I just dip the neck in :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 7mmsaum
Printable View
I just dip the neck in :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 7mmsaum
Do any of the seating dies actually seat on the ogive of the bullet, I have Lee (the higher end) and Hornady custom grade dies, and these all seat not on the tip but not very far up the bullet, certainly nowhere near the ogive where my comparator touches the bullet.
My way of thinking is you cannot get consistent seating depth unless your seating die and comparator are contacting at the same place, and ideally this should be at the same place as your lands would touch the bullet. I have thought about making my own seating insert, do the Redding dies or any others contact the bullet closer to ogive?
your looking at it wrong..... the seating die seats all projectiles by the bit of the olgive/curved front half at the same fatness area for want of better term...it will be at same fatness reguardless of projectile shape even a round nose but of course that will be really close to tip...with my 170grn rn in .270 I need to back the die well out to seat projectile as cant lift seater stem high enough.
For example, my 6mm dies after seating the bullet leave a small ring around the bullet, the bullet is only 4.5mm in diameter at this point.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the seating die to sit at say 6mm or 5.8mm. This way there is less room for bullet variances upsetting consistent seating depth, as it is the distance from the case base to where the bullet is going to meet the lands we are trying to keep the same.
If the bullet has a slightly different shaped curve Infront of the ogive it then wouldn't matter as the ogive would be seated to the same spec each time.
far more chance of it jamming that close to outside...and the olgive is the whole curve or the bit at calibre size??? back to OPS question, it doesnt matter where it touches as long as its the same each time..in my rifles I seat using the same one round to set up diesfor just about all projectiles other than round nose... they just go mag length and it works.
Nah, he’s looking at it right. Given that the seating stem contacts between ogive and tip, if there is any variance in the ogive profile between the projectiles, you’ll get different CBTO lengths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
understood.....what Im saying is that if you already have a load that shoots well in your rifle..eg in my case factory 130grn old school silver tip in .270
when I set up seating die using that for other spitzer projectiles the difference in olgive shape /how curvey the front bit of projectile is, isnt a huge deal as the ring that contacts..be it 4.5mm or what ever will be same distance from base of case and same distance from start of rifling..so the only difference in rounds over all length or distance to rifling is going to be tiny...that 4.5mm might be at worst 1mm either way on different projectile.... you multi ladder testing types will be reworking load after changing component anyway so point is moot..if your using the SAME projectile that 4.5mm ring will be in the same place....
That makes perfect sense except for the issue of proud primers. Checked yesterday, sure enough, couldn't see with the eye but certainly sufficient at times to cause anomaly.Quote:
Originally Posted by 6.5 CRD
Who has a primer in an empty case ? :yaeh am not durnk:Quote:
Originally Posted by RugerM77
I'm assuming you mean after with loaded rounds ? This problem is easily rectified with a primer hole uniformer tool or whatever it's called.
As long as you are aware of it. ...that said I've never come accross this issue personally, are some brands of brass more prone than others ?
I hear what you're saying, but I'm getting up to 15 thou varience with corelocts. I understand that it's a mass produced and cheap projectile. Same, but not quite so bad with Sierra's. Perhaps I'm chasing the grail. I have BT and AB loads that I can measure with COAL and get away with it, easily inside MOA every time, but I don't want to waste them. Case in point, 4 coreloct's, at a given meaured load well under MOA, let's try for a five shot group, " No don't, you know what'l happen" Yep 1 1/2" off centre. It wasn't me and not the rifle. Arrogant, yeah, but I've done enough to know.( mods, can we have spell check?) That's the conundrum and how to solve it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Personally ive never had issues with proud primers with any of the rifles i load for, but i have heard of people putting their shellholder on the case before measuring BTO to rule out any issue in measurement that a proud primer could give. If your issue is cheap projectiles that have inconsistent OAL or ogives, Then thats a poor quality projectile problem & i dont believe there is going to be a way to get it shooting consistent. May be able to go through and use the comparator to measure each projectile and sort them into batches & then load accordingly for the seperate batches, But to me it seems like its probably more hassle than its worth chasing accuracy from a projectile that is going to be innacurate by design.Quote:
Originally Posted by RugerM77
It may be worth selling the corelokts to somebody who can use them for their intended use (shooting game at modest ranges) & spend some money on projectiles that are less fussy with seating depth (i find ELDX/ELDM in my tikka rifles to not be overly fussy with seating depth ie big window between what works and what doesnt). Will certainly cost more per shot but is going to save you time , components (especially important in the current powder/primer climate) & headache trying to make projectiles do something they werent designed to do
Sadly, I think you're quite right. I'll just have to suck the kumara in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by 6.5 CRD
It’s quite common for rifles to have a CBTO tune window (node) of 0.006” (1.5mm). So using your example above, the 1mm variance either way equates to 0.008” between shortest and longest CBTO for a given projectile. So while you consider it to be tiny, it’s is enough to put you well out of a previously good performing node.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
You really need to understand that the slightest difference in shape or profile of the ogive, will give a massive difference in CBTO measurement.
That’s 6 thou and a lot smaller than 1.5mm. Most people tune in the 3 - 5 thou window. 0.07mm - 0.12mmQuote:
Originally Posted by gqhoon
You’re right, my maths sucks. But the point remains, +/- 1mm difference in seating depth makes a massive difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by McNotty
if the projectiles are not the same at that given point on curve of tip...they wont be the same at fattest point either..so point is moot.. either they are the same projectiles with same shaped jacket or they are not..agree the cartridge overall length will vary because of tip shape..but he point the seater pushes..for want of better word,should be the same for all your projectiles in that batch,it will be same fatness,so no different than seating from your olgive point.... the fattest part closest to the tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by gqhoon
It’s not a moot point. The tip to ogive variance is exactly what you need to be aware of when seating projectiles, as any variance in ogive shape will absolutely give different case base to ogive dimension and therefore different jump to the lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
That is one of the reasons that people modify seating stems to better match the ogive shape of their favourite VLD projectile. The point of contact is then over a longer length of the ogive radius, which is likely to be more consistent over the longer length than just a single, thin point of contact of a standard stem.
any varience in olgive shape..is a varience in PROJECTILE shape so will change your inflight characteristics by similar amounts to a change in seating depth..which brings up next point...if your projectiles are slightly different shape and you are seating them so they are all the same via the point on curve etc the depth inside the case will vary..your pressure will vary your velocity will vary so your shooting yourself in the other foot trying to save the first foot from being hit. but below 150 yards it wont matter a monkeys arsehole anyway if your rifle is even half decent.
your focus on jump to lands =not focus on depth inside case no matter what you do if your projectiles arent all the same you will HAVE to end up with a varience somewhere. turned necks should in theory ensure all projectiles are pushed into case the same Vs seater possibly squishing into curvy side a tiny bit so slightly less deeply seated..but most folks dont bother anymore with neck turning....
sure as heck dont for hunting ammunition.
modified stems for VLD came about as many seating stems werent enguaging SIDE of projectile at all as the needle like tip on VLD was bottoming out before it could... the same issue from opposite angle as I strike with 170grn round nose in .270... I need to back the die itself out of press as the seating stem cant lift high enough to work. they hit the inside of seating stem right at blunt tip so something like 1/4" closer to base of projectile to normal.
Its not shooting yourself in the other foot at all. Its being aware of the factors which affect harmonics and ballistics and then managing their effects for nett benefit.
And I don't focus on jump at all. I focus on consistency of jump (ergo, seating depth), irrespective of how much jump it is. I'll happily run anywhere from 0.050 - 0.080" of jump in my match rifle, because I know they're all within 0.001" of each other and that is what matters. And loading 100 rounds to within 0.001" doesn't require me to seat long, to measure and then incrementally seat deeper until they're all the same either. I can achieve that outcome by understanding what the important variables are and managing them through my loading process.
And that doesn't mean internal case capacity and pressure is being ignored. It is simply understood what affect it can have on ballistics.
Your understanding of neck-turning is woeful. No-one turns necks in order to manage seating depths, or concentricity.
VLD stems came about because the tip of VLD projectiles touch the inside top of a standard seating stem. But people modify VLD seating stems to 'match' their VLD projectile to give a longer contact surface. Go and drill out the inside of a standard seating stem so the tip doesn't touch and you'll see that it has no improvement on contact area with the projectile and so still have variance in seating depths.
your reading skills are woeful.....
you cant have it both ways...yo usay you have consistant jump to lands..... measured from the first fattest point on projectile??? correct so far????
so ALL your projectiles have eggzachary the same amount of distance from that fattest part of projectile to the start of rifling....with me so far???
but then yo usay yo ucant achieve that by seating all your projectiles from a certain fatness of projectile a certain point down the curve of projectile eg the ring the seating die contacts..... and yo usay thats inconsistant as projectiles are all slightly different..SO IF projectiles are all slightly different and you are seating them to make that fattest point..for want of better term the exact same distance from the start of rifling you are IGNORING the distance from bum of projectile to the primer..you cant have both,physically impossible....and you missed my point on neck turning so will say it again..if you have a fat tight neck and a skinny not so tight neck,your pushing ring wont dent the projectile as much with less tension..it will be a micro millimetre difference but a difference it will be..some of the reload photos shown on this forum have some serious dents around that ring.
I wont be drilling out anything..or using VLD projectiles either..for my kind of hunting shooting its pointless..as indeed are my projectiles,pointless that is.
I'm saying you can't achieve that level of consistency without understanding the variables (and their effect) and then ensuring you manage that variable in order to control the effect of it. In the case of the OP, having a Micrometer Seating die is great, but only part of the answer to consistent CBTO (which is what is wants to achieve).
My reloading process is no different to that of countless others. It isn't special, it just works to manage the variables to optimise the outcome.
Lol, tight fat neck and then a skinny not so tight neck....dude, this is the subject of precision reloading practices to get the most out of a rifle, not hillbilly reloading for "minute of deer accuracy"! But for your future reference, consistent neck tension can be easily set with a sizing die and a mandrel, so neck tension is the same for all pieces of brass, irrespective of your tight-fat / skinny-not-so-tight necks.
hillbilly now.......
yeah lets just leave this alone before it gets personal shall we???
I shall go fill my freezer with round loaded on LEE whackamole uusing projectiles made before you were born and 760 powder that has been around for just as long..and be happy....
your CBTO is fine and dandy but your still intoducing a CBTPB error..no different to anyone else no matter how flash harry your gear is,either the projectiles are all the same or they are not,no matter where or how on the projectile you push..you are still pushing it from some point,and if they arent all the same,the finished product wont be either..its not enough to worry me.
Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t mean I’m wrong ;-)
Keep an open mind Micky and listen to what’s being shared. You might just learn something.
right back at you
Greetings @Micky Duck,Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
I am with you on this one. I don't bother with a lot of the steps that others may feel are essential. Projectiles vary in their shape slightly over the years of production and sometime from box to box. Projectiles in a single box are not all made with the same tooling so vary within the box. Custom made projectiles can be better but well beyond my price point. For the reasons above I usually seat projectiles at a reasonable distance from the rifling, say 1mm or often more. I also check each batch of projectiles to see if anything has changed. From time to time it has and the die is reset. With target rifles small differences in seating depth can make a large difference as @6x47 reported above but with production sporter rifle like most of us have not so much. Never a particularly patient person I just can't be bothered going through a lot of busy work for little or no return. It takes an awful lot of shooting to reliably prove any improvement from tiny adjustments. A lucky three shot group does not cut it.
That said some may delight in endless testing and who are we to rain on their parade. Early on my loading technique was very basic as were the how to chapters in the loading manuals. A lot of the kit in use today did not exist. Today a how to description could fill volumes. Accuracy has certainly improved but how much of this is due to the whizzo kit is open to question. Each to their own.
Regards Grandpamac.
Thank you, gentlemen, for all the input. Some excellent pointers that I'm putting into practice. I have been well informed and also entertained.
Cheers RM77
@zimmer. I forgot to mention that I did try Alex Wheelers method. Found a massive disparity between Cortana's and Wheelers. Wheeler's served to help me set up a die properly though. Was an experience reassembling my bolt , the ejector pin shot around the garage like a blowfly on steroids, not once, but twice. Yes I found it the second time too.