.243 load development part deux

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tahr

It's all been fun and very interesting but it confirms for me that if a rifle wont shoot it can cost a fortune in time and money to get it to behave. My approach now would be to drop a rifle like this off at sea and having learnt a lesson start again with something reputable (and likely more spendy).

This approach of mine has likely contributed to the rising sea levels but at least I have very accurate guns.

---

Well time yes, money not so much. From where it was I think the rifle is shooting a whole lot better with much tighter grouping and is a gun I'm happy to hunt with out to 300+ metres. I can understand some would not have the inclination to invest the effort to get a shitty gun to shoot at an acceptable level.... it's like people that buy new vehicles rather than build a used vehicle into what they actually want.... [emoji848]

Sent from my CPH2639 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

You have 10 data points for each load. You may as well use them most effectively, as a complete larger sample rather than 2 small samples - what's the mean radius on the 95 NBT, 90 NBT, and 90 ELDX loads when you measure it over a 10 rd sample? I'm guessing somewhere around about 0.5MOA for each


Those 3 all look very similar in reality for what you should expect, to me. and all perfectly adequate for hunting at conventional ranges. ~2moa cone of fire from each

To be fair, it looks like it shoots nothing really well. I think the lesson here is steer clear of Franchi if you want really good precision (based on 1 rifle and unknown other variables)

---

I'll plot each targets as one 10 RND group and come back to you on that.

I think your comment about the Franchi are maybe teetering on opinion rather than scientific fact given that there are still a number of variables to be addressed.

Talking to Blythe has given me one of those to look at outside of my ability as a shooter and of course there's that!

Sent from my CPH2639 using Tapatalk

@gimp here you go, as you predicted somewhere around 0.5 MOA mean radius
Attachment 285286
Attachment 285287
Attachment 285285

Sweet, go the Noslers, get out and shoot stuff, stay within 350m, job done. :thumbsup:

The excluded shot from the 95s group is just a fracco outside the predicted cone of fire, Id probably include it because even if you broke it a bit low it was probably a low shot in the group anyway. I'm not sure I'd say there's evidence to say that any of those 3 is better or worse at this stage. But all 3 are solid 2moa cone of fire systems and you can go hunt at conventional ranges with confidence once you get a solid zero

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

The excluded shot from the 95s group is just a fracco outside the predicted cone of fire, Id probably include it because even if you broke it a bit low it was probably a low shot in the group anyway. I'm not sure I'd say there's evidence to say that any of those 3 is better or worse at this stage. But all 3 are solid 2moa cone of fire systems and you can go hunt at conventional ranges with confidence once you get a solid zero

---

I adjusted for zero after the session but did not have any spare rounds to confirm. Have an evening reloading to do with the 95 NBT and will confirm/adjust/confirm zero end of next week.

Got to the range this morning, to check zero, minus a couple of shooter error flyers whilst I settled, excellent 3 shot grouping. (the best yet) Many thanks to all those who chipped in with their thoughts, opinions and guidance :thumbsup:
During this round, I set my camera upto film myself whilst shooting, picked up a couple of snatched shots, so something for me to be aware of. I also applied what I learned from Norway's youtube video on hand position and grip, much more work to be done but yeah, reckon I felt the difference and noticed natural position achieved more readily than before.
Attachment 285828

and with the 2 flyers plotted, cos I know somebody will want to know!
Attachment 285829