Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles IB's TSX's and Fusion bullets with some seating depth education as well

Ok as promised I am getting back to you guys with some details on the accuracy issues and the fusion testing...........yeah I know two different posts and topics but who's grading this forum?

First I'll get to the seating dept in regards to my bizzare accuracy issue from last week. If you remember:

My IB's were set to OAL of 3.270 and shot all over the place with no consistancy at all. I had switched to SB dies and used a different press( the ultimate turret, the T-7)
With this problem I shot some old loads that were dead nuts accurate but about a year old. When I returned back to the loading bench I found that aside from the SB dies that the OAL was only 3.235 on the old ammo.

I loaded up 40 rounds with the regular or standard Hornady New Dimension dies and only 6 of each seating depth with the TSX and IB's then off to the range to see how things were gonna turn out. After all, the guidance on this forum suggested that Seating depth might be the most critical area for accuracy with reloads.

I first shot the fusion bullets just to see where they were going to be for POI. They shot about a 1.3" group right where I wanted them. The most noticable part was the very low recoil. They shoot at 2725fps, kinda slow for a 165 grain bullet. It's fine for my needs in Africa because the ranges are short. This would not be my choice for 300 yards though! My handloads are as fast at 300 yards then these are at the muzzle! They have an OAL of 3.230

Now here is where you really have to have a desire to reload to make it worth while. Anybody can sling a few componenets together to make a loaded shell but the attention to detail is where it will pay off big time. I won't bother to list every group for each depth but only the good ones and a comparison of the poorest ones. These were all at 100 yards using my upper, or 100 yard crosshair. These were all 3 shot groups.

The 3.265 IB's were in a 3" plus group
The 3.235 IB's shot into a near perfect clover leaf. Maybe the size of a dime.

Look at the numbers for the TSX. These if loaded to match the best IB loads would be a loss, but by expermentation look at the coincidental data here:

TSX at 3.235 shoot into 3" Plus group
TSX at 3.265 shot into one 3/8" enlarged ragged hole. The best group of the day by quite a bit!

The seating depth of the TSX and the IB are exactly the opposite for the best accuracy.

With the remaining loads I had of these last two I shot them all into one 6 shot group. There was only one hole about the size of a nickle dead nuts in the center of that target. So the TSX and the IB's shoot exactly 100% the same POI when loaded to their respective "happy" seating depth.

For the record the TSX shot at 2895fps and the IB's at 2935fps both 165 grain bullets.

It looks like I will use all three of these in Africa without any problems at all this year. I'll recover every bullet that does not exit, and we'll have a hella big photo post here with some of the bullets and game taken.

Do you know how far you were off the lands you were with the IBs and the TSXs?

When I seat a bullet into an empty shell by pushing it into the chamber with my bolt and coating the bullet with sharpy ink, The bullet gets pushed into the shell and I can see the rifling marks in the ink. Then measuring the OAL of that shell it's at exactly 3.325" I'm not sure if this is the "expert" means of doing this but it's How I learned a hella long time ago.

I am getting a better education with the proper tools and a little private tutoring next week.( Thanks Jack)
To answer your question the best I can using the numbers from the first post it seems that:

For the TSX it's .06 off the lands
For the IB's it's .09 off the lands

JJ, what you may have discovered is not necessarily that seating depth matters, but that barrel time matters.

Look how close your velocity numbers are. I'm willing to wager that if you measured the velocities of the accurate loads and the in-accurate loads, they'd be pretty darn close to each other.

By changing the seating depth, you accomplish the same thing as increasing or decreasing the powder charge: you change the barrel time a little. I don't think the bullets care much about where they are seated, I think you have tuned the load to the barrel harmonics. FWIW, Dutch.

Dutch,

No flames but I totally disagree with you. Seating depth is IMO the most important variable in tuning a handload for optimum accuracy. I've seen it too many times in the past 20+ years of handloading...

I have played a bit with IB with mixed results and the only time I have got them to shoot wel is when they were nowhere near the lands on two rifles. TSX's however I find .050 off is perfect.

martinbns, that observation is a near identical finding with my loads and rifle. As you can see I'm .09 off the lands and that is quite a distance.

Cheaha,

I agree.
How do you square that statment, if your talking about a Weatherby?
dave

That was the purpose in my original question. My best success with the TSX has been right around .050 to .055 off the lands, depending on which rifle I'm shooting. I can get great results with the TSX at this distance. I'm going to start experimenting with the Interbond 180 gr./.308 next week. I was curious to know if you had found the niche distance from the lands for it. It will save me some valuable time. Thanks for the information.

Because with the Weatherby's,you seat to mag constraints.

BT/DT.....................

Have you shot loads closer to the lands?...................

JJ the method you use works but the kicker is it is only a valid measurment for the bullet used and changeing brands, shape, or weight will change the point the ogive hits the rifleing if you use this OAL to set your die. The bullets lenghts even in the same box will vary and setting the die to a COL from measuring another bullet wont give the same result. You need to get a measurement from the ogive to the lands and use the same measurement for each bullet.
As example these are from my notes on a 708 with various 140 gr bullets, the bullet ogive is the same 0.015" from the lands in each case.
140 gr Nosler Bt COL 2.81"
140 gr Sierra Bt COL 2.735"
139 Hornady SST COL 2.825"
145 gr Speer SP COL 2.720"

A Stoney Point tool is a big aid in doing this, as is the one Sinclair makes.

Ol' Joe

Yes I have been educated on a few things here in the last week regarding some of the very fine details of making really fine loads. I have a tutor now (Jack) and a new RCBS mic to measure this with. I'm quickly closing the gap of "hunter reloader" to the very basics of "Bench rest reloader". It's a big leap from one point to te next. Something I did not fully grasp until a few weeks ago.

These guys, like you I would guess have seen the light in regards to the extreme precision that is possible to develop amazing accurate loads.

The reason I start all load development at the lands(or mag confines),is because it eliminates a buncha variables. One can ONLY go shorter,that nips 50% of the adjustment opportunity nicely.

Starting in the middle,leaves nuttin' but speculation on each side of the initial attempt,while leaving the door open to possible pressure concerns.

Now I'm a great fan of using blueprint dye,to establish a seater setting and I keep that dummy round within my die box,as a viable means of repeating the setting. Very easy to reestablish a new dummy,on a new lot of bullets,though I shop in quantity.

My seater can't know if that COAL was established in that method,or via a Sinclair or SP tool,nor does it care one whit(nor do I).

'Tis an inordinate seater,coupled with an inordinate projectile,that establishes seating depth via the tip of the boolit,rather than a "bite" closer to the ogive.

So while COAL's may fluctuate a touch,bearing surface location(ogive) and seater engagement,remain more same/same.

Too many wanna overanalyze this most basic of principles.

If you start at the start,you'll never miss a lick................

Another area in reloading that is not touched upon often is changing primers, Winchester primers are the hottest while CCI are the coolest with federal and remington in the middle. JJ if you are talking about going to the next level i highly recomend the Stony Point OAL guage very precise and thats what its all about.

Yes Sir, two cases in point. My 260 with 120 TSX. I started seating as long as they would fit in the magazine. Then started cranking them down @ a quarter turn on the seating stem. Best accuracy came at about 3/4 turn down. I don't know what the length is but the dummy round in the die box does and that makes it easy to re-establish.

OTOH I have a 223 Savage that the best accuracy with a 55 gr Vmax comes with a cartridge that is too long to fit the magazine. If I am content to shoot it single shot that is fine. If not then I got to go shorter and be satisfied with what ever I got.


BCR

I don't see that we disagree much, if at all. I did not say that seating depth did not tune a load -- I merely suggested the mechanism by which it works: changing seating depth changes the velocity of a load, which changes the barrel time of the load. Whenever you change the barrel time of a load, you tune it to that barrel's harmonics.

In this case, the gun seems particularly sensitive, and these loads appear to be on the edge of a node. When changing temperatures, the change in velocity might push it out again, which is something to consider. JJ may wish to look for the bottom velocity of this node, rather than the center; that way, when shooting at increased temps in Africa, he would not move out of the sweet spot as easily. JMO, Dutch.

Exactly my thoughts......

Completely agree!


Also agree. That's what Weatherby's sometimes very hard to tune, and why I hate Barnes bullets. Almost impossible for me to get them to shoot in ANYTHING, and damned expensive in the process.

To this date in my life the best two groups I have ever fired were both with Barnes X bullets.

The game I have seen killed with them have shown me some of the most massive trauma and spectacular performance I have ever witnessed.

You would think with those two statments I would use nothing else. Well I hate those freaking X bullets too! They about made me crazy with unpredictable penetration and bizzare bending over in the shape of a banana with no expansion. Then that great 3 shot group was followed with an 8" 3 shot group due to barrel fouling. If ever there was a bullet that fit the statement "when they work there is nothing better, but when they don't they are crap" it's the X bullet.

I've been cold towards the X because it seems every year they develope a new prototype for people to *BUY* so they can have adequate testing done in the field. Just how many versions of the X bullet do they make now?

Over the last couple years I have been following a trend with the TSX bullets and have listened closely to the friends and co-workers I have that adore them. These guys have all my respect, when they say these work, I pay attention! I would be a fool to think with my emotions and heart on this if they are infact the hottest thing going right now. I'm not wanting to be the last one on the bus after all!

I aquired a few boxes of these 165TSX bullets and tinkered with them. Fouling was not significant, certainly by a margin less then the original X bullets back around version 5 or maybe it was 6? Accuracy was no bargain at first but I have dialed in these bullets now and yesterday shot a 3 shot 3/8" single enlarged hole with them. Not too shabby and no fouling to speak of, at least no more then jacketed bullets. With the addition of Wipe out over night bore cleaner I see no issue with the fouling now at least with this pacnor barreled rifle.

I like the way they load, I like the way they seat, you can actually feel the bands as you seat the bullets. They require no crimp at all they fit so well together. I still really like the performance of bonded core bullets, but I'm not married to them. We are gonna shoot a lot of stuff with these TSX bullets this year. If the petals don't break off I'll be really happy with them I think.