Precision 6.5 CM - What would you change about my process?

[45-90]

Wow, that Hornady 108 gr "match ammo" is quite horrible for velocity consistency.
Feb 6, 2126 on the digital readout over 100 yrs into the future....you'd think they'd have improved on their ammo 100 yrs into the future.

 

[Barelstroker]

Approximately speaking, if the distribution is fairly normal and the SD=6 from a good sample, and you kept shooting, you would come close to an ES of roughly 36.

ETA: the basic principal of the ES of a "normal distribution" is that the two "tails" of the distribution span roughly six sigma, so 6x6=36

I've resisted commenting on many other threads where the infamous "velocity SD" is invoked in it's raw & ignorantly bromidic form as a means of measurement in & of itself.
In reality, SD is little more than a statistical, mathematical concept specifically utilized to obtain relevant data.

 

[RegionRat]

You can't let it get under your skin. Help out when you can or the next generations are doomed.

 

[GBMaryland]

Wow, that Hornady 108 gr "match ammo" is quite horrible for velocity consistency.
Feb 6, 2126 on the digital readout over 100 yrs into the future....you'd think they'd have improved on their ammo 100 yrs into the future.

To be fair, different lots of ammunition we will have different properties.

And that is a very small sample of 20 rounds… I would expect to get better with a larger sample.

Hornady certainly had some horrible manufacturing during the COVID timeframe, and I suspect this lot came from then.

The Berger did better, as has the Norma.

Certainly not my best day shooting, but here is a test target at 100 yards for the 109 grain Berger:

The central group is about half an inch and about 13 shots.

Really need to take my time and shoot at 300….

 

[straightshooter1]

I thought as much.
So, with a well established SD of 6, what should we anticipate as a realistic ES over the long term?

I think you can count on that number RegionRat stated. However, my data shows I get about 5x, often around 4X the SD for an ES. Keep in mind when talking about ES's, we're only talking about the measurement between just two data data points in a set.

Here's an example from my data: for a 50 shot set I got and SD of 5.4 and and ES of 23; another 80 shots with a an SD of 6.2 has an ES of 29. Then there one like this: 45 shots for an SD of 20.4 with an ES of 87. This latter one was telling me there was something very wrong with my load and the only thing that was different from other loads was the primer; so that SD gave me a good idea what to look at.

 

[kthomas]

My thoughts:

- I'm not sure what powder you are using, but use one that is known to have great success for 6.5 CM. H4350 is the go-to here, but there are other options too
- I've always found Hornady brass to be somewhat limiting when it comes to achieving the best SD/ES. I have better results with Lapua SRP brass
- Seat your primers as deep as possible
- Use 2 to 3 thou neck tension
- Reloading is all about consistency. Consistent powder charge, consistent shoulder bump, consistent seating depth, consistent primer seating depth, consistent neck tension, etc.
- FL dies are fine. I use FL dies and get 6-7 SD with 6.5 Creedmoor
- IMO, annealing and trimming aren't going to be big needle movers for what you are trying to accomplish. These are items you can pick up later on down the road

 

[GBMaryland]

I primarily use annealing to prevent from over working my brass, in general. Otherwise, not a really big deal depending on the brand of brass.

I've gotten as low as a 4SD on new Prime (Norma) brass in 65CM / 147ELDM

 

[_Thor_]

My thoughts:

- I'm not sure what powder you are using, but use one that is known to have great success for 6.5 CM. H4350 is the go-to here, but there are other options too
- I've always found Hornady brass to be somewhat limiting when it comes to achieving the best SD/ES. I have better results with Lapua SRP brass
- Seat your primers as deep as possible
- Use 2 to 3 thou neck tension
- Reloading is all about consistency. Consistent powder charge, consistent shoulder bump, consistent seating depth, consistent primer seating depth, consistent neck tension, etc.
- FL dies are fine. I use FL dies and get 6-7 SD with 6.5 Creedmoor
- IMO, annealing and trimming aren't going to be big needle movers for what you are trying to accomplish. These are items you can pick up later on down the road

I'm reading elsewhere that 1.920" is the max allowable length for 6.5 CM brass. So basically as long as I'm under that, I don't need to worry about trimming, right? Would consistency be affected much if mixing brass of different lengths?

 

[kthomas]

I'm reading elsewhere that 1.920" is the max allowable length for 6.5 CM brass. So basically as long as I'm under that, I don't need to worry about trimming, right? Would consistency be affected much if mixing brass of different lengths?

If you are not going beyond max length, it shouldn't present an issue. You should be able to at least get a few firings before you reach that point, but keep an eye on it.

And to your last question, I actually don't know. I'm not sure how much brass OAL variances would or wouldn't affect performance.

 

[Barelstroker]

I'm reading elsewhere that 1.920" is the max allowable length for 6.5 CM brass. So basically as long as I'm under that, I don't need to worry about trimming, right? Would consistency be affected much if mixing brass of different lengths?

As long as you're checking every case for length & not taking sample measurements as 6-5 Creed has only about .005" between chamber & case dimension &, cases can & do grow at different rates.

 

[Seymour Fish]

So you ran 2970 fps with 140 gr Bergers a old 270 Win with a 24" barrel.
You used H4350 so your comment applies in a broad sense...How?
It's about 6.5 CM.
H 4350 dies well many cartridges, especially the 6.5 CM.

Sounds to me like your just trying to hype the 270 Win over the 6.5 CM as better....it may be in certain applications.

But back to the 6.5 CM.
One can greatly improve performance of the 6.5 CM cartridge.
Even though the orginial post was trying to get S/D low for best LR accuracy.

With a factory 24" barreled 6.5 CM and hybrid cases I ran 140 gr bullets to 3156 fps.
But the 150 gr SMK were excellent at just over 3000 fps.
Do not even think about trying this without hybrid cases period.
At least it applies to 6.5 CM, it's fast and accurate in my rifle, and out performs most "270s".
This is not needed or desired by many LR shooters, but it's about maximum performance available in 6.5 CM at this time.
Back to the 6.5 CM loads for normal shooters, H4350 it's not the fastest, it doesn't have to be, but it's one of the most consistent, and why I'd stick with it for a basis of comparison in testing, to build off of, regardless of match bullet used.

45/90, don’t make me say “ sounds like you are hyping Hybrid cases”. Lmao.

So you ran 2970 fps with 140 gr Bergers a old 270 Win with a 24" barrel.
You used H4350 so your comment applies in a broad sense...How?
It's about 6.5 CM.
H 4350 dies well many cartridges, especially the 6.5 CM.

Sounds to me like your just trying to hype the 270 Win over the 6.5 CM as better....it may be in certain applications.

But back to the 6.5 CM.
One can greatly improve performance of the 6.5 CM cartridge.
Even though the orginial post was trying to get S/D low for best LR accuracy.

With a factory 24" barreled 6.5 CM and hybrid cases I ran 140 gr bullets to 3156 fps.
But the 150 gr SMK were excellent at just over 3000 fps.
Do not even think about trying this without hybrid cases period.
At least it applies to 6.5 CM, it's fast and accurate in my rifle, and out performs most "270s".
This is not needed or desired by many LR shooters, but it's about maximum performance available in 6.5 CM at this time.
Back to the 6.5 CM loads for normal shooters, H4350 it's not the fastest, it doesn't have to be, but it's one of the most consistent, and why I'd stick with it for a basis of comparison in testing, to build off of, regardless of match bullet used.

OP wondered about reducing SD/ES, without overspending. I elucidated a simple process on the cheap which should work for any cartridge that “likes” h4350. Compatibility with Fed 210, weighing to the kernel, paying attention to sound and feel, chronoing 5 of the load that sounds/feels “right”. Blind hog finds acorn. Will it repeat ? Likely. 270 just happens to fall within that cluster. As for hyping it, bullshit. More like you are hyping your hybrid case. Not that it isn’t interesting, but hardly applies to the basic question. You are a very helpful innovative guy, so I’ll cut you some slack.

 

[45-90]

45/90, don’t make me say “ sounds like you are hyping Hybrid cases”. Lmao.

OP wondered about reducing SD/ES, without overspending. I elucidated a simple process on the cheap which should work for any cartridge that “likes” h4350. Compatibility with Fed 210, weighing to the kernel, paying attention to sound and feel, chronoing 5 of the load that sounds/feels “right”. Blind hog finds acorn. Will it repeat ? Likely. 270 just happens to fall within that cluster. As for hyping it, bullshit. More like you are hyping your hybrid case. Not that it isn’t interesting, but hardly applies to the basic question. You are a very helpful innovative guy, so I’ll cut you some slack.

So here is some load notes on 6.5 CM in an AR 10 24" barrel, no hybrid cases which are reserved for the bolt guns.
AR 10 140 gr 2962 fps RL 26 the speedy powder. You'll have to test it to see if it's right for your application.
But the interesting load for low SD was H4350 and 150 gr SMK 7.5 S/D in an AR 10, it's not the fastest at 2659 Ave close to 200 fps slower than Superformance with a 10.6 S/D 2842 fps and a .542" 5 shot group in the AR 10 for the 150 gr SMK.
Superformance produced high velocities, consistent enough, & accuracy, with 140, 147, & 150 gr bullets, similar to RL 26.
So I didn't use H4350 much in the AR 10 in 6.5 CM but its very consistent, and accuracy generally pretty good.
H380 was fired in an autoloader with thrown powder charges and velocities were extremely close but low, for and auto but it wasn't accurate. Thrown charges can have single digit S/D when operated consistently, and operated at high pressure...the high pressure may be more important than weighing to the exact kernel of powder which I never do. Cause when the powder isn't burned 100% when the bullet exits the bore, it aint producing gas behind the bullet but just a few kernels, or more, exiting the bore unburned...
Hybrid cases can produce magnum velocities in 6.5 CM it's a personal preference if someone decides to go there...but it's available for those who do.
I always explore the possibilities, and not what everyone else is using.
H4350 is still a very good consistent powder in the 6.5 CM for most uses, and the standard to judge other powders by.

 

[_Thor_]

Update: I got the chance to put together some test batches and shoot them at 100 yds. Here's my data - the 9/28 ones are what I'm trying to improve upon, while the 10/19 and 10/21 loads are what I just tested. Lots of permutations here, but hopefully enough consistency to learn something..

• "Bullet sorting" - for all the new batches, I weighed each bullet and found the most common tenth-grain in the batch and made sure to use all bullets weighing the same, and I noted what the actual weight was. I've heard this is not likely to be worthwhile, but I figured it couldn't hurt while trying to first get a better SD overall.
• Chamfer - I used the hand tool recommended earlier in the thread, except for batch #5
• Powder method - I took everyone's recommendation and started using the scale pan, trickling up to the tenth grain, and then using the MK machining funnel
• Seating depth - I had some trouble with this, but I think my measurements are reliable at this point. I first tried the Cortina method of finding jam, but found that slamming the bolt home wasn't enough to seat the bullet further and didn't really yield any useful measurement of where jam is. Instead I ended up using the Hornady OAL gauge, which reads the same within a thou or so reliably. I did this for each brass+bullet combo. I'm noting the BTO measurement and the micrometer setting on my die for my own reference. I tried batches with .010 off the lands, .050, and .090.

In terms of insights from this data, I'm struggling a little:

• The 2 lowest SD groups were batch #3 and #5, one of which had a "poor group" (in my opinion) and the other with a great one. However, I think the best group was #2, in spite of having worse SD/ES.
• Pictured below is my target, with each number corresponding to the "row #" (except that cardboard #10 is "row #7 - because the sticker fell off).
• Note that #8 and #9 look good on cardboard, but are also 5 shot groups instead of 10. In hindsight, those two aren't very useful with a different sample size, I think.
• Barnes MatchBurners did not perform well in the one test batch I did here.

I also tried building a correlation matrix:

• Assuming I did this right, it looks like Hornady was much more strongly correlated with a lower SD vs Berger, and seating .050 off the lands was also most strongly correlated with a lower SD.
• It doesn't seem like the brass selection had any difference in correlation to SD/ES/Group quality.
• Seating at .010 off the lands appears to be strongly correlated to a HIGH SD. However, I only did one test each of anything other than .050 off the lands, so someone with better stats skills could definitely tell me I'm wrong on my interpretation here.

I'm curious what others think, but in general I think the next step would be to do more testing with smaller seating depth increments, maybe closer to the lands-.020, .023, .026 or so, and also more testing around my "best group" (#2) vs "best SD" recipes.

 

[45-90]

Shoot group # 2 the best group at distance, 800 to 1000 yds... a 10.2 S/D ain't bad.
And can you out shoot the velocity variation, with your wind calls?
Plus you'll pick up some skill before wearing out your barrel.

 

[straightshooter1]

Update: I got the chance to put together some test batches and shoot them at 100 yds. Here's my data - the 9/28 ones are what I'm trying to improve upon, while the 10/19 and 10/21 loads are what I just tested. Lots of permutations here, but hopefully enough consistency to learn something..

View attachment 8533497

• "Bullet sorting" - for all the new batches, I weighed each bullet and found the most common tenth-grain in the batch and made sure to use all bullets weighing the same, and I noted what the actual weight was. I've heard this is not likely to be worthwhile, but I figured it couldn't hurt while trying to first get a better SD overall.
• Chamfer - I used the hand tool recommended earlier in the thread, except for batch #5
• Powder method - I took everyone's recommendation and started using the scale pan, trickling up to the tenth grain, and then using the MK machining funnel
• Seating depth - I had some trouble with this, but I think my measurements are reliable at this point. I first tried the Cortina method of finding jam, but found that slamming the bolt home wasn't enough to seat the bullet further and didn't really yield any useful measurement of where jam is. Instead I ended up using the Hornady OAL gauge, which reads the same within a thou or so reliably. I did this for each brass+bullet combo. I'm noting the BTO measurement and the micrometer setting on my die for my own reference. I tried batches with .010 off the lands, .050, and .090.

In terms of insights from this data, I'm struggling a little:

• The 2 lowest SD groups were batch #3 and #5, one of which had a "poor group" (in my opinion) and the other with a great one. However, I think the best group was #2, in spite of having worse SD/ES.
• Pictured below is my target, with each number corresponding to the "row #" (except that cardboard #10 is "row #7 - because the sticker fell off).
• Note that #8 and #9 look good on cardboard, but are also 5 shot groups instead of 10. In hindsight, those two aren't very useful with a different sample size, I think.
• Barnes MatchBurners did not perform well in the one test batch I did here.

I also tried building a correlation matrix:
View attachment 8533499

• Assuming I did this right, it looks like Hornady was much more strongly correlated with a lower SD vs Berger, and seating .050 off the lands was also most strongly correlated with a lower SD.
• It doesn't seem like the brass selection had any difference in correlation to SD/ES/Group quality.
• Seating at .010 off the lands appears to be strongly correlated to a HIGH SD. However, I only did one test each of anything other than .050 off the lands, so someone with better stats skills could definitely tell me I'm wrong on my interpretation here.

View attachment 8533498

I'm curious what others think, but in general I think the next step would be to do more testing with smaller seating depth increments, maybe closer to the lands-.020, .023, .026 or so, and also more testing around my "best group" (#2) vs "best SD" recipes.

My thoughts are . . . you shouldn't focus on distance to the lands. Focus on seating depths.

It's good to know where the lands is so that you where you're starting from and not being too close or jamming, or. . . if you're intent is for touching or jamming your loads all the time.

 

[Harman117]

Update: I got the chance to put together some test batches and shoot them at 100 yds. Here's my data - the 9/28 ones are what I'm trying to improve upon, while the 10/19 and 10/21 loads are what I just tested. Lots of permutations here, but hopefully enough consistency to learn something..

View attachment 8533497

• "Bullet sorting" - for all the new batches, I weighed each bullet and found the most common tenth-grain in the batch and made sure to use all bullets weighing the same, and I noted what the actual weight was. I've heard this is not likely to be worthwhile, but I figured it couldn't hurt while trying to first get a better SD overall.
• Chamfer - I used the hand tool recommended earlier in the thread, except for batch #5
• Powder method - I took everyone's recommendation and started using the scale pan, trickling up to the tenth grain, and then using the MK machining funnel
• Seating depth - I had some trouble with this, but I think my measurements are reliable at this point. I first tried the Cortina method of finding jam, but found that slamming the bolt home wasn't enough to seat the bullet further and didn't really yield any useful measurement of where jam is. Instead I ended up using the Hornady OAL gauge, which reads the same within a thou or so reliably. I did this for each brass+bullet combo. I'm noting the BTO measurement and the micrometer setting on my die for my own reference. I tried batches with .010 off the lands, .050, and .090.

In terms of insights from this data, I'm struggling a little:

• The 2 lowest SD groups were batch #3 and #5, one of which had a "poor group" (in my opinion) and the other with a great one. However, I think the best group was #2, in spite of having worse SD/ES.
• Pictured below is my target, with each number corresponding to the "row #" (except that cardboard #10 is "row #7 - because the sticker fell off).
• Note that #8 and #9 look good on cardboard, but are also 5 shot groups instead of 10. In hindsight, those two aren't very useful with a different sample size, I think.
• Barnes MatchBurners did not perform well in the one test batch I did here.

I also tried building a correlation matrix:
View attachment 8533499

• Assuming I did this right, it looks like Hornady was much more strongly correlated with a lower SD vs Berger, and seating .050 off the lands was also most strongly correlated with a lower SD.
• It doesn't seem like the brass selection had any difference in correlation to SD/ES/Group quality.
• Seating at .010 off the lands appears to be strongly correlated to a HIGH SD. However, I only did one test each of anything other than .050 off the lands, so someone with better stats skills could definitely tell me I'm wrong on my interpretation here.

View attachment 8533498

I'm curious what others think, but in general I think the next step would be to do more testing with smaller seating depth increments, maybe closer to the lands-.020, .023, .026 or so, and also more testing around my "best group" (#2) vs "best SD" recipes.

Very cool analytical approach, thanks for the update/info!

The only thing I would warn against (and I've been trying myself to be more mindful of it) is small sample sizes and making incorrect assumptions... 10 round groups are better than 5, but I don't know if you can honestly draw any statistical conclusions based on a single 10 round group. To test this, run every batch you did exactly the same, again. Do it a 3'rd time too, odds are some of the results will likely not repeat like you would expect.

Give this podcast a listen, next time you mow or have a far drive. There's also a follow up episode too. It's on Spotify if you prefer that over youtube.

 

[straightshooter1]

For those around here that don't read or are not aware of the precision Rifle Blog, there's a lot of great information published there. More than one, the subject of SD's and ES's has come up and some good information has been published there. Like recently this:

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2024/10/27/best-reloading-presses-dies-what-the-pros-use/

When I started "precision loading" I was curious as to what's the best I could expect to do, particularly with a somewhat limited budget where I won't have things like a high end custom gun(s) or the best reloading equipment. Looking at what the professional's do, as shown in the PRB website gives me a some idea what I might be able to achieve within the scope of my limited resources. Unfortunately it's a rabbit hole very often leading to spending more than one should. It's hellaofa lot of fun!

For me, in trying to figure out just how low an SD for velocity I might reasonably expect from my reloading, it was interesting to find out that different cartridges have a different ability to produce low SD's. If I had known this early on, I probably would have chosen a different cartridge than my .308. . . as much as I love my .308.

Initially, I was just trying to get into single digit SD's. Once I did that, wanted to see how far down in the single digits I might be able to go. It's been a challenge to get my SD's in line with what I saw the pro's doing. Surprisingly to me, it doesn't take ALL the best equipment to get there, just a few pieces of good equipment and a lot of attention to details. Like with my .308, I get between 5 - 7 SD's, probably averaging in the high 5's to low 6's. For example, a recent 80 round string of 80 had SD of 6.2 with an ES of 29. I'm happy that I'm producing better than "average hand-loads". This sport challenges me in shooting small groups as possible, AND. . . getting the lowest SD's possible.

 

[RegionRat]

I'm curious what others think, but in general I think the next step would be to do more testing with smaller seating depth increments, maybe closer to the lands-.020, .023, .026 or so, and also more testing around my "best group" (#2) vs "best SD" recipes.

Rather than tell you anything about the data and analysis you posted, instead I will suggest that you take a step back and test the way you hope to shoot. That means, get to the distance you strive for and see how these perform. This will teach you the value of short to medium range flat fire performance versus the speed stats and short range groups.

If we lived in a perfect world, the SD/ES would be near zero, but.... what I will tell you next is going to blow a few minds....

Even if you could load ammo that had a near zero SD/ES, it may or may not shoot small in your gun.

Unless you have a trust fund and lots of time for testing... maybe spend a share of your shooting budget at distance and see what happens.

Take a methodical approach and master 300, then 600, etc., but step back from the chronographs and spend more time on the targets.

We would all love to have perfect ammo, but the vast majority of the folks on the forum couldn't do anything with it if I gave it to them because they spend too much time in what we called "analysis paralysis" and they forget that you have to balance your rifle, ammo, and the shooter, otherwise we are just putting race tires on a Yugo.

 

[straightshooter1]

Rather than tell you anything about the data and analysis you posted, instead I will suggest that you take a step back and test the way you hope to shoot. That means, get to the distance you stive for and see how these perform. This will teach you the value of short to medium range flat fire performance versus the speed stats and short range groups.

If we lived in a perfect world, the SD/ES would be near zero, but.... what I will tell you next is going to blow a few minds....

Even if you could load ammo that had a near zero SD/ES, it may or may not shoot small in your gun.

Unless you have a trust fund and lots of time for testing... maybe spend a share of your shooting budget at distance and see what happens.

Take a methodical approach and master 300, then 600, etc., but step back from the chronographs and spend more time on the targets.

We would all love to have perfect ammo, but the vast majority of the folks on the forum couldn't do anything with it if I gave it to them because they spend too much time in what we called "analysis paralysis" and they forget that you have to balance your rifle, ammo, and the shooter, otherwise we are just putting race tires on a Yugo.

BBBBut. . . some people like to see what can be done with a Yugo.

https://www.autoblog.com/news/twin-v8-engine-yugo-for-sale

 

[_Thor_]

My thoughts are . . . you shouldn't focus on distance to the lands. Focus on seating depths.

It's good to know where the lands is so that you where you're starting from and not being too close or jamming, or. . . if you're intent is for touching or jamming your loads all the time.

If I'm interpreting your comment correctly, you're really saying not to chase the lands, correct? I get that - I don't intend to go crazy constantly adjusting seating depth once I find a good ballpark unless it's necessary to maintain accuracy with my load as my barrel wears. I know some people that pick a seating depth an toss the barrel (prematurely IMO) once their lands erode enough to make that load inaccurate rather than chasing lands. I like the idea Cortina shared in a video about finding a 6-thou sweet spot and adjusting a couple thou in once accuracy starts to degrade.

Very cool analytical approach, thanks for the update/info!

The only thing I would warn against (and I've been trying myself to be more mindful of it) is small sample sizes and making incorrect assumptions... 10 round groups are better than 5, but I don't know if you can honestly draw any statistical conclusions based on a single 10 round group. To test this, run every batch you did exactly the same, again. Do it a 3'rd time too, odds are some of the results will likely not repeat like you would expect.

Give this podcast a listen, next time you mow or have a far drive. There's also a follow up episode too. It's on Spotify if you prefer that over youtube.

That's good advice. I'd chosen 10-shot groups with the hope of having some level of statistical significance, but I need to repeat the test to know more. There's also a significant chance that my groups degrade over a session due to fatigue, mirage, heat, etc.

Rather than tell you anything about the data and analysis you posted, instead I will suggest that you take a step back and test the way you hope to shoot. That means, get to the distance you stive for and see how these perform. This will teach you the value of short to medium range flat fire performance versus the speed stats and short range groups.

If we lived in a perfect world, the SD/ES would be near zero, but.... what I will tell you next is going to blow a few minds....

Even if you could load ammo that had a near zero SD/ES, it may or may not shoot small in your gun.

Unless you have a trust fund and lots of time for testing... maybe spend a share of your shooting budget at distance and see what happens.

Take a methodical approach and master 300, then 600, etc., but step back from the chronographs and spend more time on the targets.

We would all love to have perfect ammo, but the vast majority of the folks on the forum couldn't do anything with it if I gave it to them because they spend too much time in what we called "analysis paralysis" and they forget that you have to balance your rifle, ammo, and the shooter, otherwise we are just putting race tires on a Yugo.

I like this idea. Next time I'll run my test at ~550 yards (as my range allows for) and evaluate. It'll definitely help "magnify" my groups so it's easier to see which ones are better. And that's really more realistic to the purpose, which is to group well during a match, so that'll build some level of confidence that the ammo is good enough for a match.

 

[justincase]

Hi all,
I'm a novice reloader and I've been trying to get some handloads for 6.5 CM to be at least as good as the Hornady 140gr ELDM box ammo I shoot. Generally I'm getting SDs around 14-20, ESs around 51-66, but I've been told single digit SDs and ES under 20 is the standard. Here's the rundown of my gear and process:

• Using pretty much all once-fired Hornady brass from my ELDM box ammo
• I deprime the dirty brass with a Lee depriming die, then lube and size in a RCBS MatchMaster FL die, then tumble in my Frankford Arsenal tumbler with just dish soap. My brass doesn't get very dirty since I shoot on concrete and I'm trying to save the annoyance of collecting steel pins; I've read that sizing brass before cleaning may wear out the dies faster, but again, if it's not filthy is that an issue? Otherwise, would you tumble,size, then tumble again to get rid of the grease?
• I prime with a Frankford Arsenal hand primer, which I find is faster than my press' built-in priming widget. Using Remington 9 1/2 LRPs.
• I have a Lee perfect powder measure, a trickler and a Hornady digital powder scale. I typically charge the case (H4350) by putting the case on the scale, zeroing it, throw a powder load, and then trickle up to the exact grain of powder that gets the scale to tick over to the correct tenth-grain I want. This is pretty tedious, and I've debated whether just using the powder measure is good enough, regardless of where in the "tenth" it lands.
• Then I seat the bullet. I've used almost exclusively Hornady 140 ELDMs. I intend to branch out to others but first I figure my process is the main issue over the projectile selection.

How would you change my process for the best improvement to SD/ES/precision without going absolutely crazy on gear cost? I have some budget, but $700 for powder scales, etc is probably not in the cards for me unless I go all the way into the deep end with this hobby. Some suggestions I've heard from friends are:

• Switch to SRP Lapua brass and don't use Hornady brass at all
• Experiment more with other projectiles
• Get new dies instead of FL dies - I guess neck sizing/shoulder bump is preferable?
• Get a case trimmer setup
• Get an annealer
• Experiment more with seating depth - note, I haven't done much experimentation here at all
• Try different primers (LRP)

For these suggestions and any others the forum has, what priority would you put them in?

Im pretty anal with my 6.5 loads as you seem to be ,I count out every grain in my precision loads ,but I also get an,ES and SD of 5 and 2..
But ypu put in the work you get the results that come with it..I have not done any annealing and I found when it comes to brass I have gotten more consistant range and # with Small rifle and BR-4 primers..Lapua/Starline brass.I knock down my load from the Hornady brass (wich is larger inner) by 2 grains and have had dead on precision out to 1200 yards..
Alot of people say I do not know what I am talking about but I sit and let the rounds and hits speak for it..
All sounds good what you have going on...pretty impressive but it is all as I said ,just my opinion

 

[kthomas]

For those around here that don't read or are not aware of the precision Rifle Blog, there's a lot of great information published there. More than one, the subject of SD's and ES's has come up and some good information has been published there. Like recently this:

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2024/10/27/best-reloading-presses-dies-what-the-pros-use/

When I started "precision loading" I was curious as to what's the best I could expect to do, particularly with a somewhat limited budget where I won't have things like a high end custom gun(s) or the best reloading equipment. Looking at what the professional's do, as shown in the PRB website gives me a some idea what I might be able to achieve within the scope of my limited resources. Unfortunately it's a rabbit hole very often leading to spending more than one should. It's hellaofa lot of fun!

For me, in trying to figure out just how low an SD for velocity I might reasonably expect from my reloading, it was interesting to find out that different cartridges have a different ability to produce low SD's. If I had known this early on, I probably would have chosen a different cartridge than my .308. . . as much as I love my .308.
View attachment 8533631

Initially, I was just trying to get into single digit SD's. Once I did that, wanted to see how far down in the single digits I might be able to go. It's been a challenge to get my SD's in line with what I saw the pro's doing. Surprisingly to me, it doesn't take ALL the best equipment to get there, just a few pieces of good equipment and a lot of attention to details. Like with my .308, I get between 5 - 7 SD's, probably averaging in the high 5's to low 6's. For example, a recent 80 round string of 80 had SD of 6.2 with an ES of 29. I'm happy that I'm producing better than "average hand-loads". This sport challenges me in shooting small groups as possible, AND. . . getting the lowest SD's possible.
View attachment 8533676

I would take the self-reported SD's here with a tremendous grain of salt.

These are the same people that will post 3 shot chrono data on FaceBook for their nut-huggers to salivate over.

Nothing against these people, but SDs are a huge vanity with this crowd. And some of the numbers being reported here are very difficult to believe.

 

[straightshooter1]

If I'm interpreting your comment correctly, you're really saying not to chase the lands, correct? I get that - I don't intend to go crazy constantly adjusting seating depth once I find a good ballpark unless it's necessary to maintain accuracy with my load as my barrel wears. I know some people that pick a seating depth an toss the barrel (prematurely IMO) once their lands erode enough to make that load inaccurate rather than chasing lands. I like the idea Cortina shared in a video about finding a 6-thou sweet spot and adjusting a couple thou in once accuracy starts to degrade.

Essentially. . . yes, don't chase the land. I will likewise make a seating depth adjustment when I see my "precision" waning. When the throat erodes enough, I might even have to change to a different/longer bullet in order to extend barrel usage. Though that will take some load development all over again.

 

[straightshooter1]

I would take the self-reported SD's here with a tremendous grain of salt.

These are the same people that will post 3 shot chrono data on FaceBook for their nut-huggers to salivate over.

Nothing against these people, but SDs are a huge vanity with this crowd. And some of the numbers being reported here are very difficult to believe.

Hmmm??? That seems pretty cynical about reports from professionals.

The SD's I've been able to achieve falls pretty much in line with those reported numbers I posted. As far as what most people publish, like on FaceBook, those numbers simply have no real meaning. Just the lack of context is a big problem with things being posted.

 

[kthomas]

Hmmm??? That seems pretty cynical about reports from professionals.

The SD's I've been able to achieve falls pretty much in line with those reported numbers I posted. As far as what most people publish, like on FaceBook, those numbers simply have no real meaning. Just the lack of context is a big problem with things being posted.

I don't think the reports of average SDs of 1 or 2 are credible. Neither do I think are the average group sizes of 0.1 MOA for example.

From my cursory look, there wasn't any specifics or standards around the self reported figures. Are these for 3 shots? 5? 10? 15? 30+?

These self-reported are pretty meaningless without further context, and some of the numbers provided seem outright unrealistic.

 

[stello1001]

I don't think the reports of average SDs of 1 or 2 are credible. Neither do I think are the average group sizes of 0.1 MOA for example.

From my cursory look, there wasn't any specifics or standards around the self reported figures. Are these for 3 shots? 5? 10? 15? 30+?

These self-reported are pretty meaningless without further context, and some of the numbers provided seem outright unrealistic.

You don't think reports of SD being 1 or 2 are credible haha?

Try ES in the 1 to 3 FPS. I heard a guy at the monthly match I shoot claim such numbers. What's even worse is there's a few guys who really hear him out and listen to what he has to say because he loads with a prometheus. I didn't wanna call him out so I just moved on.

 

[Hondo64d]

Hi all,
I'm a novice reloader and I've been trying to get some handloads for 6.5 CM to be at least as good as the Hornady 140gr ELDM box ammo I shoot. Generally I'm getting SDs around 14-20, ESs around 51-66, but I've been told single digit SDs and ES under 20 is the standard. Here's the rundown of my gear and process:

• Using pretty much all once-fired Hornady brass from my ELDM box ammo
• I deprime the dirty brass with a Lee depriming die, then lube and size in a RCBS MatchMaster FL die, then tumble in my Frankford Arsenal tumbler with just dish soap. My brass doesn't get very dirty since I shoot on concrete and I'm trying to save the annoyance of collecting steel pins; I've read that sizing brass before cleaning may wear out the dies faster, but again, if it's not filthy is that an issue? Otherwise, would you tumble,size, then tumble again to get rid of the grease?
• I prime with a Frankford Arsenal hand primer, which I find is faster than my press' built-in priming widget. Using Remington 9 1/2 LRPs.
• I have a Lee perfect powder measure, a trickler and a Hornady digital powder scale. I typically charge the case (H4350) by putting the case on the scale, zeroing it, throw a powder load, and then trickle up to the exact grain of powder that gets the scale to tick over to the correct tenth-grain I want. This is pretty tedious, and I've debated whether just using the powder measure is good enough, regardless of where in the "tenth" it lands.
• Then I seat the bullet. I've used almost exclusively Hornady 140 ELDMs. I intend to branch out to others but first I figure my process is the main issue over the projectile selection.

How would you change my process for the best improvement to SD/ES/precision without going absolutely crazy on gear cost? I have some budget, but $700 for powder scales, etc is probably not in the cards for me unless I go all the way into the deep end with this hobby. Some suggestions I've heard from friends are:

• Switch to SRP Lapua brass and don't use Hornady brass at all
• Experiment more with other projectiles
• Get new dies instead of FL dies - I guess neck sizing/shoulder bump is preferable?
• Get a case trimmer setup
• Get an annealer
• Experiment more with seating depth - note, I haven't done much experimentation here at all
• Try different primers (LRP)

For these suggestions and any others the forum has, what priority would you put them in?

My process. YMMV:

1. Use good components. Alpha Munitions or Lapua brass.
2. Deprime cases using dedicated decapping die. I use a Lee. It works fine.
3. Wet tumble with stainless pins. I want perfectly clean brass going into my dies. Also cleans primer pockets to like new. May not make any difference, but it satisfies my OCD.
4. Let cases dry. If I’m in a hurry, I’ll put them in my air fryer on 125 degrees for a few minutes.
5. Anneal and let cool.
6. Use Redding body die to size case body and bump shoulder .002”. I’ve used many dies and combos of dies, getting some amazing results from every brand tried and some not so amazing from those same brands. Those include Forster, Lee Collet Die, Mighty Armory, RCBS Matchmasters, and Redding type S. Generally, a Redding Body Die set to bump shoulders .002”, followed by a Lee Collet die to size the neck produces very good results and if set correctly doesn’t overwork the brass.
7. Dry media tumble to remove case lube. Check flash holes to ensure no media is obstructing it.
8. Size necks using LCD.
9. Prime cases.
10. Charge cases. I weigh every charge unless loading for ARs. I use an earlier version of Lee’s Deluxe Perfect Powder Measure to get a rough charge and trickle up to the kernel using a Dandy Auto Trickler and a Lyman M5 scale.
11. Seat bullet using a sliding sleeve type micrometer adjustable seating die. I’ve had good results from Forster, Redding, and RCBS Matchmasters. I really love the convenience of the bullet window in the Matchmasters.

I almost without fail get single digit SDs. Load development is an entire additional topic…

Have fun,

John

 

[Slides]

Hmmm??? That seems pretty cynical about reports from professionals.

The SD's I've been able to achieve falls pretty much in line with those reported numbers I posted. As far as what most people publish, like on FaceBook, those numbers simply have no real meaning. Just the lack of context is a big problem with things being posted.

Many of the claimed "all day" performance both in terms of velocity variance and group size would allow people to turn up to short range benchrest events with 6.5cm, 260, 7-08, 308 or even magnum boltface cartridges and place in regional events. That's not actually happening anywhere.

 

[_Thor_]

My process. YMMV:

1. Use good components. Alpha Munitions or Lapua brass.
2. Deprime cases using dedicated decapping die. I use a Lee. It works fine.
3. Wet tumble with stainless pins. I want perfectly clean brass going into my dies. Also cleans primer pockets to like new. May not make any difference, but it satisfies my OCD.
4. Let cases dry. If I’m in a hurry, I’ll put them in my air fryer on 125 degrees for a few minutes.
5. Anneal and let cool.
6. Use Redding body die to size case body and bump shoulder .002”. I’ve used many dies and combos of dies, getting some amazing results from every brand tried and some not so amazing from those same brands. Those include Forster, Lee Collet Die, Mighty Armory, RCBS Matchmasters, and Redding type S. Generally, a Redding Body Die set to bump shoulders .002”, followed by a Lee Collet die to size the neck produces very good results and if set correctly doesn’t overwork the brass.
7. Dry media tumble to remove case lube. Check flash holes to ensure no media is obstructing it.
8. Size necks using LCD.
9. Prime cases.
10. Charge cases. I weigh every charge unless loading for ARs. I use an earlier version of Lee’s Deluxe Perfect Powder Measure to get a rough charge and trickle up to the kernel using a Dandy Auto Trickler and a Lyman M5 scale.
11. Seat bullet using a sliding sleeve type micrometer adjustable seating die. I’ve had good results from Forster, Redding, and RCBS Matchmasters. I really love the convenience of the bullet window in the Matchmasters.

I almost without fail get single digit SDs. Load development is an entire additional topic…

Have fun,

John

Thanks for all the details. What do you use with the wet pins for your wet tumbling step? I've heard of people using Dawn+Lemishine, even doing that without pins. And what dry media do you use for step 7?

 

[Hondo64d]

Thanks for all the details. What do you use with the wet pins for your wet tumbling step? I've heard of people using Dawn+Lemishine, even doing that without pins. And what dry media do you use for step 7?

Dawn + Lemishine

Either corncob or crushed walnut shells. Either works fine.

John

 

[Seymour Fish]

Very cool analytical approach, thanks for the update/info!

The only thing I would warn against (and I've been trying myself to be more mindful of it) is small sample sizes and making incorrect assumptions... 10 round groups are better than 5, but I don't know if you can honestly draw any statistical conclusions based on a single 10 round group. To test this, run every batch you did exactly the same, again. Do it a 3'rd time too, odds are some of the results will likely not repeat like you would expect.

Give this podcast a listen, next time you mow or have a far drive. There's also a follow up episode too. It's on Spotify if you prefer that over youtube.

Preach that New Religion harder, shill

 

[Harman117]

Preach that New Religion harder, shill

Found the guy who failed math class

 

[Seymour Fish]

Found the guy who failed math class

Oh look, the shill squeaks.

 

[Oldloser]

There is no mystery to a good reloading result. Calibration and following the process will give you good results. You need a micrometer, a case measurement tool, a case headspace gauge, and GOOD dies.

Get rid of the Hornady brass. Lapua or Alpha. Peterson is Fine too.

Just load and fire the brass once. Pick a load around 2600 or so from the book. Seat to 2.800 COAL. I use this load for practicing on props at 400 yards.

Measure the fire brass and then call SAC and get what they recommend. Follow the guides on YouTube when setting up. be sure to measure before and after.

1. SAC die. resize and bump 1-2thou. MEASURE this. Deprime and mandrel in one step. Neck tension of .003.
2. Throw into clothes washer with shop towels on short wash - 30 min. Tumblers deform the brass. They are useless. Ultrasonic leaves stuff in the case.
3. Dry on heater and then let cool.
4. Trim. I liked world's finest trimmer. It makes the case mouths uniform.
5. Mandrel. washing deforms the necks.
6. Prime. Make sure they are seated well.
7. Powder should enough to get an MV from 2700 to 2760. Berger 135 hunters are good to start with. An RCBS electronic scale works great. Again, get the test weights and make sure the scale is calibrated before use.
8 Seat with a die that holds the case in proper alightment. SAC or Forster micrometer is good. Again, measure before and after to ensure calibration. I just go for COAL of 2.800

One note from Edit : keep your powder sealed when not in use. Keep the rounds in a sealed box to help with humidity changes.

I get ES of 25 and ES of 6 routinely over 30 shots. Throw away the first five shots if the barrel has been cleaned. Keep in mind that heat or cold will change MV.

Rifle accuracy and precision is a different post. But a phenomenal bedding job and a decent chambering will put all your rounds in the same hole.

 

[Oldloser]

What’s really gonna change is how well you’re able to shoot as the circular error probable (CEP) will be huge when you have significant changes in feet per second of the bullet as it travels down range.

Circular error probable - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example, I just did some testing of some hornady 6 mm Creedmoor… And the outlier was well over 100 ft./s different from the average velocity.

View attachment 8525168

I’ve had a barrel speed up on me before after a few hundred rounds. That difference was only 75 ft./s, and at 700 yard my dope was so off that I was shooting over the target.

If my bullets were 75 ft./s off from one round to the next in either direction I would be missing the target and shooting the berm below the target or the bottom of an 800 yard target, because things were so wacky.

Typically, the two major things that affect that are charge weight being consistent, and the internal volume of your brass. This is why people go out and buy auto trickelers, and go out and buy Alpha, Peterson, Lapua, Norma, or other high-end brass.

(To be fair, you can go out and buy brass, such as Winchester, Remington, PMC, Federal, Hornady, S&B, Speer, Starline, etc., and sort the hell out of that brass by weight… thus lowering the overall SD.)

Also, part of the reason people clean the living hell out of their brass is so that they get all of the excess stuff off the brass so that when they sort it, they actually get accurate weight numbers…

If you have an SD somewhere in the 10 range, then you can shoot all day long and be pretty damn consistent hitting targets with the same point of impact through your scope. (Provided you’ve worked out your dope all the way out to your intended target)

I’ll add some pictures to this to make it more obvious.

Hornaday does not seal its ammo well so some rounds will have powder with varying RH. Putting a bovoda in each box then seeing them for a month will help tighten the MV spread.

 

[Emerson0311]

I would take the self-reported SD's here with a tremendous grain of salt.

These are the same people that will post 3 shot chrono data on FaceBook for their nut-huggers to salivate over.

Nothing against these people, but SDs are a huge vanity with this crowd. And some of the numbers being reported here are very difficult to believe.

If the number of shots in the test data isn’t reported, the data is almost meaningless.

 

[TheOE800]

Hornaday does not seal its ammo well so some rounds will have powder with varying RH. Putting a bovoda in each box then seeing them for a month will help tighten the MV spread.

Ammunition humidors, the next big thing in precision rifle shooting!

 

[Emerson0311]

Hmmm??? That seems pretty cynical about reports from professionals.

The SD's I've been able to achieve falls pretty much in line with those reported numbers I posted. As far as what most people publish, like on FaceBook, those numbers simply have no real meaning. Just the lack of context is a big problem with things being posted.

It’s a lot easier to believe “professionals” who we see standing next to trophies with their names on them. There are some incredibly precise shooters here, but far fewer than the internet chatter suggests. Unreasonable expectations lead newer reloaders and shooters astray. Often they spend a great deal of effort trying to duplicate performance that is not actually reliably reported.

 

[Oldloser]

It’s a lot easier to believe “professionals” who we see standing next to trophies with their names on them. There are some incredibly precise shooters here, but far fewer than the internet chatter suggests. Unreasonable expectations lead newer reloaders and shooters astray. Often they spend a great deal of effort trying to duplicate performance that is not actually reliably reported.

A lot of poor results are poor ammo and poor precision in rifle systems. This leads a lot of shooters to chase ghosts.

If you have no reticle movement in dry fire on a DFAT, or dry fire on the zero board, over ten shots, you need to ask yourself if something else is broken.

Your rifle and ammo should be one hole over ten rounds off a bench with careful shooting at 100 yards in low wind. Many shots should go in the exact same hole. A flyer or two is not acceptable. Until you can do that repeatedly you should have lower expectations off the bench.

Taking this further, go shoot on the bench, then go prone in the dirt, and then positional. Will your shots go into the same ten round hole from the bench? After forty rounds positional, can you go to the bench and put ten more in that hole? If not, something is off.

Is it you, the rifle, the ammo? How do you know?