Rifle vice for load testing?

Potss

Full Member
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 16, 2017
722
207
Hi folks, I was wondering if anyone uses and can recommend a vice or sled or similar mechanical device to take as much human error out of load testing as possible? I do pretty well, but sometimes I have a hard time knowing if that last % is me or the ammo. Would like to be more sure.

Thanks!
 
Good luck in your quest, not sure what is out there. Many loads of a lifetime have been passed by because of errant shots. I myself pack it in for the day if I feel it's not right, there's always another day, or waste my test loads on steel down the range and redo. Also, you'll never see me with just 3 rds per test, 5 minimum.
 
Exactly, I do 5 round min as well but I'm always second guess if that 1 flier at 42.1gr was me etc. I'm currently using a Harris and a rear bag which is good but not quite as good as I'd like.

I know Caldwell and others make some, but they have mixed reviews. What do the bechrest guys use?
 
Look up an seb neo for a bench rest. Then look at the bald eagle as an affordable alternative. Sometimes fliers have nothing to do with the component/aspect you’re trying to test so don’t get too caught up in it if following the ocw or ladder or whatever methodology you’re using.
 
I have good success with my Uncle Bud's Bulls Bag, the large one, and a rear bag. That being said there is still a lot of shooter technique and setup that comes into play. I try to position the gun in the rest, hold the gun, nest the buttstock firmly in my shoulder, gain a sight picture, breathe and squeeze the trigger exactly the same way ... every time. If I sense something is a bit off I back away and start again. Amazing how well you can determine if you had a consistent hold when it goes bang.
 
I don't think a sled or a vice is the answer. From the conversations I have had with bench rest shooters they seem to emphasize ensuring the rifle is recoiling on the same track every time rather than stopping the rifle from moving during recoil. I have considered adding a bench rest style rear bag (like those made by Protektor) to my inventory for load development for this reason.


 
Hi folks, I was wondering if anyone uses and can recommend a vice or sled or similar mechanical device to take as much human error out of load testing as possible? I do pretty well, but sometimes I have a hard time knowing if that last % is me or the ammo. Would like to be more sure.

Thanks!

Like this Bald Eagle Slingshot rest and Protecktor DR rear bag. https://i.imgur.com/T3Kh630.jpg
 
If you'll be shooting from a bipod, test with a bipod; from a rest, test from a rest. Sleds/vises do not allow recoil to approximate the recoil that will occur when the load is in actual usage. It's actually rather important to include recoil behavior in the testing. Testing should more accurately approximate the actual intended application. Back when I did Highpower National Match shooting, I tested from a slung up sitting position. If your testing requires a sled because of excessive recoil, it's probably time to seriously reconsider your chambering choice.

As for wondering about flyers, all I can say is that if a flyer significantly impacts your load selection process, you're probably testing too small a sample.

My testing is based on 25 rounds of each load increment, shot in 5 round groups. I'm considering that to be an absolute minimum sample. If a load's worth making several hundred, at least; it's worth testing 25 to be confident.

I don't test the world, I select a powder based on maintaining a minimum number of powder selections. Bullets are the most important issue, and I do my selection based on barrel specs, anecdotal reporting, and product availability, and I buy them in 500 counts. I set my OAL based on magazine feeding, I use CCI BR primers exclusively (for precision loads), and Winchester primers for hunting/mil-spec ammunition, based on reliable brisance. Initial testing charge levels are selected based on .2gr increments for .223 capacity, and .3gr increments for .308-30-'06 case capacities. I seldom test more than 6 increments, so the range of increments is a carefully limited selection. I avoid max or over-max loads, but will choose a higher max dependent on different sources. My higher increments tend to be selected based on powder company-provided data.

I establish a zero dependent on a POA/POI offset that avoids obliterating the aim point. I will shoot one round from each increment, each to a separate aim point, to test pressure indicators, then complete each 5 round group to the same aim points, dependent on acceptable pressure indicators. I then shoot 5 more rounds of each, to the same aim points. I continue using the same aim points until each accumulates the full 25 rounds.

This aggregate-based testing is the most reliable method I have achieved to date for developing a recommendable load; mainly because it takes into account matters like variable conditions and luck-based issues. Luck is not a strategy, but it is a reality.

Aggregate groups tell me more about load performance; like, for instance, whether the rifle is shooting a load to a pair of separate centers (hopefully, my testing tests more than just the load).

Greg
 
Last edited:
If you'll be shooting it from a bipod, test with a bipod; from a rest, test from a rest. Sleds/vises do not allow recoil to approximate the recoil that will occur when the load is in actual usage. It's actually rather important to include recoil behavior in the testing. Testing should more accurately approximate the actual intended application. Back when I did Highpower National Match shooting, I tested from a slung up sitting position.

As for wondering about flyers, all I can say is that if a flyer significantly impacts your load selection process, you're probably testing too small a sample.

My testing is based on 25 rounds of each load increment, shot in 5 round groups. I'm considering that to be an absolute minimum sample. If a load's worth making several hundred, at least; it's worth testing 25 to be confident.

I don't test the world, I select a powder based on maintaining a minimum number of powder selections. Bullets are the most important issue, and I do my selection based on barrel specs, anecdotal reporting, and product availability, and I buy them in 500 counts. I set my OAL based on magazine feeding, I use CCI BR primers exclusively (for precision loads), and Winchester primers for hunting/mil-spec ammunition, based on reliable brisance. Initial testing charge levels are selected based on .2gr increments for .223 capacity, and .3gr increments for .308-30-'06 case capacities. I seldom test more than 6 increments, so the range of increments is a carefully limited selection. I avoid max or over-max loads, but will choose a higher max dependent on different sources. My higher increments tend to be selected based on powder company-provided data.

I establish a zero dependent on a POA/POI offset that avoids obliterating the aim point. I will shoot one round from each increment, each to a separate aim point, to test pressure indicators, then complete each 5 round group to the same aim points, dependent on acceptable pressure indicators. I then shoot 5 more rounds of each, to the same aim points. I continue using the same aim points until each accumulates the full 25 rounds.

This aggregate based testing is the most reliable method I have found to date to accurately indicate a recommendable load, because it averages out conditions and luck-based issues. Luck is not a strategy, but it is a reality. Aggregate groups tell me more about load perfomance; like, for instance, whether the rifle is shooting a load to a pair of separate centers (my testing tests more than just the load).

Greg

I don't buy bullets n lots of 10K so I just shoot a few different loads and find the best most accurate load and load up 10 more and shoot another couple groups, chrono them to see if they're consistent and test them in our 600BR matches. If only we all had Greg's money, LOL
 
I did what you're doing for well over 2 decades. When I turned 70, I asked myself what the cumulative economics were saying to me, since whatever I did from this point on was sorta for the whole ball game. We'd all like to die with the most toys, but me, I don't really want to die with any saved rounds.

Also, I don't have the kind of money you're probably alluding to. My formative learning was largely driven by some very real funding limits. All that went before was a process of refinement, sharpening my methods to a finer point. For the present and the foreseeable future, every penny of my income derives either from SSI or VA Disability. In essence, what I'm really doing is channeling some of my Government's outlay to support better ballistics and marksmanship, by what I post here, and nowhere else.

I figure I do it once, the rightest way I can manage, and stick with what the larger samples were really telling me, aside from how much I had (maybe ) wasted with my less complete/thorough approach. Sorta holding my own feet to the fire. If I'm not sure a load is as good as I want it to be, the pound foolishness derives from all the loading I could be doing subsequent to finding the penny wisdom.

You're not wrong. Few of us are actually badly wrong, I'm just saying we're both right, depending on our point of view. From your point of view, you probably fabricate a fair number of rifles with largely identical barrels. Knowing, with some certainty, what loads those barrels prefer can be a large marketing edge. That knowledge is scalable, making the cost smaller proportionately. I'd actually be rather surprised if that wasn't something you'd already established.

Some (many) years ago, I coined a phrase, Optimal Charge Weight, but not in the sense it has since grown to mean.

My meaning was that some ammunition makers understood that many. many of the barrels they would be producing loadings for would be, for many intents and purposes, roughly identical in length, twist, and profile, especially hunting barrels. So they could fabricate a more generic (OCW?) loading in large quantities, and reap the benefits of scale, primarily in repeat sales.. This is, I believe, what makes FGMM so hard to beat, and Core-Lokt so popular with hunters. It's all really about the testing; pay me now, or pay me later. This is the less obvious meaning contained in my signature line.

When I give up some points by arbitrarily limiting my basic premises, I am forced to wring the most truth from those few remaining basic premises I choose to test upon. In reality, 6 sets of 25 rounds, tested in a single process, is only 150 rounds overall.

...And some trends are going to appear by around the time the third set of groups of 5 are done, which can reduce the number of shots actually required. Those saved shots also have a dividend in bore life. Also, I cannot predict where the sweet spot will alight, so I am perforce constrained to have a full set of each increment onhand when testing begins. Meanwhile, I can pull down any saved rounds with the RCBS collet puller, and the components can be reassembled to the derived load spec and serve ably for sighter/fouler rounds.

Or, maybe the test is getting close enough to reload those potential sighter/foulers into more finely divided increments; or maybe they're defining a broader sweet spot, which can also be useful info, like for a secondary round of testing at greater distance.. So in reality, I still have maybe 350 virgin bullets from that purchase lot, and maybe 25-50 of the saved rounds (or not) have been converted into sighter fouler rounds, so (perhaps) I'm really not being so wasteful after all.

The point is that testing need not be driven by hard and true limits; and testing, done more thoroughly, need not be a waste of anything. When we limit our testing, we subsequently limit our possibilities.

Greg
 
Last edited:
If you are willing to spend the money, you can get a really nice setup that recoils and then comes back to the same position.
Match that with a remote trigger release that is isolated to only apply pressure to the trigger and trigger guard.
Put a good 25x or higher scope for 100 yard work & shoot to an exact grid target so you can ensure exact point of aim.

You'll find sometimes the loads are a lot more accurate than you originally imagined.
 
Sounds like an excellent approach, because it takes recoil behavior into account, yet removes the human inconsistencies from the process. More info (link?) would be helpful.

Greg
 
Thanks for all the suggestions so far folks, really great. I was hoping it would be as simple as picking up a Caldwell lead sled for $70 on sale, but it seems that is frowned upon and not going to give me the results I'm after.

I'm not looking to dump a ton of money into this right now, but of course now that I k ow what is out there I'll probably have to get an expensive setup eventually haha. For now I think I'll go with a big rear bag of some kind along with a large front bag or vice. Anymore suggestions or recommendations on this front are greatly appreciated.


For the long term W54/XM-338 I am interested along with greg in how such a system could be constructed to eliminate as much human input as possible.
 
The best methods I've found for load testing is a bench, a rest, and a rear bag.

What will be more helpful (for hunting, or run-n-gun) than an expensive shooting setup will be serious training for snap shots so you can take better advantage of that better load.

I would stand and turn to random off-downrange directions, relax and close my eyes, then reset to downrange and take a snap shot, repeatedly. This develops the necessary skill that prevents wasting that better load. When we're hunting, we just about never get a shot opportunity that includes the better support and the luxury of time that we enjoy when developing that better load. I found that in real hunting experience, my best position was the kneeling shot.

If your hunting zero is not confirmed under snap shot conditions, it's not a reliable zero. I figured that out over pre-season weekends, while running the range for hunter sight-ins.

It's really about the Indian and the arrow.

Greg
 
Last edited: