CAST BULLET ACCURACY - AFTER THE BEGINNING
- 11K Views
- Last Post 10 November 2014
"Reading about and practicing bench shooting". I need to constipate more on this subject.
Attached Files
Joe,
WOW! And I was beginning to think that I was the radical for claiming that much of our time honored cast bullet lore was a waste of time.
I think it is important that you have defined the range of improvement for your two lists (1.5” – 2” to 1” – 1.5” 
. I assume that a person making similar lists for going from .7” – 1” to .5” - .7” might have a larger WILL list and a smaller WILL NOT list – but I doubt if we know that.
Even I BELIEVE that you have included some things on your WILL NOT list that may play a role in reducing group size from 1.5” – 2” to 1” – 1.5”. BUT and I think this is the important thing – I don’t have anything beyond “belief” but very casual test results on a few groups to challenge any item on your WILL NOT list. So until I do some testing I can’t say with anything stronger than “I believe” that some of your “will not” items improve accuracy – that makes for a very weak argument not even worthy of the term argument.
I hope others will come forward with test results, involving at least 5 5-shot groups (or 2 10-shot groups) for both with and without the procedure in question to help identify things on the “will not” list that should be moved to the “will” list.
John
Attached Files
I like the wind flags being on the WILL NOT list. Wind flags will not decrease the size of a group shot in a no wind situation but WILL reduce the size of groups shot in match or field conditions. Ignoring wind flags is something the unwashed would do. I would not recommend wind flags to beginners until they master Joe's WILL list but once mastering those, wind flags will give higher scores and smaller groups.
The making a die to match the throat on the WILL NOT list shouldn't be there. John Ardito would turn over in his grave if he heard that bump dies don't aid in accuracy. I have one of John Ardito's bump dies and it is matched to the rifle's throat. It has produced groups slightly below 0.300". If the claim is made that Plain Base rifles don't have fitted bullets, the seating tool used to fit the bullet to the bore is in essence a bump die if one thinks about it.
Attached Files
when i started casting in my wasted youth, my friends and i had access to about 60 rifles and 60 molds ... we went thru every item on joe's WONT HELP list for a couple years; total confusion ... but yep total fun !! not a rock left unrolled, not a cat that would come out in broad daylight !!
who cared if an 1886 in 45-70 or a gennywine peacemaker in 44-40 barely would hit a slop bucket at 75 yards ...
it wasn't until i decided to dedicate my soul to the art of coyote hunting that i could/would have appreciated that WILL HELP list.
not to restart an old thread, but maybe * accuracy * means ” good enough for what you need at the time ” ...
ken
oh, my lingering unfullfilled goal is to bag a coyote with my 375 magnum and cast ... and the coyotes were squaling right behind my house last night ... gonna re-read that WILL list again...
Attached Files
These are the ones I disagree with on the “will not help".
Glass bedding the rifle action. Reaming the chamber throat. Re-crowning the barrel (if it's has burrs or off center) Using wind flags
Frank
Attached Files
Joe, how provocative! I am unwilling to make a constructive comment.
I am just home from squirrel hunting this morning and nailed 2 black squirrels at 65+ yards with head shots and my cast loads. I am busy gloating on that.
Gary
Attached Files
These are the ones I disagree with on the “will not help".
Glass bedding the rifle action. Reaming the chamber throat. Re-crowning the barrel (if it's has burrs or off center) Using wind flags
Frank
Attached Files
Joe, how provocative! I am unwilling to make a constructive comment.
I am just home from squirrel hunting this morning and nailed 2 black squirrels at 65+ yards with head shots and my cast loads. I am busy gloating on that.
Gary
Attached Files
I like the wind flags being on the WILL NOT list. Wind flags will not decrease the size of a group shot in a no wind situation but WILL reduce the size of groups shot in match or field conditions. Ignoring wind flags is something the unwashed would do. I would not recommend wind flags to beginners until they master Joe's WILL list but once mastering those, wind flags will give higher scores and smaller groups.
The making a die to match the throat on the WILL NOT list shouldn't be there. John Ardito would turn over in his grave if he heard that bump dies don't aid in accuracy. I have one of John Ardito's bump dies and it is matched to the rifle's throat. It has produced groups slightly below 0.300". If the claim is made that Plain Base rifles don't have fitted bullets, the seating tool used to fit the bullet to the bore is in essence a bump die if one thinks about it.
Attached Files
Joe wrote: “Where does it or I say that the WILL NOT actions won't improve accuracy? I didn't think that this was that difficult to understand.”
Joe,
It doesn’t and it isn’t.
Ric is right I either read the sentence wrong or forgot your hedge “although accuracy may improve” by the time I got to the bottom of your lists. I was hoping for a stronger statement. I probably read too many of my own ideas into it. I apologize.
Although weaker than the list I would have liked, I am not complaining. It is your thread and I think your WILL NOT list can still serve as a welcome provocative challenge to shooters harboring beliefs that the procedures in that list shouldn’t be there.
If a serious shooter thinks some of the things on the list shouldn’t be there – or may even be a bit irritated because you are challenging procedures that they use and BELIEVE in, I hope they will take the challenge, do the testing, and prove you wrong. I plan to do just that for at least one item on the list.
If your list inspires, or goads, even a few shooters set up a test to prove that you are wrong about something on the list and publish their results in the Fouling Shot, or even post them on this forum, it will be an improvement on our knowledge of cast bullet shooting.
There is nothing wrong with folks writing in and saying I BELIEVE this or that item shouldn’t be on the “will not” list. But if that is all that happens we won’t have learned anything new.
John
Attached Files
Joe,
They are reading that sentence in your original post incorrectly.
One thing I would add to the “will” list is well cast bullets, as I have seen many new casters / shooters try to shoot bullets with only half of a driving band filled out completely.
Ric
Attached Files
Joe,
They are reading that sentence in your original post incorrectly.
One thing I would add to the “will” list is well cast bullets, as I have seen many new casters / shooters try to shoot bullets with only half of a driving band filled out completely.
Ric
Attached Files
"Reading about and practicing bench shooting". I need to constipate more on this subject.
Attached Files
Joe wrote: “Where does it or I say that the WILL NOT actions won't improve accuracy? I didn't think that this was that difficult to understand.”
Joe,
It doesn’t and it isn’t.
Ric is right I either read the sentence wrong or forgot your hedge “although accuracy may improve” by the time I got to the bottom of your lists. I was hoping for a stronger statement. I probably read too many of my own ideas into it. I apologize.
Although weaker than the list I would have liked, I am not complaining. It is your thread and I think your WILL NOT list can still serve as a welcome provocative challenge to shooters harboring beliefs that the procedures in that list shouldn’t be there.
If a serious shooter thinks some of the things on the list shouldn’t be there – or may even be a bit irritated because you are challenging procedures that they use and BELIEVE in, I hope they will take the challenge, do the testing, and prove you wrong. I plan to do just that for at least one item on the list.
If your list inspires, or goads, even a few shooters set up a test to prove that you are wrong about something on the list and publish their results in the Fouling Shot, or even post them on this forum, it will be an improvement on our knowledge of cast bullet shooting.
There is nothing wrong with folks writing in and saying I BELIEVE this or that item shouldn’t be on the “will not” list. But if that is all that happens we won’t have learned anything new.
John
Attached Files
John Alexander wrote: Joe wrote: “Where does it or I say that the WILL NOT actions won't improve accuracy? I didn't think that this was that difficult to understand.”
Joe,
It doesn’t and it isn’t.
Ric is right I either read the sentence wrong or forgot your hedge “although accuracy may improve” by the time I got to the bottom of your lists. I was hoping for a stronger statement. I probably read too many of my own ideas into it. I apologize.
Although weaker than the list I would have liked, I am not complaining. It is your thread and I think your WILL NOT list can still serve as a welcome provocative challenge to shooters harboring beliefs that the procedures in that list shouldn’t be there.
If a serious shooter thinks some of the things on the list shouldn’t be there – or may even be a bit irritated because you are challenging procedures that they use and BELIEVE in, I hope they will take the challenge, do the testing, and prove you wrong. I plan to do just that for at least one item on the list.
If your list inspires, or goads, even a few shooters set up a test to prove that you are wrong about something on the list and publish their results in the Fouling Shot, or even post them on this forum, it will be an improvement on our knowledge of cast bullet shooting.
There is nothing wrong with folks writing in and saying I BELIEVE this or that item shouldn’t be on the “will not” list. But if that is all that happens we won’t have learned anything new.
John
Attached Files
I went looking for articles on bench shooting. Here is one that seemed decent.
Attached Files
- the accurate rifle 8 ... i have several shooting books, read many times ... time to pass them on ... i will post a list later including this one.
ken
Attached Files
joeb33050 It seems to me that
If the shooter is trying to find bench rest accuracy
Then the REAL question is:
After what steps is it time for him to get a new gun or barrel?
When should he give up on the gun or barrel?
I agree that at some point that IS the question. But knowing when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em isn't an easy question to answer.
I think too many shooters don't give up on a rifle/barrel as soon as they should but instead keep looking for the magical combination (me included -- I have wasted years with lost causes.) Too many shooters delude themselves by believing more precise loading procedures and more laborious detail work will make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear (weigh bullets and powder, get a magnifying glass, and a concentric tester, clean and polish everything in sight, use only one case, etc.)
What would be a big help in knowing when to give up on a rifle/barrel would be a list like your “will not” list. It would cut down dramatically on the number of things tried in an attempt to answer THE question. The final list might be a bit shorter than yours but one that has stood the challenge of rigorous testing to show that the procedures on the list really are a waste of time.
It will take a lot of testing to convince skeptical but open-minded shooters that items on the list are indeed a waste of time. Of course, it will never be possible to convince the closed minded shooters who think they know all they need to know because it sounds logical or because “everybody knows you should do it", or because they have once run a little half vast test involving two groups or because they did some extra work on their bullets or cases and shot better in the next match.
It seem like shooters hoping to do well in competition or any shooter that wants to shoot as well as possible should be interested in participating in the testing to find which procedures deserve to be on the list and which don't. There I go again with foolish optimism about human nature.
John
Attached Files
It doesn't take a lot of cast bullet testing if you narrow down the purpose of the rifle. I use the same load parameter for deer hunting rifles of any caliber: 1,000 foot pounds or more delivered at the maximum distance I expect to use the rifle. For Black Bear I use 1,200 foot pounds at maximum hunting distance. My personal hunting Maximim distance is 125-150 yards for Deer or Bear. Shots longer than that just don't present where I hunt in the high hardwood hills of the Southern Tier of Western New York.
I start testing with a bullet and charge that delivers that energy and continue only upward to 10% higher or stop if I run out of accuracy/ pressure safety. Rifles that don't make the accuracy I desire, 1” or less groups of 5 shots consistently at 50 yards aren't worth hunting with for me if they don't do that well and they get sold or traded.
Target rifles and squirrel rifles don't get the energy delivered specification but they get a smaller group size specification of 1 MOA at 100 yards with cast bullets.
Sometimes pretty rifles are hard to part with but I rarely try very hard if simple loading doesn't work as I don't want picky rifles that don't have broad sweet spots. and aren't easy to get shooting well.
I prefer single shot rifles as they don't need brass crimped and don't have magazines that limit LOA shorter than engaging the cast bullet to the chamber ball seat.
Gary
Attached Files
A good CLEAR scope that will help me see that tiny .072 orange dot is a must. High magnification and fine cross hairs will help me pin point that tiny dot better than a target dot reticle will.
Attached Files
Gary, The way you set your accuracy standards for different uses and your personal maximum distance are reasonable and are similar to my own. Even if they weren't it would be nobody's business but yours.
I commend you for being able to get rid of a rifle that won't shape up easily. I usually keep them too long and keep wasting time. I too prefer single shots for hunting. I have been hunting for 70 years and only once have had a time where a second or third shot would have been useful. In that one instance I did have a magazine and the second and third shots didn't help.
However, we are off topic here talking about accuracy standards and such. Joe's thread is about a recipe that will get you to 1.5"- 2” accuracy with a decent rifle and the things that are and aren't likely to help you improve to 1” - 1.5” average of 5 5-shot group. Why anybody would want to get to the better level of accuracy is irrelevant but a lot of shooters do, including all competitive shooters.
I'm sure that a lot of shooters, including me, think Joe's WILL NOT list contains things that it shouldn't. I suspect that a few of these things might make the improvement jump and shouldn't be on the list. However, that is just my belief. I don't have anything to back up that belief except my impression from shooting a few groups so I am in no position to say he is wrong.
Removing something from Joe's list should be based on test results otherwise it is just a matter of arguing belief -- a dead end activity. To develop such test results will, in most cases, require quite a few groups with and without the procedure in question. There are easy to use statistical tools to determine how many groups are needed in each case. To think we can prove or disprove something with just a couple of groups is usually just kidding ourselves. John
Attached Files
A good CLEAR scope that will help me see that tiny .072 orange dot is a must. High magnification and fine cross hairs will help me pin point that tiny dot better than a target dot reticle will.
Attached Files
I am working on three batches of bullets of 25 each with lube in one, two, or three grooves to see if I can confirm or refute the item on Joe's WILL NOT list that says that this variation won't get you from 1.75” average for five shot groups to 1.25."
Of course it should be done for several bullet designs but my small test will be a start. John
Attached Files
it would be informative if you could observe also the average radius of dispersion ... standard deviation of both the x and y axis ... just in case lube purging shows up.
do lube purges always go high and low ? is the lube purge shot faster or slower ? is the lube purge shot just out of tune with the barrel vibration ? ( yes, tuners work, 1000 benchrest shooters, millions of rounds, me myself included . ) .
if you get 10 in one hole and one 2 inch lube-purge ” flyer ” , that could mean something, when looking for lube-purge demons.
thanks for the upcoming test s .
ken
Attached Files
John wrote: “I am working on three batches of bullets of 25 each with lube in one, two, or three grooves to see if I can confirm or refute the item on Joe's WILL NOT list that says that this variation won't get you from 1.75” average for five shot groups to 1.25.” I have been doing this very thing for the past three weeks or so. About 100 rnds.. so far. Same rifle and bullet in various lube combinations and lubes at 100 yds. Some surprising preliminary results so far but not enough time spent yet. Temps. in the 60"s and low seventies. No valid results if there are any, until there are many more rounds downrange and it warms up again. Right now any way, it appears that conventional lubing might be detrimental, maybe.
Attached Files
Now that experiment is meaningful to me. Looking forward to the results.
Attached Files
Lube purging? Try dipping your bullets in thinned alox (3 parts alox to 1 part mineral spirits). Let alox coated bullets cure on wax paper over nite. I first size and crimp gas check nose first without lube. Afterwards I hand dip bullets. Alox will puddle around bases so just keep moving bullets around on wax paper until puddle stops. It may take a couple of fouling shots until....
Attached Files
I shot my test on amount of lube today. In the past I thought that I had noticed that reducing lube to bare minimum (only in the space ahead of the gas check) improved accuracy but only on the basis of a couple of groups sometime in the distant past. However, a lot of CB shooters seriously interested in accuracy at least think they have found the same thing. Of course, it is easy to see things that aren't really there unless a lot of groups are fired with condition one and condition two in competition.
My hypothesis was that varying the amount of lube sometimes makes a significant difference in accuracy and thus Joe should take that item off his WILL NOT list.
The only bullet I had handy with three lube grooves was the NOE 70RN that I wrote about in TFS # 231. I shot 5-5-shot groups each set with one, two, and three grooves lubed with LBT Blue. The load was arbitrary and untried involving CCI small pistol primers, 4.5 grains of 700X, bullets were of WW and unsorted, I weighed the powder until I saw 4.5 on the screen because dropped loads varied from 4.1 to 4.9 (about 18%.)
When testing for a variable change I usually alternate five shot groups to avoid changes in technique, fatigue, tired eyes or condition changes skewing the results. But because this was testing lube quantity and bore condition might be an issue I shot all the 1 grooves then the 3 grooves, etc. I fired three fouling shots with the same amount of lube before each of the three series. At least conditions didn’t change because I shot in a tunnel.
After I have shot the groups with one and two grooves filled it looked like my belief that less lube is better was being confirmed. Then I shot the set with three grooves lubed.
Results (average of each set of 5 five shot groups)
Groove ahead of gas check only filled -- 1.26 MOA
Two grooves filled ------------------------- 1.34 MOA
Three grooves filled ------------------------ 1.19 MOA
If I worked the Wilcox rank sum test right the results didn’t show a significant difference between one, two, or three grooves filled. So I will have to leave Joe’s WILL NOT list as is for now. I may shoot additional groups to see if the reverse of the Goldilocks principle applies to the amount of lube on bullets as the above results hint.
Not only did this test not help me prove Joe wrong but it also cast doubt on my belief that less lube is usually better. Additional groups with this and other bullets is called for.
Additionally, the percentage the worst of each five shot enlarged the best four shot group may have cast a bit of light on lube purging – or not. I will write a more complete report for the Fouling Shot.
John
Attached Files
Ken, It would be a good idea to find the average radius of dispersion in the test reported above but I will leave that for others. I could send the target to someone that could scan it and has the software to let the magical machine do the work. John
Attached Files
After poring over the results of the test mentioned above in an attempt to prove that the amount of lube on a CB can affect accuracy and get Joe to take that item off his WILL NOT list, I decided to do it all over again and see if I could replicate the results I got with the first 15 groups. Just finished it today. I now have the dope from ten five shot groups for each of 1, 2, and 3 grooves filled.
I believe the results say something not only about how much lube should be used but also something about lube purging as well as the reverse Goldilocks effect. But my conclusions are complicated and I don't think I can explain them clearly in a post. Since I think others may be interested, I will try to write it up and if I can make it make sense I will submit to Glenn for possible publication TFS.
I can say that Joe's WILL NOT list is safe for the time being -- at least from me. I hope others are energetically doing testing to prove that other items on the WILL NOT list shouldn't be there.
John
Attached Files
"A simple picture is worth a thousand words"
Sorry but I can't think of a picture that would be worth even a dozen words when you are reporting the average group sizes involving thirty groups. John
Attached Files
"A simple picture is worth a thousand words"
Sorry but I can't think of a picture that would be worth even a dozen words when you are reporting the average group sizes involving thirty groups. John
Attached Files
hOW ABOUT A SHOTGUN PATTERN. Or, maybe a swarm of mosquitos?
B.E.Brickey
Attached Files
I am posting this experiment as an example of my non-scientific approach; my degree is in Anthropology (retired) and not string theory. Breaking in my pristine 1919 5-groove Winchester barrel (found NOS) with only 400 cast rounds so far, been interested in finding another powder than 2400 and number of lube grooves that work best. Frankly, my rifle is a cheap date, refusing ANYTHING other than 2400, and I've tried most of all of them. 16.5 gr of 2400 is running between 1475 and 1510 FPS over my Chrony F4 at Clark Rifles. Only the 2-groove loads group worth a hoot at 100 yards; oh and it does not like CCI primers either. Have not gotten to 300 with this rifle...yet...:cool:.
Got a match at Canby this Saturday. This load will probably go all to heck with my luck!! The quest WILL continue.
1. 16.5 2400 311299/200gr. .310 GC WW primer/Two grooves lubed - - 1.360"
2. 16.5 2400 311299/200gr. .310 GC Rem primer/Two grooves lubed - - 1.935"
3. 16.5 2400 311299/200gr. .310 GC WW primer/one groove lubed - - 2.125"
4. 16.5 2400 311299/200gr. .310 GC Rem primer/one groove lubed - - 2.221"
5. 16.5 2400 311299/200gr. .310 GC CCI primer/one groove lubed - - 2.300"
6. 16.5 2400 311299/200gr. .310 GC CCI primer/Two grooves lubed - - 2.915"
- #Permalink
- 0
- 0
Attached Files
Pentz, Thanks for posting your results. Always good to see some actual data instead of just opinions. I hope more members will follow your example.
My only comment is that it is asking a lot from six groups to sort out three different primers and two lubing conditions. I hope you shoot additional groups with the same loads to see if you can replicate your results. It is easy to be led astray by small samples. I will look forward to your future results.
John
Attached Files
H4895 can be reduced to 50% case volume in 30-06 and maintain good ignition but can also have ES increase as you reduce charges and increase airspace. Using a filler and reduced charges of H4895 has proven to me to reduce ES substantially in low power Loads with H4895, cast bullets and BPI Original Ballistic Filler.
I have had good results with 105% compressed loads with reduced charge plus filler.
Source: http://www.ballisticproducts.com/prodinfo.asp?number=BUFFER
Gary
Attached Files
(groan...)another powder to try....fortunately I have that one somewhere. I may try it with dacron from my wife's stash, but I'm tres worried about fillers....
Attached Files
Jesse Miller's TIC TAC TOE chart method of looking at more than one variable.
7.5.2 THE TIC – TAC – TOE CHART
Jesse Miller, OD
How do you decide between 3 primers, 3 powders and 3 different charges? Yeh how do you do it? Well my approach is what I call Tic-Tac-Toe.
If you were to shoot 10 rounds each, that would be 3x3x3x10 = 270 rounds! Not impossible, but certainly time consuming.
If you shoot 5 round groups, using only 2 primers with each powder and 3 charges with each powder; mixing as follows:
Powder A Powder B Powder C
#1 Primer #1 Primer #2 Primer
Charge J Charge J Charge J
#2 Primer #1 Primer #1 Primer
Charge K Charge K Charge K
#1 Primer #2 Primer #2 Primer
Charge L Charge L Charge L
This assumes that the powders are all of about the same burning rate, that is close together on burning rate charts. Note that each component has been used 3 times, and yet we have only 9 groups, or 45 rounds. Record the group size in each space matching the load. Then by cross referencing, we can see which combos gave the better groups.
Now it is time to select the best combos. I don’t think primers will make as much difference as the powder charge, so we could have skimped on primers and shot more charge variations. Select the three best combos. Repeat the process using 10 shot groups (30 rounds), (Most statisticians will tell you that you need more than one or two groups to indicate which load is best.) Again, do the Tic-Tac-Toe chart to further refine your load choice.
It only took us 75 rounds (not 270) to get to get where you are ready to refine the powder charge with variations of 0.5 grain or even 0.1 to 0.2 grains.
Now having arrived at a reasonably accurate load, it is time to refine it with several 10 shot groups Now shoot several groups with the above minor variations. Keep records. Use group sizes as just as important as SD. The more groups you shoot, the better will be your choice of the load. At this point a Chronograph is useful in refining a load, if available. This provides information on Velocity, and ranges of Extreme Spread and Standard Deviation.
Wishing you loads of X’s.
Attached Files
Attached Files
As a greenhorn I'm left in a quandary. I went to the Accuracy Shooter site were many champion shooters in precision shooting hang out and they recommend many of the “do not” list as standard practice. Rifle bedding has tightened up many groups for jacketed shooters. I've had it twice improve a bolt action. Frank Marshall, in his writings, disagrees with this as well. The sample 30-06 article lists his ideas clearly. It seems you are discounting techniques that jacketed bench rest shooters recommend. Is this because the inherent accuracy of lead makes these improvements useless or are the techniques useless in themselves?
How tuned and custom are your rifles you base this on Joe? Are we talking fully developed bench rest rifles or well maintained factory rifles?
Attached Files
As a greenhorn I'm left in a quandary. I went to the Accuracy Shooter site were many champion shooters in precision shooting hang out and they recommend many of the “do not” list as standard practice. Rifle bedding has tightened up many groups for jacketed shooters. I've had it twice improve a bolt action. Frank Marshall, in his writings, disagrees with this as well. The sample 30-06 article lists his ideas clearly.
It seems you are discounting techniques that jacketed bench rest shooters recommend. Is this because the inherent accuracy of lead makes these improvements useless or are the techniques useless in themselves?
How tuned and custom are your rifles you base this on Joe? Are we talking fully developed bench rest rifles or well maintained factory rifles?
Attached Files
I have wonder about this recommendation. Looking back over the military rifle national data there is nary a citation of 4895 in the data sheets. Loads are 2400, 4759 (RIP), 5744 and the odd 4198. I do not see the reward in pursuing this powder. And...fillers still spook me. I have a pristine 1919 5-groove that does not deserve a ringed chamber.
Attached Files
those shooters on * accurate shooter * throw away barrels that won't shoot under 1/4 moa .. i know, i take them off their hands ..., got 6 or 28 of 'em in 224 y 243 y 7mm , oh, a lilja in 308 ; my collector barrel ( yep, I B weird ) is a 222 mag chambered by fred sinclair . i don't collect cigar boxes , tho ...
oh, the point ... those obsessive .. fanatic ... guys are trying to get from 0.234 down to 0.018 moa.
joe is about 80 per cent correct ... the sense is correct ... that the ” won't help ” ... list applies to a rifle that shoots 2.5 moa, trying to get it to 2.0 moa.
just to not let joe entirely off the hook, i think that if a rifle isn't free floated and pillar bedded you are just scaring cats away from your bird feeder and wasting powder when you shoot it.
hey, maybe i should write an article on how to pillar bed with no hassle ...
ken
Attached Files
those shooters on * accurate shooter * throw away barrels that won't shoot under 1/4 moa .. i know, i take them off their hands ..., got 6 or 28 of 'em in 224 y 243 y 7mm , oh, a lilja in 308 ; my collector barrel ( yep, I B weird ) is a 222 mag chambered by fred sinclair . i don't collect cigar boxes , tho ...
oh, the point ... those obsessive .. fanatic ... guys are trying to get from 0.234 down to 0.018 moa.
joe is about 80 per cent correct ... the sense is correct ... that the ” won't help ” ... list applies to a rifle that shoots 2.5 moa, trying to get it to 2.0 moa.
just to not let joe entirely off the hook, i think that if a rifle isn't free floated and pillar bedded you are just scaring cats away from your bird feeder and wasting powder when you shoot it.
hey, maybe i should write an article on how to pillar bed with no hassle ...
ken
Attached Files
I kinda get it now. I am a lever nut so getting to 2 MOA is a goal with my peep sights that I doubt is even possible anymore! I have only one bolt and it is the only scoped rifle I own, CZ 527 223.
Attached Files
Appropos of nothing in particular, but having to do with bullet lubing: I'm doing a lot of chronograph work with my shooting. A whole lot. I noticed quite a few red flecks on my Skyscreens. Mystery--what was it, and where did it come from? It was to be found on all three screens. It took the entire time of my walk from the screens fifteen feet to the shooting bench to figure it out. The red flecks were, of course, the Carnauba Red of the bullet lube. There was a surprising amount of it, always in small flecks, but not nearly enough to create any kind of a continuous layer on the screens. Not even remotely close. But, I take this as an indication that there is plenty of lube present; that, plus I'm just not getting any leading. Of course, my velocities are relatively low, but even at over 1900 ft, no leading that I've been able to discover. Unfortunately, at that velocity level, little accuracy, either. Just putting this up as a matter of minor interest. 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
Categories
- All Categories
- General Polls
- Contact Us w/ Forum Issues
- Welcome to The Cast Bullet Association Forum
- General
- Bullet Casting
-
Guns and Shooting
- AR Platform
- TC Contenders & Other Single Shot Handguns
- Shotguns
- Informal Matches & Other Shooting Events
- Gunsmithing Tips
- Gun Cleaning & Maintenance
- Optics
- Benchrest Cast Bullet Shooting
- Military Bench Rest Cast Bullet Shooting
- Silhouette Shooting
- Postal Match Cast Bullet Shooting
- Factory Guns
- Black Powder Cartridge
- Hand Guns
- Lever Guns
- Single Shot Rifles
- Bolt Action Rifles
- Military Surplus Rifles
- Plinkers Hollow
- Muzzleloaders
- Hunting
- Reloading
- Buy, Sell or Trade
- Other Information & Reference
Search
This Weeks High Earners
-
John Carlson 22
-
linoww
17
-
Bud Hyett
14
-
drone 9
-
MP1886 7
-
beltfed 6
-
Lucky1 6
-
RicinYakima
5
-
mashburn 4
-
beemer 4
