Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters The Bullet or the Recipe Pushing It?

Gents:

I've often wondered about a rifle that simply won't shoot a particular bullet or bullet weight well. There is a thread right now in the reloading forum about shooting the 140gr TSX in the 7x57, and BSA responded, in part, "It" - the rifle - "may just not like those Barnes." I'm sure we've all had rifle bullet combinations about which we can say the same thing.

A lot is written about finding optimal charge weights, COALs, etc., in load development: all very true. But if a rifle still doesn't shoot a particular bullet very well, is it really that the barrel and bullet are incompatible, or is it that the load recipe just isn't working? In other words, is it possible to force a barrel to "like" a particular bullet by simply changing one or more of the load components (i.e., powder, case, primer)?

RM

In spite of all the advances in the shooting world, tech, gear, manufacturing, I suspect there is a LOT we don't know about what actually happens between the time the primer ignites and the bullet leaves the crown. We have all seen quotes from some of our best barrelmakers in the world, something on the order of, "there is no telling whether a given barrel will shoot or not, until you shoot it" or something along those lines. In my opinion, the famous "Houston Warehouse" tests wasn't so much about verifying what we know as telling us there is a lot we don't know...yet. Also, in my opinion, there is a physical/mathematical/engineering reason why a certain barrel seems to not like a certain bullet...we just don't have the money, motivation or determination to research it in depth. My 7x57 BRNO may be the rifle you refer to above...it has always been a problem child, my first guess is it has some built in stresses in the barrel itself that cause strange harmonic anomalies. I have tried to shoot at least 4 rather elaborate ladder tests with it and it still defies a rational diagnosis. But it's mine, and I'm going to live with it.

I gave up a long while back on a 1957 model 70 in 270. I’m a Nosler guy from head to toe. It’s my go to bullet. I picked this rifle up from my lgs and saw it was pillar bedded correctly, floated just fine. I loaded up H4831 SC and 140 grain ballistic tips , yawned, and went to the range to see if she was going to give me half inch groups or three quarter inch groups like my other pre 64’s.

I got 2 1/2” groups, with two shots here @ 1/2” and two shots @ 1/2”, 2 1/2” apart. Two years of experimenting with different powders, rebedding 3x, three scopes. Nothing changed. She was trying to tell me she hated Noslers and I was too stubborn to listen.

I had a box of TTSX’s laying there and just for kicks, before I sent her down the road, I sat em on top of 58.5 gr of H-4831sc. You know what’s next in this story I know…

Quarter inch groups.


I also had a custom 700 300 RUM rebarreled to 300 Win mag as I was tired of getting beat up at the range. The KDF muzzle brake had zero effect on recoil. It was fierce. New Bartlein barrel installed. Broke it in and wondered which Nosler it wanted. 165 grain or 180’s? Neither. Two inch groups out of a new benchrest barrel. After it was apparent this rifle too didn’t like Noslers I tried TTSXs and she liked them too. But she absolutely loves Sierra Gamechanger @ 165 grain. Bugholes.

If a rifle doesn’t like your choice of bullet I immediately think “scope”. If the scope proves ok, I look at bullets, assuming the bedding is ok.

Just a simple hick from the sticks opinion, but here goes…I get what you’re trying to say by “force”, but not sure that’s the right word. In my meager opinion, load development isn’t forcing anything, it’s merely a process to eliminate, or more to the point, minimize as many variables as possible while finding the exact combination of components to maximize accuracy in that particular rifle. In reality, if you’re chasing tiny groups, all the variables…rifle, every aspect of said rifle, every component, weather, elevation, etc, etc, etc, is actually forcing YOU to find the “sweet spot”. If you change a load and the rifle shoots better, you’ve adjusted or minimized the variables to a level more suited to that rifle. In your mind, you maybe think you’ve “forced” the rifle to “like” that load. I’m sure if rifles could think and talk, they would laugh at the notion you’ve “forced them to like a new load recipe”. If a rifle doesn’t shoot a particular recipe or bullet well, and you can narrow it down essentially to the rifle barrel twist and bullet weight/style not working well for your acceptable accuracy level, in my opinion, it’s a fool’s mission to continue trying to get 3/8” groups out of an incompatible bullet/recipe choice for that rifle. Might not be worth a plug nickel, but just my meager opinion. 😎

Doc_Holidude

Mike,

I have seen the accuracy of a specific bullet change enormously with a change in powder, and also seen the accuracy of a given bullet/powder combination change enormously with a change in primer. But have decided the case doesn't matter much IF it's dimensionally consistent, especially neck thickness.

Have used a bunch of bullets to hunt various kinds of animals from small varmints to 1500-pound big game, and have my preferences. But generally I don't try to "force" a rifle to shoot a particular bullet well, partly because there are so many good alternatives these days.

But I also get to test far more different bullets than the average hunter, and usually have plenty of options on hand--which is why my big game load development often starts with a less-expensive bullet I know should shoot well, such as a Hornady Spire Point or Sierra GameKing, of about the same weight as the "premium" bullet I plan to use. Once I determine what powder and charges the Hornady or Sierra shoots best with, I switch to the more expensive bullet. Most of the time that works--and I end up with both a sight-in/practice/"deer" load and a load for bigger game, which usually shoot to the same place at 100 yards.

There is a helpful chapter in Gack II on this subject. I know you have a copy, Rev.

I absolutely do. Thanks for the heads-up.

And thanks all for the comments.

I used MD’s advice years ago with my Sako 338 and it worked wonders. 225 grain North Forks were my chosen bullet to be used on elk. He was kind enough to suggest a 225 grain Hornady spire point and it was quickly evident that the rifle loved RL-19. When I arrived at the powder weight the Sako preferred, I loaded NF’s. Same point of impact and velocity was a close match as well. 0.4” four shot group from the NF’s. Ain’t messed with the load recipe from that point forward.

35 yrs ago I got my first Swedish Mauser. Made in early 40s. The model with the 24 inch barrel. It was my initial journey into hand loading since there was so little factory ammo for it. Norma was it. So I read everything I could get my hands on and went after it. I wanted to shoot the 129gr Honesty. Got a supply and 2or 3 appropriate powders. I struggled to make it shoot. Nothing I did seemed to work. 3-4 inch groups seemed to be the norm. About this time I heard about the Hercules Reloaded series. I got a can of 15. Groups immediately shrunk to an inch or less. I later got some 19 and accuracy was the same with a little more speed. The strange thing about this rifle is as long as I use 19, it does not matter what brand of bullet I use. I recently have changed to the 140gr SST. Does fine with 19. I have had this rifle longer than any and most likely will never leave.

I have a P64 375H&H that will shoot sub MOA groups with any bullet tried except 250's.
Also my M700 in 06 doesn't seem to like 165's except Barnes. Rifles are weird.

Might be why they are referred to in the feminine gender at times,

One of the reasons I started this thread is because I have seven or eight unopened boxes of 154-gr Interlocks, and one of my favorite hunting rifles scatters that bullet all over the place. I really want to use them in that rifle and am hoping to just tweak the powder and/or primer to get them to shoot, but we will see.

Thanks again for all the comments.

Think animating a rifle is a simple-minded practice.

A rifle... does not like or dislike.

How:
- The bullet exits the case.
- The bullet enters the rifling.
- The bullet exits the muzzle.
- The muzzle gas affects the bullet.
- The muzzle motion/position affects the bullet.

Any or all may be a problem.
The problem could be bullet/cartridge/firearm.

Observation/Investigation/Innovation.




GR

I've noticed a lot of guys spend a lot of time, effort and money trying to get a rifle to shoot well, when said rifle is not set up properly. Do that from the get go and all else is cake walk.. This schidt really isn't as hard as most of you make it out to be..

In the case of this particular rifle it's bedded (properly), scope mounts are solid, the old VX Leupold holds zero, the bench from which I test loads is rock solid, and the bags/rests are good to go. It will shoot three touching with 175-gr bullets, and the ten shot targets look like some of the ones you've posted. But I don't want to shoot 175s all the time, and would really like to shoot up some of these 154s since I have so many of them. But it sprays them over three inches at 100 yards with a couple of different recipes. Hence my question about wondering if it's the bullet that is simply incompatible or the recipe that needs to be tweaked.

Were it me, I would reference loads from several manuals and pick ones using powders I have on hand.

Load up some test loads at near max load posted and shoot all at same session to see if anything jumps out.

I almost always start with around .030" jump at ground zero, but I am about to do a test with loads at .010, .050,.090, and .130"
jump using same powder and bullets. We'll see what that tells me.

I have one of the most accurate rifles I've ever owned in a Tikka T3 Lite in 9.3 X 62. It shoots every bullet I've tried from the 232gr Oryx to the 320gr Woodleigh - sub MOA for all at max velocities, except the 270gr Speer. I've tried the usual "tricks", but nothing I've done gives better results than 2" groups of three @ 100 yards. It's very consistent with its 2" groups! Good enough for relatively close hunting but I have other bullets that can do that "way out there"!

I've wasted too much time, energy and $ so far on one bullet! No need to waste more of the same - anyone want the few remaining, they're a complete waste of my time, effort and expense! Sometimes we just need to cut our losses and move on!

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Changing quantity of powder, type of powder, seating depth, neck tension and primers will often get a particular bullet to shoot well in any particular barrel. However, in some situations you may not be able to get the bullet to shoot well no matter what recipe you use, because the particular bullet may not be compatible with the type of rifling, the exact bore dimensions across the lands and also the grooves, the lead angles etc.

My 7x57 hated corelokts and the 150 gr. Sierra Gameking, shot great with the 140 and the 160 GK's.

Mike,

It also might be a bad batch of bullets--though if that particular lot has shot well in other rifles that's unlikely.

One thing I learned when fooling with a Juenke machine for a couple of years is that not only do bullets vary in "balance" from lot to lot, but can be damaged enough in shipping to result in decidedly mixed accuracy.

Though the problem certainly can be a specific bullet not matching well with a rifle's chamber/throat/barrel. Which is why when I find a certain bullet not responding to trying different variables (powder, seating depth, and even primer) I tend to move on. There are too many good bullets these days to keep trying and getting the same results. Though I do tend to have more different bullets on hand than most handloaders--generally at least a dozen and often twice that many in any caliber.

In my opinion, the answer is yes. For a stubborn rifle/bullet combination the question becomes, how many resources are you willing to continue to expend. I think that's why, subconsciously, we have many threads, on this forums or others, wherein people ask for the loads of other members with respect to a specific cartridge, bullet, powder, brass or primer or a combination thereof.

You won't force it to shoot.

It will force you to try something different until you find that magical recipe unless it just happens to be junk and won't shoot.

My only real example of taking a gun that was a shiitshow and then found what it liked was a Ruger 77 MKII that did not like a boat tail bullet, 3" groups. Stuffed a flat based Sierra in it and 3 shots under 3/4" was the norm.

Had a Savage LR Hunter 25-06 that was a pretty good shooter staying just around an inch but a CCI Mag primer made it a 1/2-5/8" gun. Same charge and bullet just swapped primers.

This might be one of the more useful recent discussions on here. I don't want to think about the $$$ and time I often waste deciding on a bullet and then trying to force it to shoot out of a certain rifle when some other basically similar bullet shoots fine.

And then there is concentricity. Some seating dies don't match up well with certain bullets and tend to induce runout that the handloader might not notice. Another bullet choice might load true and shoot much better.

Yep--and yet a lot of handloaders STILL never test for bullet concentricity, yet bitch about a certain bullet not shooting well.

However, a lot depends on your standards. Have mentioned before that 1-1/2", 3-shot groups at 100 yards will work for typical deer hunting (or even pronghorns) out to 300 yards or so--if the shooter's competent.

But I also know one handloader who brags that his big game rifles are "really accurate" when 100-yard groups average around 1-1/2". He also brags that he's never tested any of his handloads for bullet concentricity....

Some of the same guys are weighing charges to the nearest 1/10 of a gnat's ass and have no idea if their cartridges are straight.

Yep!

As mentioned above, I know one handloader who brags that he's never checked bullet alignment on his rounds. But he's also stated that one of his rifles really shoots well, as in 1-1/2 inch 3-shot groups at 100 yards.

Your standards, and your TIME and MONEY. I might be a bit bull headed,(or too cheap) but any of my rifles that shoot lights out, keep getting fed that load. I don’t want to spend the time or money trying to “make” it shoot a different bullet, even if I have a ton of other bullets to choose from. I love shooting, and love small groups, but I’d rather sell bullets that don’t work for me and that rifle, than burn money trying to “make” them work. Like I said though…I may be a bit bull headed. Happy shooting!

Doc_Holidude

I’ve tested concentricity a bunch. It’s necessity is a bit over blown. Within reason.

How do you define "within reason?"

Just curious, partly because quite a few people have done considerable research on the subject.

I know. I just did a quick google on it. The 1000 yard group guys seem to think it’s largely overblown as well.

Could you provide a link?

Here is one. I would have said 10. But he is saying 15 thou.

Variable probably matter and in every case some perhaps more than others. Every load or recipe is it's own animal I'd wager.

Personally I think all of it gets overblown once a load that performs is found to work. The big enchilada is really being practical and skilled at field positional shooting. I've prac5iced this year and can get acceptable results to 400yd distance but farther I'm only capable off my pack, in the prone, or rested on something then it's easy peasy.

Thank the good Lord I'm blessed in my location to be able to practice in canyons and steep high angle field positions and practicing even a little has vastly made the biggest difference.

pathfinder76,

The video's interesting, but it depends on what the purpose of the load is, the rifle, etc. etc.

One of my local friends is a 1000-yard benchrest shooter (which is a different game than F-class) who twice broke the world record for a 5-shot group. Both groups were around 2.5 inches--about 1/4 MOA. I can assure you he pays very close attention to every detail of his handloads, including bullet concentricity.

I got my first alignment gauge around 30 years ago, an RCBS Casemaster, and the instructions suggested that .003 maximum run-out worked best with varmint loads, and .003-.005 in big game loads. I have pretty much found that to be true, though often it varies depending on the rifle, especially with factory rifles, because their chambers and bores aren't as tight or precise.

If the chamber and barrel is a good custom job, it tends to makes more difference, even with factory ammo. One test I ran was with Hornady Light Magnum factory 7x57 ammo. The rifle was a custom with a tighter chamber/throat than usual, and as I recall a Hart barrel, and was going to be used on a Coues deer hunt in Mexico that was coming up quickly. Rather than try to work up a load, I decided to see how the factory ammo shot. (Coues deer are typically even smaller than pronghorns. The chest depths of the ones I've measured have gone 12-13 inches, from back to brisket, including hair--which means a vital area of about half that. Since they're often shot at longer ranges, accuracy does help.)

I'd purchased three boxes of the ammo at a store in Wyoming, which was loaded with the 139-grain Hornady boat-tail Spire Point Interlock. I sorted the three boxes by bullet run-out, to basically the same standards RCBS suggested, less than .003, .003-.005, and over .005. As I recall some of the rounds were up to .007 or so.

Then I shot a 3-shot group with each batch, in very calm conditions. The over-.005 group went 1.59 inches, the .003-.005 batch went 1.03, and the less than .003 batch .74. Shot another 3-shot group on arrival at the hunting camp in Sonora, which went around half an inch.

As it turned out I didn't have to shoot at 400+ yards, but only around 220. But if the shot had been at 400, the over-.005 ammo would have grouped around 6 inches MINIMUM at 400. Theoretically this is good enough for 6-inch vital area--if the shooter's hold is perfect, and wind isn't a consideration. Have made the same sort of tests in varying mounts of wind, and even a pretty mild breeze, say 5 mph, can increase group size by at least 50%, especially in mountainous country, where winds can go in any direction.

Some target games require more accuracy than others, and not just 1000-yard benchrest shooting but "short-range" bench shooting. My 6mm PPC benchrest rifle will consistently put 5 shots into less than .2 inch with its best loads, and has averaged .15 during some load work-up, in perfect conditions. But it will NOT do that if bullet concentricity is over .0005 inch--and that is NOT a misplaced decimal. That's the maximum run-out of my handloads. With even .002 runout, group sizes double.

I also prefer minimum run-out in my varmint loads, especially for burrowing rodents, because even a big prairie dog isn't wider than 3 inches--which is a pretty small target at, 500 yards. Young Richardson's ground squirrels are often only an inch wide--a pretty small target at 300 yards. To be able to consistently hit them, even in very little wind, requires sub-half-inch accuracy at 100 yards. And yes, I try to load so bullet run-out is .002 or less, because have found it does make a difference, even at only 200-300 yards in typical wind conditions.

Should also point out that the 3-shot groups many big game hunters typically shoot do NOT reflect the average widest spread of a rifle and load. Five shots come closer to maximum spread, and are what I shoot when accuracy really matters--because 5-shot groups average about 1.5 times as large as 3-shot groups. (Statistically, 6-shot groups tend to show a rifle/load's realistic maximum spread slightly better than 5-shot groups, but shooting them would confuse readers.)

I've tried to force feed several rifles my bullet of preference. I've shot $1000s in components trying to do so. Nosler are my bullet of choice normally - but there are a bunch of good options these days. My normal progression is Nosler PT, Nos AB, Fed Trophy Bonded. I've been able to make one of those 3 work. Lately I've been on a mono kick. Nos etip and TTSX are my choices. I've yet to have a rifle not shoot either, and many times both, of those 2 monos.

I also do the same with powder. I've narrowed my powder choices to those that fall in the less temperature sensitivity range. Alot of Hod Extreme, some newer IMRs, some Aliants.

I've sold rifles that didn't play well with my preferred bullets/powders rather than spend a pile of money trying to solve an issue. If it is bedded correctly, has known mounts/scopes, and won't shoot - it goes down the road or gets rebarreled. Rebarrelling solves alot of angst and issues. And in the end is way cheaper than starting over with a new rifle.

I also learned the value of concentric ammo from MD - thank you again! Once I started measuring and straightening, most of the weirdness went away. When I got my tools, I was surprised to see how much my ammo varied. In the same box, some were within 0.002, but went to 0.025 if my memory serves me correctly. I would get alot of 2 tougher, 3rd out groups in those days. Not so much any more. Good discussion.

I'm suspicious of that.

I'm suspicious of that.[/quote]

Laughing. Be suspicious of it all you like. Test it yourself.

What is "bullet concentricity" and how is it measured?

Laughing. Be suspicious of it all you like. Test it yourself.[/quote]

Would like to hear your own tests, instead of what you Googled up....

I agree. I started chasing concentricity in my loads several years ago and never realized gains in accuracy.

Good, consistent neck tension yields better results IMO.

Again, would like to hear about your tests.

I've described just some of mine, but have many other examples.

Would agree that consistent neck tension is part of it, partly because that usually implies consistent neck thickness and sizing--which usually results in more consistent bullet alignment.

Not trying to start an argument, but in my limited testing the gains in accuracy I've seen have been due to consistent neck tension.

I bought a Remington 308 5R a few years ago and bought 200 rounds of Lapua 167 gr match ammo with it to have the great brass for reloading. The match ammo was 1/2 MOA or better, fantastic stuff. 10 shot groups with no flyers into a ragged hole without really trying. So I started testing loads with this brass and was getting my best results with Hornady 168 gr AMAX bullets but not quite a good as the Lapua. My reloads were sized with a Forster FL sizing die and my bullet runout was consistently.0015 -.003 seated with a Forster Micrometers die.

I decided to measure bullet runout on some of the Lapua match ammo and to my surprise it was .003 to .006. I decided to buy a Redding bushing neck sizer die to see if results improved. I used a .336 bushing and sized about 2/3 of the neck. Concentricity also improved to consistently under .0015 bullet runout.

The results were improved accuracy without flyers for this gun. I've bought a few more of Reddings FL bushing dies for some of my other guns and have also seen some improvement in the little amount of shooting I've had time for in the last couple of years.

Certainly not a scientific analysis, but my limited results show that sizing brass for consistent neck tension will yield better accuracy. Yes, concentricity also improves when sizing with bushing dies set up properly, but I was already getting concentricity of .004 or less using standard FL sizing dies.

I would never try to compare my shooting experience with yours, and one reason I tried the bushing die was from watching your reloading video. It's just my opinion from my comparatively limited experience that good consistent neck tension will improve accuracy, and better concentricity is a byproduct of better neck tension, not the primary cause for improved accuracy.

Hmm.

Here's what you found with your one "experiment":

"I decided to measure bullet runout on some of the Lapua match ammo and to my surprise it was .003 to .006. I decided to buy a Redding bushing neck sizer die to see if results improved. I used a .336 bushing and sized about 2/3 of the neck. Concentricity also improved to consistently under .0015 bullet runout.

"The results were improved accuracy without flyers for this gun. I've bought a few more of Reddings FL bushing dies for some of my other guns and have also seen some improvement in the little amount of shooting I've had time for in the last couple of years."

Am puzzled about how you came to the conclusion that the improvement in accuracy was due to more consistent neck-tension in your handloads rather than bullet run-out--especially when "concentricity also improved to consistently under .0015"--especially during "the little amount of shooting I've had time for in the last couple of years."

Would like to hear your own tests, instead of what you Googled up....[/quote]

John, I shoot 1000’s of rounds some years (not this year) and have been handloading pretty seriously for 30 years. I used to chaise concentricity like it was the holy grail of accuracy. Why wouldn’t I? It’s all anyone could talk about at times. If you had flyers it must be crooked ammo. Right?

I bought die’s after die’s trying to eliminate one or two thou runout, had custom die’s made, went exclusively to a Forster Co-Axe, had bushings made, honed necks etc. This messing around with the necks of die’s was pretty much the catalyst that made me think twice about runout.

All this time I was thinking about annealing as well. For 20 years I have annealed brass. With candles, propane, using fingers, tempilaq, salt bath, and finally now an AMP. honestly if you aren’t using an AMP all you are doing is preventing split necks (now that ought to create angst).

Here is what I think. The idea that brass is the least important part of the handloaders recipe is nonsense. Why? Because the single biggest factor I have found in group consistency (not necessarily group size) is neck tension. To get consistent neck tension you need good brass, you need good dies and you need consistent annealing. Or no annealing at all.

In all of this, I also started to see runout not rearing it’s ugly head like I thought it should. Over the last couple of years I have tested that theory and have found loads with even 0.010 of runout landed right where they were supposed to. If you are getting more runout than that I’d suggest a mechanical overhaul.

I also think that powder charge matters (I use a lab grade scale), seating depth is huge (though seating depth close to, or into the lands is far from necessary or even preferred).

I’m no expert, but I’m not exactly green either. I’m developing loads in a hunting rifle context. I have my own private 1000 yard range and use it. If you are struggling with your groups I’d certainly not blame runout right away. It may not be the culprit at all.

I've shot a couple thousand rounds with the 308 rifle I mentioned. Accuracy was better after switching to the bushing dies even though my concentricity was already within the .003 limits you have mentioned. And the very accurate factory ammo was less concentric than these limits.

Do you think improving concentricity by .0015 is the reason for better accuracy?

Or could it be something else?

It’s something else.

I'm not a benchrest shooter but have been reloading for 40+ years. On neck tension, I bought a Forster neck tuner, ran batches of cases though the process, by hand I was surprised how much neck thickness varied within an identical batch of cases. I still beleive neck tension, as proxied by neck turning, and concentric ammo play well together and result in the most accurate ammo. At least in my mind based on what I've tried over the past 10 years or so. I've yet to try benchrest dies mainly because MOA or better works for me. I really don't care if my hunting rifles shoot 0.5 MOA or 1 MOA. I dont shoot beyond 400 yards so it's pointless for me to add more frustration into the hunting equation. I spend my time training and finding elk and deer rather than chasing another 0.25 MOA.

patherfinder76 and AU338MAG,

Where did I write that bullet concentricity is THE answer to accuracy?

There are a bunch of factors that go into rifle accuracy, and some of them will vary a little depending on the type of shooting--as I mentioned earlier in this thread. But the reason I often emphasize bullet concentricity is that while I write for a wide variety of readers, the most common is the average hunter who handloads, who's often looking for something as basic as CONSISTENT 1-inch accuracy at 100 yards, usually when firing 3-shot groups.

One of the first things I suggest is measuring bullet run-out. Why? Because if it's excessive, it's a definite symptom that something's wrong with their set-up and/or technique. There may be other problems (and usually are) but until they can turn out ammo with consistent bullet concentricity in the .003" range, then they're wasting their time on other stuff--such as weighing every powder charge to .1 grain.

The causes vary, but perhaps the most common is uneven case-neck thickness, which of course results in inconsistent neck tension--which is of course a major factor, especially with a lot of common factory brass.

But bullet concentricity can also be caused by several other problems, such as as case necks being pulled out of line by the expander ball--and there several possible problems there as well. Another common cause is how well the bullet matches up with the seating stem. Annealing is of course another possibility.
All of this is why I constantly experiment with various rifles, cartridges, components, scopes, shooting techniques etc.

It's also why I bought my benchrest rifle. I have little interest in shooting in matches (though have won or placed in some informal ones over the years), but wanted own a rifle accurate enough to be able to isolate various factors in accuracy--though noted earlier, these can vary somewhat with the quality of the rifle, and even if it's of high quality, whether it's designed to be basic hunting rifle other a benchrest rifle. It doesn't make any noticeable difference in many hunting rifles to go through ALL the steps of making benchrest ammo, because in all likelihood the case are going to be full-length sized for sure and easy chambering under hunting conditions, which often involve complications such as dust, moisture, etc. So there's going to be a little variation in the way the bullet enters the rifling, even if there's zero detectable bullet run-out or very consistent neck tension. Which is why .003" of run-out generally gets all the accuracy possible out of "standard" hunting ammo.

But if we're discussing the finest accuracy possible in a short-range benchrest rifle then the game changes. There can be detectable differences in accuracy due to neck tension, bullet seating depth, and even a slight amount of bullet run-out. Quite often such rifles respond best to the bullet being jammed into the rifling--and accuracy can even vary on how "hard" the bullet's jammed.

How much neck tension is required is another interesting question, one of the reasons I've experimented considerably with annealing, including methods from candle flames to an AMP. Have also experimented with whether annealing brass after every firing makes a difference: One of the experiments I ran with my bench rifle was NOT annealing the cases for up to four firings--but making sure all the cases used to shoot test-groups had been fired the same number of times since the last annealing. I could not find any significant difference in average groups sizes, whether the cases had just been or annealed, or all fired 4 times--but could see a difference if cases fired a varying number of times were used in shooting groups And as mentioned in my earlier post, this rifle is capable of consistent 5-shot groups of well under .2 inch.

But even the simplest annealing method can result in vast improvement in accuracy. One of my several "accuracy gunsmith" friends called me 2-3 years ago, because a 7mm Remington Magnum he'd just built would not group three shots under two inches at 100 yards, and some groups were even bigger. Now, he's not an accuracy handloader. I believe he may check bullet concentricity by rolling rounds across a flat surface to see if there's any apparent bullet-tip wobble (if there isn't, concentricity is generally no more than .005"), but he doesn't uniform brass, or often even fire it more than once. Generally he loads new brass, and gets 3-shot groups well under an inch on his indoor range from the rifle's he builds.

We ran through a bunch of possibilities, and finally I asked if he'd tried annealing the brass. Turned out he'd never annealed brass in his life. But some factory brass can miss getting annealed, or be annealed erratically. Of course, he didn't want to buy any sort of even moderately expensive annealing equipment, so I described the candle method, and told him it could also be used with a propane torch. He called me back a few hours later to say the rifle was now shooting half-inch groups.

Also experimented with a Juenke machine for a couple of years, to see how much difference bullet "balance" made in accuracy. Of course, it turned out to make considerable difference, and not just in match bullets but hunting bullets. Turned out a batch of 165-grain, .30-caliber Nosler Partitions I'd been using for several years in various rifles were almost as perfectly balanced as typical Bergers--and the Partition had grouped extremely well in rifles from a couple of .308 Winchesters to various .300 magnums.

But once again, my point about bullet concentricity is NOT that it's the ultimate answer to rifle accuracy, but that it's something to start with when a typical hunting handloader wants to build more accurate handloads, because it leads to finding where the problems lie. Neck tension is one, of course, but there are several potential causes for problems there--which often leads those handloaders into other techniques, from brass sorting to neck-turning to annealing.

I have always prided myself on being able to fix 90% of the accuracy issues at the loading bench.But currently I have a .243 that doesn't 'like' 95 gr. NBTs Odd cause Ive always had easy luck getting NBTs to shoot in anything.Anyway I tried everything you mentioned plus seating depths....nada.

Could it be the crown configuration, even if it's even, just doesn't get along with the different little boat tail Nosler uses?

It has seemed in some of your writings, posts and videos that achieving very concentric ammo was the key to more accurate ammo, but maybe I misunderstood what you have been saying.

I agree that non concentric ammo is a symptom of something else being wrong with the process. It could be a bad sizing die, seating stems not matching the bullet, bad brass or bad loading technique. Inconsistent brass is the worst, which is why I try to buy as good of quality brass as is available for a cartridge, but sometimes I got stuck with using poor quality brass for a cartridge like a 7x57. Yes, Nosler makes brass for this cartridge but it is outrageous in price so I'm using Remington and Winchester brass, which is the worst brass I've ever measured. Variance of .003 in neck thickness and bullet runout of .005 -.010. I'm getting acceptable accuracy in my old Ruger M77 but it's been damn near impossible to get good accuracy in my brother's M70 FW. 140 partitions group into about 4", but I've been able to get 139 gr Hornady SP to 1-1/2 inch groups.

I will never be confused for a competition shooter, but I've been rolling my own ammo for over 35 years. I load for hunting rifles, not benchrest guns, but I try to use loading technique used by competition shooters. Many of these shooters are obsessed with preparing brass for consistent bullet release, and are not concerned with bullet runout. Consistent seating pressure is what they're trying to achieve.

Maybe it's another rabbit hole to go down, but that's what rifle looneys do.

Odd...

I've used different bullets to check accuracy over the years. In 6mm I liked the
Speer 90 Spitzer, or the Sierra 85 bthp.

Last few years I just grab some Nosler BTs in either 70 or 95 gr configuration.

If a rifle won't shoot them???

AU338MAG,

Twenty years ago typical Remington and Winchester brass was pretty good. I used to sort it for even neck thickness, no more than .001" from one side of the neck to the other, and end up only rejecting 10-15% of the cases. But that changed over the next decade or so, to the point where sometimes I only found 15% of the cases met my standards--so I started using better brass, such as Lapua.

But in recent years quite a few other good brands have appeared--and around 4-5 years ago I also discovered Hornady brass had become much better dimensionally. In fact, I bought some of their .275 Rigby brass, partly to test one of the new Rigby rifles for an article. Didn't buy that rifle (even with the writer's discount it would have been more than I wanted to pay!), but a year or so later did trade into one of Ruger's "African" Hawkeyes in .275, which shot very well using the Hornady brass, as around .7 inch with 140 Partitions. Have also had recent luck with Hornady 7mm Remington Magnum brass, which turned out to basically match quality--and while it cost more than Remington or Winchester, it wasn't nearly as much as Lapua or Nosler.

There are some other good brands that aren't an arm and a leg, which I mentioned in an article for HANDLOADER a couple years ago, and republished in somewhat different form as a chapter in GUN GACK III.

I have bought some of the 275 Rigby brass but have not had a chance to try it out. I changed jobs and moved to another city and my shooting time has been severely limited over the last couple of years. Winchester brass used to be good years ago but the last couple of batches I've bought have not been good. 300 WM and especially the 7x57 brass has been the worst I've ever measured. No technique can make bad brass good.

Nosier brass has been very good in my experience. I bought Nosler 257 Roberts brass about 10 years ago when I bought a Bob and is haven't even had to trim it through 5 or 6 loads. Only compliant I've had with their brass is the primer pockets usually need a good uniforming or I can't seat the primers properly.

I don't want to get into an argument with you about the concentricity issue. I certainly have less experience than you, but after spending years sorting ammo by bullet runout, I never saw any significant difference in accuracy between low run out and those with more than.003 runout. It's just an opinion based on my experience. I don't expect benchrest accuracy from my hunting rifles, but I do expect and can achieve MOA or better from all of my rifles with one or two exceptions. My 35 Whelan AI is a 1-1/2 MOA gun, but that's not bad and it's certainly not a long range gun with 250 gr RN bullets. Guns that I will use for long range hunting I want to get 1/2 MOA accuracy and can with a handful of guns. When I refer to long range I'm thinking out to 600 yards, which is a self imposed limit which I will only try if conditions are right.

[quote=Mule Deer]
But in recent years quite a few other good brands have appeared--and around 4-5 years ago I also discovered Hornady brass had become much better dimensionally. In fact, I bought some of their .275 Rigby brass, a year or so later did trade into one of Ruger's "African" Hawkeyes in .275, which shot very well using the Hornady brass, as around .7 inch with 140 Partitions. [quote=Mule Deer]


I'm shooting the Hornady .275 Rigby brass in my Ruger African, with 150 gr NBTs, it is superbly accurate.

As noted in one of my earlier posts I HAVE seen considerable difference in accuracy depending on bullet run-out--even in factory ammo, as was the case with the custom 7x57 and Hornady ammo I noted. Have also seen similar results with other brands of factory ammo.

Might also mention that several of my reference books on accurate rifles and ammo do mention bullet alignment, especially two benchrest books, Extreme Rifle Accuracy by Mike Ratigan, and The Ultimate in Rifle Accuracy, by Glenn Newick. David Tubb's book The Rifle Shooter, also mentions it in a different way, because he often prefers to do the final seating of the bullet when chambering the rounds, so the bullet is centered and aligned by the rear of the lands. I also recall reading somewhere--probably in one of my other books such as The Benchrest Primer, a collection of articles from Precision Shooting magazine--about a test made with the "high" side of slightly misaligned bullets marked, which demonstrated that if the rounds were all inserted in the chamber with mark in the same attutude, whether up, down or sideways, that they grouped smaller. Another test was to insert the rounds with the mark turned to different points. I seem to recall it was written by Creighton Audette, a noted competitive shooter, gunsmith and writer, who was responsible for a number of innovations, but could be wrong.

But I also mention bullet alignment frequently partly because so many handloaders don't have any idea how much it can affect accuracy, or that it even exists. This especially applies to new handloaders--and a BUNCH have started recently. Plus, one of the realities of magazine writing is some turnover of readers: One BIG magazine I was a staff writer for in the 1990s figured they had an almost complete turnover of subscribers about every three years. That's not nearly as true of gun magazines, but still a factor. So some stuff needs to be repeated periodically--especially since so many new handloaders believe weighing charges to .1 grain will make a huge difference in hunting-rifle ammo, when other factors are far more important.

I would imagine that one reason some competitive shooters don't mention bullet alignment is they worked any problems out years ago, and use loading equipment that minimizes run-out. As a result they don't worry about it. I certainly don't when loading my uniformed brass for the 6mm PPC bench rifle, because I know that brass in my dies will result in alignment well under .001".

But also, as previously mentioned, I know that when hunting handloaders having trouble getting the accuracy they desire, that if they become aware of bullet alignment it becomes a "gateway drug" to improving their brass, tools and other techniques to eliminate potential problems.

Laughing. Be suspicious of it all you like. Test it yourself.[/quote]

You think I haven't? Just a few days ago, I tested my 6PPC rounds with less than .0005 runout, against the loads that came with the rifle that had the necks running out .0025, and the bullet .005. Same bullets and powder all from the same boxes. Mine went .147, the others went .656. Shot over windflags as well. All I know is, when someone tells me concentricity doesn't matter, they don't have any idea WTF they are talking about, and anything they are bloviating about isn't worth listening to.

AU338MAG,

I was wrong about the experiments of bullet concentricity being done by Creighton Audette--though he may have done something similar. I found one such test in the book RIFLE ACCURACY FACTS, by Harold R. Vaughan--an actual rocket scientist, who started out studying the trajectory of artillery rounds, but moved on to rockets, and eventually headed the Aeroballistics Division of Sandia National Laboratories (a division of the National Nuclear Security Administration) in New Mexico.

But he was also a rifle loony, who performed a number of scientifically based tests and modifications on one of his hunting rifles, in order to isolate and solve various aspects of accuracy. He used a lot of high-tech tools and measurement devices not available to most handloaders, and among his findings he proved that seating bullets even a little "crooked" resulted in definite (and pretty predictable) deflection during flight, due to powder gas escaping slightly sooner on one side of the bore at the muzzle than the other.

The book was published in 1998 by Precision Shooting, which is where I bought my new copy for something like $30. Used copies run for $200-$400, depending on condition, but a PDF scan can also be found on the Internet. The relevant information begins on page 133, under the heading Canted Bullet Test.

John:

Although quite a bit slower, have you found that Wilson-type seating dies result in less concentricity, assuming case necks are of uniform thickness and correctly sized?

No, I haven't.

In fact have found that type of die (which also includes the basic Lee Loader) usually results in very concentric seating--and neck-pull--IF the necks are either sorted or turned for uniform thickness.

In fact, around 15 years ago I decided to try a Lee Loader again, after not having used one for many years. (Started both rifle and shotgun handloading with them as a 13-year-old.) Noticed they made them in .22 Hornet, and since I had a very accurate Ruger No. 1B Hornet, ordered one.

That rifle would average well under an inch for 5-shot groups at 100 yards, but with the Lee Loader it would put 5 under half an inch. In fact, the last group I shot during the test not only measured .43 at 100, but four of 'em went into .18!

Thanks, John. I typed "concentricity" but meant to type "run-out." In any event, you answered the question I intended to ask.

There are too many good bullets around to mess with something that defies logic.
I have been using `154gn Hornady's for years to form cases for a 280AI simply because it and my other 7mm rifles either side of that velocity range, will not shoot them well. This points a finger at the bullet more than the rifles in this particular case, with this particular batch of bullets.

When you have a rifle that shoots sub MOA with some reliability, it makes it harder to accept a 2+ inch group from the same rifle. Some times it is bullet defects such as weight variation, caliber variation or being under sized for the caliber, internal issues or what ever. Powder variation less so as I have seen bench rest shooters tweak powder charges using a powder thrower at the bench not bothering to record the charge until they find one they like. The accuracy levels they seek are beyond usual factory rifles and shooter ability, indicating that to some degree, powder charge variation is not the primary culprit.

Now, changing a primer can make a difference. Not every time and not with every bullet and cartridge combo, but often enough to take it seriously. I often change primers when developing loads to determine favoritism from the rifle.

Rev Mike,

when I find a bullet that just doesn't like to shoot the only fix I have found is seat the bullet as deep as possible. IMO some bullets throat combos do not match up well however a long jump can sort that out sometimes.

Trystan

Assuming all your loading steps & parameters are done correctly, I'm past the point of wasting a lot of time on finicky rifles.................it will have to be something very, very special in order to make me want to keep it if it is.

Over the years, I now want a rifle that's not very finicky & will generally shoot most (good) bullets & powder combinations well.

I generally start load work with NBT's, as in most calibers & weights, they generally are reliable for beginning load testing.

YMMV

MM

Once again, thanks for all the comments. They're helpful.

With respect to concentricity and the impact that inconsistent neck thickness has on it, I know that this is one of the reasons necks are often turned, especially when using a bushing neck sizing die. I'm wondering if using a Lee collet die, which would push the variation to the outside of the neck instead of the inside, eliminates both the need to turn the necks as well as any inconsistencies in concentricity resulting from inconsistencies in neck thickness (and thereby minimizing run-out). What do you think? I know Mathman is a big fan of the collet die.

I've found Lee collet dies do help bullet concentricity somewhat when loading brass with inconsistent neck thickness--but inconsistent neck thickness still results in somewhat inconsistent neck-pull during firing. Which is why I tend to buy brass with consistent necks, no matter what sizing die I'm using.

The Lee collet die is in my experience very good for assembling straight cartridges with less than perfect brass. But, like John says, that won't eliminate irregularities in the way sub optimal brass lets go of the bullets. It is better than being crooked on top of it however.

I bought a Tikka 25-06 for the wife about 6-8 years ago and worked up some Nosler Ballistic tips in it. It would shoot 5 shot groups that a dime would cover consistently. Then we got a lease that was so thick if the deer did not drop in his tracks , you stood a very good chance of not finding him. No exit hole so very poor blood trail so I decided to try some Nosler Partitions, knowing she would get an entrance and an exit with a good blood trail. After about 200 loads with 2 different weight partitons, 3 different powders, different seating depths and even different primers I gave up trying the Partitions. I even packaged up what I had left and mailed them to Montana. Daniel

Yep!