Ok, so I have a sendero in 300 win that I have not been able to get the type of accuracy out of that I expected (around 1.25 inch or so average). I decided to measure my overall length by drawing on the bullet with black sharpie and chambering it until I did not see any marks. For the bullet I am using (178 grn Amax) I came up with an oal of 3.50. The book lists a OAL of 3.340. This comes out to be a difference of .16 of an inch. This seems huge to me, but I don't know. What do you guys think? Is my method of checking sound. Does this chamber seem to be out of spec or is this about right for a factory 700? Any help would be appreciated.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
- Thread starter coyoteduster
- Start date
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
I would measure fired cases for Concentricity, and Headspace, if both of those good switch to SMKs, as they don't seem to mind jumping, all of the factory Rems I have seen are chambered with really long leads, I beleave Remington does this for legal reasons.
I would measure fired cases for Concentricity, and Headspace, if both of those good switch to SMKs, as they don't seem to mind jumping, all of the factory Rems I have seen are chambered with really long leads, I beleave Remington does this for legal reasons.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
IMO it's a rare Remington chamber that isn't long. The way you're testing length is good enough for informational purpose's. Cobra is right about the SMK's they don't seem to mind the jump. You just have to experiment with powders and loads. What powder are you using? There's no reason that you can't get better groups than that other operator error.
bshaw
IMO it's a rare Remington chamber that isn't long. The way you're testing length is good enough for informational purpose's. Cobra is right about the SMK's they don't seem to mind the jump. You just have to experiment with powders and loads. What powder are you using? There's no reason that you can't get better groups than that other operator error.
bshaw
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
SAAMI spec for the leade is the minimum, there is no max spec. Manufactors are free to cut the leade as long as they feel is proper. Loading manual OAL is no "rule", it's only the lengtht the makers used to develop their charges and our best OAl is likely to be different.
SAAMI spec for the leade is the minimum, there is no max spec. Manufactors are free to cut the leade as long as they feel is proper. Loading manual OAL is no "rule", it's only the lengtht the makers used to develop their charges and our best OAl is likely to be different.
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
Thanks , I knew that Remingtons have long chambers, but I was unsure how long was long. I have defiantly not ruled out operator error as I am no world class shooter, but I usually get much better results out of my other rifles. My ruger 77 30-06 isn't supposed to be able to shoot and it consistently groups under .75 at a 100.
Any way I have been trying different loads and I have been using Re-22 with 215 federal primers n federal brass. I have played around with loads using the 178 A-max and the 150 Seirra Game King (what I had on hand at the time)
Thanks , I knew that Remingtons have long chambers, but I was unsure how long was long. I have defiantly not ruled out operator error as I am no world class shooter, but I usually get much better results out of my other rifles. My ruger 77 30-06 isn't supposed to be able to shoot and it consistently groups under .75 at a 100.
Any way I have been trying different loads and I have been using Re-22 with 215 federal primers n federal brass. I have played around with loads using the 178 A-max and the 150 Seirra Game King (what I had on hand at the time)
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: coyoteduster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, so I have a sendero in 300 win that I have not been able to get the type of accuracy out of that I expected (around 1.25 inch or so average). I decided to measure my overall length by drawing on the bullet with black sharpie and chambering it until I did not see any marks. For the bullet I am using (178 grn Amax) I came up with an oal of 3.50. The book lists a OAL of 3.340. This comes out to be a difference of .16 of an inch. This seems huge to me, but I don't know. What do you guys think? Is my method of checking sound. Does this chamber seem to be out of spec or is this about right for a factory 700? Any help would be appreciated. </div></div>
Coyoteduster,
Just a little background on the 300 Win Mag. When Winchester developed the 300 Win Mag in 1963, there was only one size of Win Model 70 action. For 308's or shorter, they used spacer blocks. For 300 H&H and 375 H&H, they removed part of the receiver rings fore and aft, shortened the boltstop, and used a longer (3.60") mag box.
All others, for the 30-06 length cases, and the "short mag cases", the mag box limited the cartridge OAL to 3.340".
<span style="font-style: italic">NOTE: In 1963 Short Mags were the 264 Win Mag, 300 Win Mag, 338 Win Mag, 458 Win Mag., not the WSM's of today.....</span>
Ruger 77 long actions are also on the short side, and limited to 3.340", among others.
That's why the book even today the book length on the 300 Win Mag is 3.340". However, Remington 700 long actions will accommodate rounds up to 3.70". So you are not restricted to an OAL of only 3.340".
So how long should you load it? That's up to you, but just don 't jam it into the lands, and you will be OK.
Bob
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: coyoteduster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, so I have a sendero in 300 win that I have not been able to get the type of accuracy out of that I expected (around 1.25 inch or so average). I decided to measure my overall length by drawing on the bullet with black sharpie and chambering it until I did not see any marks. For the bullet I am using (178 grn Amax) I came up with an oal of 3.50. The book lists a OAL of 3.340. This comes out to be a difference of .16 of an inch. This seems huge to me, but I don't know. What do you guys think? Is my method of checking sound. Does this chamber seem to be out of spec or is this about right for a factory 700? Any help would be appreciated. </div></div>
Coyoteduster,
Just a little background on the 300 Win Mag. When Winchester developed the 300 Win Mag in 1963, there was only one size of Win Model 70 action. For 308's or shorter, they used spacer blocks. For 300 H&H and 375 H&H, they removed part of the receiver rings fore and aft, shortened the boltstop, and used a longer (3.60") mag box.
All others, for the 30-06 length cases, and the "short mag cases", the mag box limited the cartridge OAL to 3.340".
<span style="font-style: italic">NOTE: In 1963 Short Mags were the 264 Win Mag, 300 Win Mag, 338 Win Mag, 458 Win Mag., not the WSM's of today.....</span>
Ruger 77 long actions are also on the short side, and limited to 3.340", among others.
That's why the book even today the book length on the 300 Win Mag is 3.340". However, Remington 700 long actions will accommodate rounds up to 3.70". So you are not restricted to an OAL of only 3.340".
So how long should you load it? That's up to you, but just don 't jam it into the lands, and you will be OK.
Bob
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
Thanks for the info, it looks like I have been going about this wrong. When I measured my 30-06 chamber it is very close to the book length, but the 300 win is much longer. I have been treating the book length as a maximum and trying to get as close to that as possible. It looks like I may need to look at that more as a minimum and go a bit longer.
Thanks for the info, it looks like I have been going about this wrong. When I measured my 30-06 chamber it is very close to the book length, but the 300 win is much longer. I have been treating the book length as a maximum and trying to get as close to that as possible. It looks like I may need to look at that more as a minimum and go a bit longer.
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
Screw the "book length".....
One criterea that must apply, you have enough bullet seated in the neck to hold it in place. The generally accepted rule of thumb there is a minimum of one bullet diameter's length. IOW, in your 300WM, at least .308" of the bullet base seated in the neck (not counting any boat tail portion).
The only other governing factors are your mag box length, and your chamber's leade. Your COAL for your rifle is a compromise between those two dimensions if in fact feeding from the mag is a priority. You want a good feed, so rounds won't bind in the mag box; and you don't want to jam the bullets into the lands and have pressure issues.
Most will seat as long as their mag box allows making sure it won't jam into the lands. With a long leade as in many factory rifles the mag box dimension usually wins out and you find a bullet that doesn't mind a little jump.
Don't fret a longer than "book length" COAL if all the function/safety criterea apply. Think of it as free case capacity.......
Screw the "book length".....
One criterea that must apply, you have enough bullet seated in the neck to hold it in place. The generally accepted rule of thumb there is a minimum of one bullet diameter's length. IOW, in your 300WM, at least .308" of the bullet base seated in the neck (not counting any boat tail portion).
The only other governing factors are your mag box length, and your chamber's leade. Your COAL for your rifle is a compromise between those two dimensions if in fact feeding from the mag is a priority. You want a good feed, so rounds won't bind in the mag box; and you don't want to jam the bullets into the lands and have pressure issues.
Most will seat as long as their mag box allows making sure it won't jam into the lands. With a long leade as in many factory rifles the mag box dimension usually wins out and you find a bullet that doesn't mind a little jump.
Don't fret a longer than "book length" COAL if all the function/safety criterea apply. Think of it as free case capacity.......
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
Hard to get a .308 length of bullet held in a .264 long neck. JMHO
Hard to get a .308 length of bullet held in a .264 long neck. JMHO
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: former naval person</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hard to get a .308 length of bullet held in a .264 long neck. JMHO </div></div>
Yeah, I have read that is one of the "flaws" the 300. But it seems like I still can add a little length to the cartridge and be safe from what I am reading
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: former naval person</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hard to get a .308 length of bullet held in a .264 long neck. JMHO </div></div>
Yeah, I have read that is one of the "flaws" the 300. But it seems like I still can add a little length to the cartridge and be safe from what I am reading
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
Yeah, back atcha...load for what your chamber and mag box lets you do. Reading the loading sequence development that TresMon has produced...start at the longest length into the lands, and drop back as you work up a load. That way you won't hurt yourself. Good shooting. FNP
Yeah, back atcha...load for what your chamber and mag box lets you do. Reading the loading sequence development that TresMon has produced...start at the longest length into the lands, and drop back as you work up a load. That way you won't hurt yourself. Good shooting. FNP
Re: Out of spec chamber, or OAL help
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: former naval person</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hard to get a .308 length of bullet held in a .264 long neck. JMHO </div></div>
Yeah, yeah...and you knew exactly what I was trying to say too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: former naval person</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hard to get a .308 length of bullet held in a .264 long neck. JMHO </div></div>
Yeah, yeah...and you knew exactly what I was trying to say too.
