How to make better reloads

[Petrol & Powder]

There are diminishing returns and at some point you must ask yourself, "is the effort worth the result"?
The answer to that is, "It depends".

For handgun ammo, I don't stress a lot. My handloads are as good if not better than factory loaded ammo.
I have on occasion spent a great deal of effort in loading handgun ammo and it just wasn't worth the extra effort.

For rifle ammo, that's a different story. Getting a 3" group at 100 yards down to a 1" group is a huge improvement.
I took a rifle that shot about a 1 1/2" group down to a consistent 1/2" cloverleaf group. That WAS worth the extra effort.

There comes a point where you have to decide what is worth it and what is insignificant. At some point the returns don't justify the effort, only you can decide where that point is.

 

[Snakeoil]

Sundog, thanks for posting that article about the warehouse shooting. I just finished it and have passed it along to some fellow shooters. It was a good read.

 

[STIHL]

The problem is that lots of old times folks think that five 5-shot groups at 100 yards is the end all and be all of precision shooting. Jacketed bullet shooting is way past that, and cast is coming close. IMHO

Some guns won’t shoot a 5 shot group. 3 is max. I have a few of them. Factory rifles, but anyway. To your point. I like to prove my skills to the 425 yard mark. That’s my long shot on my home range. That’s where loads are made or broken. In my opinion.

Crazy thing. I have an AR that would shoot lights out at 100, but had a high ES 30-35 and would go from 3/4 consistent groups at 100 to 8-10 inches at 425, but one day the stars aligned and I shot a 2.5 inch group at 500 yards with that rifle. That is the best group that rifle ever shot. I have a pic of it in my old phone, but I was as impressed with it as I was with me. That’s the only time I ever accomplished that. That rifle has fell apart with that load and I have to rework a load for it.

As someone else stated it’s all about the equipment. Better and more true the rifle, the not will shoot. And Iirc Bret made a very valid point. Nothing is more important than trigger time.

 

[L Ross]

There are diminishing returns and at some point you must ask yourself, "is the effort worth the result"?
The answer to that is, "It depends".

For handgun ammo, I don't stress a lot. My handloads are as good if not better than factory loaded ammo.
I have on occasion spent a great deal of effort in loading handgun ammo and it just wasn't worth the extra effort.

For rifle ammo, that's a different story. Getting a 3" group at 100 yards down to a 1" group is a huge improvement.
I took a rifle that shot about a 1 1/2" group down to a consistent 1/2" cloverleaf group. That WAS worth the extra effort.

There comes a point where you have to decide what is worth it and what is insignificant. At some point the returns don't justify the effort, only you can decide where that point is.

You bet! If competition is your goal. If the pursuit of excellence is your goal. If just the satisfaction of making the finest ammo regardless of effort involved provides a sense of accomplishment I am all in favor. Only people who strive for the ultimate seem to advance any endeavor. I'm just not one of those guys.
My life experience is much like a description of the North Platte River I once read. A mile wide and an inch deep. I just cannot for the life of me delve into perfecting ammo to that degree. I'm a bit more than a dabbler. From fiddle playing, to black smithing, to brain tanning, to cooking, cars, motorcycles, guns, ammo, fishing, boats, hovercraft, and now my most recent affliction, in shore salt water fishing. My biggest regret over the finality of life will be that I have not learned even more than I have. That and I never got the Piper Super Cub with tires, floats, and skis that I assumed was the birthright of every free American outdoorsman.

 

[Maven]

All, As L Ross mentioned, a lot of this has been covered by the CBA, including flawed CB's and neck tension, the latter not many weeks (months ago). John Alexander, the CBA president, does lots of testing and has found many of the assumptions we make about accuracy are just that. However, for long distance shooting, being consistent is as close as we can get to perfection.

 

[Ian]

Don't get me started on John Alexander and neck tension. I'll just say that adhering to false generalities will hamstring you as a handloader.

 

[RicinYakima]

Don't get me started on John Alexander and neck tension. I'll just say that adhering to false generalities will hamstring you as a handloader.

Yep, one test by one person doesn't make a study.

 

[Bret4207]

Yep, one test by one person doesn't make a study.

Wait, that can't be true!

 

[Maven]

If 1 test by 1 person doesn't convince you, why not try the idea with different diameter expander balls v. no neck tension v. Lee Collet Die(s)? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[RicinYakima]

To make a theory, it must be "peer reviewed" as in several people with in different locations and times getting the same results. One person doing it one time makes it still just a supposition. A law is when anyone anywhere will get the same results every time.

 

[Maven]

I agree completely Ric, but I really do know how science works: What we are looking for is truly independent confirmation of results. And those results can't be due to chance.

 

[Snakeoil]

You see it all the time at the range. Somebody changes something and suddenly they get better results. The conclusion is that change was responsible for the results and it becomes something that they pass along to others forever whether 100% accurate or not. If they happen to have gray hair, all the non-grays take it as fact and begin to pass it along as well. Remember when synthetic oils came out and everyone said that they caused ball and roller bearings to skid in the races?

We still have a couple of shooters to do not believe that wind and mirage have an effect and make no adjustments for it. When they shoot a bad score they blame it on the rifle, the load or throw their hands up in the air and say that they are baffled. These are guys who have been shooting for years.

Many years ago, I had the misfortune of being part of a Six Sigma initiative. It was great from an income and career advancement point of view, but the entire process was more smoke and mirrors than anything else so you had to stifle your integrity. But there was a statement that came out of that process that got parroted by many, all the way up to the executive levels and it rings true with respect to just about any subject. "You don't know what you don't know.". Until you truly embrace that statement, you will always miss the chance to be a little better informed.

I'm a newbie to rifle shooting in comparison to most here. And I've never put a jacketed bullet into a case. My rifle knowledge base is small as a result. I pay attention at the range, have talked to the shooters that do well, weed out the know-it-alls from the knowledgeable and try to pick up as much info as I can and then take a hard look at it and try to sort fact from fiction and see relationships between facts. There is always something new to be learned and one had to be prepared to alter previous assumptions based upon partial or flawed info. I tend to think it is human nature to want to find a solution quickly. Those who ponder problems at length tend to come to better final conclusions. But they can also be paralyzed in perpetual analysis. Wouldn't it be great if we had the same warehouse access to test cast bullet loads?

 

[popper]

Six Sigma initiative -- ==Bad joke! How to build junk and eliminate the QC dept.

 

[Snakeoil]

Six Sigma initiative -- ==Bad joke! How to build junk and eliminate the QC dept.

From the perspective of how it was applied across the board to our business, it was pretty much a BS process. But from a manufacturing defect POV, it does identify weak spots, sources for error, etc., and can reduce the number of defects. You still need QC for they are the source of the data that tells the story. But the commecialized Six Sigma institute was really just a packaging of statistical tools that had been around for years and already in use by many companies. The individual who truly gained from Six Sigma was Dr. Michael Harry, the originator of packaging and marketing the concept. He's right up there with people like the guy who came up with the idea for the Pet Rock.

Sorry for the tangent. We now return you to your normally televised program.

 

[Ian]

If 1 test by 1 person doesn't convince you, why not try the idea with different diameter expander balls v. no neck tension v. Lee Collet Die(s)? Inquiring minds want to know!

Here's the deal. If someone else did the same referenced test with a very similar rifle and bullet, loaded the same, all else the same, the results would be as close as same.

The argument is that the results obtained from these tests were assumed to be true in ALL instances, without regard to amount of bullet jump, fit of bullet to throat, powder genre used (i.e. 4350 or Titegroup), how the case body was sized, headspace, etc. etc..

I objected to the false generalization based on a lot of experience, but was mocked and run off because the folks referenced would not consider any kind of loading technique other than the sorts used in unlimited class CBA rigs. This came up again recently and I confronted John about it; his tune was somewhat different toward neck tension this time, but immediately defaulted to "you have to be crazy because that's not how we do it" on another matter of technique. I just gave up over there.

 

[todd]

Yep, one test by one person doesn't make a study.

WHAT?!?!?!? WHY I NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Maven]

Another instance of not invented here, if I understand you correctly, Ian?

 

[Ian]

Another instance of not invented here, if I understand you correctly, Ian?

Some of that, but also a lot of myopia and egotism, as I told them.

In any event, in the pursuit of one-hole groups from a variety of different classes of rifle, one is more productive having as many techniques, philosophies, and tools as possible on hand together with an inquiring, open mind which can visualize the task (and its difficulties) in three dimensions.

 

[JWFilips]

It all comes down to "nothing is what we think it is"!
We have to find our own ways ...All guns are individulals! All guns need to be nurtured to shoot their best!
This is the major learning experience that we must go through! That is Why "you should do this" does not work!

 

[Rally]

Myself, I frequent these sites to pick up tips to improve my ammo and techniques to get there. I rarely get a 100 yard shot, with 25 - 50 the norm. I also rarely shoot at paper except when developing a load. Once I get the results I’m looking for, I tend to load a hell of a bunch of them and move onto something else. I load for rifle , pistol, and shotgun, so always have a project.
When I trapped full time I got to shoot most every day ,if so inclined, but since taking this mining job last May, I just don’t have the opportunity to shoot as much, but get to read here on breaks.
Ian got me headed in the right direction with a .30-30 and the Ranchdog bullet, and Bens bullet lube was a Godsend for me when I got into looking for a bullet lube(Thanks to both).
I wouldn’t expect someone shooting 500 yards to be real happy with my ammo, anymore than theirs would be acceptable to me after being carried in my pants pocket for a couple weeks