoot the groups with the mine run bullets and the groups with the more carefully weighed and loaded bullets alternatively to cancel out changes in conditions, fatigue, etc.     Do the bullets from the two cavities shoot the same?  I have double cavity molds where I can see no difference in the bullets but I just sent a mold back to Lyman that cast bullets from the two cavities which measured, weighed, and shot substantially different.

Please consider sending the result to Glenn for possible use in the Fouling shot or at least report the results here.   John

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 19 April 2014

Sorry John.

Don't know how the calendar year got so weird.

Yes, comparing 2005 and 2006.

.785” and .984 NR indicate the CBA National Record. The 0.785” beat the NR but all holes cannot be distinguished so the new no-backer rule would not have helped.

I'll think about your FS suggestion.

Tom

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 19 April 2014

John,

The light just went on.....200516. Should be 2005 (16) 10 round groups And....200614 Really is 2006 (14) 10 round groups.

Next I'll do it in Word and cut and paste into the reply box!

Tom

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close