Standard Deviations Deciphered

Nice presentation. The graphics are clearly a step above and indicate some capabilities and resources being spent.

Is this just due to your interest in making YT videos or are these capabilities from your other life?
 
Nice presentation. The graphics are clearly a step above and indicate some capabilities and resources being spent.

Is this just due to your interest in making YT videos or are these capabilities from your other life?

I've learned that the ability to tell stories is one of the most important skills you can learn in life. When you're good at it, people naturally open up. In business, I find it's easier to tell stories when you have some nice "pictures" to go along with it, so it's a skill I've developed in my 25+ years in my current career, though it's not my primary profession.

I have a much longer answer as to why storytelling is important that has to do with brain chemistry and the listeners' reactions to a good story, but it's too much to go through just writing. I've put the skills to good use in business, and I enjoy doing it in the realm of ELR shooting.
 
I just posted a new video looking at standard deviations and their impact on vertical dispersion at range. The video also goes into my process, and delves into the work I've done messing (literally) with neck lube, and includes data from my recent experiments.


Great Job. I only wish I had the time and patience to put together a presentation like this. I went to your channel and watched the Recoil videos and you did an excellent job on those. Like @RegionRat, I'm curious as to your background.
 
Like @RegionRat, I'm curious as to your background.

I don't tend to go into a ton about myself here, but here goes (it's a bit of a story - but you asked for it!)

When I was six years old, my mother got me up in the middle of the night to watch one of the moon landings on our 19" black and white TV. There are only a few things that will keep in someone's memory throughout their life. For me, that was one of them. I decided right then and there that I wanted to be in the space program - later I would add to that that I would also fly a plane to work - I was six, what do you want?

Everything I did in my education from that point was geared towards landing a job with NASA. I got into AP math classes in high school, and landed in a top engineering school in college. I got an aerospace engineering degree and immediately started looking for my dream job. Along the way, I turned down a few gigs, including one with a defense contractor, and another testing air-to-air missiles at Patuxent. Finally, due to luck as much as anything else, I got a call from NASA at Kennedy Space Center and landed a job as a Spacecraft Payload Operations Engineer. It was okay, but just okay. Operations wasn't what I wanted to be doing.

Eventually, I met someone from the Space Shuttle Experiment Engineering group and I transferred over. In my opinion, it was the coolest job you could have at NASA. We were hands on - installing every experiment that flew on the Space Shuttle. We would train astronauts, perform experiment testing, and put in any time-critical science as close to launch as possible. We were the second to last people onboard the Orbiter prior to launch - the last being the folks who strapped in the crew. On landing, we were the second people back onboard - the first being the same folks who put the crew in taking them out. We'd take all the time-critical science back out and deliver it to the experimenters. As an aside, my coolest "delivery" was at Edwards AFB. The Orbiter would land on their 15k-foot long strip on the dry lake bed, but the experimenters for this one experiment were in a hangar were at the aux base to the north. They didn't want to wait the amount of time it would take to drive the science all the way around the lake bed, so they chartered a Lear that took off from the south base and flew the few miles to the north base - I got to ride along in what was probably one of the shortest charter jet flights ever.

Anyway, fast forward a number of years and I found myself getting bored. It was still pretty cool work, but one mission to the next was essentially the same thing. None of my "next jobs" at the Space Center were all that appealing. We had been doing some cool stuff at the Space Center over the internet, so I got into that and eventually started a one-man company doing internet development. I paired up with another engineer and we started a company together. This company sold a couple years later to one in the payments industry. I've been working in that space ever since.

Now, you might say, "payments? Really? You went from climbing around spaceships to working in payments?" It took 17,000 people working in various capacities about nine months to prepare and launch a Space Shuttle. Two-hundred and fifty thousand parts went into it. It has nothing in complexity over payments. I've been in the industry as a product executive for 25+ years and I've never been bored - I can't stand being bored.

On the personal side of things, I've tried to satisfy my insatiable anti-boredom by doing one complex thing (usually expensive) after another.

- Skydiving: it's the same frikking thing over and over - BORED!
- Scuba Diving: Yeah, different destinations, but the same - BORED!
- Instrument-rated Private Pilot: story for another occasion, but after 1000 hours in... BORED! - I did end up flying to work, though :)
- Written/been issued 5 patents - BORING FROM THE BEGINNING!
- Written 2 novels and 2 non-fiction books - not exactly boring, but really tedious
- ELR Shooting: NOT BORED!!!

With ELR, there's always something else to learn, and there's no better way to learn something than to teach it. That's why I do the videos. It's like product development, it forces you into thinking about all the angles, all the reasons why. It makes you look at things in ways you haven't before. As an example, on this last video, I always knew low SDs were important, and strived for ways to bring them down, but I had never taken the time to think about what the actual impacts were. Visualizing it brought it all home. The same thing goes for my recoil videos. I had known much of this stuff and was pretty good at recoil management, but going through the process of making the videos caused me to look at a whole different side of it and substantially changed my approach to setting up behind the rifle for ELR.

You can always look at what other people do and try to emulate them to get better results. But if you don't know the reasons why they do the things they do, you can never surpass them. I try to arm people with the knowledge to make themselves better, and in the process, make myself better as well.

/WALL OF TEXT
 
The problem with assuming the normal distribution for small arms is that… well it’s not the appropriate distribution globally. Locally, it seems fine. Us statisticians like the normal distribution for its properties, but it’s problematic for serial correlated systems.

Here’s an approximate model for say a 300NM to 375CT. Something that has a short life and doesn’t have an aggressive cleaning interval (because that complicates things).

It is clear that using the scale parameter of the normal distribution isn’t appropriate for this model.

View attachment 8532548

Combined it becomes obvious that scale parameter isn’t useful globally

View attachment 8532551
Can you elaborate on what the y axis depicts?

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think I have it. The area under the curve depicts the total number of shots, and the density is the data density?
 
I just posted a new video looking at standard deviations and their impact on vertical dispersion at range. The video also goes into my process, and delves into the work I've done messing (literally) with neck lube, and includes data from my recent experiments.


Excellent...thanks. And I appreciate that you kept the pace of info delivery moving along briskly. So many vids just try the little bit of patience that I have. lol

Thanks again....oh, I bought Neo Lube #2...pretty sure based on some posts of yours.

I have been using a qtip to swap the inside of the necks vice what I saw you do with dipping it into the liquid. It sure looks like you get a deeper coating on your necks based on what I can see on the outside. Any views on this?

And yeah, the qtip is a fairly clean process and scrimps on amount of Neo used...and I'm cheap! haha
 
I have been using a qtip to swap the inside of the necks vice what I saw you do with dipping it into the liquid. It sure looks like you get a deeper coating on your necks based on what I can see on the outside. Any views on this?

I do have one that I'm going to be testing. Based on one (and only one) set of ammo I did with my 6 BRA, I'm wondering if the thickness from the dip has a larger impact on smaller calibers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23
Excellent...thanks. And I appreciate that you kept the pace of info delivery moving along briskly. So many vids just try the little bit of patience that I have. lol

Thanks again....oh, I bought Neo Lube #2...pretty sure based on some posts of yours.

I have been using a qtip to swap the inside of the necks vice what I saw you do with dipping it into the liquid. It sure looks like you get a deeper coating on your necks based on what I can see on the outside. Any views on this?

And yeah, the qtip is a fairly clean process and scrimps on amount of Neo used...and I'm cheap! haha
To understand your coating method/technique issue, I will suggest the following to help learn the workmanship aspects.
This was how I trained/tested my own techs for proficiency before I turned them loose on hardware or fasteners with NeoLube #2.

Locate a glass microscope slide and a micrometer with plain flat anvils, not points or specialized ones.

Coat one or both sides of the slide with your Q-tip method, allow it to cure, then measure the coating thickness.

Try it several times to get a seat of the pants feel for how much lays down and the resulting thickness. Take a critical look at your slide since this is as easy as it gets and later on you will want to be doing this down inside case necks or on complex parts where you don't have such an easy view. Learn what it looks like wet and dried when you have it right and wrong.

Then, repeat the drill with the dip method.

You will need to clean the slide with solvent and elbow grease if you use the same one over and over.

What you want to see is a coating thickness of about 0.0002" - 0.0004" per side.
 
To understand your coating method/technique issue, I will suggest the following to help learn the workmanship aspects.
This was how I trained/tested my own techs for proficiency before I turned them loose on hardware or fasteners with NeoLube #2.

Locate a glass microscope slide and a micrometer with plain flat anvils, not points or specialized ones.

Coat one or both sides of the slide with your Q-tip method, allow it to cure, then measure the coating thickness.

Try it several times to get a seat of the pants feel for how much lays down and the resulting thickness. Take a critical look at your slide since this is as easy as it gets and later on you will want to be doing this down inside case necks or on complex parts where you don't have such an easy view. Learn what it looks like wet and dried when you have it right and wrong.

Then, repeat the drill with the dip method.

You will need to clean the slide with solvent and elbow grease if you use the same one over and over.

What you want to see is a coating thickness of about 0.0002" - 0.0004" per side.
My first reaction is I’m not trying to coat fasteners but rather, my question to @Rocketmandb goes to my interest if there is a resulting shooting performance difference between the two application methods wrt to bullet-neck interference.

Looks like he’s getting some glass slides and, given that he is very data driven, I look forward to seeing results of the two methods from his Amp seating press and measured SD.

Curious, where does the .0002-.0004” come from?

Thanks
 
Curious, where does the .0002-.0004” come from?

That represents a workmanship level coating of a non-specific dry film thickness for general purpose.

Going higher or lower means you are in a specific context or in the context of some other type of dry lube than NeoLube #2.

NL2 was not designed to stand up to any significant durability in terms of pressure, velocity, or distance, but in testing with Falex or SRV rigs, (or ammo), it takes at least 0.0002" just to have reliable performance. Can it go on thinner? Maybe but in our work it wasn't worth the risks. Going higher than 0.0004" just wasn't useful for obvious reasons in this context and it allowed for some tolerance before rejection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23
Looks like he’s getting some glass slides and, given that he is very data driven, I look forward to seeing results of the two methods from his Amp seating press and measured SD.

I also ordered a brass strip that's .3mm thick (just under 12 thousandths), so I'll test against that too. I've got a micrometer that goes down to .0001" so I should be able to get some good measurements.

EDIT: I'll be gone for a few days, so it will be at least end of next week before I get any basic data.

EDIT 2: I've got to figure out a way to "hang" both the brass and glass so it dries vertically like rifle brass does.
 
EDIT 2: I've got to figure out a way to "hang" both the brass and glass so it dries vertically like rifle brass does.
Chip Clip (the ones with a refrigerator magnet on one leg). Clip it to one edge of the slide/strip, and stick the magnet to a vertical steel surface. Clothespin tied to a string, or just simply prop them up vertically against a prop on a paper towel. You'll get a bit of a thicker coating at the bottom edge where it all runs down, but you can avoid that area for your measurement. Many easy ways to skin that cat.
 
EDIT 2: I've got to figure out a way to "hang" both the brass and glass so it dries vertically like rifle brass does.
Just more food for thought...

Surface Tension: the inside of a virgin neck versus a cycled-processed neck can potentially have a different "wettability".

The surface roughness/profile of metals versus glass can create surface tension and wettability differences worth learning.

For example, some necks change when folks use trimmers where the inside of the neck gets affected by a high speed pilot spinning and scarring the neck. Some folks brush necks after cleaning and some don't. Annealing can also change neck surface tension.

Just be careful to note how fast the solvent flashes off, versus the potential that you get gravity induced flow/thickness changes or that you accidentally "drain" the inside of the neck when you are blotting off the outside surface.
 
  • Like
Reactions: memilanuk
Maybe I'm viewing this in an overly simplistic manner... but rather than faffing about with glass slides and hanging them for 'proper' drying - which is all well and good, but bears only a passing resemblance to what you're actually trying to do... you have the test medium that you intend to use *right there*.

Take 10 cases, put an index mark on the shoulder with a Sharpie, and use a ball mike to check the neck wall thickness at that point on each of them. Dip them in NL2, wipe off as per normal, set them in the loading tray to dry, then measure again.

Seems like that'd be a way more direct path to finding out what you want to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23
Maybe I'm viewing this in an overly simplistic manner... but rather than faffing about with glass slides and hanging them for 'proper' drying - which is all well and good, but bears only a passing resemblance to what you're actually trying to do... you have the test medium that you intend to use *right there*.

Take 10 cases, put an index mark on the shoulder with a Sharpie, and use a ball mike to check the neck wall thickness at that point on each of them. Dip them in NL2, wipe off as per normal, set them in the loading tray to dry, then measure again.

Seems like that'd be a way more direct path to finding out what you want to know.
Only issue with a ball mic on a DFL coating, is that the inside anvil is a small area contact that tends to under-report the DLF thickness.

One can learn to compensate the issue with practice, and it is up to you in terms of what works in your shop.

The glass slides or coupons are only a learning and proficiency tool for working with DFL. They are something you only do as a rookie and once you get the hang of working with the materials you don't need to keep doing this.
 
Fair enough. For me, the dip method seems pretty damn consistent without the nagging worry of whether I need to re-wet the applicator (foam q-tip) or whether I inadvertently squeezed too much out of it.

Dip, wipe, done.

I'm not saying my technique is flawless, or that I won't ever move to something else... but it does seem pretty hard to f$ck up, which is a plus 👍
 
Fair enough. For me, the dip method seems pretty damn consistent without the nagging worry of whether I need to re-wet the applicator (foam q-tip) or whether I inadvertently squeezed too much out of it.

Dip, wipe, done.

I'm not saying my technique is flawless, or that I won't ever move to something else... but it does seem pretty hard to f$ck up, which is a plus 👍
In industry, processes are designed to be robust so that tedious procedures aren’t required to reduce variability. Chances are your method is fine. I’ve been lubing necks for like a decade now and I don’t think it needs that much attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RegionRat
Well that video definitely cleared up a couple nagging questions I've had about SD; namely- what exactly it is. I couldn't tell you how many articles I've read and videos I've watched that talk about it and moving "one standard deviation", but not one of them had put it in Barney terms for people like me; so thanks for that.

Right now hitting at those distances isn't on my radar but as Schoolhouse Rocky used to say: "... it's great to learn because knowledge is power."
 
The furthest I've ever shot was 600yd. That was a couple years ago, and as I remember I was pretty inconsistent. It was also with factory ammo so any dope I had most likely isn't accurate. The range I was at now has a limit of 300yds. There's a notice on their website about getting a secondary impact area packet approved or something like that; probably because it butts up against Ft Carson, but it's been like that for months now so who knows when/of it'll get approved.

Right now my radar only extends to 800, 1k tops. I really have no desire to go further.
 
The furthest I've ever shot was 600yd. That was a couple years ago, and as I remember I was pretty inconsistent. It was also with factory ammo so any dope I had most likely isn't accurate. The range I was at now has a limit of 300yds. There's a notice on their website about getting a secondary impact area packet approved or something like that; probably because it butts up against Ft Carson, but it's been like that for months now so who knows when/of it'll get approved.

Right now my radar only extends to 800, 1k tops. I really have no desire to go further.

I know a lot of public land in CO is sort of locked in by private land, but there should be areas that are available to stretch your rifles' legs if you so desire.
 
I'm very much still in the crawl phase so I'd be happy with a 600-800yd range. Once I'm comfortable with that I might think about going further. I know there's some BLM areas up in in the mountains but need to take a trip to pin point them. For me and my skill level pinging steel at over a mile just isn't practical for I could take 10 or 15 shots and walk it in just to get 1 hit but I'd feel like I was wasting ammo. I'd like to get to the point where I'm making more hits than misses and my hits are due to skill rather than luck.

I know it's going to be a long road; longer still with no live guidance or mentoring which is why I appreciate everyone here who has given advice.
 
I'm very much still in the crawl phase so I'd be happy with a 600-800yd range. Once I'm comfortable with that I might think about going further. I know there's some BLM areas up in in the mountains but need to take a trip to pin point them. For me and my skill level pinging steel at over a mile just isn't practical for I could take 10 or 15 shots and walk it in just to get 1 hit but I'd feel like I was wasting ammo. I'd like to get to the point where I'm making more hits than misses and my hits are due to skill rather than luck.

I know it's going to be a long road; longer still with no live guidance or mentoring which is why I appreciate everyone here who has given advice.
Yeah, it's tough to get going without someone to help. I'll say, though, that as soon as you hit a shot at 500, you need to then hit 1000, then 1500, then...

As for finding places to shoot on public land, I agree 100% with your notion of doing a scouting trip where you don't even bring your rifles. Why? Because when you try to do both scouting and shooting, you do neither well. As an example, one of my favorite places to shoot is this:

IMG_0361.JPG


The first time I scouted this area, a friend and I were planning on scouting and shooting both. We stopped about a mile short of this valley to shoot at a sub-par spot. It wasn't until I got home and started looking closer at the area on Google Maps that I found this valley. We went back on another trip, but lost a lot of time finding the best places to set targets, etc.

Besides, I find scouting trips to be really fun. You have to find open spaces with easy access to the shooting location and target spots, and are safe to shoot at (e.g. not over roads, have a sizable backstop, etc.). When you find the right spot, it's like striking gold.
 
I will make another related suggestion for McPotty....

Take a look at OnXHunt.

With that app, and some pre-trip study... you can find the legal places to go check and see if they are going to work. More importantly, you can see the no-fly zones and private property.

It keeps you out of trouble with the Law.

You really don't want to tangle with The Law on days when you have your hardware with you and give them the excuse to dress you down. Getting suspected of poaching or trespassing gives them probable cause to open Pandora's Box on you and the app will help keep you out of that situation. That said....

It would be worth the time to research where the nearest clubs/ranges are that shoot regular competitions of the type you might like.

For a fraction of the resources some folks waste doing things in a vacuum, they could get with some folks who will ramp up their learning curve. You don't have to over-do it with clubs and match shooting if that isn't your taste, but getting yourself adopted by those who can teach you and are High Master level on the things you want to do is the fastest and cheapest way to learn. YMMV
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogtown and McPotty
Something I hadn't thought of RegionRat. I've talked to a few people about the BLM land and I've been told it's pretty well marked- plus most people apparently treat it like a trash dump and leave brass and shot shell husks all over.

The Cheyenne Mountain complex used to host a series put on by Pikes Peak Precision but with the range limit at 300yds that's not going to be an option. Last time I was there I found a flyer about a fun shoot but it's only held the last weekend of the month so I'm going to have to wait for the next one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RegionRat
If you're at all close to CMSC - You're about equidistant from the Pawnee Sportsmens Center (in Briggsdale-ish, CO) and the NRA Whittington Center (in Raton-ish NM), both of which have some public availability of 1,000yd rifle range (the nod goes to Whittington if you need weekday public access) and both of which host somewhat regular precision rifle matches.

I'd encourage you to visit either on a public access day to gather some information on your setup in controlled conditions, and then I'd encourage you to attend a match - both groups encourage new shooters, and it's a very cost effective way to have somebody else set targets, provide a course of fire, and learn a ton through experience and from your squad mates.
 
I live about 20min from CMSC. I saw a website for a range down in Fountain; membership is $125/yr (new members had an additional charge on top of that) and they give you the combination to the gate. [Edit] : just checked their website again. That club has a "1-2 year waiting list" so that's not going to work.
Pawnee looks good; about a 2hr drive. The calendar shows they run competitions the first Saturday of the month so I missed it this time. I'm going to burn a tank of gas but beggars can't be choosers right? 😂 I didn't see anything about an open weekend but $20 isn't unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RegionRat
Re: Pawnee Sportsmens Center - I do always check the calendar on the website before making the trip, and honestly, they have a separate phone number listed for the rifle/pistol ranges that's worth a call to confirm. Currently, it's Friday 2-5pm, Sat/Sun 9am-5pm for general public access. I have seen the 1,000yd range closed for maintenance on a public access day before, hence my warning to call and check before making a long drive.

Still, having steel set up from 400-1,000yds is a time saver in itself, and if you know it'll be ready for you, there's an argument to be made that it's more of a known quantity than rolling the dice with public land issues.

As you've probably seen, the monthly precision rifle match uses Facebook for public comms - group name is NOCO PRECISION RIFLE MATCH at Pawnee.


Re: OP's video series - fantastic work, I'm looking forward to hearing more. I thought I had all this figured out a few years back with the Magnetospeed, making decisions based on 10 data points, and wondering why I wasn't seeing the performance I expected at distance. With the Garmin Xero, I started sampling 100+ rounds at a time, and suddenly it's pretty clear to me that I'm doing no better than good factory ammo and I have some work to do improving my processes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RegionRat
That complaint is you aren’t putting them out fast enough.

I have the same complaint myself :)

A couple things come into play with these things:

- First, for some of the videos, it takes time to gather data. I can only make one or two trips to a local range per week. Getting out for longer range work, I'm limited by a number of factors, including private range availability, weather, access to public land, etc. So, it takes time. We just got some rain that moved through, so I'm hoping the public land opens up from fire season closures soon.

- Second is equipment/supplies. Some of the topics require finding and purchasing stuff to test - and not just rifle-related things. With some of the stuff I'm playing with, I know exactly what I need, but sourcing it is problematic. Though, on one thing, I had a big breakthrough yesterday that makes me quite happy - but I still need to test it.

- Third is actually putting the videos together. If you noticed on the last video, the date on the sessions I used as an example from the Garmin app were from May. After I got the last data, I spent about a month analyzing everything and putting it together, but when I put out a test video and sent it to friends for review, everyone came back with the same feedback - too many complex topics in one video. So, I had to redo a lot of stuff and split it into two (and add new content). All that takes time.

- Fourth is other shooting. I just got my new sights set on my Henry carbine (45 long colt) and took it out to the desert yesterday. Too much fun and quite happy with it - I didn't even have one of my precision rifles with me. As an aside, a couple weeks ago while at the private range I go to, I came close to hitting a target at 500 yards - had to pick a grass spot on the hill way up behind the target to aim at and have my friend spot for me. I think with the new sights, I could have actually hit it :)

As for upcoming topics, the next one is going to continue down the standard deviation path and look into the effects neck prep on Lapua brass (turning and mandrel sizes). I'm going to start by turning 25 rounds to about .013" (they range from .015 - .016 or so) and comparing them to non-turned rounds. I'm thinking of then further turning them down to like .010" to see if that has any effect - but not sure about that one yet - or maybe a topic for another video.

For another (along the same path), I'm considering (though only considering due to the amount of data needed) taking ~60 new cases and splitting them into two groups. The first group would be prepped each time doing my standard process, while the second would only be trimmed and have the necks chamfered the first go - no other stuff after that (e.g. annealing, mandrel, neck lube, primer pocket uniforming, flash hole deburring, etc.). I'd then run these two groups through some number firings and measure the results (I'm thinking 4 or 5 each). The purpose? Many things, if measured individually, will have too small of an impact to be effectively measured given all the other "noise" in the process. In totality, however, they all add up. Once the total is known, you can start breaking things down into related groups and testing those.
 
Still, having steel set up from 400-1,000yds is a time saver in itself, and if you know it'll be ready for you, there's an argument to be made that it's more of a known quantity than rolling the dice with public land issues.
No doubt about this. This is my go-to spot for winter shooting:

1730647494969.png


All the target locations except for the 2100-2250 yard ridge (off picture to the left) are within like 100 yards of the road that goes down the valley. On the way in, we set targets. On the way out, we pick them up - easy. But it still adds at least an hour to set on the way in and probably like 30-45 min on the way out to take down. If we go over to the 2100-2250 ridge, we have to stop there separately on the way in and we have to hop a barbed wire fence (with a 60lb target and stand) and hoof it like a quarter mile. We don't tend to set that target too often...

And I forgot to add 45 min from the highway using a capable 4WD vehicle.

Still, nothing beats spending an entire day in a place like this.
 
I have the same complaint myself :)

A couple things come into play with these things:

- First, for some of the videos, it takes time to gather data. I can only make one or two trips to a local range per week. Getting out for longer range work, I'm limited by a number of factors, including private range availability, weather, access to public land, etc. So, it takes time. We just got some rain that moved through, so I'm hoping the public land opens up from fire season closures soon.

- Second is equipment/supplies. Some of the topics require finding and purchasing stuff to test - and not just rifle-related things. With some of the stuff I'm playing with, I know exactly what I need, but sourcing it is problematic. Though, on one thing, I had a big breakthrough yesterday that makes me quite happy - but I still need to test it.

- Third is actually putting the videos together. If you noticed on the last video, the date on the sessions I used as an example from the Garmin app were from May. After I got the last data, I spent about a month analyzing everything and putting it together, but when I put out a test video and sent it to friends for review, everyone came back with the same feedback - too many complex topics in one video. So, I had to redo a lot of stuff and split it into two (and add new content). All that takes time.

- Fourth is other shooting. I just got my new sights set on my Henry carbine (45 long colt) and took it out to the desert yesterday. Too much fun and quite happy with it - I didn't even have one of my precision rifles with me. As an aside, a couple weeks ago while at the private range I go to, I came close to hitting a target at 500 yards - had to pick a grass spot on the hill way up behind the target to aim at and have my friend spot for me. I think with the new sights, I could have actually hit it :)

As for upcoming topics, the next one is going to continue down the standard deviation path and look into the effects neck prep on Lapua brass (turning and mandrel sizes). I'm going to start by turning 25 rounds to about .013" (they range from .015 - .016 or so) and comparing them to non-turned rounds. I'm thinking of then further turning them down to like .010" to see if that has any effect - but not sure about that one yet - or maybe a topic for another video.

For another (along the same path), I'm considering (though only considering due to the amount of data needed) taking ~60 new cases and splitting them into two groups. The first group would be prepped each time doing my standard process, while the second would only be trimmed and have the necks chamfered the first go - no other stuff after that (e.g. annealing, mandrel, neck lube, primer pocket uniforming, flash hole deburring, etc.). I'd then run these two groups through some number firings and measure the results (I'm thinking 4 or 5 each). The purpose? Many things, if measured individually, will have too small of an impact to be effectively measured given all the other "noise" in the process. In totality, however, they all add up. Once the total is known, you can start breaking things down into related groups and testing those.
I really like where you’re headed with the next videos. Definitely things I’ve wondered about. Will be looking forward to them.
 
I really like where you’re headed with the next videos. Definitely things I’ve wondered about. Will be looking forward to them.
If you have any additional ideas on where to go, please let me know. I'm going down the neck turning route because of a PM conversation I had with @LakuNoc. I had played with it when the best brass I could get for my 300 PRC was ADG or going through an extensive process forming RWS 8x68S into 300 PRC. ADG didn't deliver the same SDs as the formed RWS, so I did a neck turning experiment with it. I had done one batch worth of a test that showed a decent improvement, but before I could do more, Lapua's 300 PRC brass was announced, so I dropped the whole thing. I've never tested neck turning with Lapua.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RegionRat
I have the same complaint myself :)

A couple things come into play with these things:

- First, for some of the videos, it takes time to gather data. I can only make one or two trips to a local range per week. Getting out for longer range work, I'm limited by a number of factors, including private range availability, weather, access to public land, etc. So, it takes time. We just got some rain that moved through, so I'm hoping the public land opens up from fire season closures soon.

- Second is equipment/supplies. Some of the topics require finding and purchasing stuff to test - and not just rifle-related things. With some of the stuff I'm playing with, I know exactly what I need, but sourcing it is problematic. Though, on one thing, I had a big breakthrough yesterday that makes me quite happy - but I still need to test it.

- Third is actually putting the videos together. If you noticed on the last video, the date on the sessions I used as an example from the Garmin app were from May. After I got the last data, I spent about a month analyzing everything and putting it together, but when I put out a test video and sent it to friends for review, everyone came back with the same feedback - too many complex topics in one video. So, I had to redo a lot of stuff and split it into two (and add new content). All that takes time.

- Fourth is other shooting. I just got my new sights set on my Henry carbine (45 long colt) and took it out to the desert yesterday. Too much fun and quite happy with it - I didn't even have one of my precision rifles with me. As an aside, a couple weeks ago while at the private range I go to, I came close to hitting a target at 500 yards - had to pick a grass spot on the hill way up behind the target to aim at and have my friend spot for me. I think with the new sights, I could have actually hit it :)

As for upcoming topics, the next one is going to continue down the standard deviation path and look into the effects neck prep on Lapua brass (turning and mandrel sizes). I'm going to start by turning 25 rounds to about .013" (they range from .015 - .016 or so) and comparing them to non-turned rounds. I'm thinking of then further turning them down to like .010" to see if that has any effect - but not sure about that one yet - or maybe a topic for another video.

For another (along the same path), I'm considering (though only considering due to the amount of data needed) taking ~60 new cases and splitting them into two groups. The first group would be prepped each time doing my standard process, while the second would only be trimmed and have the necks chamfered the first go - no other stuff after that (e.g. annealing, mandrel, neck lube, primer pocket uniforming, flash hole deburring, etc.). I'd then run these two groups through some number firings and measure the results (I'm thinking 4 or 5 each). The purpose? Many things, if measured individually, will have too small of an impact to be effectively measured given all the other "noise" in the process. In totality, however, they all add up. Once the total is known, you can start breaking things down into related groups and testing those.
I’m just busting on you. As stated I really
Enjoy your videos. Once again thank you for making them and I look forward to the next one.
 
As for upcoming topics, the next one is going to continue down the standard deviation path and look into the effects neck prep on Lapua brass (turning and mandrel sizes). I'm going to start by turning 25 rounds to about .013" (they range from .015 - .016 or so) and comparing them to non-turned rounds. I'm thinking of then further turning them down to like .010" to see if that has any effect - but not sure about that one yet - or maybe a topic for another video.
This in itself is an interesting topic but before you even have results it can beg the question...
Are the results due to s specific brass thickness, or a specific clearance from your chamber?
So if you receive results here it leads into another reamer order... then side by side comparisons....

It never ends lol
 
If you have any additional ideas on where to go, please let me know.

My selfish request would be - with all other variables fixed (and fixed on what your observations are showing you makes your best ammo) an A/B testing of a "so five years ago" Redding Type S bushing die with the expander ball (polished up or not) versus one of the current hotness $400+ sizing dies, either with an integral expander mandrel or with a seperate discrete step with a mandrel in a separate die.

I'm being a bit selfish by insisting that there either be an expander ball or a mandrel involved, I have a massive percentage of good cases with dented necks from hitting concrete/hard surfaces so that I can't just skip the ball/mandrel like I see some folks claiming they can. I've been hanging on to my older bushing die w/ expander ball so that the first action on the case is a coarse correction of these dented necks back to something resembling round, then sized, and then the ball comes back through and (hopefully) gets things back to acceptably round all in one action. Like you, I'm decapping and cleaning before the sizing process, so no worries about the decapping rod in the sizing die getting weird somehow. If I was to upgrade, I'd want there to still be some correction of these dents before the neck got sized, and my understanding is that's possible, but it'll cost me.

My hypothesis - by doing your best on all the other steps of the process (annealing every time, weighing each charge to the kernel, NL2 in the necks, seating top quality projectiles with a quality micrometer adjustable seating die) the difference between a Redding Type S bushing die and one of the current $400+ hotness is +/- 1 FPS in the SD over a sample size large enough to see a real difference. If it's 1 FPS in the SD or less, not sure I'd jump ship. If it's truly (and I mean truly, statistically significantly) good for more than 1 FPS in the SD, then I'd make a purchasing decision based on that data.
 
As for upcoming topics, the next one is going to continue down the standard deviation path and look into the effects neck prep on Lapua brass (turning and mandrel sizes). I'm going to start by turning 25 rounds to about .013" (they range from .015 - .016 or so) and comparing them to non-turned rounds. I'm thinking of then further turning them down to like .010" to see if that has any effect - but not sure about that one yet - or maybe a topic for another video.

Curious what the chamber neck dimension is on your gun now? What are the fired cases measuring coming out?

Apparently there's a point where bushings start sizing more than they should (despite what they're marked/measure). You've been using mandrels, I believe, so it may not matter as much to you... but it might throw a wrinkle in your sizing / expanding process. I know it did mine.
 
My selfish request would be - with all other variables fixed (and fixed on what your observations are showing you makes your best ammo) an A/B testing of a "so five years ago" Redding Type S bushing die with the expander ball (polished up or not) versus one of the current hotness $400+ sizing dies, either with an integral expander mandrel or with a seperate discrete step with a mandrel in a separate die.

I'm being a bit selfish by insisting that there either be an expander ball or a mandrel involved, I have a massive percentage of good cases with dented necks from hitting concrete/hard surfaces so that I can't just skip the ball/mandrel like I see some folks claiming they can. I've been hanging on to my older bushing die w/ expander ball so that the first action on the case is a coarse correction of these dented necks back to something resembling round, then sized, and then the ball comes back through and (hopefully) gets things back to acceptably round all in one action. Like you, I'm decapping and cleaning before the sizing process, so no worries about the decapping rod in the sizing die getting weird somehow. If I was to upgrade, I'd want there to still be some correction of these dents before the neck got sized, and my understanding is that's possible, but it'll cost me.

My hypothesis - by doing your best on all the other steps of the process (annealing every time, weighing each charge to the kernel, NL2 in the necks, seating top quality projectiles with a quality micrometer adjustable seating die) the difference between a Redding Type S bushing die and one of the current $400+ hotness is +/- 1 FPS in the SD over a sample size large enough to see a real difference. If it's 1 FPS in the SD or less, not sure I'd jump ship. If it's truly (and I mean truly, statistically significantly) good for more than 1 FPS in the SD, then I'd make a purchasing decision based on that data.

The issue with the current mandrel/sizing/one-step thing is that you need to get special mandrels made by the die manufacturer if you want to change size. This is somewhat expensive.

Otherwise, anything the "hotness" dies you refer to are doing should be able to be measured in terms of shoulder bump consistency and runout.

I think your hypothesis is correct if you compare said hotness to another high-quality die at a quarter of the price, though I'd go so far to say that even one fps gain is unlikely. It would be very interesting to test, but I'm not sure I want to spend $400+ on a die just to do so. It doesn't change the fact that you can cut out one step if you spend the cash by getting such a die. If you're shooting multiple PRS matches a month, it's probably worth it. If you're shooting mostly ELR where you maybe only load 100 rounds a month, then it would take a long time to make up the 20 extra minutes or so per month you'd spend doing it.
 
Curious what the chamber neck dimension is on your gun now? What are the fired cases measuring coming out?

Apparently there's a point where bushings start sizing more than they should (despite what they're marked/measure). You've been using mandrels, I believe, so it may not matter as much to you... but it might throw a wrinkle in your sizing / expanding process. I know it did mine.

I'll measure a little later and let you know. Regardless, I don't go by the printed size other than to record which bushing I'm using. I find which bushing minimally engages every sized case with the appropriate mandrel.
 
I also ordered a brass strip that's .3mm thick (just under 12 thousandths), so I'll test against that too. I've got a micrometer that goes down to .0001" so I should be able to get some good measurements.

EDIT: I'll be gone for a few days, so it will be at least end of next week before I get any basic data.

EDIT 2: I've got to figure out a way to "hang" both the brass and glass so it dries vertically like rifle brass does.
So, measuring the brass strips was a no-go. It has to be perfectly flat to get a good measurement, and it's not. Glass microscope trays are drying now.
 
Just measured NL2 on the glass plates - still hard to gauge exactly as I believe it is not coating evenly just from not keeping it straight after removal. I measured between .0003" and .0004" difference. Additionally, glass thickness varied somewhat as well, so getting an exact measurement is difficult. I'd say that using the dip method you pick up less than 1/2 a thousandth for sure, but that is still significant and should potentially be accounted for by using a 1/2 thousandth larger mandrel.

EDIT: Which I'm going to try today.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: memilanuk
Just measured NL2 on the glass plates - still hard to gauge exactly as I believe it is not coating evenly just from not keeping it straight after removal. I measured between .0003" and .0004" difference. Additionally, glass thickness varied somewhat as well, so getting an exact measurement is difficult. I'd say that using the dip method you pick up less than 1/2 a thousandth for sure, but that is still significant and should potentially be accounted for by using a 1/2 thousandth larger mandrel.

EDIT: Which I'm going to try today.
If this is a lubricant... and not a fixed coating... and you are trying to get a reading on how much is being added between the bullet and the case neck?....

Wouldn't we be removing the majority of it as we inserted the bullet into the case?

I'm wondering if we would get more realistic results of what was being added by measuring outside neck with micrometer on a seated round
Pull the bullet
Coat the case neck
Reseat and measure maybe?...
 
If this is a lubricant... and not a fixed coating... and you are trying to get a reading on how much is being added between the bullet and the case neck?....

With most lubes I'd say this is correct, but NL2 dries almost like a paint. It doesn't come off all that easily unless you hit it with a solvent (like alcohol). I'm sure that some comes off, but I also think that some stays.
 
Does using a supersonic cleaner leave the inside of the cases considerably cleaner than a dry tumbler? In other words are they coming out looking like new brass with no carbon? I use a dry tumbler which leaves carbon on the inside, but I presume it acts as a lubricant in a way? At least compared to clean brass. I refrain from using lube on fired brass for that reason. Curious if it will make a difference now.