Accuracy expectations from 6.5 creedmoor chassis

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Hi Everyone
I have been working a load for my 6.5 creedmoor chassis for a while now lol.
Components
Lapua 6x fired and annealed
Trimmed with Giraud
Shoulder bump .0015-.002
Berger 144 LRHT
CCI 450 & Fed 205m
H4350

Rifle
Defiance Ruckus Tactical
Bartlein 28” M24
Ec Tuner @0
Mdt ACC Elite
Triggertech Diamond 2 stage
Adjustable bag rider
Accutac bipod

I settled on the 41.3grs H4350 in the last tests and did the seating depth at 100 yards first and then 400 yards

100 yards test showed I have a seating depth node from 2.121 to 2.097 cbto

went outside and shot them at 400 yards
Surprisingly the cbto that had the most vertical at 100 yards had the best group at 400 yards

This was all with cci450
So I settled at 2.118 cbto

Yesterday I tested the Fed 205m
40.3grs with 0.2grs inc up to 41.8grs

The first 8 groups are the results with Fed 205m

Last 4 groups are with cci450
The storm started and I had to leave.

At this point I am just tired of seeking crazy accuracy just want to have a load that is reliable and I don’t have to mess with it that much in summer time.
Usage of the gun will be shooting bench up to 800-1000 yards

One friend of mine whose a F-class shooter told me if you are changing primers you don’t need to play with seating depth again.
But I don’t see any velocity flat spot with Fed205 but I see some similar POIs

What would you pick to just be done with it?
You can see most of these groups are between 0.1 to 0.3 MOA at worst but something In my mind keep pushing me to seek for more accurate load but at this point I am overwhelmed with all these tests and overthinking everything lol.

Thanks for your help

 

[hafejd30]

CCI 450 and 2.118 is what I’d go with. I always test is .5 grain increments initially and .005” jumps in OAL off the lands. .003” is ok for the jump but I personally only go down to .3 grains on the powder. Testing .1 or .2 grain differences (referring to last pic) for me won’t show enough of a difference compared to what heat or what not might change. If that makes sense!!??

I’d rather have a group that shoots great at say 41.3 grains. But also shoots well at 41.0 and say 41.5. Same for jump. I’d rather see it shoot well at 2.118 but also shoot great with more jump. More forgiving as the lands wear.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

CCI 450 and 2.118 is what I’d go with. I always test is .5 grain increments initially and .005” jumps in OAL off the lands. .003” is ok for the jump but I personally only go down to .3 grains on the powder. Testing .1 or .2 grain differences (referring to last pic) for me won’t show enough of a difference compared to what heat or what not might change. If that makes sense!!??

I’d rather have a group that shoots great at say 41.3 grains. But also shoots well at 41.0 and say 41.5. Same for jump. I’d rather see it shoot well at 2.118 but also shoot great with more jump. More forgiving as the lands wear.

Yeah they all shoot well
So maybe I should be happy with .2 and .3 groups?

 

[wind gypsy]

Would you expect to see a significant difference if you shot all those groups in the same manner but with a single load? I wouldn't.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Would you expect to see a significant difference if you shot all those groups in the same manner but with a single load? I wouldn't.

Which group would you pick to take to distance? I have enough components for testing but not enough time on my hand to drive 2 hrs to shoot the distance

 

[Maurygold]

All of this needs to be done over chrono. Those numbers are critical when determine where the gun is shooting flat in a node and lowest es/ sd.

Trying to decide what’s load and what’s shooter from a long range setup at 100 yards is not as helpful as you might think. Whatever load is the best and most forgiving over chrono will get you far.

 

[wind gypsy]

Which group would you pick to take to distance? I have enough components for testing but not enough time on my hand to drive 2 hrs to shoot the distance

My point is all those 3 round groups are statistically insignificant and even with all the different shit you tried between 3 round groups they generally hit the same spot and are within normal statistical distribution of each other for group size.

Id pick one in the middle of charge weight and seating depth (since they all seem to do the same thing) and run with it.

 

[diggler1833]

Hi Everyone
I have been working a load for my 6.5 creedmoor chassis for a while now lol.
Components
Lapua 6x fired and annealed
Trimmed with Giraud
Shoulder bump .0015-.002
Berger 144 LRHT
CCI 450 & Fed 205m
H4350

Rifle
Defiance Ruckus Tactical
Bartlein 28” M24
Ec Tuner @0
Mdt ACC Elite
Triggertech Diamond 2 stage
Adjustable bag rider
Accutac bipod

View attachment 8385285

I settled on the 41.3grs H4350 in the last tests and did the seating depth at 100 yards first and then 400 yards

100 yards test showed I have a seating depth node from 2.121 to 2.097 cbto

View attachment 8385196

went outside and shot them at 400 yards
Surprisingly the cbto that had the most vertical at 100 yards had the best group at 400 yards
View attachment 8385206
This was all with cci450
So I settled at 2.118 cbto

Yesterday I tested the Fed 205m
40.3grs with 0.2grs inc up to 41.8grs

The first 8 groups are the results with Fed 205m

Last 4 groups are with cci450
The storm started and I had to leave.

View attachment 8385210

At this point I am just tired of seeking crazy accuracy just want to have a load that is reliable and I don’t have to mess with it that much in summer time.
Usage of the gun will be shooting bench up to 800-1000 yards

One friend of mine whose a F-class shooter told me if you are changing primers you don’t need to play with seating depth again.
But I don’t see any velocity flat spot with Fed205 but I see some similar POIs

What would you pick to just be done with it?
You can see most of these groups are between 0.1 to 0.3 MOA at worst but something In my mind keep pushing me to seek for more accurate load but at this point I am overwhelmed with all these tests and overthinking everything lol.

Thanks for your help

2.121 @ 41.6gr is what I would test more of. Shoot a 10 shot group, and if not horrible, be done with it.

You're going to get 20 different answers from 20 different experts. 2.121 allows your throat to erode the longest without screwing with seating depth, and 41.6 splits the difference between two possible decent charges - so you can throw a tenth off and still have optimal accuracy.

Frequently I'll test until my velocity is where I like it, and then adjust seating depth to get the accuracy I'm looking for. YMMV.

 

[6brshooter]

I'd be looking for more speed. Accuracy is good(3 shot groups), but 2760 with a 28" barrel......Generally I end up at 42.5-43.0gr with a 140-147gr bullet in 6.5creed and lapua brass.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Just to add a better visual on how little theses groups vary from one another, I've added bolded lines and 1/2x1/2" squares. It isn't prefect as picture isn't perfect.

But it will show you how little these groups deviate from one another. It's not really enough to know which one is better. They are just too similar across the sample.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Also, the 400yd isn't "surprising" because you don't have enough data to know what the actual dispersion is of the rifle/ammo.

So, you have no idea at this point what the "smallest vertical" is to compare to.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Also, the 400yd isn't "surprising" because you don't have enough data to know what the actual dispersion is of the rifle/ammo.

So, you have no idea at this point what the "smallest vertical" is to compare to.

Thank you for taking the time, so what do you suggest? Do the powder charge test at 400 yards again?

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

I'd be looking for more speed. Accuracy is good(3 shot groups), but 2760 with a 28" barrel......Generally I end up at 42.5-43.0gr with a 140-147gr bullet in 6.5creed and lapua brass.

Large rifle primer?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Thank you for taking the time, so what do you suggest? Do the powder charge test at 400 yards again?

From your data, I'd suggest picking the velocity you'd like and then spending time making the most consistent ammo you can. After having larger sample of that ammo, if it doesn't perform as you'd like, then you can try another.

The alternative would be more testing with a lot more rounds. And based on what I'm seeing so far, the rifle will perform plenty well for your purposes. So, I'd consider it wasted ammo unless you really want to get into the weeds.

 

[6brshooter]

Large rifle primer?

Small rifle, cci br4 and cci 450, depending on rifle. That bottom row is solid, pick the 1 in middle, looks like a node from 40.5-40.7. Or look for the next higher node, if you want more speed. It won't make a huge difference on wind calls, and a consistent, accurate load is the most important feature.

 

[Terry Cross]

Is your MDT Elite bedded to the Defiance?

.

 

[AccuSol-ERN]

All of this needs to be done over chrono. Those numbers are critical when determine where the gun is shooting flat in a node and lowest es/ sd.

Trying to decide what’s load and what’s shooter from a long range setup at 100 yards is not as helpful as you might think. Whatever load is the best and most forgiving over chrono will get you far.

Spot on. A shit ton of winning rifles do not shoot tiny groups at 100yds. It is load consistency that wins at distance.

Pick a load that has good margin on both sides and get past 100yds.

You will get more hits at distance.......shooting a .5moa rifle at distance than a .1moa at 100yds.

Also, barrels are consumable. Don't spend yours finding the perfect load just to start over with a new barrel, unless that is your thing.

Just my opinion.......not even worth $.02

Ern

 

[PappyM3]

Hi Everyone
I have been working a load for my 6.5 creedmoor chassis for a while now lol.
Components
Lapua 6x fired and annealed
Trimmed with Giraud
Shoulder bump .0015-.002
Berger 144 LRHT
CCI 450 & Fed 205m
H4350

Rifle
Defiance Ruckus Tactical
Bartlein 28” M24
Ec Tuner @0
Mdt ACC Elite
Triggertech Diamond 2 stage
Adjustable bag rider
Accutac bipod

View attachment 8385285

I settled on the 41.3grs H4350 in the last tests and did the seating depth at 100 yards first and then 400 yards

100 yards test showed I have a seating depth node from 2.121 to 2.097 cbto

View attachment 8385196

went outside and shot them at 400 yards
Surprisingly the cbto that had the most vertical at 100 yards had the best group at 400 yards
View attachment 8385206
This was all with cci450
So I settled at 2.118 cbto

Yesterday I tested the Fed 205m
40.3grs with 0.2grs inc up to 41.8grs

The first 8 groups are the results with Fed 205m

Last 4 groups are with cci450
The storm started and I had to leave.

View attachment 8385210

At this point I am just tired of seeking crazy accuracy just want to have a load that is reliable and I don’t have to mess with it that much in summer time.
Usage of the gun will be shooting bench up to 800-1000 yards

One friend of mine whose a F-class shooter told me if you are changing primers you don’t need to play with seating depth again.
But I don’t see any velocity flat spot with Fed205 but I see some similar POIs

What would you pick to just be done with it?
You can see most of these groups are between 0.1 to 0.3 MOA at worst but something In my mind keep pushing me to seek for more accurate load but at this point I am overwhelmed with all these tests and overthinking everything lol.

Thanks for your help

3 round groups don’t tell you a whole lot. I mean, they can tell you something if they’re not good.

But tight three round groups don’t tell a lot. Some of those tight three round groups might open up to the same size as those larger (but still rather small) groups with just one or two more rounds on target, while those larger groups may not get any larger with another couple shots fired.

Also, that range is beautiful.

My point is all those 3 round groups are statistically insignificant and even with all the different shit you tried between 3 round groups they generally hit the same spot and are within normal statistical distribution of each other for group size.

Id pick one in the middle of charge weight and seating depth (since they all seem to do the same thing) and run with it.

Beat me to it

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Is your MDT Elite bedded to the Defiance?

.

No it’s not

 

[Terry Cross]

No it’s not

Thanks for the reply.

I think you posting a bunch of really solid groups on one target and clearly showing consecutive groups from one shooter and rifle deserves kudos. That is almost unheard of from 99% of shooters trying to share targets and data. Don't sweat getting ragged for 3 shot groups. You have a lot of 3 shot groups consecutively that show you and the rifle are doing very well. In fact so consistent and so small on the groups, it is not easy to pinpoint the "best" load.

The real reason I asked about the chassis being bedded was to make a random point toward another thread about whether to bed a chassis or not. Your targets from a non bedded chassis appear to reflect what I see from better chassis designs. Small groups and consistent POI.

Good shooting.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Just an FYI unless you are using a mic, you aren't getting calipers to measure down to half a thousand. You may see that readout but it's not accurate. It's important to understand not only the limiting of the tool but the competence of the person using them. Hitching your wagon to bad measurements is not a good foundation for building accuracy and precision.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Spot on. A shit ton of winning rifles do not shoot tiny groups at 100yds. It is load consistency that wins at distance.

Pick a load that has good margin on both sides and get past 100yds.

You will get more hits at distance.......shooting a .5moa rifle at distance than a .1moa at 100yds.

Also, barrels are consumable. Don't spend yours finding the perfect load just to start over with a new barrel, unless that is your thing.

Just my opinion.......not even worth $.02

Ern

Thanks man

 

[Terry Cross]

Just an FYI unless you are using a mic, you aren't getting calipers to measure down to half a thousand. You may see that readout but it's not accurate. It's important to understand not only the limiting of the tool but the competence of the person using them. Hitching your wagon to bad measurements is not a good foundation for building accuracy and precision.

Even then you are full of potential error.
Finding the the true center of a hole or the actual perimeter of ragged holes in paper is almost impossible regardless of the instrument.
Double or triple the difficulty when trying to measure tighter groups with lots of holes intersecting.

I think the methods accepted as most accurate are the apps/programs that use overlays to locate each hole or part of a hole. Even with holes that aren't clean cut, the human eyeball does excellently with circles on circles (double aperture sights aiming at round bullseyes at 1K palma, etc.) and those apps. take advantage of that.

I think some of the IBS and BR guys used to measure official targets using a set of helios with attached clear plate on each jaw that had an etched circle. They would zero the helios with the circles perfectly overlapped and then measure a group even if only catching some of the outside edge of the hole or circular "burn" mark. All that was before current apps were developed. Now they are free or close to it.

Image capture of the target with proper scale set is THE way to consistently to this now.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

3 round groups don’t tell you a whole lot. I mean, they can tell you something if they’re not good.

But tight three round groups don’t tell a lot. Some of those tight three round groups might open up to the same size as those larger (but still rather small) groups with just one or two more rounds on target, while those larger groups may not get any larger with another couple shots fired.

Also, that range is beautiful.



Beat me to it

You are right, I will try that

 

[308pirate]

So maybe I should be happy with .2 and .3 groups?

Um....yes.

I would have stopped wasting time and components the moment I hit .3s

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Even then you are full of potential error.
Finding the the true center of a hole or the actual perimeter of ragged holes in paper is almost impossible regardless of the instrument.
Double or triple the difficulty when trying to measure tighter groups with lots of holes intersecting.

I think the methods accepted as most accurate are the apps/programs that use overlays to locate each hole or part of a hole. Even with holes that aren't clean cut, the human eyeball does excellently with circles on circles (double aperture sights aiming at round bullseyes at 1K palma, etc.) and those apps. take advantage of that.

I think some of the IBS and BR guys used to measure official targets using a set of helios with attached clear plate on each jaw that had an etched circle. They would zero the helios with the circles perfectly overlapped and then measure a group even if only catching some of the outside edge of the hole or circular "burn" mark. All that was before current apps were developed. Now they are free or close to it.

Image capture of the target with proper scale set is THE way to consistently to this now.

Hi Terry

I was moreso referring to the cartridge, case and component measurements than group size. There seems to be a thousand different methods to measure group size and I don't even begin to understand it. Lucky my sports are decided by hitting steel or breaking a clay. Much easier to discern

 

[Terry Cross]

Hi Terry

I was moreso referring to the cartridge, case and component measurements than group size. There seems to be a thousand different methods to measure group size and I don't even begin to understand it. Lucky my sports are decided by hitting steel or breaking a clay. Much easier to discern

Well fuck.
Sorry. My context meter was not even on.

I agree sir.

 

[Terry Cross]

Um....yes.

I would have stopped wasting time and components the moment I hit .3s

No shit!

I would have had to go beat off after shooting that good. Then lock myself in the loading room until I had two 5-gallon buckets of that ammo.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Thanks for the reply.

I think you posting a bunch of really solid groups on one target and clearly showing consecutive groups from one shooter and rifle deserves kudos. That is almost unheard of from 99% of shooters trying to share targets and data. Don't sweat getting ragged for 3 shot groups. You have a lot of 3 shot groups consecutively that show you and the rifle are doing very well. In fact so consistent and so small on the groups, it is not easy to pinpoint the "best" load.

The real reason I asked about the chassis being bedded was to make a random point toward another thread about whether to bed a chassis or not. Your targets from a non bedded chassis appear to reflect what I see from better chassis designs. Small groups and consistent POI.

Good shooting.

Thanks for the reply man

I really love The Mdt chassis systems, I have the Acc and Hnt26 but Acc elite is the real shit.
You know my only issue for not testing the ammo at long range is the distance I have to drive for just testing and I need to take that day off which won’t work for me Unless I want to attend a match or something.

3 round groups don’t tell you a whole lot. I mean, they can tell you something if they’re not good.

But tight three round groups don’t tell a lot. Some of those tight three round groups might open up to the same size as those larger (but still rather small) groups with just one or two more rounds on target, while those larger groups may not get any larger with another couple shots fired.

Also, that range is beautiful.



Beat me to it

You are right,
When I was doing seating depth test, 2.109 showed one ragged hole at 100 but it was ugly at 400 yards, that’s how I ended up with 2.118 (1.6” including that top flier
This range is beautiful but unfortunately I live in a area that they don’t support shooting sports, even the 200 yards range is only open once a month! Lol

 

[hafejd30]

Even then you are full of potential error.
Finding the the true center of a hole or the actual perimeter of ragged holes in paper is almost impossible regardless of the instrument.
Double or triple the difficulty when trying to measure tighter groups with lots of holes intersecting.

I think the methods accepted as most accurate are the apps/programs that use overlays to locate each hole or part of a hole. Even with holes that aren't clean cut, the human eyeball does excellently with circles on circles (double aperture sights aiming at round bullseyes at 1K palma, etc.) and those apps. take advantage of that.

I think some of the IBS and BR guys used to measure official targets using a set of helios with attached clear plate on each jaw that had an etched circle. They would zero the helios with the circles perfectly overlapped and then measure a group even if only catching some of the outside edge of the hole or circular "burn" mark. All that was before current apps were developed. Now they are free or close to it.

Image capture of the target with proper scale set is THE way to consistently to this now.

Although you were talking different measurements in this case,

Here’s my method

1) use coin to cover the flyer (a caliper can also be used to accomplish this)

2) zoom the picture in enough to cut out the fact the other shots you pulled. “That little guy, don’t worry about that little guy”

3) place caliper to the center or furthest point on bullets etc. subtract the bullet diameter if outside to outside. Then close that caliper just a slight bit more. Cause why not

4) use the correct lighting to hide the caliper placement

5) take a pic and post it here as if that gun shoots one ragged hole all day long. (.1 moa are the norm, you didn’t even try the days when it opens up to .5 moa).

 

[hafejd30]

Thanks for the reply man

I really love The Mdt chassis systems, I have the Acc and Hnt26 but Acc elite is the real shit.
You know my only issue for not testing the ammo at long range is the distance I have to drive for just testing and I need to take that day off which won’t work for me Unless I want to attend a match or something.

You are right,
When I was doing seating depth test, 2.109 showed one ragged hole at 100 but it was ugly at 400 yards, that’s how I ended up with 2.118 (1.6” including that top flier
This range is beautiful but unfortunately I live in a area that they don’t support shooting sports, even the 200 yards range is only open once a month! Lol

View attachment 8386472

My goal is 1/2 moa at 300 to 500 yards. Depending what I’m testing. If I can get that I’m happy. It’s not hard to achieve and as you’ve shown you can do it. The goal is do it with some consistency

A chrono would tell you if that high shot was higher fps or maybe just you. But I see nothing wrong with any of your groups.

Pic a couple favorites and shoot them again if you’re concerned. Pic the best of those and start shooting. Learning to read wind and positional shoot etc will be more beneficial I think than chasing 1/4 moa

Even shooting them at 100 yards and going by group but mostly chrono consistency would help. I personally shoot 500 for most of my final loads. Pending weather is good. At that point I’m looking at vertical dispersion more than horizontal in my group size as I’ve narrowed down to good shooting combos already

 

[6brshooter]

With a Garmin xero, it's so easy to chrono every shot during load work. As these sharp guys said find a load that does single digit sd and lo 20s to teen es that shoots good at 100 and see what it does at 500-750yds. 22 creed at 750, hit higher than expected and the 5-15mph fv wind didnt help horizontal.

 

[AccuSol-ERN]

Even then you are full of potential error.
Finding the the true center of a hole or the actual perimeter of ragged holes in paper is almost impossible regardless of the instrument.
Double or triple the difficulty when trying to measure tighter groups with lots of holes intersecting.

I think the methods accepted as most accurate are the apps/programs that use overlays to locate each hole or part of a hole. Even with holes that aren't clean cut, the human eyeball does excellently with circles on circles (double aperture sights aiming at round bullseyes at 1K palma, etc.) and those apps. take advantage of that.

I think some of the IBS and BR guys used to measure official targets using a set of helios with attached clear plate on each jaw that had an etched circle. They would zero the helios with the circles perfectly overlapped and then measure a group even if only catching some of the outside edge of the hole or circular "burn" mark. All that was before current apps were developed. Now they are free or close to it.

Image capture of the target with proper scale set is THE way to consistently to this now.

Totally off topic but worth mentioning. For those of us not so app savvy, I find putting clear tape over the area of expected impacts gives you a super clean puncture hole for measuring.

Ern

 

[diggler1833]

Although you were talking different measurements in this case,

Here’s my method

1) use coin to cover the flyer (a caliper can also be used to accomplish this)

2) zoom the picture in enough to cut out the fact the other shots you pulled. “That little guy, don’t worry about that little guy”

3) place caliper to the center or furthest point on bullets etc. subtract the bullet diameter if outside to outside. Then close that caliper just a slight bit more. Cause why not

4) use the correct lighting to hide the caliper placement

5) take a pic and post it here as if that gun shoots one ragged hole all day long. (.1 moa are the norm, you didn’t even try the days when it opens up to .5 moa).

Quit giving away all my secrets man... How TF am I supposed to win all the forum arguments with complete strangers who also only shoot one three-shot group in a day?

Damnit.

 

[diggler1833]

My goal is 1/2 moa at 300 to 500 yards. Depending what I’m testing. If I can get that I’m happy. It’s not hard to achieve and as you’ve shown you can do it. The goal is do it with some consistency

A chrono would tell you if that high shot was higher fps or maybe just you. But I see nothing wrong with any of your groups.

Pic a couple favorites and shoot them again if you’re concerned. Pic the best of those and start shooting. Learning to read wind and positional shoot etc will be more beneficial I think than chasing 1/4 moa

Even shooting them at 100 yards and going by group but mostly chrono consistency would help. I personally shoot 500 for most of my final loads. Pending weather is good. At that point I’m looking at vertical dispersion more than horizontal in my group size as I’ve narrowed down to good shooting combos already

+1

If I can throw five shots into a sub-half-minute at 100 during development, I'll shoot a second, and maybe a third five-shot group (but a second at least). If it still holds up, I'll shoot another at 300, mostly because I'm lazy and 300 is pretty easy off the side of the house. If it still holds up at a half-minute or less at 300, I'll shoot again at 600-650.

At 600+ I'm looking for vertical dispersion. I'll booger up wind calls enough that I can take a half-minute load and shoot 2/3 minute all day with it past 500 . However, if I can keep that final group at 600 at a tenth mil / third-MOA vertically...I know I'm on a wiener (winner).

By that point I've fired 4-5 groups of five shots and am confident in my ability to repeat the results. The Hornady statisticians won't like my complacency, but they aren't out here sponsoring me.

Besides, I can always break out a quarter to cover the flier or crop the photo of the steel if need be.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

+1

If I can throw five shots into a sub-half-minute at 100 during development, I'll shoot a second, and maybe a third five-shot group (but a second at least). If it still holds up, I'll shoot another at 300, mostly because I'm lazy and 300 is pretty easy off the side of the house. If it still holds up at a half-minute or less at 300, I'll shoot again at 600-650.

At 600+ I'm looking for vertical dispersion. I'll booger up wind calls enough that I can take a half-minute load and shoot 2/3 minute all day with it past 500 . However, if I can keep that final group at 600 at a tenth mil / third-MOA vertically...I know I'm on a wiener (winner).

By that point I've fired 4-5 groups of five shots and am confident in my ability to repeat the results. The Hornady statisticians won't like my complacency, but they aren't out here sponsoring me.

Besides, I can always break out a quarter to cover the flier or crop the photo of the steel if need be.

Thank you so much
Your guys opinion give me more confidence about my results on target
Since I am confident with the seating depth
41.1-41.6 gave me .2 to .3 at 100 a few times and .3 MOA only tried it once
I am gonna go out and shoot that a few more times at the distance to see how consistent it is

Thanks

 

[Terry Cross]

Totally off topic but worth mentioning. For those of us not so app savvy, I find putting clear tape over the area of expected impacts gives you a super clean puncture hole for measuring.

Ern

They don't make tape big enough for my groups.

 

[DIBBS]

They don't make tape big enough for my groups.

@Terry Cross I won't call you a liar on the above statement... but I have serious doubts..

In case this isn't an April Fools joke....

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

went to the Range last week to finalize the load with seating depth
41.7grs H4350 with new jug was giving me 2790-2795 fps with low sd.

Shot this target at 600 yards with heavy mirage and 10-13mph wind from right to left.