Also not sure why the Hornady group Analysis can't do MRAD properly
Printable View
Also not sure why the Hornady group Analysis can't do MRAD properly
The group size in MRAD always ends up weird after you save it. The mean radius works and it's a better number to look at anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Stocky
Today's groups then (a bit stink to post here really but . . . )
Attachment 270136
Both load stats are pretty good, I'm happy with them, but the 223 with its "new" scope just wouldn't play ball, here is it's last 10 shot group with a slight variation on the same load
Attachment 270137
Why the change in POI?
It's a bit baffling that you've gone from good results to worse, considering your note regarding die setup just recently. Is it an expectations issue?
POI is the new scope. It had my 3.5-10 "tester" on pending the arrival of a 3-15. It is a bit weird that the load stats have improved but the group got worse. I did have a bit of an issue with the scope, it was causing "tired eyes " with a loss of clarity (like you get from suppressor mirage) but I don't know what caused it.
The expectations thing is important, the rifle shoots 73s noticeably better but I have 200 77gn TMKs and the are allegedly better on bigger animals. The rifle shoots 55s to less than one click POI difference, so I can interchange rounds on the hill.
If by "load stats" you mean the velocity consistency as measured by SD - bear in mind that it is totally uncorrellated to close range precision
That's benchrest-losing precision! There's guys out there with custom built benchrest rifles, "tuning loads" and choosing to compete in benchrest, getting those kinda groupsQuote:
Originally Posted by Stocky
That comment on the scope is really interesting - I had a Leupold scope that did something similar to me. I could not adjust the scope or do anything to improve it, did not seem to be anything "wrong" with it but it just did not work with my eyeball. Same issue, created 'tired eyes' - it's quite a good way to describe it actually. Ended up selling it, new owner loved it. I've never experienced it with any other scope I've tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
Remainder of the thread is an interesting read as well!
https://youtu.be/gzoqDPXnkw4?si=l_f_PZc0036H6ZMJ This guys manner of presentation and load development approach is pretty painful but I have never seen so many components tried in a single rifle (a Tikka 223) in controlled conditions. Not bad groups in the linked video but that's after he's sent at leasr a hundred 10 shot groups of various flavors. Do skip over the first bits to the results board he presents, if you look solely at this over a progression it's very interesting data.
I do realise that but it's also an indicator of process consistency, which has had me buggered for ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I'm not sure it is. I have weighed 223 charges to the grain and gotten terrible SDs and loaded 7mm08 straight of the powder measure to single digit es. It could be but I don't think it's a given and seems chambering design, powder type, etc seem to make more difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
I got pretty excited the rifle was going to shoot everything. Made me believe the legendary tikka accuracy claims. Then I shot other 50 grains and 60s and it did only slightly worse. Reloads embarrassingly yield worse results. Shame those cheap fiochi rounds with consistently off centre flash holes don't have a better BC. I never did try TMKs to see if they would match the 55sQuote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Haha, I've long since given up weighting individual powder charges, but I've been focusing on good brass prep and even neck tension (back to using the Lee collect die) and seating primers carefully.
This guy seems to dug himself deep into the hole of fucking around with this stuff. It looks to me like he's very close to getting an insight - he's talking in mean radius[although using it incorrectly], he's shooting some larger samples - but he just hasn't quite clicked that all his tuned loads are the same and he's just recording the noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
As far as I can see, all the loads he discards based on 3 or 5 shot group testing of various things are entirely within the range of what you'd expect to get based on the results he gets with final "tuned" loads in the "nodes" he's found.
I don't think there's anything like as much ability to control "the load" as people would like to believeQuote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
For precision testing - on YT or anywhere else - this guy has the best methodology and most interesting data of anyone I've seen yet, although his area of firearms isn't strictly the jam for most NZ hunters
https://youtu.be/GtZfBP9Z8sw?si=etqIL3T0NMwfFs67
That's a great video!Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Quick range trip to see if I could get a bit more velocity from the 77TMK with the Varget and Staball Match Loads and see if any combination with the 62 ELD VT is worth further investigation. Made a guess based on GRT of how much powder to add to hit the same range as the other TMK loads. Also loaded 62 ELD VTs with 4 powders to just see if it was hated. Interestingly the COAL and the CBTO measurement is identical to the 80 ELD M. My measurements show the 75 ELD M have a sleeker ogive but the 62 ELD VT and 80 ELD M appear to share the same Ogive profile. The 62 just has a much shorter bearing surface that reduces the bullet length.
Here are the 77TMK groups
Attachment 270305
Attachment 270306
Once again Vargets the best group but no real conclusions can be made except now I know I can get into the 2650fps-2750fps target velocity range (about where GRT suggests velocity limits due to pressure. I could likely load beyond this but wont) without pressure signs with all the powders tested and that all have the potential to meet the desired 1.5MOA accuracy (more realistically I would like around a 0.1Mil Mean Radius).
Next up some interesting results with the 62 ELD VT. Quite possibly low sample noise. I'd still like to test the terminal performance as the 223 has limits and the slightly lower BC and velocity potential of the 77TMK means there some terminal effective range left on the table. The 62 if its not way too soft and can provide adequate penetration would significantly add to the terminal range.
Here are the 62 ELD VT groups
Attachment 270307
Attachment 270308
Attachment 270309
Attachment 270310
As you can see there is a wide range of group sizes.
No real conclusions to be made except I can pretty much exclude further testing with XBR and it appears to "like" the 62 ELD VT less than the 77 TMK but possibly more than the 75 ELD M.
I will likely try a larger sample group with a larger load of Varget just to test if I can get a viable load using more of the velocity potential to do some terminal testing on animals.
All photos are ordered in the order of groups shot but the individual shot order in each group is not correct.
You should try ProVarmint if you are looking for a bit more velocity
I've tried all the appropriate temp stable powders first. Im only looking to maximize what they will give me at this stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikee
Im not chasing velocity just the most i can get from the powders I have before pressure (I didnt have good data for Varget and Staball Match yet so loaded same charge as the 77TMKs as I hadnt proven that load safe yet at the upper end of velocity yet.
Velocity is the best pressure sign (no free lunchs) when using GRT I can get a good indicator where pressure limits sit at what velocity with powder bullet combinations. I find up end of pressure burns powder better which is a good thing in a short barrel.
@gimp have an opinion on using the high velocity powder options that are temp sensitive? I think I could manage it but CBF dealing with the problems it can lead to running higher end loads. I dont want a summer and winter load personally.
Very interesting groups Stocky. I'm surprised at how large the 8208 group is. I had a similar result with W748 when I tried it with the Hornardy 73s ( which with other powders shot consistently well) I thought the powder must be off.
I'd love to understand how a powder can make such a difference, for example is not something you see with factory ammo
Personally I don't think temp stable powders are needed for hunting in NZ, with a 223 where the hunting range is under 500M a bit more or less velocity isn't gonna make much difference. And you're not likely to be hunting in very hot weather here anyway, animals are not moving
Ive been working my way thru. A large container of pro varmint in a couple cartridges. Been shooting it over 12months, hot weather and cold. No dramas yet.
I like it better than 8208xbr i was using.
While we are on this "velocity" subject I was pondering the other day why I can get about 1470 fpe of energy with a 69 gn but struggle to get the same energy output with 77s, is there a way of understanding this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stocky
What range?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
My ballistic table for 77tmk:
Range Velocity Energy
0 2900 1438.0
My 69 Targex:
Range Velocity Energy
0 3000 1379.0
At the muzzle, I get wee bit more than 3000 with 69s. It's only semantics, nothing real world!
@Stocky
I reckon there is something mechanically wrong with your rifle for it to shoot such poor groups with those quality projectiles. Its got to ne either suppressor (if one is in use, muzzle (crown or bore), bedding or something in the scope system.
No modern rifle should shoot that bad.
Is it actually 1in8" twist?
Have you read the whole thread? I doubt it other than being a factory rifle barrel from a budget rifle company. I think most people's rifles don't shoot as good as they think they do. IE it's unccomon at the handloaders do I see actual targets with sub moa groups with more than 3 rounds and its far more common to see 2-3inch 5 shot groups and people claiming fliers. It would shock me that TMKs are capable of quite possibly submoa performance if it was that seriously wrong. It just doesn't like the combination. All the bullets it hasn't liked are ELD ms with likely the exact same ogive profile. I may mess with it some more at some stage and recut the crown (looks fine) and may run a bore scope down it but I've seen some horrendous bores shoot fine. It's 8 twist 80 elds enter straight so there's no way it's that borderline on the 62s. Plus the 88 tmks are longer than the 62sQuote:
Originally Posted by Roarless20
Yes I've read the whole thread.
When you find the actual issue you'll realise what I'm saying.
The main bore condition isnt too much of a concern but the last 1" of bore is very important along with the crown. Personally i would double check the muzzle end and crown with your bore scope before you waste too many more components. Try another scope (the ok tmk groups say its possibly not this) and recheck your action screws etc. Remove any suppressor.
I've problem solved a few different rifles now and they all shot like yours or better even with their problems. They shot alot better after. 2"-3" groups indicates problems.
Put your emotions aside and think practically. I bet you'll find something.
For reference, these are groups from a .223 T3 with ammunition it doesn't like. It will shoot much better with a load it does like.
Attachment 270326
Attachment 270327
Attachment 270328
Are the nice 7mm pins on your bases bottoming out allow one to move? Or the base screw over the barrel tenon (cant remember if howa has one there) bottoming.
Is the box of the jefferson bottom metal pinching or holding the action of the stock fractionally?
@gimp yep all good and well but Stocky shouldnt have that many poor performing projectiles.
If that is the case he needs a new barrel to do better. But some careful investigation of 1hr might find an issue first.
There's no emotion. I just don't think it matters that much, that's far more practical than pretending I need 1 inch groups to kill deer or shoot steel. Those that think they need sub moa rifles are delusional and often so are those that think they have them. Hornady have openly said it's exceptionally rare for there cut rifled match barrels in fixtures to be truly submoa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roarless20
I want to test for changes. So i need a generic baseline. I'm not wasting components I'm investigating. How do I know I fixed something if I didn't prove what the issue was. Could you please provide some large shot size groups showing your precision?
I don't see it as component wast I see it as trigger time, investigating what if anything makes large differences to rifle precision.
I've tried 3 projectiles? 2 of those the same style. I never said I need to do better. Eventually I'm going to have had a number of barrels on their rifle. No the pins have clearance. I've checked the functional issues like binding mags etc. It may just be a poor barrel. That's fine. I have 2 more here already for the next stage of testing but I felt factory barrel data is most relevant to start with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roarless20
Your claiming to know it can't possibly shoot that bad but the idea is to prove that rather than just guess.
I have a preference to stick to extruded ADI powders - I use 2206H, 2208 and 2209 for everything and have for pretty much my entire reloading life. This is due to availability, cost, and a general feel that they provide good results - I haven't had problems with temp sensitivity because I haven't used temp sensitive powders - I'd rather just avoid the problem.
Your 75gr ELDs have a better average 5-shot group size than the 62s... but there's not really enough info to call anything
@Stocky no skin off my nose mate. Was just trying to assist a fellow rifle enthusiast. Carry on.
Btw "Hornady said" will just hold you back from learning yourself. Keep an open mind to see the other possibilities.
Btw if there is a mechanical issue with the rifle, then all the components used so far are wasted as your 'test bed' is compromised.
https://storage.googleapis.com/wzuku...nse%20Maps.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
Different powder producing larger dispersion = greater magnitude and variability in the angular rate and cross velocity. Probably greater variation in the pressure-time function
Not really I can provide that info here and show actual proof of it having serious effects. I'm happy to show anything concrete and be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roarless20
Have you actually done any large sample size testing?
It's not I don't believe that you could be correct. It's more I want to prove it rather than just take the "general knowledge" and anecdotal assumptions out of it as much as possible.
I will mess with the bedding, suppressor, action screw torque, recrown, barrel length, etc at some stage and will tag you when i do especially if your right as im not disagreeing just saying that i dont think your conclusion can be validated yet. It would be nice if you are right and hopefully you are but I will be testing other barrels to add more data at some stage. I have hundreds of bits of brass, a wide range of powders, a decent supply of projectiles (albeit ones that may not agree with the barrel). If the rifle shot too good it would actually be much harder to separate shooter error from rifle capability.
One thing to consider @Roarless20 is this a 223, and it can be a highly variable sort of beast, once you start shooting decent sample sizes the "surprises" happen. There is none of the "I pulled one" bullshit that so many people indulge themselves with in the following targets, they are a product of careful shooting.
Both shot with the same rifle at 100M in pretty similar weather conditions, just a wee breeze from 6 o'clock. The scope was changed out between targets and obviously the zero also varies.
Attachment 270353
Pretty interesting how on the 28/2 (group 1) with Hor 73s it shot 1.04 MOA but on 10/3 the group with the load was 66mm and the worse group of the day.
If you have a look at the 28/2 target you can see the rifle shot 3 consecutive groups (shot count varied 9 to 11) of which the largest was 1.08 MOA. And then a splatter from some FMJ stuff (which incidentally does go OK in another rifle).
There seem to be a lot of shooters too scared to fully explore the variability of their shooting system, it's maybe less important for hunting, but it's also less than usefull not to know the limitations of your rifle, especially with the current "long range" fashion.
