Thread: .243 load development part deux

Originally Posted by whanahuia

QUestion Gimp.

Why near to max? Especially for those with less experience, would not something closer to a starting load show if the projectile will work? Safer and easier to chuck through a range of projectiles at known safe pressures and pick the one that works best then take it up towards max for your end result?

Because of his second to last paragraph - he is simplifying for the discussion, means pick something that is satisfactory within your personal requirement of velcocity, have a accuracy ideal that will do for hutning requirments, with a bullet that has the terminal performance you wish for...and do your ten shots.

Doesnt mean you cant do exactly what you have said if you wish, you will end up in the same place.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

QUestion Gimp.

Why near to max? Especially for those with less experience, would not something closer to a starting load show if the projectile will work? Safer and easier to chuck through a range of projectiles at known safe pressures and pick the one that works best then take it up towards max for your end result?

When you look at the possible range of powder charges we could use - starting loads are actually relatively near to max. A .270 with a 130gr the starting load is only 6% less powder than max. That ratio, or in the ballpark, is reasonably standard.

So when I say "near max" I basically mean "anything from the range recommended in a loading manual" because it will almost certainly be in an operating pressure range where the pressure-time function is working pretty nicely and won't be an issue for precision if you use the right powder for the job. If you go outside that range, higher or lower, yeah you might get some wild precision results if the powder burn is all fucked up


I no longer think reading the tea leaves for pressure signs is all that wise as the signs on brass are so unreliable as to be basically meaningless, so while it's probably wise to start lower rather than higher, it's hard to give new handloaders any good guide for pressure that I'm really comfortable with other than - don't exceed book max, and velocity on a chrono is a reasonable proxy for pressure if you're conservative with your estimates based on barrel length difference from book, etc.

Here is an example, shot with a Bartelin barrel 6.5-284, it's a fairly light "featherweight" barrel in a Savage action. 8 rounds in the group, 156gn Bergers. Charge from 54.9 to 57.0, velocity 2741 to 2858. Very hard to see a node or harmonic (or a host of other factors such as barrel heating) in that result.

Originally Posted by gimp

When you look at the possible range of powder charges we could use - starting loads are actually relatively near to max. A .270 with a 130gr the starting load is only 6% less powder than max. That ratio, or in the ballpark, is reasonably standard.

So when I say "near max" I basically mean "anything from the range recommended in a loading manual" because it will almost certainly be in an operating pressure range where the pressure-time function is working pretty nicely and won't be an issue for precision if you use the right powder for the job. If you go outside that range, higher or lower, yeah you might get some wild precision results if the powder burn is all fucked up


I no longer think reading the tea leaves for pressure signs is all that wise as the signs on brass are so unreliable as to be basically meaningless, so while it's probably wise to start lower rather than higher, it's hard to give new handloaders any good guide for pressure that I'm really comfortable with other than - don't exceed book max, and velocity on a chrono is a reasonable proxy for pressure if you're conservative with your estimates based on barrel length difference from book, etc.

Yeah Ok, Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by John Duxbury

Because of his second to last paragraph - he is simplifying for the discussion, means pick something that is satisfactory within your personal requirement of velcocity, have a accuracy ideal that will do for hutning requirments, with a bullet that has the terminal performance you wish for...and do your ten shots.

Doesnt mean you cant do exactly what you have said if you wish, you will end up in the same place.

Gimp clarified well.

My concern was the use of the term " near Max." which I took as near max book load. when I have had near book starting loads develop pressure myself and thought that advice unwise given this is for someone starting out in reloading.

His statement that

[QUOTE] So when I say "near max" I basically mean "anything from the range recommended in a loading manual" because it will almost certainly be in an operating pressure range where the pressure-time function is working pretty nicely and won't be an issue for precision if you use the right powder for the job. /QUOTE]

Was what I was looking for.

Start where you are comfortable. If a newbie, or its a new to you rifle, start at the lower end. If it's something you have an idea of what's likely to happen from past experience, start up the chain further. So for myself with my latest rifle, because I have 30 years of reloading 270s, I started 1.5gr down from where I expected to finish.

Originally Posted by Zedrex

OK, let me clarify the first statement you quoted, from a limited data set I've shown that my 243 does not like Boat tail factory ammo from 2 different manufacturers at 2 different weights (100gr Fiocchi and 95g Winchester BST) both these were "all over the place" and using your own logic of "If a 3 shot group is bad that combination is done" I've exceeded that data set gathering by a factor of 7, so I believe my statement holds true that from the data available THIS particular rifle doesn't like BT projectiles, I suppose I could try EVERY boattail out there to gather further evidence but at this point, I don't feel it's necessarry, especially as I have plenty of historical data that the rifle favour flatbase projectiles a la Deer Season XP, ergo my choice of the SST in 95grain to build up a load.

I agree there's a lot that may be assumed but there's also anecdotal evidence of people tuning their loads to match the harmonics of their rifle and logic (and physics) says this must actually be possible, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so the frequency/duration of the vibration of the barrel will be directly proportional to the size of the bang, thus tuning to have the bullet leave the muzzle at a certain point of the wave.

My BT (boattail) comment comes from my research and I found a lot of commentary that flatbase bullets are "easier to get accurate" than "boattails that are less forgiving of variables" and yes I'm paraphrasing and no I can't recall the source(s) but it was more than one which was also reinforced by an article for which I posted a link on one of my other threads.

AND I really do get that y'all are trying to help and it's appreciated, it truly is AND I'm still going to question what y'all are telling me, not because I think all y'all are talking shite but because I need to know how you know what you know. @gimp is a prime example of someone who backs up his statements with historical evidence and that gets my attention, as does the fact that he doesn't start crying when I question what he offers. I'm not LOOKING for an argument, I'm seeking a discussion that explores a number of elements without the "because I said so" bullshit

Since your in a nit picking mood

• I said you could exclude that combination with 3 shots ie the two factory loads you tried and if you weren't desperately attached to the bullets its likely they wouldn't work well in any combination.
  
• Factor of 7 times 3 would be 7 times so 21 shots...
  
• You tried 2 BT projectiles neither known for precision or coming from precision ammo so not a great test. Try an ELD, TMK, Berger, or Nolser BT.
  
• You thinking that as a new reloader and relatively new shooter can understand, explain, and utilize nodes that even people that get paid professionally to prove cant is the issue here. The positive should be proven. Did you watch the link I posted. It has some interesting points including a comment on a military study showing a small thing that did show improvements in dispersion in large sample testing was inside neck chamfering case mouths in brass prep.
  
• Theory on boattails helping are mostly based upon them helping with muzzle disturbance which if its and issue them you should get a recrown.
  
• Your not questioning which i think is why the thread keeps going to shit. You are arguing by saying something else is or has to be occurring. Whether you want an argument or not its going to happen if you keep responding like this. Its a big part why people seem to be reacting poorly to your perceived attitude.
  
• Im not saying so I started a thread as I went through this trying to get 75 eld ms to shoot in the 223. I tried 6 powders, then tried 62 eld vts, 73 eld m, 80 eld m, 80 targex, 80.5 bergers, 77 tmks to name a few and the big changes all came from bullet changes. I havent keep up with this thread as i usually hit the range between 10pm and honestly motivation to keep track wasnt high. I also used 5 shots at the time of the thread to try save components but the rifle now has 1000-1200 rounds through it (in 3 different barrels) and probably 7-800 where "load testing". Every "load varied in performance an closely modelled 30 rounds of each projectile and could have saved me some time. https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....st-bed-112737/

Man life was simple when you bought box of whatever loaded ammo was on shelf,checked zero with shot or two then when hunting... You learnt by trial n error what worked better...but still kept hunting with what you had.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Man life was simple when you bought box of whatever loaded ammo was on shelf,checked zero with shot or two then when hunting... You learnt by trial n error what worked better...but still kept hunting with what you had.

When the old man would put a cigarette packet up at 25 m and if he hit the right hand corner of it first go, then we were off hunting

And a box of factory ammo lasted all year like a roll of film that you sent off to the chemist - the first pictures were christmas, summer holidays, then easter and then some kids birthdays, and finishing up the roll with the next christmas

Originally Posted by John Duxbury

When the old man would put a cigarette packet up at 25 m and if he hit the right hand corner of it first go, then we were off hunting

And a box of factory ammo lasted all year like a roll of film that you sent off to the chemist - the first pictures were christmas, summer holidays, then easter and then some kids birthdays, and finishing up the roll with the next christmas

Yes or Madness with the KFC box. Lol

Im loving this thread. For years I spent hours at the range shooting incremenal load tests chasing nodes. Probably should have just gone hunting but hey, I was entranced. I was in the 3 -shot node-finding club. I listened to that old dude Gunblue490 re flat base and boat-tail. How the gases hit the flatbase "square" so it was, twist and length being congruent, stable from the muzzle, while a boat-tail got to fishtail a little until it stabilized fully out somewhere around the 100m mark then came into its own past 200 because of its greater BC. So, flatbase for sub 200m BT for reaching out. I read and listened to a bunch of stuff, made notes, changed up the powders and projectiles etc.etc. Had a lot of fun with average rifles mostly and most with barrels and triggers that wouldn't know a.good node if they fell on one. But anyway...fun is fun...

Then along came the shortages and jacked up component prices. I went to short ladders. Then the Hornady article on statistical meaningfulness.and the thread on this forum that brought it all to my attention. Kind of felt Id wasted a lot of time and materials, should have just gone hunting....

Anyway, lately, outside my own endeavors I've been getting some others into reloading because they're finding $5+ a shot for premium ammo debilitating. Fortunately, for me, they're primarily hunters. Out to 300m but most frequently sub 200. Shooting 223, 243, 7mm08 and 308.

In each case I've looked at what factory ammo they're preferring, bullet weight and style, FPS etc. We used the same projectile, chronographed the factory load in their rifle and picked a load rated to give a similar velocity. Made 10, went to the range and put 7 on paper at 100m, then chronographed 3. The chrono data is to enable a ballistics drop chart if they want it.

With the rifle zeroed at 100m with factory, the same projectile they'd been using successfully and a close velocity the reloads produced groups in each case that required only minor zero adjustment. I then made x20 more, in a couple of cases going up a little with the powder chasing a tad more velocity, in one case coming down to solve an extraction issue. The second batch of 20 allowed a quick confirmation of zero and group at 100m then a.move to 200 and 300 to check drop. For the 308 we re-zeroed at 200m and checked elevation back at 100m.

For each shooter, all with good kills under their belts, this was.the first time they had done any really disciplined range work on paper and in all cases, the first time they had checked their rifles at 200m and 300m once zeroed. Interestingly none had issues at the extended distance with windage, all off, some way off, on elevation. They really had little idea previously how much drop happens with their rifle when you add another hundred meters or two.

Each of them has settled in to killing deer regularly with their reloads - and yes, they each did the reloading themselves, my gear, my bench and under my watchful eye. The most recent has been a little different.with a calibre I have no prior experience of, 6.5CM. I bought dies and powder, he provided his once fired brass. A working lad paying $110 for a box of 20 premium cartridges and down to his last 3 with a weekend hunt coming up in 4 days. So no time for the range, paper or chrono. I had him bring his rifle and 3 factory rounds. Picked a powder charge 0.6gn below max and loaded 10 of the same projectiles. Got a txt from him to say he made a kill, fallow, 100m on the run, shoulder hit. His first reload kill. One swallow doesn't make a summer but still, no incremental load test involved. Deer down. An offhand shot at a moving target proves nothing so down to the range and onto paper is still the next step. But I think for me, picking a load congruent on paper with a shooters performance expectations in the field is a useful starting point. If we can get good results at the range at the required distances there's no need to go hunting better nodes, groups or whatever. Competition target shooting probably a vastly different story. Put long range hunting in that basket also perhaps. Anyway, Im heading out to the hills myself next week, with reloads of course....might even take the 243.

Originally Posted by Stocky

Since your in a nit picking mood

• I said you could exclude that combination with 3 shots ie the two factory loads you tried and if you weren't desperately attached to the bullets its likely they wouldn't work well in any combination.
• Factor of 7 times 3 would be 7 times so 21 shots...
• You tried 2 BT projectiles neither known for precision or coming from precision ammo so not a great test. Try an ELD, TMK, Berger, or Nolser BT.
• You thinking that as a new reloader and relatively new shooter can understand, explain, and utilize nodes that even people that get paid professionally to prove cant is the issue here. The positive should be proven. Did you watch the link I posted. It has some interesting points including a comment on a military study showing a small thing that did show improvements in dispersion in large sample testing was inside neck chamfering case mouths in brass prep.
• Theory on boattails helping are mostly based upon them helping with muzzle disturbance which if its and issue them you should get a recrown.
• Your not questioning which i think is why the thread keeps going to shit. You are arguing by saying something else is or has to be occurring. Whether you want an argument or not its going to happen if you keep responding like this. Its a big part why people seem to be reacting poorly to your perceived attitude.
• Im not saying so I started a thread as I went through this trying to get 75 eld ms to shoot in the 223. I tried 6 powders, then tried 62 eld vts, 73 eld m, 80 eld m, 80 targex, 80.5 bergers, 77 tmks to name a few and the big changes all came from bullet changes. I havent keep up with this thread as i usually hit the range between 10pm and honestly motivation to keep track wasnt high. I also used 5 shots at the time of the thread to try save components but the rifle now has 1000-1200 rounds through it (in 3 different barrels) and probably 7-800 where "load testing". Every "load varied in performance an closely modelled 30 rounds of each projectile and could have saved me some time. https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....st-bed-112737/

I AM questioning and thats what SOME people have an issue with, I'm bringing in elements that I feel MAY have something to do with what I'm seeing but I'm not stating that those elements DO have a bearing, I'm exploring possibilities that's all IIRC correctly the only people who have an issue with my "perceived attitude" are those who perceive my attitude as argumentative, which it isn't, I'm questioning and asking for verification of stated positions so that I can understand said stated position, also bolstering your position by using the royal "WE" doesn't contribute anything other than confrontation, now thats out of the way onto your other points.

I've started watching the Hornady podcast you linked, thankyou, there's a lot in there for me to get my head around so I'm watching it in chunks and I'm wide open to the posit that "the status quo needs realigning with what we've seen from our research" I'll come back to you once I've watched the whole thing and digested it. Regarding nodes, I didn't try to explain it, I asked if it could be having an effect on the groupings from the test loads (it would be helpful if you tried to understand where I'm coming from rather than reacting to where you THINK I'm coming from, therein lies the disconnect) The research I mentioned regarding disturbance at the muzzle had nothing to do with the muzzle requiring a recrown and everything to do with the behaviour of the gas on the projectile as it was fired, including gas leakage past the projectile and as the projectile and the gas exited the muzzle, if you know better, show me, I'm all ears - truly.

Can you explain, given that everyone has said, which I agree with, that shooting 5 isn't enough to prove a load, how shooting 3 IS enough to disprove a load, I don't get it, it seems to be a contradictory statement?
I've also started reading through your thread, thanks for posting the link to it, there's a lot for me to unpack

In closing, my threads, posts and responses are with the intention of gaining understanding and clarification of something I have little knowledge of but desire to understand and my analytical mind seeks that through questioning everything, I'm not here to have pointless arguments

Originally Posted by Tentman

Here is an example, shot with a Bartelin barrel 6.5-284, it's a fairly light "featherweight" barrel in a Savage action. 8 rounds in the group, 156gn Bergers. Charge from 54.9 to 57.0, velocity 2741 to 2858. Very hard to see a node or harmonic (or a host of other factors such as barrel heating) in that result.

That's an excellent visual of different loads not achieving anything noticeably different, excellent! Would you say that's been your experience with every rifle you've developed loads for?

Originally Posted by Tentman

The thing with this is . . . There were a lot of theories out there, developed over the last 100 years or so, primarily round trying to understand and explain various barrel/load harmonics. These are what you read when you do "research". However they are all based on a good deal of "belief", just like those other research books like the Bible and Koran!

Recently Hornardy used fully scientific methods to understand the results of various barrel harmonic/reloading methodologies. What they found is explained in their podcast #50. Just as Galileo came up against the religious authorities of the day with his proof that the earth went round the sun, so to has Hornardy, many people not wanting to change their "belief system" and sticking with whatever flavour "bible" they happened to favour for the time being.

No skin off my nose if people don't want to change their reloading beliefs, but the noise of the ranters makes it difficult for people to hear.

I've started watching that podcast, would it be fair to say that "whats out there" is largely based on historical thinking versus, for want of a better phrase, the new wave of developing theory? If you've links to other "new age" leanings I'd be keen to see them, cheers

Re the boat tail thing.... If you look at the super long range shooters at top of Thier game....the ones who can shoot very well out long by being super accurate....do they use boat tails? Yes they will cause they hold up better,more aerodynamic blah blah blah....point being they MUST be accurate.or wouldn't get used. Ad I said in your other thread. For me as a sub 350 yard hunter the only single advantage of a boat tail is they easier to start seating into case.full stop.thats it.

Originally Posted by Zedrex

I AM questioning and thats what SOME people have an issue with, I'm bringing in elements that I feel MAY have something to do with what I'm seeing but I'm not stating that those elements DO have a bearing, I'm exploring possibilities that's all IIRC correctly the only people who have an issue with my "perceived attitude" are those who perceive my attitude as argumentative, which it isn't, I'm questioning and asking for verification of stated positions so that I can understand said stated position, also bolstering your position by using the royal "WE" doesn't contribute anything other than confrontation, now thats out of the way onto your other points.

I've started watching the Hornady podcast you linked, thankyou, there's a lot in there for me to get my head around so I'm watching it in chunks and I'm wide open to the posit that "the status quo needs realigning with what we've seen from our research" I'll come back to you once I've watched the whole thing and digested it. Regarding nodes, I didn't try to explain it, I asked if it could be having an effect on the groupings from the test loads (it would be helpful if you tried to understand where I'm coming from rather than reacting to where you THINK I'm coming from, therein lies the disconnect) The research I mentioned regarding disturbance at the muzzle had nothing to do with the muzzle requiring a recrown and everything to do with the behaviour of the gas on the projectile as it was fired, including gas leakage past the projectile and as the projectile and the gas exited the muzzle, if you know better, show me, I'm all ears - truly.

Can you explain, given that everyone has said, which I agree with, that shooting 5 isn't enough to prove a load, how shooting 3 IS enough to disprove a load, I don't get it, it seems to be a contradictory statement?
I've also started reading through your thread, thanks for posting the link to it, there's a lot for me to unpack

In closing, my threads, posts and responses are with the intention of gaining understanding and clarification of something I have little knowledge of but desire to understand and my analytical mind seeks that through questioning everything, I'm not here to have pointless arguments

If the load hasn't grouped 3 shots to a standard you are happy with, firing two more isn't going to improve it. It can at best stay the same.

But that is a generalisation. Here's an example where that approach might have failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjQgCuwqfv4


For some of us, 3 shots in a good group is enough info as well. But that's working with other factors like rifle/load behaviour when sighting in. Rifle behaviour with previous loads or factory ammo etc. Call it an educated guess. And as you build up different 3 shot groups you also build a picture of confidence. its just not as quick as firing big groups.

From what Ive seen, your rifle is not in the category where that's applicable at this stage.