Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Kissing Lands

Kissing lands is an old phrase passed on from 1960's and 1970's bench shooters. Because they do not care about velocity, only accuracy, most loads were moderate and with their custom chambered and throated barrels, many had no leade at all some leade and everything in betwen s they specified, resulting in bullets commonly found to shoot when lightly pressed against the rifling.

Sporting rifles are not chambered that way and most handloaders go for broke when determining maximum loads so the pressures are different, sometimes dramatically.

When bench shooters are determining OAL, they do it in the manner I described. There are some common factors such as Barnes recommending a longer jump to the lands for their TSX bullets but ultimately you will still read about some people who say Barnes bullets will not shoot in their rifles so they use another brand.

The truth is that any bullet can be set up for a fine tuning of accuracy potential by the method I described, that being the seat out if the groups are open and seat deeper if you get 2 togetehr and the 3rd bullet out of the group.

Sometimes these changes only need to be subtle which is why I recommend that a 1/4 turn on the seating depth be made incrementally.

Although I hate to say it, and JB opened the door on this on a recent thread, the reason you have never heard of these things is that many writers are in the "boys club".

This results in rifles being taken out of the box and photographed and never being shot, scopes being added with finger tight mounts for the photo session and generic loads being offered in the loading data. (Don't you get sick of seeing a single group? What about the other groups and then average out the accuracy results? Guilty of that one myself, because good groups make great photo's)

I have rejected and returned rifles with mechanical defects that were passed onto another writer who wrote glowingly of its accuracy without it being repaired. I have also had distributors tell me of the above scenario's they witnessed first hand all too often.

There are a few very good writers and you all know enough to sort them out and that will as JB stated, ultimatly have influence on magazine sales.

Hope this explains this practice better.

John Woods

John,

Thanks for that, very interesting indeed.

Would you care to comment why factory match ammo often shoots "very well" to "excellent" in a variety of rifles, all without OAL ever being fine tuned?

Regards,

Peter

You have been looking over my shoulder!!!!or I yours..


Excellent description.

Hey John,

Lets say you have a rifle with plenty of magazine length but that has a throat such that the bullet will be out of the case before the lands are reached. How do you personally start off? One caliber in the neck?

With so much lead do you feel your steps still apply?

Because good to excellent components are used? Also, over a course of time, some combinations..brass, primers, powder bullets, seating depth prove to work well in a varity of guns.

I also agree with aussie...all rifles are different, and bullet seating depth for each differ. With mine, I find most shoot very well seated much off the lands. A case in point, no pun intended, is my Wby...much free bore...shoots exceedingly well.
I have a bit different way to check what any new rifle likes in way of seating....I will load three seated at the lands, and three seated deeper in the case...the measurement isn`t important, cause when I shoot the gun, the two groups shot will indicate which way I need go from the initial settings.
I will pick a powder that has a load density, when maxed out, of nearly 100% for that case...IME. I then will fine tune the powder/bullet to give me max accuracy with that load.
No magic, just LOAD developement for THAT rifle.
The next gun with the same chambering will probably need different tuning.

I'd like to add something. If I'm wrong or making an incorrect statement, please comment.

John/AussieGunWriter,

In your first post on this thread you mentioned that intial OAL does not matter - but you have to start somewhere. I'm not trying to be a pain or say that's wrong, I'm only trying to add to the discussion.

Initial OAL, generally speaking, should start off with a jump to the lands of .020 or .030 with most bullets. This avoids potential pressure problems with the bullets kissing or being jammed into the lands and it's a good place to start for finding the best accuracy, generally speaking. This is dependent on whether or not magazine length will allow this. Bullets should not be seated so far out that the bullet is no longer held inside the neck by at least 2/3 of the bullet diameter. Some say not less than a full bullet diameter. Bullets should also not be seated so deep in the case that the tapered portion is inside the neck, it's rarely the case, but noteworthy when later adjusting seating depth.

Some factory rifles with a given bullet will not be able to be seated even close to the lands. Weatherby cartrdges and other magnums with free bore or a long throat makes this impossible. Some non magnum factory rifles just have a long throat just to avoid pressure issues with so many variables in factory ammo. In that case you could use the maximun allowable magazine length as a starting point. Another place to start would be the recommended OAL in a manual that lists that specific bullet.

If you have a rifle that shoots factory ammo very well and are trying to duplicate a handload with the same bullet, starting at the same OAL would be a good choice. This also could be an indication that your rifle is not so finicky about OAL.

As you said, Barnes bullets seem to be an exception to seating close to the lands. Barnes recommends starting .050 off the lands. Some folks find that seating them even further out results in best accuracy.

If you're developing a new load with only a different powder, start at the same OAL that had previously given good results. If using a different bullet that has a very similar ogive, or profile, using the same distance to the lands would make sense.

If you have a cartridge that requires crimpimg into a groove then none of this applies.

All rifles are different. Some will shoot accurately with a long jump to the lands, others a short jump, some are not so fussy and some rifles will show a huge improvement with getting OAL just right. When developing a load do not change anything but powder charge and when the best accuracy node is found then it's time to start fiddling with OAL.

These are my thoughts on this and hopefully it adds something to the discussion.

fish head

Some comments to several questions;

When I set up a cartridge for a new rifle. I set the OAL by the magazine box and then check the rounds for feeding to ensure they are not binding on the lands. As long as I have clearance to the lands and the front of the magazine box, I am ok with it.

NOTE: I have never, ever, measured distance to lands. Couldn't care less what it is.

After I begin load development, I fine tune the loads and seating at the same time as I set up a chronograph to shoot groups similtaneously.

I place high emphasis on rifle set up which means that bedding, barrel clearance, trigger, scope mounts, rings, scope, action lock up and screw tensions are important contributors in generating consistency in the grouping.

As far as factory ammo goes, It is rare for me to use it unless it is provided with test rifles. I use a little of it with self defence handguns but hand load for hunting guns, all.

The reason you will find accuracy better with premium loads is the same reason Clapton uses single amps today instead of multiple stacks and heads of 40 years ago. Quality Control is better today.

Powder is more uniform, bullets are weighted more accurately, concentricty issues have improved immensely and all the components are better evaluated prior to making up this ammo.

I would always expect even plain non premium ammo to outshoot older ammo from decades past, even when shot in the same rifles for this reason.

As a writer, I have a collection of dies that remain set up for my press so that eliminates a lot of intial set up issues and also provides uniform loads to what I have experienced in previous reviews, with the same chamberings. This helps a lot.

So does working with powders, It is rare for me to be seen with a reloading manual when I am working with a new rifle as my way is to determine what the rifle likes, not what any manual says I should use. It is common for me to spend 6-8 hours at the bench reloading and shooting groups to wring out a rifle and learn what it likes and what its accuracy potential is.

Some conponents known to work well help with this process.

I remember a .30/06 Featherweight I bought back in '93. I layed out the 4 in stock on the counter and bought the prettiest one, as I can change everything except the fence grade stock grain. I like pretty wood.

When I took the rifle to the range, I loaded 130gn Speer HP's over 58 grains of AR 2208 which is VARGET. The rifle puched 5 shots into .9MOA so I went home and set up the rile to shoot properly so I could extract the postential from the barrel.

This means bedding the action in Devcon Steel in 2 points, the recoil lug area and the tang. The trigger was lightened (too light, many think) and the barrel free floated and the barrel channel sealed.

I mounted dual dovetail Leupold mounts and scoped it with a 2-7 Leupold and went back to the range to do some serious load development.

That same rifle is a genuine .5 MOA rifle for 3 shots with an astonishing array of loads because all the potential areas of stress in the lock up have been eliminated. The scope has been changed several times.

The bottom line is that it is one hell of a .30/06 and a real keeper.

There are many, many, points to making rifles perform but for now, I need to get some work done.

ooroo,

JW

It does cure fliers from groups that have to touching and one out. i have a NULA that is a pretty picky eater and it cured the problem. There is a sweet spot with bullets in each rifle some like more of a jump than others. I came up with the method by pulling my hair out over a few rifles. I always used to seat out as far as I could but learned over the years that it is not always the best way to go. I really wish I would have read about it somewhere cause it would have saved me a lot of grief and components.

One of the things that you get in some rifles when you seat very close to the lands is pressure spikes which could lead to the so called fliers. Seating bullets back a bit will give you more even pressure in each shot. That is why I think it works anyways someone else my know more.

LOVE this attitude! Maybe if a few reloaders read this and believe it all the fixation for getting close to the lands will abate somewhat! Kudos!

Quote from the Speer reloading manual #13:

"Often, best accuracy is obtained when the bullet just clears the rifling in the chamber throat."



Quote from Accurizing the Factory Rifle by M.L. McPherson:

"..... with the bullet seated to provide the most accurate bullet to rifling jump (typically .020 to .070)...."



Quote from the Nosler reloading guide fifth edition - Proper Bullet Seating:

Step 9 Carefully measure the overall length of the dummy cartridge. This overall length is called your "rifle seating" depth.

Step 10 a. Set your seating die to seat at a depth between .015 and .03 inches less than your rifle seating depth.



Quote from Factors in Accuracy, Part 11: Handloads by John Barness

"Most factory throats are cut far larger than bullet diameter, at least at the mouth of the case, the reason many handloading gurus advise seating bullets as close to the lands as possible. Close seating doesn't allow the bullet to turn slightly sideways in the throat before slamming into the rifling."




fish head

I've got to respectfully disagree with the idea of not measuring the distance to the lands.

It's a fact that having a bullet kissing the lands or being jammed into the lands can cause pressure problems or pressure spikes to occur. I do not load to the lands to avoid this problem. What's a safe distance from the lands? I don't know - .005 or .010 is as close as I want to be.

First, from a safety standpoint. Without knowing or measuring how far off the lands a given bullet in given rifle is, it's possible, however unlikely, to seat a bullet, or to tune a load by adjusting seating depth and wind up with the bullet kissing the lands or even being jammed into the lands. With a bullet in a fully resized neck, it's possible for someone not paying careful enough attention to not notice the marks on the bullet - or a slight extra effort in closing the bolt. Unlikely, but possible.

One example I'll cite is in my 30-06. I cannot load Hornady spire points to the same OAL as Nosler partitions. Even though my magazine length allows a longer OAL, if I used that length, or the seating depth for partitions, the bullet would be jammed into the lands and pushed back by the bolt. It's a case where, measure first and then seat off the lands accordingly.

What if you developed a load at a maximun powder charge and velocity in cool weather and unknowingly had the bullet seated too far out and then fired that load in very hot weather. Additional pressure spikes on top of a hot load - not good.

Secondly from an accuracy standpoint and I'll stick with the comment I made previously: "All rifles are different. Some will shoot accurately with a long jump to the lands, others a short jump, some are not so fussy and some rifles will show a huge improvement with getting OAL just right." The quotes I used should lend some merit to the idea that seating a bullet close to the lands is best for accuracy. But again, not always. All mention measuring and using distance to the lands. It would be hard to argue against Speer, Nosler and John Barness aka Mule Deer.

Measuring the actual distance to the lands is an extra step - but it's not difficult. It gives a starting point to bullet seating depth and could avoid potential safety issues. Tuning the load as stated by AussieGunWriter is an excellent approach and good advice. I would also wholeheatedly agree that the best handload will not cure a rifle that has issues.

Best wishes,

fish head

Let me tell you another story,
I was reviewing a .300 Winchester Magnum, in a Remington 700. when I was approached by a mate to help him find a load for two different .300 Winnies he had for his two sons.

The two additional rifles were a Ruger 77 and a Sako Forester.

The distance to the lands for each would naturally be different so in my view, irrelevent to the request for common ammo.

The best accuracy in my review rifle came from a load consisting of 80gn of WMR pushing the 180 gn Failsafe bullet to 3155fps with an OAL of 3.415".

Now, both the Ruger and Sako could not accommodate that OAL with the Ruger if my memory is correct, being the shortest of the lot.

When the bullets get seated deeper the capacity is reduced. We all know that. In the end I worked out a compromise load by dropping the powder charge to 77 grains and an OAL of 3.389".

All rifles are indeed different animals, so anything quoted by me, a reloading manual or an internet site, is just a reference or point for consideration.

If I was on an internet web site and quoting my own loads and distance to lands as gospel to the masses, I would be wrong in doing so, as the above illustrates. Which one is correct for you? probably none of them as your rifle is not one of those three.

It is good to dissagree with anything because it means you are thinking. That is the safe approach to handloading.

John

There are some very knowledgeable opinions expressed here, but let me weigh in with my own experience.

Most reloading manuals are relatively conservative around max. OAL. The BEST improvement in any of my rifles--bar none--did not come from different powders, different bullets, etc. It came from measuring the max OAL for that particular rifle and bullet combination and decreasing the length of bullet jump. I'm a believer because I've seen it repeatedly with the rifles I own.

I think one thing that is being missed here is that it is important to know where or when a bullet is touching the lands because of pressure spikes and such. However it does not have to be a priority for the reloader to get as close as possible to the lands to get accuracy out of his rifle.

Take the specific bullet you'll be using, and seat it "long" in an unprimed case. Isert the bulle/case into the chamber and close the bolt. The lands will engage the bullet ogive, pushing it deeper into the case. Open the bolt, remove the unprimed case, and measure the OAL. The OAL will be for that bullet only, as ogives vary with different bullets. I record all of the different OAL's for bullets I'll be shooting in a specific rifle.

Thanks for the explanation about seating deeper to correct fliers AussiGunWriter.

Lee

Aussie your technique may allow some of my rifles that I shoot single shot because of OAL to use the magazine again. I always went for a milder load touching the lands and have had some awesome results. I will try your method as soon as my range drys some from 18" inundation.(river) Thanks for the info.

I do what Don does, seat them deeper with an 1/8 turn until the bolt will close, this is close enough to being in the lands for me and its just a data point regards that particular bullet. I then follow Johns advice after that, seat them deep enough so that they cycle properly and work from there. One reason I like the TSX, it don't care so much about jump.

The thing to remember is that if you are loading for accuracy, you shouldn't handicap yourself with "generic theory" such as "kissing the lands" or .020" off the lands. Find out what your rifle likes and to hell with what the gap is.

As I said before, I do not know a single lands clearance for any rifle I ever loaded for. You will note from my records that I do keep OAL records and these also need to be reviewed from time to time as bullet manufactuers changes bullet shapes without telling you, the consumer.

John

AussieGunWriter you should go over to Nosler reloading at the Nosler site.
http://www.noslerreloading.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12384

and explain this to sniper1379. I'm not sure why this is such a foreign idea been doing it for years.But you explain it way better than I.

Best Alan