Reloading for precision accuracy, what steps do you take?

[jm84]

That's exactly why I'm hesitating buying that meplat trimmer and all those other nice toys. I'm perfectly happy with a hair above 1/4 MOA, even if it is occasionally. Really, once I find a combination that works well, I usually stick with it for a while.

But, like I said, still working out the kinks in my mechanics. More trigger time can never hurt. Eventually, I'd like to work my way out to longer distances than the local range can provide.

In addition to all of the above I also neck turn my cases. It unforms the neck wall thickness. Each bullet is held and "released" with the same tension.

Jeff

I've been reading about this as well, it would be a little more pleasing (in my OCD mind, anyhow) having more consistent neck tension across my batches. Any advice on selecting a turner? Though, I'm not sure how much it's going to shrink my "low shooter error" groups. I'm thinking the results would be negligible.

[YBNORMAL]

Tomcat, yes LR shooting is what I am working toward here. I have shot the rifle as far (or as short in your world ) as 300 yards and my best group at this range was around .75 with an average of about 1.25, 5 shot groups on everything. The longest we have within a reasonable distance around here is 600 yards.

The day I was shooting 300yds, I was with a fellow Pafoaer at his range using his Chrony. I found that my loads are a little on the slow side unfortunately. I had worked that load up using 5 shot groups with .5gr incraments and just picked the one that grouped the best. After more research I now know a chrony is a requirement for serious LR and I need to perform a ladder test near my desired velocity in order to do things the "right" way.

I am loading 168gr SMK HPBT with IMR 4064, Federal primers and Winchester brass. I would like to try a heavier bullet but I can't seem to get ahold of any 175gr HPBT, all anybody has is SP.

What type of velocity should I be looking for from the 168gr? Also, I am aware that the SMK prefers (or maybe tolerates is a better description) a bit of a jump to the rifling, but I am a leary of trying another brand of bullet since I can't get near the rifling and it seems that many guys start out "jammed", and then back off from there when working up a precision load.

YB

[Pukindog]

Sinclair has several neck turners in their catalogue. I use the Sinclair premium Tool. Does the job fast, easily, and accurately.

Jeff

[Tomcat088]

Tomcat, yes LR shooting is what I am working toward here. I have shot the rifle as far (or as short in your world ) as 300 yards and my best group at this range was around .75 with an average of about 1.25, 5 shot groups on everything. The longest we have within a reasonable distance around here is 600 yards.

The day I was shooting 300yds, I was with a fellow Pafoaer at his range using his Chrony. I found that my loads are a little on the slow side unfortunately. I had worked that load up using 5 shot groups with .5gr incraments and just picked the one that grouped the best. After more research I now know a chrony is a requirement for serious LR and I need to perform a ladder test near my desired velocity in order to do things the "right" way.

I am loading 168gr SMK HPBT with IMR 4064, Federal primers and Winchester brass. I would like to try a heavier bullet but I can't seem to get ahold of any 175gr HPBT, all anybody has is SP.

What type of velocity should I be looking for from the 168gr? Also, I am aware that the SMK prefers (or maybe tolerates is a better description) a bit of a jump to the rifling, but I am a leary of trying another brand of bullet since I can't get near the rifling and it seems that many guys start out "jammed", and then back off from there when working up a precision load.

YB

From past conversations, I thought that LR shooting might be the goal, and just wanted to make sure. I love the joke about "or as short in your world", lol. That's good shooting and a nice load to be putting up .25-.42 MOA accuracy. You mention that your load was a bit on the "slow side", but I'm curious as to, "how slow?" Chronographs can be pretty picky, and sometimes lighting conditions, and even turning the chronograph a bit can result in velocities that are 50-100 fps FASTER. That's part of why knowing your zero, and then dope to other distances can help verify that you are in fact having the velocities that you think you do. Sometimes a load isn't as slow as you think, but the chronograph is giving you consistently slower numbers; the dope helps you figure that out. Either way, a chronograph is definitely something that is useful for shooting long range because as the range increases, your spread and variation in ES and SD's become more important.

I want to say something, that lots of guys that are new or newer to LR shooting don't always realize. Velocity is NOT the most important factor to LR shooting, or accuracy. If that was the case, people dang sure wouldn't be shooting the .308 to 800+ yards, lol. Velocity starts to play more of a role out at mid-long range, with being most important at longer ranges. It's most important if you're trying to stay supersonic, or trying to deliver kinetic energy on a living target. At the ranges that you're talking about 300-600, it may not be worth the trouble to rework your load for greater velocity. If you PM me some numbers, we can run them through ballistics programs and see what you would be gaining at those distances. Lots of times it'll be some elevation, and a little bit of windage. With some numbers I could give you a better idea, but it might only be 4-6 clicks on your scope. That may or may not be worth the trouble to you, but it's usually more for peace of mind at shorter distances. At longer ranges, it starts to effect wind drift more, and that's the variable you worry about as opposed to drop.

Honestly, as a long range bullet, the 168 grain bullet isn't the optimum choice. The heavy 175's buck the wind better, and hold onto their kinetic energy well. The 155's can be pushed fast, fast enough to buck wind better than the 168's at distance, and still be supersonic to longer ranges. Another benefit of the 155's is that they recoil quite a bit softer than the 168's and 175's. For mid range distances, the 168's are fine, and you won't have any problems with them at 600 yards. You haven't said for sure, but I'm guessing from the powder and bullet weight, that you're talking about your .308. The standard for accuracy and LR shooting that most people use is FGMM. Their load with a 168 SMK is right at 2,600 FPS. Even with max loads using the powder that you are, you probably won't be able to push the bullet over 2,750, so keep that in mind. Seating the bullets long and into the rifling CAN make a different in consistency and accuracy in some loadings, but may not have ANY effect on others. You have to keep in mind that because it effects how the bullet enters the rifling and when, it changes the chamber pressures, and other variables related to that.

There's something else for you to consider, lots of times if you get a bullet into the rifling, it's longer than your magazine length. So even if you have enough bearing surface for it to hold well in the brass, you may have just turned your repeater into a single shot, load each one from the ejection port. So if your COAL is longer than the magazine length, you probably don't want the load. The .308 doesn't do as well with the super heavy .30 caliber bullets like 190's and up, which is usually the bullets that you want to seat into the rifling. When shooting lighter and shorter bullets, you can run into exactly the problem that you mention, you don't have enough bearing surface to seat in the brass properly. Something else that often happens if you seat very far into the lands can happen. Let's say you chamber a round and then want to eject it without firing it. Sometimes, depending on neck tension and how far you're seated into the lands, when you go to eject the round, it may pull the bullet out of brass. Then you're pissed off because you have to get a rod to get the bullet out of the barrel, and you're having to go from the WRONG end (muzzle), and then you also have powder all in your magazine, chamber, and possibly bolt. It's not a good thing at all. So don't get too wound up on "seating into the lands", with lots of bullets, it's not an issue or something that's always achievable. If it shoots well and gives consistent numbers, don't get too worried. PM me if you want to talk more about specific numbers and what you'd gain or lose if you were working up another reasonable load.

[YBNORMAL]

<snip> The standard for accuracy and LR shooting that most people use is FGMM. Their load with a 168 SMK is right at 2,600 FPS. Even with max loads using the powder that you are, you probably won't be able to push the bullet over 2,750, so keep that in mind.<snip>

Do you recommend a different powder?

When I first got the rifle, I tried a box of the GMM in 175 and they shot really well (obviously ). What powder are they using in that load? What about the 168FGMM?

^^Ha, just did a cursory search of the interwebs and in addition to nobody being real sure what Federal uses, whatever they do use is not going to be available to us little guys.

A gentleman in the classified is selling me a case runout guage......score! I also have a Bell and Carlson adjustable Medalist stock on the way. Lots of fun stuff to play around with.
YB

[jm84]

Spot on Tomcat, it's (mine, anyhow) a .308. I was assuming the same of YB.

I've been using the 175 SMK's and 178 A-Max's with pretty good results at shorter ranges. I know this makes very little difference as to the performance at longer distances. On paper, the 175's and 178's seemed to carry their velocity and buck the wind better than the 168 out at longer distances which, coincidentally, was my reason for choosing those two particular bullet weights over the 168 (just as you pointed out).

Truthfully, I've never had the chance to try anything greater than 350 yards, so I'm still in the "short" ranges. I had never considered using a 155 gr. bullet, so I'm going to have to hit my books and check this out. At any rate, a few questions, if I'm understanding what you have said correctly...

Can a 155 be used to achieve similar results at longer ranges as a 175, 178 if the velocity is pushed up to higher (and safe) levels? And, is there any benefit of using the 155 over a 175 or 178 other than felt recoil? I know you may need more information than what you have so far, which I would be willing to provide if needed. I guess I'm just looking for a general response.

As a note, felt recoil has always been kind of a "so what" thing for me, if you understand that (I shoot informally, not quite into the whole competition thing yet). I can see where it would help if you wanted quicker follow-ups and be able to keep/return to your sight picture faster, but usually it's just me taking my sweet time during and between shots. I know that the possibility exists that my mileage may vary with a given bullet, I'm just curious to see if it's worth it trying to work up some loads for a 155 and do some experimentation.

[Tomcat088]

Spot on Tomcat, it's (mine, anyhow) a .308. I was assuming the same of YB.

I've been using the 175 SMK's and 178 A-Max's with pretty good results at shorter ranges. I know this makes very little difference as to the performance at longer distances. On paper, the 175's and 178's seemed to carry their velocity and buck the wind better than the 168 out at longer distances which, coincidentally, was my reason for choosing those two particular bullet weights over the 168 (just as you pointed out).

Truthfully, I've never had the chance to try anything greater than 350 yards, so I'm still in the "short" ranges. I had never considered using a 155 gr. bullet, so I'm going to have to hit my books and check this out. At any rate, a few questions, if I'm understanding what you have said correctly...

Can a 155 be used to achieve similar results at longer ranges as a 175, 178 if the velocity is pushed up to higher (and safe) levels? And, is there any benefit of using the 155 over a 175 or 178 other than felt recoil? I know you may need more information than what you have so far, which I would be willing to provide if needed. I guess I'm just looking for a general response.

As a note, felt recoil has always been kind of a "so what" thing for me, if you understand that (I shoot informally, not quite into the whole competition thing yet). I can see where it would help if you wanted quicker follow-ups and be able to keep/return to your sight picture faster, but usually it's just me taking my sweet time during and between shots. I know that the possibility exists that my mileage may vary with a given bullet, I'm just curious to see if it's worth it trying to work up some loads for a 155 and do some experimentation.

At shorter ranges, it's not that much of a concern, and pretty much whatever shoots well and you like, go for it. When the distances started getting stretched out, a LOT changes. We've already gotten off topic on this thread, so I'm just going to send you a PM with most of the information I want to share with you.

In short, what I am going to say is that YES, certain 155 grain bullets (or around there), DO outperform 175 grain loads. This applies even to the 175 grain SMK load at 2,600 fps, which is what FGMM loads those at also. In order to get the 175's to hang with the 155's in terms of how far they're supersonic, wind drift, drop, etc. you have to push them over 2,800 FPS (past 2,840). This isn't necessarily an easy task to do with a .308, and will take a lot of work to do, and a barrel on the longer side. That's just to hang side by side with a 155 Scenar doing 2,900 (not hard). You can still load the Scenars up faster than that also. I'm not particular about recoil either, but it does play a part in follow ups, fatigue, flinching, etc. Pushing a 175 that hard will add quite a bit of recoil, and will be harder on the barrel. Part of this is related to the powders you have to use to build up enough pressure to push a 175 that fast in a .308, and the pressure curves related to those powders.

You're basically pushing the 175 almost as fast as the Scenars (basically 60 fps difference). For standard loads, the 155 Scenars will put the 175's to shame, and do it with less recoil and drop. If you push the 175's hard, then the wind drift to a NORMAL 155 load is basically the same, but they still need more dope for elevation. If you're using normal 175 loads, they will take quite a bit more elevation, and still won't be able to hang in wind drift. On known ranges, elevation isn't a huge issue because you can dial a little extra on. When you start talking about shooting at unknown distances, the flatter trajectory DOES make a difference, especially at longer unknown ranges. Just some things to think about.

[Tomcat088]

Do you recommend a different powder?

When I first got the rifle, I tried a box of the GMM in 175 and they shot really well (obviously ). What powder are they using in that load? What about the 168FGMM?

^^Ha, just did a cursory search of the interwebs and in addition to nobody being real sure what Federal uses, whatever they do use is not going to be available to us little guys.

A gentleman in the classified is selling me a case runout guage......score! I also have a Bell and Carlson adjustable Medalist stock on the way. Lots of fun stuff to play around with.
YB

I don't own a .308, nor reload for it, so I can't really recommend a different powder. Nobody is exactly sure what powder they're using in those loads. Most manufacturers use specific blends of powder, and that's not something that you really want to get into. It's also why if you blow up a firearm with ammunition, they want you to send it to them so they can test powder residue to see if you really were using their ammunition; by the blend and how it shows up (measured with probably a spectrophotometer, etc).

There are some guys that have found some loads that behave almost identical to FGMM, and act almost as "universal" as FGMM, which is one of it's greatest strengths. I'll try to find some threads in other forums with those recipes, and get that info to you if you're interested in them, and not something with 155's. I hope you like your stock, it'll be a little heavy, but awesome.

[arrrrgh15]

Tomcat,

I've been contemplating making the switch to 155 scenars. I ran the ballitics and if I can push them to 2900 fps, I'll have a definate edge over 175s at 2650, which is what I am currently using.

My bartlein barrel is 11.25 twist. Will the 155s still work at 1000....beyond?

I tried some 178gr factory ammo that was chrono'd at 2800 fps, and had great results out to 1200 yards, but the loads were so hot that on a warm day they were blowing primers.

I just got my new Premier Heritage 3-15x50 rifle scope and I'm hoping to work up some new loads to zero it in.

Oh...my steps....

Tumble brass, debur, chamfer, full length size in comp die, uniform primer pockets, trim, tumble again. Load. I measure EVERY charge. I use a comp seating die to seat the bullets.

Seems to work for me.

[Tomcat088]

Tomcat,

I've been contemplating making the switch to 155 scenars. I ran the ballitics and if I can push them to 2900 fps, I'll have a definate edge over 175s at 2650, which is what I am currently using.

My bartlein barrel is 11.25 twist. Will the 155s still work at 1000....beyond?

I tried some 178gr factory ammo that was chrono'd at 2800 fps, and had great results out to 1200 yards, but the loads were so hot that on a warm day they were blowing primers.

I just got my new Premier Heritage 3-15x50 rifle scope and I'm hoping to work up some new loads to zero it in.

Oh...my steps....

Tumble brass, debur, chamfer, full length size in comp die, uniform primer pockets, trim, tumble again. Load. I measure EVERY charge. I use a comp seating die to seat the bullets.

Seems to work for me.

Howdy Arrrrgh,

Sorry that I haven't gotten back to you on load stuff. I've been pretty busy and actually out of town some as well. So I got distracted and couldn't at the time dedicate what I needed to, to get you some good data. I'm going to send you a PM within the next 3 days with some information that will be REALLY helpful for you. So again, my apologies buddy.

As far as the 155's, man, they're a heck of a bullet. I ran some numbers earlier for JD for some different velocities, and it pays off. I'll forward to you the PM's that I sent to him, so you can see them more in depth. The 155 Scenars at 2,900 fps are supersonic to 1075 yards under standard temperature, pressure, etc. Obviously if you're higher than sea level, hotter, more humidity, etc, they'll be supersonic even further. There's lots of guys pushing the 155's in the 3,000's, and this would stretch out your supersonic range even further. Lapua says that a 1:12 is all that's necessary to stabilize the 155 Scenars, so your barrel shouldn't have a problem with them.

I'm actually surprised that ya'll found some loaded factory 178's that were loaded that hot. Was it just your rifle that was blowing primers, or other's as well? I'm curious if you might not have a standard chamber, and have the slightly tighter chamber that GAP likes to use, which is great for precision. Yeah, that's a little bit scary when you have a load that puts you over pressure on a hot day. Basically, for the numbers that I ran, if you push the 175 SMK's at 2,840 fps, they run almost identical to the 155 Scenars doing 2900 (at standard temp, pressure, etc). At a grand, the Scenars have .8" wind drift for a 10 mph crosswind, and they still have 9.5" more drop. Both loads were supersonic to 1,075 yards under standard temp and pressure. So I really do think you can get the performance from the 155's that you were basically seeing with those 178's, but at MUCH lower pressures. It'll wear less on your barrel, less recoil (which is really important since you shoot comps), and you won't have to worry about those hot days. It also won't be hell on your brass the way those 175-178's pushed hot would be. That cost and work that you lose on your brass will offset the cost vs benefit difference.

I'm glad to hear that you got your scope, that's AWESOME! I have some questions for you, and would LOVE to see some through the scope pictures if you get a chance, in the thread I made a long time ago. Maybe that could really get the thing rolling. I'll be forwarding those PM's to you with some more specific numbers, and get some recipes and thoughts about that load to you very soon.