we need a crying orkan meme

[Bigfatcock]

Honestly, seating depth is a fixed depth on 100% trued, pockets, case rims, shell holders, lol. If it’s seated, it’s seated. All you’re doing beyond that point is increasing the crush on the anvil.

I mean, if we are getting into the nitty gritty on what affects ignition consistency, you have to factor in flash holes. Are they uniform? Will a larger flash hole help. Is everyone doing flash hole diameter tests by increasing the flash hole diameter by .001 in load development to find the best flash hole diameter? No, lol.

Then there is load density, powder column, burn rate, powder position etc. Lets not forget neck tension.

Did the primer company ensure 100% consistent amounts of priming compound in the cup, and is it distributed uniformly across the primer cup?

To conclude, primer crush is probably on the lowest end of the scale of shit that’s important to accuracy. For real.

 

[Gohring65]

I believe Alex Wheeler (top notch bench rest gunsmith and shooter) has/had a thread on accurate shooter in regards to testing primer seating depths and precision. In fact, it may have involved a CPS.

He seemed convinced that it makes a difference, and he knows a lot more about that stuff then I do.

It's a different game if you are going for BR world records. But for those of us shooting off of bipods and bags and barricades, I don't think many of us can realize the difference in our shooting.

I agree bench rest is a whole different ball game. Like you said, tolerance stack with bipods and bags will not allow us to distinguish the subtle difference. If you’re not chasing run out, annealing accurately, getting consistent shoulder set back, and neck tension, or if you’re getting all but one of the processes right, the one you don’t get right will quickly cancel out any improvements you might gain. Same with primer pockets. Set your primer depth perfectly every time, but can’t get consistent neck tension, or anything on the accuracy checklist, what’s gained?
Or do everything exactly right and your ES is still double digits. What did you accomplish?

 

[Choid]

Honestly, seating depth is a fixed depth on 100% trued, pockets, case rims, shell holders, lol. If it’s seated, it’s seated. All you’re doing beyond that point is increasing the crush on the anvil.

I mean, if we are getting into the nitty gritty on what affects ignition consistency, you have to factor in flash holes. Are they uniform? Will a larger flash hole help. Is everyone doing flash hole diameter tests by increasing the flash hole diameter by .001 in load development to find the best flash hole diameter? No, lol.

Then there is load density, powder column, burn rate, powder position etc. Lets not forget neck tension.

Did the primer company ensure 100% consistent amounts of priming compound in the cup, and is it distributed uniformly across the primer cup?

To conclude, primer crush is probably on the lowest end of the scale of shit that’s important to accuracy. For real.

I've heard the theory, and I think it is likely true, that one of the reasons that small case capacity rounds, like 223, tend to have a greater coefficient of variation is that the primer is a greater part of the total energy, and primers, as far as compound fill goes, are much less consistent than our loads are. Now this could be total bullshit, but it sounds truthy, which puts it very much in line with the rest of the thread.

 

[Gohring65]

I've heard the theory, and I think it is likely true, that one of the reasons that small case capacity rounds, like 223, tend to have a greater coefficient of variation is that the primer is a greater part of the total energy, and primers, as far as compound fill goes, are much less consistent than our loads are. Now this could be total bullshit, but it sounds truthy, which puts it very much in line with the rest of the thread.

There’s been rumors of some cartridges do better with a slight crimp or a heavier neck tension because the primer can start the bullet out of the case before the powder ignites.

 

[Tokay444]

I believe Alex Wheeler (top notch bench rest gunsmith and shooter) has/had a thread on accurate shooter in regards to testing primer seating depths and precision. In fact, it may have involved a CPS.

He seemed convinced that it makes a difference, and he knows a lot more about that stuff then I do.

It's a different game if you are going for BR world records. But for those of us shooting off of bipods and bags and barricades, I don't think many of us can realize the difference in our shooting.

That's just it. I'm shooting off bipods and barricades, but I want my rifle to have record setting benchrest precision, so that when one doesn't go in the same hole off my bipod or barricade, I know that it was me, and I can begin to evaluate what I did wrong behind the gun.

 

[Tokay444]

Honestly, seating depth is a fixed depth on 100% trued, pockets, case rims, shell holders, lol. If it’s seated, it’s seated. All you’re doing beyond that point is increasing the crush on the anvil.

I mean, if we are getting into the nitty gritty on what affects ignition consistency, you have to factor in flash holes. Are they uniform? Will a larger flash hole help. Is everyone doing flash hole diameter tests by increasing the flash hole diameter by .001 in load development to find the best flash hole diameter? No, lol.

Then there is load density, powder column, burn rate, powder position etc. Lets not forget neck tension.

Did the primer company ensure 100% consistent amounts of priming compound in the cup, and is it distributed uniformly across the primer cup?

To conclude, primer crush is probably on the lowest end of the scale of shit that’s important to accuracy. For real.

Alex Wheeler and Alpha Brass did test flash hole size on the BRA OCD brass to come to consensus of what the best diameter was.

 

[Gohring65]

That's just it. I'm shooting off bipods and barricades, but I want my rifle to have record setting benchrest precision, so that when one doesn't go in the same hole off my bipod or barricade, I know that it was me, and I can begin to evaluate what I did wrong behind the gun.

You’re not going to get record setting bench rest precision unless you build a bench rest gun. You’ll throw down some good groups but you’re not going to win bench rest matches with your prs gun.

 

[Tokay444]

You’re not going to get record setting bench rest precision unless you build a bench rest gun. You’ll throw down some good groups but you’re not going to win bench rest matches with your prs gun.

You didn't understand what I wrote.

 

[Taylorbok]

do you realy believe this halucinations?

it's simply speculation based on the idea that primer crush has an affect on ignition. If it does you would be able to tune to it. same way you can tune powder charge with a seating depth or vise versa or to neck tension.

no they are not.

I ask the same question at topic, and noone answered. people are just too stupid to know what they are doing...
they just seat primest with different hight to the bottom, which is totaly wrong...

and when they tuch the bottom of the primer pocket with the primer, this is usualy the best 'primer seating depth', and everybody are happy with their expencive gizmo for nothing

I haven't seen a way to accurately uniform pockets in a meaningful way in relation to primer seating depth. I was under the impression that everyone knew the anvil had to touch the bottom of the pocket.

Orkan can be a first class A-hole and that makes me want to not give him my money. That and his high flying claims seem downright disingenuous; Turban never told me the Prazipress would make my ammo shoot better. Honesty and humility are worth something and if Orkan is selling “feel good” & “pleasure to use” he’s going to have to try harder. Which may be why he’s trying to sell accuracy instead.

Ya I can't buy all his claims, especially when he's not willing to provide any evidence to support those claims. He just says "You have to go test it"
I could get behind him if his claim was it works great, it's simple and easy to use. I'm

Honestly, seating depth is a fixed depth on 100% trued, pockets, case rims, shell holders, lol. If it’s seated, it’s seated. All you’re doing beyond that point is increasing the crush on the anvil.

I mean, if we are getting into the nitty gritty on what affects ignition consistency, you have to factor in flash holes. Are they uniform? Will a larger flash hole help. Is everyone doing flash hole diameter tests by increasing the flash hole diameter by .001 in load development to find the best flash hole diameter? No, lol.

Then there is load density, powder column, burn rate, powder position etc. Lets not forget neck tension.

Did the primer company ensure 100% consistent amounts of priming compound in the cup, and is it distributed uniformly across the primer cup?

To conclude, primer crush is probably on the lowest end of the scale of shit that’s important to accuracy. For real.

The claim is that the crush will affect ignition. I do agree there is so much variation in primers how much can it really matter.

 

[kthomas]

That's just it. I'm shooting off bipods and barricades, but I want my rifle to have record setting benchrest precision, so that when one doesn't go in the same hole off my bipod or barricade, I know that it was me, and I can begin to evaluate what I did wrong behind the gun.

I also like my rifles to be as precise as possible, more for my own sanity then anything else. It gives me confidence that my rifle is going to do it's part - the rest is up to me.

However, I'm not going to spend extra hours in the reloading room trying to turn my rifle from a ~0.3 MOA rifle into a ~0.28 MOA rifle.

I've settled on results that are very good, what I consider "good enough". I don't turn necks, sort bullets and brass, uniform flash holes and clean primer pockets, etc. At some point on the precision versus hours spent reloading curb, to you have to call it good enough. That's going to be different for everyone.

 

[Bigfatcock]

Alex Wheeler and Alpha Brass did test flash hole size on the BRA OCD brass to come to consensus of what the best diameter was.

Black powder shooters did it decades ago.

Their (alpha brass) consensus on best diameter I hope was tested with every primer/powder combination for that cartridge.

 

[Gohring65]

You didn't understand what I wrote.

I did, and I get what your saying.
You want to eliminate all dynamic variables so the shooter is the denominator of error.
I feel the same way. But benchrest accuracy won’t be achieved in a prs gun, so it’s not a good comparison or example.
A bench rest gun can be used in bencrest to determine shooter error in that particular field. Prs? would a gun that shoots in the .3s” be used to determine prs shouter error? but when? When you shoot a half inch group, a 3” group? What caused you to shoot a 1” group? How big does the group have to be when you can finally determine the cause.
If you’re shooting half moa and throw a 1 moa group, do you really stop shooting and start diagnostics? Or do you keep rolling?

 

[Choid]

A big downside to the liberal/conservative crackup in higher education is that people in the gun world say "test" and "prove" when they mean "fuck around with" and "decide on."

 

[Tokay444]

I did, and I get what your saying.
You want to eliminate all dynamic variables so the shooter is the denominator of error.
I feel the same way. But benchrest accuracy won’t be achieved in a prs gun, so it’s not a good comparison or example.

You didn't if you think I said I wanted to set BR records with my PRS rifle.

 

[37L1]

I think a lot of this is psych.

Will this work for hitting a baseball?

 

[Bigfatcock]

A big downside to the liberal/conservative crackup in higher education is that people in the gun world say "test" and "prove" when they mean "fuck around with" and "decide on."

Pretty much. As I stated earlier, the scientific method died around the same time the internet became available in homes.

A good read is “The Death of expertise” too.

 

[Tokay444]

I also like my rifles to be as precise as possible, more for my own sanity then anything else. It gives me confidence that my rifle is going to do it's part - the rest is up to me.

However, I'm not going to spend extra hours in the reloading room trying to turn my rifle from a ~0.3 MOA rifle into a ~0.28 MOA rifle.

I've settled on results that are very good, what I consider "good enough". I don't turn necks, sort bullets and brass, uniform flash holes and clean primer pockets, etc. At some point on the precision versus hours spent reloading curb, to you have to call it good enough. That's going to be different for everyone.

I throw with a Chargemaster, don’t sort anything, use quality components and dies, and put a lot of focus into tuning the load. So far it’s payed off in my level of satisfaction.
Everything shot from a bipod and a Gamechanger. I think I’ll build a benchrest gun next.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

A big downside to the liberal/conservative crackup in higher education is that people in the gun world say "test" and "prove" when they mean "fuck around with" and "decide on."

Reloading as we know it is entirely anecdotal. Unfortunately it attracts charlatans.

 

[Gohring65]

You didn't if you think I said I wanted to set BR records with my PRS rifle.

You said you want unrealistic record setting bench rest groups out of your prs gun. Those are your words.
Don’t think it’s worth a argument, I’m just saying your going to be disappointed.
Don’t kill the thread because of different opinions.

 

[Tokay444]

You said you want unrealistic record setting bench rest groups out of your prs gun. Those are your words.
Don’t think it’s worth a argument, I’m just saying your going to be disappointed.
Don’t kill the thread because of different opinions.

I haven’t been yet.

 

[Gohring65]

I haven’t been yet.

That’s all that matters.
Satisfaction is in the the eye of the beholder.

 

[kthomas]

Reloading as we know it is entirely anecdotal. Unfortunately it attracts charlatans.

Reloading seems to be a much more religious process then a data driven/scientific one.

And I will say the same for tuners...

 

[Holliday]

A big downside to the liberal/conservative crackup in higher education is that people in the gun world say "test" and "prove" when they mean "fuck around with" and "decide on."

Exactly, a lot of people don’t understand the difference between anecdotal information and data.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Reloading seems to be a much more religious process then a data driven/scientific one.

And I will say the same for tuners...

You need to spend more money if you want to get to heaven.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

45:25 or so

oh man i was dying.

I went to one of the Litz seminars about 4 years ago. And to be honest, I was less impressed with the material after I left than before I went.

It is not that he doesn't apply statics in the proper way, he does do that reasonably consistently from what I saw. My concern is that he makes many assumptions, which is not in itself a negative thing. All engineering is full of assumptions. But one has to be careful in knowing when to apply them, and when to not. On multiple occasions during the seminar, he was applying assumptions in places that are not proper, or at least not adequately explored as valid assumptions, and tries to use certain claims and standards to apply across too broad of an area of investigation.

In particular, I found one of the issues to be that he was big-time into ELR shooting at the time. He kept applying the same ELR standards and methods to everything. These standards and methods might have been highly relevant in ELR, but were improperly applied (at least not proven to be proper, anyway) in shorter distance shooting.

Some of the things he claimed don't matter have been well-proven to, in fact, matter. When I brought up this issue at the meet-and-greet, he at first listened to me, and tried to convince me of his point of view. But I know a bit about statistics and process evaluation myself, and I continued to throw up potential points contradicting his position.

Specifically, when I asked him about how accurate/precise the rifle systems he used in his lab to make his statements, he told us they were 0.75-1.0 MOA systems at 100yds. When I pointed out to him that these systems were far from cutting edge, and lacked the precision to separate the inherent system noise from any actual measurable data (primer seating depth was one specific issue I brought up) he did not like that discussion. At first he tried to talk over me technically, which did not work. He then just drifted away from the conversation, quite obviously and intentionally, because he did not have adequate responses to my questions. In short, he did not like being challenged, especially in front of his flock, and he did not respond in a way that is indicative of someone seeking the unfettered truth.

So I left there with less faith in what he has developed. I am not saying that his books do not contain useful information, they absolutely do. And his system of information is currently the best collection of data we have published and widely available. But this know-everything, infallible, demi-god status he seems to have with some? Not from me. To earn this position, one has to be unemotional in search of the truth. Once ego enters into it, as it did at that seminar, you have lost at least some of your ability to efficiently seek and find the truth.

 

[Gohring65]

I went to one of the Litz seminars about 4 years ago. And to be honest, I was less impressed with the material after I left than before I went.

It is not that he doesn't apply statics in the proper way, he does do that reasonably consistently from what I saw. My concern is that he makes many assumptions, which is not in itself a negative thing. All engineering is full of assumptions. But one has to be careful in knowing when to apply them, and when to not. On multiple occasions during the seminar, he was applying assumptions in places that are not proper, or at least not adequately explored as valid assumptions, and tries to use certain claims and standards to apply across too broad of an area of investigation.

In particular, I found one of the issues to be that he was big-time into ELR shooting at the time. He kept applying the same ELR standards and methods to everything. These standards and methods might have been highly relevant in ELR, but were improperly applied (at least not proven to be proper, anyway) in shorter distance shooting.

Some of the things he claimed don't matter have been well-proven to, in fact, matter. When I brought up this issue at the meet-and-greet, he at first listened to me, and tried to convince me of his point of view. But I know a bit about statistics and process evaluation myself, and I continued to throw up potential points contradicting his position.

Specifically, when I asked him about how accurate/precise the rifle systems he used in his lab to make his statements, he told us they were 0.75-1.0 MOA systems at 100yds. When I pointed out to him that these systems were far from cutting edge, and lacked the precision to separate the inherent system noise from any actual measurable data (primer seating depth was one specific issue I brought up) he did not like that discussion. At first he tried to talk over me technically, which did not work. He then just drifted away from the conversation, quite obviously and intentionally, because he did not have adequate responses to my questions. In short, he did not like being challenged, especially in front of his flock, and he did not respond in a way that is indicative of someone seeking the unfettered truth.

So I left there with less faith in what he has developed. I am not saying that his books do not contain useful information, they absolutely do. And his system of information is currently the best collection of data we have published and widely available. But this know-everything, infallible, demi-god status he seems to have with some? Not from me. To earn this position, one has to be unemotional in search of the truth. Once ego enters into it, as it did at that seminar, you have lost at least some of your ability to efficiently seek and find the truth.

Egos definitely get in the way. I used to have weekly conversations with shooters on Facebook, including him, but once you start objecting or offering another theory they seemed to stop responding. It happened with scope companies too, once you start being real and not worship them, they stop accommodating. It’s all about hard data and facts to me and sometimes it hurts peoples feelings. If a product has problems I’m going to state them no matter how nice the owner is.
It’s not really calling them out, but keeping a open mind. Some have a hard time with that.

 

[Bigfatcock]

Egos definitely get in the way. I used to have weekly conversations with shooters on Facebook, including him, but once you start objecting or offering another theory they seemed to stop responding. It happened with scope companies too, once you start being real and not worship them, they stop accommodating. It’s all about hard data and facts and sometimes it hurts peoples feelings. If a product has problems I’m going to state them no matter how nice the owner is.
It’s not really calling them out, but keeping a open mind. Some have a hard time with that.

That’s honestly what people need.

 

[Gohring65]

That’s honestly what people need.

I totally agree

 

[Baron23]

Did the primer company ensure 100% consistent amounts of priming compound in the cup, and is it distributed uniformly across the primer cup?

Yep, and have you seen how they make primers in commercial operations.....not what I would think is scientific precision.

 

[Holliday]

I went to one of the Litz seminars about 4 years ago. And to be honest, I was less impressed with the material after I left than before I went.

It is not that he doesn't apply statics in the proper way, he does do that reasonably consistently from what I saw. My concern is that he makes many assumptions, which is not in itself a negative thing. All engineering is full of assumptions. But one has to be careful in knowing when to apply them, and when to not. On multiple occasions during the seminar, he was applying assumptions in places that are not proper, or at least not adequately explored as valid assumptions, and tries to use certain claims and standards to apply across too broad of an area of investigation.

In particular, I found one of the issues to be that he was big-time into ELR shooting at the time. He kept applying the same ELR standards and methods to everything. These standards and methods might have been highly relevant in ELR, but were improperly applied (at least not proven to be proper, anyway) in shorter distance shooting.

Some of the things he claimed don't matter have been well-proven to, in fact, matter. When I brought up this issue at the meet-and-greet, he at first listened to me, and tried to convince me of his point of view. But I know a bit about statistics and process evaluation myself, and I continued to throw up potential points contradicting his position.

Specifically, when I asked him about how accurate/precise the rifle systems he used in his lab to make his statements, he told us they were 0.75-1.0 MOA systems at 100yds. When I pointed out to him that these systems were far from cutting edge, and lacked the precision to separate the inherent system noise from any actual measurable data (primer seating depth was one specific issue I brought up) he did not like that discussion. At first he tried to talk over me technically, which did not work. He then just drifted away from the conversation, quite obviously and intentionally, because he did not have adequate responses to my questions. In short, he did not like being challenged, especially in front of his flock, and he did not respond in a way that is indicative of someone seeking the unfettered truth.

So I left there with less faith in what he has developed. I am not saying that his books do not contain useful information, they absolutely do. And his system of information is currently the best collection of data we have published and widely available. But this know-everything, infallible, demi-god status he seems to have with some? Not from me. To earn this position, one has to be unemotional in search of the truth. Once ego enters into it, as it did at that seminar, you have lost at least some of your ability to efficiently seek and find the truth.

I did see him say that old canard in a video, that (paraphrasing from memory) that a 1/2 moa gun is waisted on a 1 moa shooter. (Numbers may have +or - but you get the idea).

I find that odd because to me a 1 moa gun in the hands of a 1 moa shooter would have a larger potential cone of fire than a 1/2 moa gun in a the same hands of a 1 moa shooter…..

Having said that, when I spent time living in a Buddhist monastery, I learned teacher/gurus are not infallible. I learned to take what I felt was good and leave the rest. I have had a lot of great teachers and this has been a helpful lesson.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I did see him say that old canard in a video, that (paraphrasing from memory) that a 1/2 moa gun is waisted on a 1 moa shooter. (Numbers may have +or - but you get the idea).

I find that odd because to me a 1 moa gun in the hands of a 1 moa shooter would have a larger potential cone of fire than a 1/2 moa gun in a the same hands of a 1 moa shooter…..

Having said that, when I spent time living in a Buddhist monastery, I learned teacher/gurus are not infallible. I learned to take what I felt was good and leave the rest. I have had a lot of great teachers and this has been a helpful lesson.

Do you feel like killing the emperors nephew was the right decision since your teachers weren't infallible or was having to travel the gun dominated wild west worth it?

 

[Holliday]

Do you feel like killing the emperors nephew was the right decision since your teachers weren't infallible or was having to travel the gun dominated wild west worth it?

Perhaps meth, is just not your drug. You decide……

 

[Mike Casselton]

I believe Alex Wheeler (top notch bench rest gunsmith and shooter) has/had a thread on accurate shooter in regards to testing primer seating depths and precision. In fact, it may have involved a CPS.

He seemed convinced that it makes a difference, and he knows a lot more about that stuff then I do.

It's a different game if you are going for BR world records. But for those of us shooting off of bipods and bags and barricades, I don't think many of us can realize the difference in our shooting.

He also completely understands the firing process of the firearms he builds for clients and the ones uses for his own shooting.

Consistency in primer seating, bullet seating, powder weight, etc...

^^^^
All of that matters, but so does the energy and consistency of the firing pin strike...

^^^^^ How about that for opening up another can of worms?

 

[Bigfatcock]

He also completely understands the firing process of the firearms he builds for clients and the ones uses for his own shooting.

Consistency in primer seating, bullet seating, powder weight, etc...

^^^^
All of that matters, but so does the energy and consistency of the firing pin strike...

^^^^^ How about that for opening up another can of worms?

I've pondered on this over the years. I mean, either the primer material detonates, or it doesn't.

Guess rifle builders better ensure the firing pin strikes dead center (relative to the anvil inside the cup) to ensure consistent ignition of the priming compound outward from the center strike to the edges of the primer cup, lol.

This rabbit hole can go down forever with how crazy we want to get with it.

 

[Mike Casselton]

I did see him say that in an old video.

I find that odd because
I spent time living in a Buddhist monastery. I learned teacher/gurus are not infallible. Or pretty.
I learned to take what felt good and leave the rest. I have had a lot of great teachers and this has been a helpful lesson.

Steven, is that you?

 

[Mike Casselton]

I've pondered on this over the years. I mean, either the primer material detonates, or it doesn't.

Guess rifle builders better ensure the firing pin strikes dead center (relative to the anvil inside the cup) to ensure consistent ignition of the priming compound outward from the center strike to the edges of the primer cup, lol.

This rabbit hole can go down forever with how crazy we want to get with it.

If that were true, then it shouldn't matter which primer is used.

We're just igniting powder in a tiny pressure vessel, so as long as it ignites, then we're good to go....

^^^^^
But we know that the above statement isn't even remotely close to being correct.



The problem we face is that we are using 4 items that are part of a system. That small system has to work with a larger system that we call a rifle.

They have to work in harmony or things go to shit.

Add in a human and what might be a working system can go to hell because the bag of blood and guts driving it, can't drive worth a shit.
Part of the system is fucked up.

Today, I showed a buddy that you can remove the human element from a rifle/ammunition system and it can successfully do its job.
I'll get to that in a minute.

Today's wind was 11-23 mph, coming in from 6:00.

At the end of the day, I was shooting my 6-BR at a pig silhouette that is 525 yards out.
I got two distinct groups about 4" apart depending on whether the wind was coming from the 5:00 or the 7:00 direction.

Both groups could easily be covered with a fist.

I decided to set up on a tractor tire with a bag just for fun.

My buddy wanted to get behind the rifle and try a few dry fires to see how some of the PRS guys shoot without really handling the rifle.
He did a couple of dry fires.

I stuck a magazine in the rifle, placed the crosshairs on the pig. I stepped back and pressed the trigger.
Ping! Impact.
We fired the other 9 rounds in the same manner and every one was impact.

We removed (most of) the human element and the system still worked.

Why?
Because the other parts are in harmony with each other.


If any of you guys are curious, there's a thread on accurate shooter that discusses the firing pin travel distance needed for CORRECT ignition timing.

It's a good read.
I have an old 700 (6-BR 14tw) that was properly timed by Steve Kostanich and I'll tell you, it really doesn't seem to care what you feed it.
Is the timing the reason?
I can't tell you for certain that timing was the reason, but it sure hasn't hurt anything...

Lastly, I have an old Shilen DGA action/Hart 6 PPC that shot pretty darn good.
The previous owner fucked up the bolt shroud and bolt handle trying to get the gun to make weight. (I would have cut an inch off the barrel)
I had Chad at LRI work it.
New FP spring, bolt handle and shroud.
He also made sure the FP travel was correct.
It went from a .275 average to right at .200.

.075 isn't much, but in SR Benchrest it can be the difference in 3rd or 15th place. That's pretty significant.

 

[Bigfatcock]

Object in motion, stays in motion.

However, it does matter which primer is used due to the differences of the priming compound across brands, and even lot to lot if you're trying to stay off the wailing wall. Different strength of the primers, different cup thickness.

That doesn't change what I meant when I posted if it detonates, it detonates IRT energy and consistency of the firing pin strike.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

He also completely understands the firing process of the firearms he builds for clients and the ones uses for his own shooting.

Consistency in primer seating, bullet seating, powder weight, etc...

^^^^
All of that matters, but so does the energy and consistency of the firing pin strike...

^^^^^ How about that for opening up another can of worms?

LOL. I was purposely not bringing up the fact that most everyone in this discipline uses the stock firing pin springs and doesn’t check the faces of things like the shroud and other such things.

But, let’s dig into this can. Lol

 

[Macht]

And if you want to talk about barrel movement as a factor you better start with acknowledging that the firing pin travel and impact has already started measurable barrel motion before the bullet has even budged...

 

[Feniks Technologies]

And if you want to talk about barrel movement as a factor you better start with acknowledging that the firing pin travel and impact has already started measurable barrel motion before the bullet has even budged...

Things are still being tested. It’s definitely measurable. But if the effect is enough to matter is unknown.

As much as most of us don’t want to admit it, barrel “harmonics” is much more theory than it is fact currently.

Thus far, except “it obviously works for Alex wheeler (or insert another name)” there is no non-anecdotal data out there to prove the theories.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I'm waiting for a $1200 firing pin testing computer and corresponding white paper describing why manual spring testers don't work.

 

[MarkyMark007]

And if you want to talk about barrel movement as a factor you better start with acknowledging that the firing pin travel and impact has already started measurable barrel motion before the bullet has even budged...

in small caliber some use very light springs, but some dont... maybe because of that what you said...

 

[MarkyMark007]

Honestly, seating depth is a fixed depth on 100% trued, pockets, case rims, shell holders, lol. If it’s seated, it’s seated. All you’re doing beyond that point is increasing the crush on the anvil.

there is more on CPS primer seater... where does it index seating depth?

in logic it should be at the bottom of the primer pocket and the bottom of the primer.

OK, if CPS primer seater index from the bottom of the brass and to cup of the primer, than firing pin fires primer at same height/time every time. but what if primer moves to the bottom of the primer pocket and you should control this distance also (like we imagine in the first place)?
than you should know not only primer pocket depth but also primer pocket height !

you should measure height of the every primer !!

 

[Feniks Technologies]

there is more on CPS primer seater... where does it index seating depth?

in logic it should be at the bottom of the primer pocket and the bottom of the primer.

OK, if CPS primer seater index from the bottom of the brass and to cup of the primer, than firing pin fires primer at same height/time every time. but what if primer moves to the bottom of the primer pocket and you should control this distance also (like we imagine in the first place)?
than you should know not only primer pocket depth but also primer pocket height !

you should measure height of the every primer !!

This is why you set up primer seaters like the cps for some “crush”.

The .003 or .005” crush allows for the primer to still be seated to the bottom of the pocket when the depth varies.

Most testing out there shows the primer being seated to the bottom is the most important part. The rest of the primer seating “nodes” are up for debate and discussion. But being bottomed out is pretty much accepted as the most important.

Short version: if you set up your primer seater properly your scenario doesn’t exist.

Like most things, user error is the biggest reason for bad ammo, followed by bad components.

 

[MarkyMark007]

Short version: if you set up your primer seater properly your scenario doesn’t exist.

I know that you understand that this is not a point of Orkans priming sistem. He just say: 'try different seating depths and you will tune your primer''. but if you don't control primer pocket depth AND primer height this is bollocks.

for seating primer to the bottom with some crush I don't need 600$+ CPS that tells me some numbers, which have no meaning... this I do with RCBS universal hand priming tool for the press or with lee bench prime just as accurate as CPS.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I know that you understand that this is not a point of Orkans priming sistem. He just say: 'try different seating depths and you will tune your primer''. but if you don't control primer pocket depth AND primer height this is bollocks.

for seating primer to the bottom with some crush I don't need 600$+ CPS that tells me some numbers, which have no meaning... this I do with RCBS universal hand priming tool for the press or with lee bench prime just as accurate as CPS.

No, actually it is.

This is why people talk about primer crush with his system.

Again, you are way out of your depth here with knowledge.

Do you even know what the average variance is for primer pocket depth?

Do you know what the average variance is for primer height?

Do you know how much any of that changes things?



The answer is no. You’ve self admitted before you shoot 1500 rounds a year or less. And you’re bashing a product you haven’t used.

I’m not saying it’s going to make better ammo for people shooting steel. But I’m absolutely saying you don’t have any data to show.

 

[19Scout77]

In the time it takes to read this thread, I could load 200 rds of really accurate ammo.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Object in motion, stays in motion.

However, it does matter which primer is used due to the differences of the priming compound across brands, and even lot to lot if you're trying to stay off the wailing wall. Different strength of the primers, different cup thickness.

That doesn't change what I meant when I posted if it detonates, it detonates IRT energy and consistency of the firing pin strike.

I wasn't making an argument against your statement, in fact I somewhat agree with it.




What we can safely assume though, is that ignition of the primer is ignition. Detonation is actually correct, like you pointed out.

What we can't assume is that an off center hit on the primer detonates it in the same manner as a center hit.
Due to the nature of having a three legged anvil, we could safely assume that the compound might ignite off center, therefore causing the compound to swirl slightly as it fights its way to the flash hole.

Just an assumption.

Does this cause energy loss of the priming compound because it can't go straight into the flash hole?
Maybe, maybe not...

I'm not aware of any tests performed to verify or nullify this.
Again, it's just an assumption.

We know of the testing performed to determine proper flash hole diameter.
It matters.

When it comes to the energy NEEDED to reliably detonate a primer, it's understood.

Determining the exact amount of energy needed to give consistent and repeatable detonation requires four parts:
1. Firing pin weight.
2. Firing pin speed.
3. Firing pin travel.
4. Firing pin spring energy.

We could also add in pin tip diameter, spring drag, sear drag and a host of other items to actually include the simple act of having the primer touching the bottom of the primer pocket. Crush would now come into play because some of the energy used to detonate the primer is being used to fully seat it into the crush zone.


Fuck, fuck, fuck!!
I just want to shoot!

Back in the 90s there were tests done on primer energy to include flame length and duration.
They used high speed cameras to record time and distance of the flame along with temperature.

Part of the test included seating to touch vs crush.

What I don't recall is which action they used or the firing pin system specifics.

What they did determine is that primer seating matters.
They also found that some of the magnum primers weren't hotter. They just had a longer flame duration.

IIRC, the hottest was the WLRM. The most consistent was the 205M.



With that big mouthful said, I'm gonna step over this big ol' worm pile and pour myself another cup of coffee.

 

[Mike Casselton]

in small caliber some use very light springs, but some dont... maybe because of that what you said...

The most disturbance is caused by heavy springs and light firing pins.

Just going to a lighter spring doesn't work. It causes ignition failures unless you increase pin travel.
Doing that increases lock time...

 

[Mike Casselton]

In the time it takes to read this thread, I could load 200 rds of really accurate ammo.

Yeah, where is the fun in that?
I'm still trying to get up off the couch for that second cup of coffee...