Anybody ever weighed good ammo (Eley, Lapua...) group it together based on weight and see if it held tighter groups.
Weighing ammo
- Thread starter jsthntn247
- Start date
SK Rifle Match, full brick.
Rim thickness, length, diameter, weight.
Results proved useless.
If y'er a bit OCD, enjoy ye'rself.
You'd be better off lot testing at a factory run facility and purchasing the best you can find.
Rim thickness, length, diameter, weight.
Results proved useless.
If y'er a bit OCD, enjoy ye'rself.
You'd be better off lot testing at a factory run facility and purchasing the best you can find.
Yes. Several eley types, several sk, cci sv, and too many others. I would recommend finding what your rifle likes first. Then try some measuring if you want. I would like to figure out a way to catch fliers before they go down range. So far all I have is becoming a better (read more consistent) marksman.
What my rifle likes has nothing to do with the labeling on the packaging.
What it prefers is tight mv's, minimal production defects and meets SAAMI specs.
Provide that and it will do well.
Try to feed it cartridges with out of spec brass, sloppy seating, visibly damaged bullets, large mv shifts, ya' end up with lousy results.
I've learned cartridge inspection before chambering explains much and a chronograph the rest.
What it prefers is tight mv's, minimal production defects and meets SAAMI specs.
Provide that and it will do well.
Try to feed it cartridges with out of spec brass, sloppy seating, visibly damaged bullets, large mv shifts, ya' end up with lousy results.
I've learned cartridge inspection before chambering explains much and a chronograph the rest.
I haven’t had my daily argument yet. I think that Eley and lapua consistently have better specs, seating and less bullet dings than cci or winchester.
Cuzz, did ya' miss me? 
And y'er argument isn't specious.
Eley and Lapua are set up with better quality control.
That doesn't prevent low quality cartridges from slipping through.
Statistical sampling only tells you what the samples did, not the entire run.
As a result I have been shipped Midas + that barely qualified as pistol fodder.
ES over 80 fps per box.
Like I said, it's not the label, only the quality of the ammo my rifle likes.
Okay cuzz, y'er turn.
And y'er argument isn't specious.
Eley and Lapua are set up with better quality control.
That doesn't prevent low quality cartridges from slipping through.
Statistical sampling only tells you what the samples did, not the entire run.
As a result I have been shipped Midas + that barely qualified as pistol fodder.
ES over 80 fps per box.
Like I said, it's not the label, only the quality of the ammo my rifle likes.
Okay cuzz, y'er turn.
I hit my rounds with an XFR scanner so I can make sure the copper to zinc ratios are perfect...sometimes you'll get a little .5% manganese and it really throws that flier
And b2 adds a nice touch of snark to the thread.
Funny and it brought to mind a recent article I read regarding bullet manufacture.
I'm still working my way up the learning curve with centerfire handloading,
this article pointed out that having a concentration of one metal, or a void,
in one location of a projectile can create a center of gravity not in line with the centerline of rotation.
This leads to an eccentric wobble which messes with the bullet flight.
It's not even a visible defect.
Funny and it brought to mind a recent article I read regarding bullet manufacture.
I'm still working my way up the learning curve with centerfire handloading,
this article pointed out that having a concentration of one metal, or a void,
in one location of a projectile can create a center of gravity not in line with the centerline of rotation.
This leads to an eccentric wobble which messes with the bullet flight.
It's not even a visible defect.
Last edited:
I'm sorry...I went to snark class last week...and I kinda feel obligated to use it when I can...I mean I paid good money to go to class...might as well try it out.
But in all seriousness...there will come a day....sooner than you think....where you will scan every bullet to be exactly to a 1/10,000th in all three dimensions and weight to 1/100th of a grain...on a machined turned bullet...
The brass done the same way to every detail....and then the primer to the same degree...and the powder charge.....and guess what? We will still have fliers....
But in all seriousness...there will come a day....sooner than you think....where you will scan every bullet to be exactly to a 1/10,000th in all three dimensions and weight to 1/100th of a grain...on a machined turned bullet...
The brass done the same way to every detail....and then the primer to the same degree...and the powder charge.....and guess what? We will still have fliers....
I'm not sold on weight sorting ammo, but 2 buddies in my shooting group swear by it, and they are very good shooters indeed. Here's the catch, though. They say a normal powder scale accurate to only 0.1 gr. lacks the precision needed to make weighing work. Both guys use Gempro scales accurate to the nearest 0.05 gr. I tried weighing rounds with the same Gempro scale but really got nowhere. I suspect I just lacked the patience for it, so I gave it up,. I really didn't see any accuracy difference, but maybe I just didn't really give it a good enough try. None of us had any success measuring rim thickness. It just didn't work.
Here's a thought exercise: Does weighing your ammo give you more confidence in your ammo? If so, does that confidence make you a better shooter?
Well, I have not seen enough difference in head space to even consider checking 50 rounds for head space. Having said that, I'm also not convinced weighing rounds would make a significant difference either considering the other variables to contend with.
But, I say a person should do whatever gives them the most confidence.
But, I say a person should do whatever gives them the most confidence.
At little feller in the back of my heads telling me dont git in a word duel with that dude!! i know i need to do some chrono with my cx.Cuzz, did ya' miss me?
And y'er argument isn't specious.
Eley and Lapua are set up with better quality control.
That doesn't prevent low quality cartridges from slipping through.
Statistical sampling only tells you what the samples did, not the entire run.
As a result I have been shipped Midas + that barely qualified as pistol fodder.
ES over 80 fps per box.
Like I said, it's not the label, only the quality of the ammo my rifle likes.
Okay cuzz, y'er turn.
I’m sticking to my old reliable” i’d like to agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.” ha ha
I've weighed, measured rim thickness, scanned for defects and sorted a number of quality brands. I've never seen any improvement in accuracy by sorting for rim thickness or weight. Scanning by eye for atypical or defective rounds does make a difference.
I measure rims to .400 to .420, separating by .005. I then weight and sort by 1/4 a grain. Anything below a certain number and above a certain number get tossed into a “plink” box.
when I compete, I only use one rim thickness and one weight for that event.
I do this, because I have tested sorted and unsorted ammo at 50 and 100 yards, and have noticed the removal of random fliers. I have noticed tighter, more consistent groups as well.
Maybe not MASSIVE accuracy increases - but enough, IMO, to warrant the time.
when I compete, I only use one rim thickness and one weight for that event.
I do this, because I have tested sorted and unsorted ammo at 50 and 100 yards, and have noticed the removal of random fliers. I have noticed tighter, more consistent groups as well.
Maybe not MASSIVE accuracy increases - but enough, IMO, to warrant the time.
The Hornady tool works fine with a good quality dial caliper. I dont believe most digital calipers are consistent.
You are on the money but it is not that simple.
I was just benching annie on Friday. We are setting up and testing processes for commercial lot testing. I am pulling the group sizes from memory, they're still to be documented.
Benched first with Lapua Polars. 10 shots. ALWAYS few flyers, otherwise a decent but rather vertical group. Around 0.6" Hopeless.
Then few Lapua Masters. Same kind of vertical group and size. And I earlier had measured 15 samples of the same box to be 6.4SD and 20ES from the Quad with great accuracy.
Then, 10 with SK Biathlon. A nice roundish one. Like LPB but no fliers.
Around 0.4"
Then 10 with SK Std. Pretty uniform and round group.
Around 0.3"
Then for fun, 10 with CCI standard. It was around 0.8"
And lastly 10 of Topshot.
It did around 0.4" Better than any of the LPB groups and we shot many.
And that lot never did anything out of my Quad. Except make me frustrated chasing around the bull.
Lot testing is nothing but straight forward, you cannot expect any results. At 50 meters the velocity is second to barrel harmonics and ammo consistency (With this I mean the mysterious variances that make some lot run and the next one not).
The inherent inaccuracy is just greater bad.
I will soon start lot testing for the Quad and it will be interesting to see how well the results change at 100m. And I know they will.
@Funcpottr Try 223 casing. Soften the mouth so it does not scratch the bullet. Mark the side and use it in the same position.
Test it makes consistent readings.
That you can catch by weighing. And for ELR, I do.And b2 adds a nice touch of snark to the thread.
Funny and it brought to mind a recent article I read regarding bullet manufacture.
I'm still working my way up the learning curve with centerfire handloading,
this article pointed out that having a concentration of one metal, or a void,
in one location of a projectile can create a center of gravity not in line with the centerline of rotation.
This leads to an eccentric wobble which messes with the bullet flight.
It's not even a visible defect.
With regard to all who seek the Light,
Historian
I am going to have to dig up that article in Precision Shooting from about 20 years ago which talked about the causes of fliers in Rimfire.
There were a bunch of ammo related ones, but two related to the rifle that I have not seen discussed here yet.
One was the buildup of lead in the leade of the barrel, and the other was the configuration of the firing pin tip and the location of the strike on the cartridge rim. I'm not even sure which storage container that box of old magazines is in, but I am going to start looking for it.
There were a bunch of ammo related ones, but two related to the rifle that I have not seen discussed here yet.
One was the buildup of lead in the leade of the barrel, and the other was the configuration of the firing pin tip and the location of the strike on the cartridge rim. I'm not even sure which storage container that box of old magazines is in, but I am going to start looking for it.
These are my findings to a T. Plus it makes me feel the rest is up to me. I have found that sorting by rim thichness and weight has greatly reduced my one off flyers. That alone makes it worthwhile.
So.... ya' spend a couple hours weight sorting.
While y'er at it ya' measure rim thickness.
Plus ya' get out the trusty old magnifying glass
and check for visual defects, all in an attempt to improve results.
Questions arise to my cynical mind...
What exactly are we weighing?
The variations in brass? Possibly the primer differences? The powder?
The density or amount of the bullet material?
The amount of lubricant on the bullet or cartridge cases?
Ya' see, that's where I get lost.
I can't determine which components are responsible for the weight variations. Can you?
So next up is rim thickness.
I can measure the distance from the face of the lip to the rear of the brass.
Will that give me any control over any of the other variables already listed?
No...most definitely not.
It won't even let me know what the overall cartridge length is,
seating depth or angle, or crimp tension.
Weight sorting? Doesn't sound all that effective.
Measuring rims? Nope, can't see it helping.
Now for visual inspection...that actually works.
Why? If you can see the bullet is already chewed up, fresh out of the box,
then you know the quality control on the assembly line sucked.
If they aren't willing to keep the bullets from getting beat up at the factory,
why would you expect them to make the effort to get anything else right?
If y'er cartridges look like cr*p, expect cr*ppy results.
While y'er at it ya' measure rim thickness.
Plus ya' get out the trusty old magnifying glass
and check for visual defects, all in an attempt to improve results.
Questions arise to my cynical mind...
What exactly are we weighing?
The variations in brass? Possibly the primer differences? The powder?
The density or amount of the bullet material?
The amount of lubricant on the bullet or cartridge cases?
Ya' see, that's where I get lost.
I can't determine which components are responsible for the weight variations. Can you?
So next up is rim thickness.
I can measure the distance from the face of the lip to the rear of the brass.
Will that give me any control over any of the other variables already listed?
No...most definitely not.
It won't even let me know what the overall cartridge length is,
seating depth or angle, or crimp tension.
Weight sorting? Doesn't sound all that effective.
Measuring rims? Nope, can't see it helping.
Now for visual inspection...that actually works.
Why? If you can see the bullet is already chewed up, fresh out of the box,
then you know the quality control on the assembly line sucked.
If they aren't willing to keep the bullets from getting beat up at the factory,
why would you expect them to make the effort to get anything else right?
If y'er cartridges look like cr*p, expect cr*ppy results.
Last edited:
The same argument against weight centerfire cases applies to Rimfire rounds. As @justin amateur pointed out, you either don’t know what is causing the weight, and part of the time the cause isn’t something that will matter.
Hmmm??? For centerfire, there's pretty good statistical correlation between case weight and its volume. . . not so much a "direct" correlation, but a statistical one when weight cases from the same lot. There sure isn't as many variables with centerfire cases as with rimfire cartridges.
Hmmm??? For centerfire, there's pretty good statistical correlation between case weight and its volume. . . not so much a "direct" correlation, but a statistical one when weight cases from the same lot. There sure isn't as many variables with centerfire cases as with rimfire cartridges.
No, it’s not. Most weight differences in centerfire are from the rim. This is why most people have stopped weighing brass and if they sort it, they volume sort. And most have stopped sorting brass at all.
Weighing anything is the opposite of precision. The only time it’s useful is if you’re going to use it as a notification to look for the reason. Such as weighing bullets in small 5 or 10 samples. When something comes back off, you check them to see why.
But weighing something and just putting it in a pile of similar weights will end up batching things with similar weights but different reasons for the weight.
Decide what you’re actually looking for, measure it accordingly, and test to see if it makes a difference.Most of the stuff people get into the weeds over, they either don’t know exactly why they are doing it and/or don’t even know if it matters.
But weighing something and just putting it in a pile of similar weights will end up batching things with similar weights but different reasons for the weight.
Decide what you’re actually looking for, measure it accordingly, and test to see if it makes a difference.Most of the stuff people get into the weeds over, they either don’t know exactly why they are doing it and/or don’t even know if it matters.
Out of curiosity, how much endless energy gets wasted with this sort of mental masturbation.
Most of what I ‘ve read seems to indicate guys are somehow satisfied improving shitty ammo into occasionally shitty ammo .
FWIW there is one and only one consistently proven methodology to get a decent 22 to shoot better....... buy better ammo, the best you can BS yourself into justifying. Everything else, and it’s been proven, is pretty much a waste.
If you’re shooting a lower cost, off the shelf rifle, you have other problems.
Most of what I ‘ve read seems to indicate guys are somehow satisfied improving shitty ammo into occasionally shitty ammo .
FWIW there is one and only one consistently proven methodology to get a decent 22 to shoot better....... buy better ammo, the best you can BS yourself into justifying. Everything else, and it’s been proven, is pretty much a waste.
If you’re shooting a lower cost, off the shelf rifle, you have other problems.
