308 -Varget Load Testing

[kaskin]

Need a little help deciphering the target. Not sure which load would be best.
This is a 308 Win.
Rem 700.

I may try and re-shoot 10-12. I was starting to feel the recoil. Don't think it mattered since i focused on trigger break and breathing, but still...

The MV and SD is hard to exclude...

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[jb41291]

Just by triangulating or squaring the 10 to 12 shot groups id say 11 wouldnt be a bad charge weight. #9 would be my first thought but im only seeing 1 round in that shot group.

 

[tnichols]

I’ll take #5. Speed is good, ES and SD are acceptable. Shoot that load at distance and see how it does.

 

[tnichols]

After further examination, run 5 against 8 just to humor me.

 

[pell1203]

I'd go with #5 as well. Note that the group centers for #4, #5, and #6 fall at almost the exact same location. Additionally, the average velocities between #5 and #6 appear to fall in a bit of a flatter area of the velocity curve.

I would retest from 44.0 gr to 44.8 gr in 0.2 gr increments. I think you will be happy with what you find.

 

[squib]

Are you testing with new or fired brass?

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Good test; now do again it four more times.

Basing a load selection on but a single group is iffy. Statistically, the sample size is one of each charge weight, and that's not statistically meaningful.

Before investing in handloading a new load in bulk, take some time to retest and verify your findings.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

MV and SD are meaningless except for plotting the trajectory. There is no direct link between SD and group size.

SD numbers significantly smaller than 1% of average velocity fall within the +/- 1% error margin chrono manufacturers post in their user manuals, and are very close to being pure fiction. For an average velocity of 3000fps, that error margin is +/- 30fps. so suggesting the actual SD is such and such can be off within a 60fps range.

Add to this that we do not react to the recoil pulse perfectly consistently, so actual MV's can vary due to conditions separate from what's happening due to charge weight performance.

Numbers can be fiction, the target doesn't care, and it also never lies.

I haven't taken my chrono to the range in years, but I still manage to get good groups and good trajectory plots.

As always, when the vertical opens up, it's about my performance at least as much as it is about the gun's performance, and this is equally true for each of us.

Greg

 

[kaskin]

After further examination, run 5 against 8 just to humor me.

I have been thinking about the same thing. I believe i will run 5-8 again, just to see...

 

[kaskin]

MV and SD are meaningless except for plotting the trajectory. There is no direct link between SD and group size.

SD numbers significantly smaller than 1% of average velocity fall within the +/- 1% error margin chrono manufacturers post in their user manuals, and are very close to being pure fiction. For an average velocity of 3000fps, that error margin is +/- 30fps. so suggesting the actual SD is such and such can be off within a 60fps range.

Add to this that we do not react to the recoil pulse perfectly consistently, so actual MV's can vary due to conditions separate from what's happening due to charge weight performance.

Numbers can be fiction, the target doesn't care, and it also never lies.

I haven't taken my chrono to the range in years, but I still manage to get good groups and good trajectory plots.

As always, when the vertical opens up, it's about my performance at least as much as it is about the gun's performance, and this is equally true for each of us.

Greg

I get what you are saying. Makes sense. So, when you do your testing, Do you do it in .5 grain increments or something like i did? I don't mind, (rather enjoy it) testing, but at the same time, I would rather not go through 150 rounds of just testing...

And yes, I definitely agree with the recoil part. Even though it was only a 308. I started feeling it at group 9... I would like to think it didn't matter since i was focusing on trigger pull ans bracketing, but.... you never know...

Thoughts?..

John

 

[kaskin]

Are you testing with new or fired brass?

It was all once fired from the same chamber. Mixed head stamps though...

 

[spife7980]

Mixed head stamps though...

Going to be hard to get a consistent load with an inconsistent pressure vessel.

Looking at the pic it says FC, is this mixed years of FC brass or various manufacturers? If mixed years its less likely to be a big variation but it can still be there. I would sort them, year and weight and see how big of a spread you really have.

 

[kaskin]

Going to be hard to get a consistent load with an inconsistent pressure vessel.

Looking at the pic it says FC, is this mixed years of FC brass or various manufacturers? If mixed years its less likely to be a big variation but it can still be there. I would sort them, year and weight and see how big of a spread you really have.

I have most FC, some Hornady, some Win.

On this next go around I will sort the cases and see what happens. But, in turn, the amount of rounds won’t be as much.
I do t have that much brass (same) accumulated yet.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

John;

My thoughts are;

It might make better sense to do it two more times, instead of four.

For .308, yes, I'd use .5gr increments, for .223, .3gr.

My point is about spotting consistent trends in accuracy vs charge weights. I can't do that with much certainty from just one set of groups. It's not unlikely that more refinement might become desirable, like splitting two adjacent increments.

I'm at precisely that point now with my HDY 75gr HPBT-Match MR 600yd load, testing 23.5gr vs 23.7gr. Each shoots pretty much best in three rifles, and the hope is that one will do somewhat better in all, or one with some, and the other with another. I've been refining this load over the past 4 shooting sessions, and the next one shot be for the gold.

Also, I have acquired some Hornady/Frontier 75gr Match (120rd), and have some IMI 77gr (240rd) inbound by Friday. If they suffice, I may substitute their factory loads for my own handloads. If they don't, they'll still be OK for practice (most likely); and, my shooting Buddy also has a 24" AR (AR Stoner barrel which definitely likes my old 600yd load, and he may find a use for them.

...And yes, shooting 150 rounds can be a bit if a drag.

Greg

 

[kaskin]

John;

My thoughts are;

It might make better sense to do it two more times, instead of four.

For .308, yes, I'd use .5gr increments, for .223, .3gr.

My point is about spotting consistent trends in accuracy vs charge weights. I can't do that with much certainty from just one set of groups. It's not unlikely that more refinement might become desirable, like splitting two adjacent increments.

I'm at precisely that point now with my HDY 75gr HPBT-Match MR 600yd load, testing 23.5gr vs 23.7gr. Each shoots pretty much best in three rifles, and the hope is that one will do somewhat better in all, or one with some, and the other with another. I've been refining this load over the past 4 shooting sessions, and the next one shot be for the gold.

Also, I have acquired some Hornady/Frontier 75gr Match (120rd), and have some IMI 77gr (240rd) inbound by Friday. If they suffice, I may substitute their factory loads for my own handloads. If they don't, they'll still be OK for practice (most likely); and, my shooting Buddy also has a 24" AR (AR Stoner barrel which definitely likes my old 600yd load, and he may find a use for them.

...And yes, shooting 150 rounds can be a bit if a drag.

Greg

Greg,

Thanks for the reply. I will be loading another test round in .5 increments and give it another go. I like your idea about running the multiple times. Increasing sample size and establishing a true trend....

Good luck with your testing too. That finding a load that shoots great out of multiple rifles is he ultimate goal right??... that’s what we are all after....

I will update again after next shooting session... headed back to work, so it will be 1 week at least.. gotta make money to support the hobby. Ha

John

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Same here, but I'm probably another few weeks away from my next session. Shooting is only one of the things I do. Among the best ones, but still, there are other needs.

 

[Mudlol]

What length is your barrel?

I believe your sweet spot will be somewhere around 2680. Also, you might need to adjust your seating depth.

 

[kaskin]

What length is your barrel?

I believe your sweet spot will be somewhere around 2680. Also, you might need to adjust your seating depth.

I’m running a 20” 1:12.
The plan is to get the powder sorted out and tune with seating depth. I’ll be running out of the internal mag, so... I’ll be limited there , but we”ll see. ...

 

[mdmp5]

Years ago, I did a round robin ocw with 308 and 168s, and one group looked almost exactly like your #5. In fact, I still have the photo of the test. Anyway, I so tried to make it fit, and I ended up loading up like 50 rounds of that load. Turned out to be a complete turd. In my experience, 308 has been a motherfucker to load. I've gone thru boxes of 68s, 75s, and settled on 155 palmas because they seemed to group better. They were marginally ok. Ended up abandoning the caliber for a 6.5.

 

[BJames]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of an OCW to identify the "flat" spots in the pressure curve? By shooting round robin groups, eliminating shooter errors, we're seeing the consistent point of impact across a few different powder charges signaling a somewhat, stabilizing pressure curve? Modern chronographs like the magneto speed and labradar help speed this process. Looking at your data I'd reshoot 7-8 in smaller increments, looking for similar performance. Sorting your brass for consistent pressure vessels. You can always tweak group size with seating depth tests. I agree with whoever said es/sd alone isn't an indicator of anything, I've found that's more a function of OCD during the reloading process ?

 

[kaskin]

Years ago, I did a round robin ocw with 308 and 168s, and one group looked almost exactly like your #5. In fact, I still have the photo of the test. Anyway, I so tried to make it fit, and I ended up loading up like 50 rounds of that load. Turned out to be a complete turd. In my experience, 308 has been a motherfucker to load. I've gone thru boxes of 68s, 75s, and settled on 155 palmas because they seemed to group better. They were marginally ok. Ended up abandoning the caliber for a 6.5.

View attachment 6888308

Hate to hear that man. I still have high hopes for mine though... Long way from giving up. I like the 6.5 Creed too. I bought my son one. He took his first deer this year with it.. That's next on the list for load development.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

No, there aren't flat spots in the pressure curve at normal operating pressures.

The OCW method attempts to catch the bullet's emergence from the muzzle at the point where it is at the end of its harmonic swing. This the time when the muzzle pauses before reversing its harmonic swing, and the point at which it is most close to being stationary.

If the bullets emerge at or right about the time this pause occurs, dispersion is at its minimum.

The OCW is an attempt to make the barrel transit time closely coincide with the pause.

There can be multiple accuracy nodes, or points of minimal muzzle motion, which correspond to separate increments of powder charges, tuning the barrel transit time appropriately.

Greg

 

[kaskin]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of an OCW to identify the "flat" spots in the pressure curve? By shooting round robin groups, eliminating shooter errors, we're seeing the consistent point of impact across a few different powder charges signaling a somewhat, stabilizing pressure curve? Modern chronographs like the magneto speed and labradar help speed this process. Looking at your data I'd reshoot 7-8 in smaller increments, looking for similar performance. Sorting your brass for consistent pressure vessels. You can always tweak group size with seating depth tests. I agree with whoever said es/sd alone isn't an indicator of anything, I've found that's more a function of OCD during the reloading process ?

I agree that the idea of the OCW is to identify the plateau of the pressure curve. I've been using the magneto speed to record as much data as possible. I'm planning on reshooting 42-47 grains again in .5 increments. I sorted my brass (FC), got it annealed and primed... Ready for powder..

BTW... What is the consensus for the 308 testing. .5 gains, then breakdown into .2 when a pattern is established; or, .3 all through the testing?

 

[kaskin]

Here is a link to the 6.5 Guys about load testing, MV, ES and SD... Makes a ton on sense..... Good Read

Here is an excerpt from it:
Next I then load up 5 of the 51.5 grain load and shoot them over the chronograph and the extreme spread was 5 FPS. I have repeated this with H100V, H4350, 4831, 1000, Retumbo, RE 17,19, 22, 23, 26, wiN 760, 780, VV 160, 170, 560, 570 IMR 4451, 4955, 7828 and 7977. With all of these powders, 3020-3035 fps was an accuracy node without regard to the powder type.

 

[BJames]

No, there aren't flat spots in the pressure curve at normal operating pressures.

The OCW method attempts to catch the bullet's emergence from the muzzle at the point where it is at the end of its harmonic swing. This the time when the muzzle pauses before reversing its harmonic swing, and the point at which it is most close to being stationary.

If the bullets emerge at or right about the time this pause occurs, dispersion is at its minimum.

The OCW is an attempt to make the barrel transit time closely coincide with the pause.

There can be multiple accuracy nodes, or points of minimal muzzle motion, which correspond to separate increments of powder charges, tuning the barrel transit time appropriately.

Greg

Thanks for the clarification, sir.

 

[kaskin]

Update,

Finally made it back to the range last weekend. The kiddos did a little target practice and I managed to shoot 16 Rounds with the chrono attached (after reading the 10 round ocw testing by 6.5 guys). Smaller increments in powder charges this time. 0.3 gr at a time. I graphed the 16 shots by itself then as a string including the previous data. After looking at the graph, I loaded 44-45 in 0.2 increments. Back at work, so, they are just waiting for me to get back to the hacienda before they are sent down range.

Now, having some time on my hands again, got me looking at the data... again... The more I look at it, i think there may be a possible node on the 45.6-45.9 range.. I understand the temperature was a little hotter, and the barrel was not cooling as fast.... But still...

Thoughts?

 

[kaskin]

Update:
3rd Round of Testing...
Built 15 Rounds with Varget 44-44.8 FC annealed brass and Hornady 168 BTHP Match based on the previous MV curves expecting good results... Came back somewhat disappointed. The rifle had been grouping fairly well with factory ammo. On this session that all changed... I will say, that may have been self induced... I was watching Sam with Panhandle precision, and he talked about copper fouling and rifling... Any who long story short, I cleaned the tube with Solvent and Copper Fouling removal (hoppes black copper something or other). The patches with the copper remover came out clean. No blue on it. Took a patch and wiped some 223 FMJ i had on the bench, and nothing. No blue. It made the bulled shiny, but nothing on the patch. So i finished with dry patches, more solvent and more dry patches.

The groups fired right after the cleaning, well, they plain old sucked...First pic... The first 6 shots with factory ammo, to foul the barrel, started 4 inches high, 6 shots-3 off paper, from POA. Granted the rifle always shoots high with chrono attached, but the groups stay the same... I was expecting a good group at least from the 44.2 since last time shot, it was a bug hole.

So i left the range, scratched my head, and built some more rounds on the higher pressure end. 15 more from 45-45.8 this time with Hornady Annealed Brass instead of FC...
Groups were better... 45.2-45.6 showed a really stable MV. 2700 fps avg @ 70*F. I think i should try this again and see what happens without the chrono...

Any thoughts??...

 

[spife7980]

I think i should try this again and see what happens without the chrono...

Any thoughts??...

I think you should have been shooting them without the chrono this whole time so you can actually see what the target is telling you.

 

[supercorndogs]

I agree that the idea of the OCW is to identify the plateau of the pressure curve. I've been using the magneto speed to record as much data as possible. I'm planning on reshooting 42-47 grains again in .5 increments. I sorted my brass (FC), got it annealed and primed... Ready for powder..

BTW... What is the consensus for the 308 testing. .5 gains, then breakdown into .2 when a pattern is established; or, .3 all through the testing?

No, you are both incorrect. Go read about OCW it might help you on your journey.

 

[kaskin]

No, you are both incorrect. Go read about OCW it might help you on your journey.

Well Professor, ( I love that BTW). I have read it a few times.. The OCW is looking for stability between powder charges, barrel resonance, etc.. In short harmony between components and barrel harmonics...

Isn't that what a flat pressure curves show?

If all bullets leave the barrel right around the same speed, with low ES and SD, Wouldn't it stand to reason that the barrel would do the same thing every time? And since repeat-ability is accuracy... then .... Bullseye.

 

[STI_1911_Guy]

Your initial data is worthless. Jumping .8 grains at the beginning is too much of a change, you will skip right over a node and you cant see any flat spots in velocity when changing that drastically. At this point it seems like you are chasing where you think it should be from your original tests . The way you are collecting the data is great but I would start over and dont go more than .2-.3 gr increments for the 308. The idea is to see two to three groups with consistent POI and possibly decent groups along with a coordinating low ES &SD. There is theoretically 3% between nodes so at 44 thats 1.3gr between nodes. By jumping .5-.8 increments you will skip right over it or only see one group in it if you are lucky.

 

[BJames]

Your initial data is worthless. Jumping .8 grains at the beginning is too much of a change, you will skip right over a node and you cant see any flat spots in velocity when changing that drastically. At this point it seems like you are chasing where you think it should be from your original tests . The way you are collecting the data is great but I would start over and dont go more than .2-.3 gr increments for the 308. The idea is to see two to three groups with consistent POI and possibly decent groups along with a coordinating low ES &SD. There is theoretically 3% between nodes so at 44 thats 1.3gr between nodes. By jumping .5-.8 increments you will skip right over it or only see one group in it if you are lucky.

^^^this. Also, changing components outside of powder charges is rendering any meaningful data useless. Stick with one brand of case, hell, one lot #.

 

[supercorndogs]

Well Professor, ( I love that BTW). I have read it a few times.. The OCW is looking for stability between powder charges, barrel resonance, etc.. In short harmony between components and barrel harmonics...

Isn't that what a flat pressure curves show?

If all bullets leave the barrel right around the same speed, with low ES and SD, Wouldn't it stand to reason that the barrel would do the same thing every time? And since repeat-ability is accuracy... then .... Bullseye.

No, and when you read it, it warns you that its not, and that often a node will have bad ES and SD which can be tuned away with length testing, neck tension and possibly a different primer. You are looking for a common POI over the widest charge range.

In the light brass you are using with 175 class, you will probably find two nodes around 43 and 44.2. In Lapua my high node is 43.2 but it leaves ejector marks. I use the low node at 42.4 with the 175 SMK 2620fps.

Most of us are not pro like the 6.5 guys. IMO their method is and expert method. I think you would need to have all your stuff dialed in pretty well to be very successful with it.

OCW is really simple. I never touch my chrono until I am done with load development.

 

[kaskin]

Your initial data is worthless. Jumping .8 grains at the beginning is too much of a change, you will skip right over a node and you cant see any flat spots in velocity when changing that drastically. At this point it seems like you are chasing where you think it should be from your original tests . The way you are collecting the data is great but I would start over and dont go more than .2-.3 gr increments for the 308. The idea is to see two to three groups with consistent POI and possibly decent groups along with a coordinating low ES &SD. There is theoretically 3% between nodes so at 44 thats 1.3gr between nodes. By jumping .5-.8 increments you will skip right over it or only see one group in it if you are lucky.

I agree with initial data not being all that good. It seemed like big jumps to me as well. However that's what OCW say to do. % wise anyways...

So based on that. i shot 44-44.8 in .2 increments. Wouldn't the be small enough increments to show a pattern?

 

[kaskin]

^^^this. Also, changing components outside of powder charges is rendering any meaningful data useless. Stick with one brand of case, hell, one lot #.

Definitely agree with you. The reason i changed brass mid testing was that the rifle shot poorly after with the 44 charges. I can't attribute that to FC brass. Eventhough, i have heard my people say that FC is hard to work with... I'm pretty sure it was the cleaning and starting with a clean barrel instead of a fouled barrel.

Going forward i will only use 1 type of brass.

 

[kaskin]

No, and when you read it, it warns you that its not, and that often a node will have bad ES and SD which can be tuned away with length testing, neck tension and possibly a different primer. You are looking for a common POI over the widest charge range.

In the light brass you are using with 175 class, you will probably find two nodes around 43 and 44.2. In Lapua my high node is 43.2 but it leaves ejector marks. I use the low node at 42.4 with the 175 SMK 2620fps.

Most of us are not pro like the 6.5 guys. IMO their method is and expert method. I think you would need to have all your stuff dialed in pretty well to be very successful with it.

OCW is really simple. I never touch my chrono until I am done with load development.

10-4

My new plan will be to re-shoot 43.5 - 45.5 in .3 increments without the chrono and see what happens.

Will post again after i get those shot....

Thanks for all the help guys.

 

[STI_1911_Guy]

I agree with initial data not being all that good. It seemed like big jumps to me as well. However that's what OCW say to do. % wise anyways...

So based on that. i shot 44-44.8 in .2 increments. Wouldn't the be small enough increments to show a pattern?

Yup he recommends .7-1% increments (so at 44 that would be .3-.4) but it will be easier and more obvious if you go .3. No where that I know of does Dan say ES and SD will often be poor, he does state if done properly seating depth tests are usually not needed. In my experience once you find the OCW it usually (almost always) goes hand in hand with decent groups and good ES & SD numbers. If you are running 175 SMK i would start at 43 and go up, if you are running 168 bullets then start at 43.5.

 

[supercorndogs]

Yup he recommends .7-1% increments (so at 44 that would be .3-.4) but it will be easier and more obvious if you go .3. No where that I know of does Dan say ES and SD will often be poor, he does state if done properly seating depth tests are usually not needed. In my experience once you find the OCW it usually (almost always) goes hand in hand with decent groups and good ES & SD numbers. If you are running 175 SMK i would start at 43 and go up, if you are running 168 bullets then start at 43.5.

The part you must have skipped as well.

"Recent conversations with very learned mechanical
engineers are affording me some better understanding of
just why an OCW load works so well in the majority of
rifles chambered for the cartridge at hand.
Here are some of the major points coming to light:
Uniformity of velocity (meaning low extreme spreads of
velocity) are definitely not an indicator of the OCW
zone. We are actually finding that in many cases the
OCW zone does not have the tightest numbers--at least
initially. Fine tuning of the recipe with seating depth
variations and primer changes will improve the velocity
consistency, but simply shooting a succession of
graduated charges over the chronograph and looking for
a tight velocity spread will not lead you to the OCW."

 

[STI_1911_Guy]

The part you must have skipped as well.

"Recent conversations with very learned mechanical
engineers are affording me some better understanding of
just why an OCW load works so well in the majority of
rifles chambered for the cartridge at hand.
Here are some of the major points coming to light:
Uniformity of velocity (meaning low extreme spreads of
velocity) are definitely not an indicator of the OCW
zone. We are actually finding that in many cases the
OCW zone does not have the tightest numbers--at least
initially. Fine tuning of the recipe with seating depth
variations and primer changes will improve the velocity
consistency, but simply shooting a succession of
graduated charges over the chronograph and looking for
a tight velocity spread will not lead you to the OCW."

Yes took me minute to find that, I see its on the overview tab. I was looking only at the instruction tab at the time where it still states to the seating depth be unneeded usually.

 

[kaskin]

10-4. I went back and re-read the whole OCW article on Dan's page.

I'm going to run 43.5-45 again and see what happens. I get what he says that MV and ES/SD is not an indication of OCW but.... It's hard to wrap your head around that fact...

Off to read Chris long's shockwave pages....

 

[spife7980]

Positive compensation. In the rifles harmonics if you time it right with your load the fast ones will be coming out on the downhill side of the wave and the slow ones will be on the uphill swing.

 

[supercorndogs]

Yes took me minute to find that, I see its on the overview tab. I was looking only at the instruction tab at the time where it still states to the seating depth be unneeded usually.

I am sure it varies but I have almost always had to tune with seating depth at the end. It was tough for me the first few times to trust the POI, even if the groupings were not great.

 

[kaskin]

Finally got back to the range. Started from zero again. All cases annealed. All trimmed to same length. All same brand. This is what it produced. Thoughts??

 

[supercorndogs]

You should shoot some FGMM out of your gun. Are you sure there is not something wrong with your shooting system? Those are still splattered all over.

 

[kaskin]

This particular rifle doesn’t like FGMM. It does shoot HDY Match very well though. My son shot a few of the test groups. But.... I asked him if he though he pulled any. He was adamant that he did not and the gun went off exactly On the bullseye.

 

[pell1203]

kaskin, by having multiple shooters shoot the test groups you are unnecessarily introducing individual shooter technique into the equation and needlessly adding complexity to your test. This may very likely be why your results are difficult if not impossible to accurately interpret.

As an example, shooter "A" tends to use too much cheek pressure so shots tend to go slightly high and left... meanwhile shooter "B" does not always get right behind the rifle and does not pull trigger straight back... shots go right. Hard to interpret results when this may be occurring.

While doing this test, you are trying to remove as many variables as possible to best determine what the actual load is doing. One shooter, while perhaps not exhibiting perfect technique, will be more consistent in repeating the shot. By mixing it up you are just wasting ammo.

 

[kaskin]

kaskin, by having multiple shooters shoot the test groups you are unnecessarily introducing individual shooter technique into the equation and needlessly adding complexity to your test. This may very likely be why your results are difficult if not impossible to accurately interpret.

As an example, shooter "A" tends to use too much cheek pressure so shots tend to go slightly high and left... meanwhile shooter "B" does not always get right behind the rifle and does not pull trigger straight back... shots go right. Hard to interpret results when this may be occurring.

While doing this test, you are trying to remove as many variables as possible to best determine what the actual load is doing. One shooter, while perhaps not exhibiting perfect technique, will be more consistent in repeating the shot. By mixing it up you are just wasting ammo.

Pell

I understand and totally agree with what you said. I should have shot the test all myself. Price I payed for. It having enough time to go the range and trying to squeeze it in before I have to go to work for another hitch.... had to compromise. And since I hadn’t reloaded any ammo for his gun....well... you know the rest of the story.

 

[jsthntn247]

Typical factory Remington shit. Should have gotten a tikka.

 

[kaskin]

Update: Did another round of testing. 36 Rnds. I think i may have found the load. 44.2 Grn. Varget. I shot all the rounds this time. Round robing style. Waiting for the rifle to cool between strings. 13 Rounds / String @ 3 strings. No chrono attached. Targets posted below.
44.2 seemed to group really good and consistent in 53*F and 90*F according to previous targets 43.9 did as well which leads me to believe its a good load...

Thoughts?

 

[kaskin]

nobody?