Which load/depth would you run with?

[RmeJu]

I just did a seating depth test on some loads I worked up. 5 test groups of 5 rounds each, ranging from .015" to .035" in .005" increments. I did this twice for two slightly different charge weights (so, 50 rounds total). The lower charge weights were groups 1-5, the higher weight 6-10. I'm not the world's best shot, so for load testing, I measured the group based on the best 4 shots, since some of the flyers were inevitably my fault. For measuring vertical spread though, I used all 5 shots, since when I pull one, it's (usually) left or right. Chrono'd with a Lab Radar. FWIW, I rarely get the <5 ES's and <2 STD's that I see people talking about here all the time, so I'll have to live with a little more tolerance than some of you guys out there.

Here is a picture of all 10 groups, followed by some close ups of the ones I thought might be the one to run with.

Group 7 was my initial thought for a winner. It certainly had the smallest (4 shot) group size, one of the smaller vertical spreads, the only single digit SD, and the best ES (although the Lab Radar only recorded 4 of the 5 shots). That said, group 8 had pretty good speed metrics (and recorded all 5 shots), had a significantly smaller vertical spread, and although the group size was bigger, the fact that it has two bugholing groups suggests that maybe it was me pulling a couple of shots (consistently), and not the load. Had I not done that, those might all be one hole... maybe worth another try. Group 10 also had decent (for me) chrono numbers, and worth noting (I thought) was the fact that 4 out of the 5 shots had a vertical dispersion of only .019"... barely anything. I wonder if that one might be worth another look as well.

On the lower charge weight, Group 5 did alright on paper and on the chrono, but didn't look quite as good to me as the three above. Group 1 also had a decent best 4 group size, but the chrono numbers were some of the worst I recorded, and the vertical spread was better on the groups pictured above.

So... what say you all? If this is what you had to work with, which would you run with?

 

[Jordanwickham]

There's alot going on here. How did you land on these two powder charges? What is your end goal with the gun?

 

[NiteQwill]

Is it me, or on quick glance... Your velocity is all over the place? (It might just be my tired eyes looking at night)

Are you consistent and confident with your reloading technique? Why did you use 2 powder charges?

 

[Jordanwickham]

Is it me, or on quick glance... Your velocity is all over the place? (It might just be my tired eyes looking at night)

Are you consistent and confident with your reloading technique? Why did you use 2 powder charges?

It's not your tired eyes. 15 fps averages swing with 30-45 ES. Total ES being around 60 is quite extreme.

A .5 seating depth change shouldn't swing FPS much at all. On your second powder charge your velocity drops as your bullet is seated deeper.

I would take a look at your powder dispensing setup and whatever method of obtaining consistent neck tension you have.

 

[NiteQwill]

Thought it looked funny.

OP, start at square one and get your reloading technique down. As said above, neck tension and accuracy of your powder charges is supreme. Don't worry about chasing the lands, jump is not as important as consistent technique.

 

[RmeJu]

It's not your tired eyes. 15 fps averages swing with 30-45 ES. Total ES being around 60 is quite extreme.

A .5 seating depth change shouldn't swing FPS much at all. On your second powder charge your velocity drops as your bullet is seated deeper.

I would take a look at your powder dispensing setup and whatever method of obtaining consistent neck tension you have.

I guess I'm not sure where you're getting all that... the total ES on groups 6-10 (the higher charge weight) is only 20 fps (3018 on #10 being the low, 3038 on #6 being the high). The ES between the lower charge weight (groups 1-5) is even less (15 fps). Some of the individual groups got up to 30 ES, but the ones I was keenest on were less than that. The velocity on the second group sometimes, but not always, dropped the deeper it was seated.

Powder dispensing is on an A&D FX120i with autotrickler to +/- .02gr, with tension set on mandrels to 1.5 thousandths (all checked with a class X pin guage). Necks are also turned. I will say that this was virgin brass though.

 

[Jordanwickham]

Thought it looked funny.

OP, start at square one and get your reloading technique down. As said above, neck tension and accuracy of your powder charges is supreme. Don't worry about chasing the lands, jump is not as important as consistent technique.

Yeah I would get your hand loading techniques figured out and work on your shooting fundamentals. Working up a load is really rough when your hand loading has significant issues especially if you can't trust your shots.
Not saying you should be in the 5 ES range but you should be able to get to the 10-15 range.
Having a called pull happens but if you have a pull in every group there's issues. You also need to know what's a pull and what's not.

 

[Jordanwickham]

So for groups 1-5 I'll buy the 15 fps jump since it is from shallow to deep on seating depth but your overall ES for those groups is 53. You have a spread of 2993-3046 on velocity. Groups 6-10 have a total swing of 51 for ES ( 3002-3053). If you were on a good powder node you wouldn't have that much change. And your test was only over a .020" change in seating depth. Seating depth shouldn't mess with SD and ES very much at all.

I don't know where the issue is for sure but I would venture a guess that you didn't find your powder charge. With that equipment if you were on a good powder charge there's no reason, if you have a good reloading process, that your ES should be over 10. If I had that equipment I'd call an ES of 10 iffy.

Like Nate said I would pretty much start over. I feel like maybe you got lost at the first step of finding a powder charge.

 

[Jordanwickham]

Is there a reason you turned your necks? Is your chamber a neck turn chamber?

 

[Dthomas3523]

Is there a reason you turned your necks? Is your chamber a neck turn chamber?

Doesn’t matter at all.

You can have .010 clearance after turning necks and it doesn’t matter. *Possibly* seeing split necks earlier than with tighter clearance. Possibly little more carbon build up near neck in the chamber.

You get a neck turn chamber because you want to turn necks and also don’t want a lot of clearance. You don’t neck turn *because* you have a tight chamber (unless you used the wrong reamer).

Properly turned necks at worst will show little to no improvement on ES. It will never hurt, regardless of the neck clearance. The key word is properly.

 

[nksmfamjp]

I would reshoot 1,5,7. Maybe 3 groups of 5 each. Look for consistency.

pretty good loads!

These folks talking about your techniques, are they in your reloading room seeing what I cannot?

i might respectfully ask what is your neck tension and how do you treat necks??

 

[Dthomas3523]

I don’t think your loading technique is bad. You’re using an fx120, setting tension with mandrel in turned necks and verifying with a pin gauge.

Pick a depth to test your powder. Be it .020 off the lands or whatever. Don’t changed it. Do a 10-20 shot string of each of these powder charges and report back with results.

Trying to test too many things at once makes it hard. Let’s figure out a powder charge for you. Then move to seating depth testing. With modern chronographs, we can separate the two and make loaf development much more efficient.

 

[needham]

your .015 and .020 jumps are basically the same group so that's your seating depth.

now rerun or run for the first time a ladder, OCW, satterlee, how ever you find your charge weight test and you'll be done.

 

[918v]

I would test [email protected]” off, maybe .045” off to see if you get similar groups. Then test the powder charge plus/minus .1gr increments.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I would reshoot 1,5,7. Maybe 3 groups of 5 each. Look for consistency.

pretty good loads!

These folks talking about your techniques, are they in your reloading room seeing what I cannot?

i might respectfully ask what is your neck tension and how do you treat necks??

He’s setting them at .0015 with mandrel and verifying with pin gauge. On turned necks. If it’s being done properly as described, it’s going to be fine.

 

[Tokay444]

It's not your tired eyes. 15 fps averages swing with 30-45 ES. Total ES being around 60 is quite extreme.

A .5 seating depth change shouldn't swing FPS much at all. On your second powder charge your velocity drops as your bullet is seated deeper.

I would take a look at your powder dispensing setup and whatever method of obtaining consistent neck tension you have.

I’d say a .5 seating depth change would change A LOT!

 

[RmeJu]

Properly turned necks at worst will show little to no improvement on ES. It will never hurt, regardless of the neck clearance. The key word is properly.

I turned the necks down from ~.01425 to ~.01375 (+/- .0001). Measured every piece. Slow feed, slow speed. Bit into the shoulder about the width of a hair.

I don’t think your loading technique is bad. You’re using an fx120, setting tension with mandrel in turned necks and verifying with a pin gauge.

Pick a depth to test your powder. Be it .020 off the lands or whatever. Don’t changed it. Do a 10-20 shot string of each of these powder charges and report back with results.

Trying to test too many things at once makes it hard. Let’s figure out a powder charge for you. Then move to seating depth testing. With modern chronographs, we can separate the two and make loaf development much more efficient.

I should have stated in my original post that I selected the two charge weights above after doing an initial charge weight test for the first round of load development. In that test, I shot 5 round groups, moving in .2 gr increments, and found (what I thought was) a very flat node of 6 tested charge weights (i.e. spanning 1.2 gr) in which the max to min average speed of each 5 round group was a spread of only 9 FPS between all 6 groups. The two charge weights tested above were the two charge weights that were in the middle of that node. Chrono was a Lab Radar. The test in this post was the test for depth.

Maybe this info doesn't change your advice, but I thought I should clarify in case it does.

I should add that the brass in this test was virgin brass. I did use imperial dry lube on the bullets when seating, but... who knows if that was a factor in any of this.

pretty good loads!

These folks talking about your techniques, are they in your reloading room seeing what I cannot?

i might respectfully ask what is your neck tension and how do you treat necks??

Thank you! And, as DThomas said, necks were turned, then I sized the necks to .002 tension, then used a mandrel to open it up to .0015 tension. Checked every piece with a class X pin gauge.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I turned the necks down from ~.01425 to ~.01375 (+/- .0001). Measured every piece. Slow feed, slow speed. Bit into the shoulder about the width of a hair.



I should have stated in my original post that I selected the two charge weights above after doing an initial charge weight test for the first round of load development. In that test, I shot 5 round groups, moving in .2 gr increments, and found (what I thought was) a very flat node of 6 tested charge weights (i.e. spanning 1.2 gr) in which the max to min average speed of each 5 round group was a spread of only 9 FPS between all 6 groups. The two charge weights tested above were the two charge weights that were in the middle of that node. Chrono was a Lab Radar. The test in this post was the test for depth.

Maybe this info doesn't change your advice, but I thought I should clarify in case it does.

I should add that the brass in this test was virgin brass. I did use imperial dry lube on the bullets when seating, but... who knows if that was a factor in any of this.



Thank you! And, as DThomas said, necks were turned, then I sized the necks to .002 tension, then used a mandrel to open it up to .0015 tension. Checked every piece with a class X pin gauge.

That 3070 is what caught my attention.

 

[RmeJu]

That 3070 is what caught my attention.

Which group are you looking at? Are you sure it's not my handwriting?

 

[Dthomas3523]

Which group are you looking at? Are you sure it's not my handwriting?

That could be. 7. If that’s 3026, Nevermind. Speeds look fine

 

[RmeJu]

That could be. 7. If that’s 3026, Nevermind. Speeds look fine

Yep. 3026.

Sooooo... does that mean you'd run with 7, or ...?

In any case, thanks for the help!

 

[Jordanwickham]

Which group are you looking at? Are you sure it's not my handwriting?

I think he is reading the 3020 group which looks like 3070. I'm assuming you are shooting something around a 7mmrm based on the powder charge? Sounds like your reloading is on point. Like I said earlier after you explained what you were using to reload, I feel like your powder charge is off. A 1.2 grain spread seems like a gigantic node. I'll run some velocity checks on virgin brass but then not do much else until I have 1x brass and do a confirmation run to make sure nothing changed too much. Your case capacity will change regardless. But in a case holding 70.5 grains stands to change considerably especially depending on the tolerances of your chamber.

Dthomas knows alot more about this stuff than I do though. Still fairly new to it.

 

[RmeJu]

I think he is reading the 3020 group which looks like 3070. I'm assuming you are shooting something around a 7mmrm based on the powder charge? Sounds like your reloading is on point. Like I said earlier after you explained what you were using to reload, I feel like your powder charge is off. A 1.2 grain spread seems like a gigantic node. I'll run some velocity checks on virgin brass but then not do much else until I have 1x brass and do a confirmation run to make sure nothing changed too much. Your case capacity will change regardless. But in a case holding 70.5 grains stands to change considerably especially depending on the tolerances of your chamber.

Dthomas knows alot more about this stuff than I do though. Still fairly new to it.

FYI, the original powder node testing was not done with virgin brass. That brass had a few firings on it. I agree that the node seemed large, but the lab radar said what it said.

 

[padom]

I turned the necks down from ~.01425 to ~.01375 (+/- .0001). Measured every piece. Slow feed, slow speed. Bit into the shoulder about the width of a hair.



I should have stated in my original post that I selected the two charge weights above after doing an initial charge weight test for the first round of load development. In that test, I shot 5 round groups, moving in .2 gr increments, and found (what I thought was) a very flat node of 6 tested charge weights (i.e. spanning 1.2 gr) in which the max to min average speed of each 5 round group was a spread of only 9 FPS between all 6 groups. The two charge weights tested above were the two charge weights that were in the middle of that node. Chrono was a Lab Radar. The test in this post was the test for depth.

Maybe this info doesn't change your advice, but I thought I should clarify in case it does.

I should add that the brass in this test was virgin brass. I did use imperial dry lube on the bullets when seating, but... who knows if that was a factor in any of this.



Thank you! And, as DThomas said, necks were turned, then I sized the necks to .002 tension, then used a mandrel to open it up to .0015 tension. Checked every piece with a class X pin gauge.

I also would either A) post up your OCW you said you shot... or B) reshoot that OCW, 3 rounds groups, round robin style, all on the same target and post that up.

If I read your above reply correctly on how you selected your Optimal Charge Weight, is you based it solely off verlocity data. Selecting a node on velocity alone is not how an OCW test is ran or how you select a charge weight or node. You should be looking for consective charge weights with same Point of Impact. This is telling you the barrel is releasing the bullet at the exact same spot for each of those charge weights. This is what your looking for and the reason we do load development... Not for velocity flat spots. Ive found nodes many times that did not have velocity flat spots, but had consistent POI's with 3 different charge weights. That there is your node.

Seeing your OCW target would be very beneficial here. If not in the center of the node, the rest of the tests dont matter. And while you can get away with this at 100yd.... You will really see the issues as you walk that load out to distance if not in a node. This is why my load development process consists of 3 main steps. OCW @100yd and select center of node based on POI, seating depth test at 100yd with selected charge, load confirmation shooting groups at 300yd and 500yd. If it passes those 3 steps, I call it good. A end result is a very accurate load with very low ES/SD..

 

[padom]

I think he is reading the 3020 group which looks like 3070. I'm assuming you are shooting something around a 7mmrm based on the powder charge? Sounds like your reloading is on point. Like I said earlier after you explained what you were using to reload, I feel like your powder charge is off. A 1.2 grain spread seems like a gigantic node. I'll run some velocity checks on virgin brass but then not do much else until I have 1x brass and do a confirmation run to make sure nothing changed too much. Your case capacity will change regardless. But in a case holding 70.5 grains stands to change considerably especially depending on the tolerances of your chamber.

Dthomas knows alot more about this stuff than I do though. Still fairly new to it.

You bring up another good point. I personally dont do full on load development until I have 100rd down the barrel. 1, to get some rounds down the barrel, as they usually speed up some in that 50-100rd range. 2, so I have 100pcs of fireformed to my chamber brass. Guys wonder why their load shoots great that they worked up with virgin brass then doesnt shoot as good when they load it again with 1x brass. You need to adjust the charge weight sometimes (different calibers this is more or less a factor) to account for possible case capacity changes/pressures changes due to the brass blowing out and forming to your chamber..

 

[Jordanwickham]

FYI, the original powder node testing was not done with virgin brass. That brass had a few firings on it. I agree that the node seemed large, but the lab radar said what it said.

Then I'm just all around confused. What part of this was done with virgin brass? Virgin of atleast the same brand?
With that being the case I would at the very least reshoot this test with the 1x brass that resulted from the first time you shot it with virgin brass. Virgin and fired brass can't really be freely swapped around and expect anything.
Also no one really knows yet what cartridge you are shooting. I guessed a 7mmrm based on powder and velo combination but still a guess.
Anyways good luck with this

 

[padom]

FYI, the original powder node testing was not done with virgin brass. That brass had a few firings on it. I agree that the node seemed large, but the lab radar said what it said.

This means nothing. You are incorrectly basing where the node is and how wide it is solely off Labradar/Velocity data. This is not how you determine a node. The method of finding a node solely off velocity data has been debunked numerous times.

Here is some reading for you on how to properly find a node and select a charge weight in a node.

Dan Newberry's OCW Load Development System

Dan Newberry OCW or Optimal Charge Weight Load Development method or system for handloading, reloading, bullets, brass, powder, primers, accurate handloads.

optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com

 

[Tokay444]

Interested in what you could possibly be using to accurately measure to +/-.0001” on something as elastic as a case mouth. Optical comparator? Laser?

 

[Dthomas3523]

This means nothing. You are incorrectly basing where the node is and how wide it is solely off Labradar/Velocity data. This is not how you determine a node. The method of finding a node solely off velocity data has been debunked numerous times.

Here is some reading for you on how to properly find a node and select a charge weight in a node.

Dan Newberry's OCW Load Development System

Dan Newberry OCW or Optimal Charge Weight Load Development method or system for handloading, reloading, bullets, brass, powder, primers, accurate handloads.

optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com

FYI, many of the top F class shooters in the country are finding their powder node solely via chrono.

Then tuning seating depth with that node.

Newberry’s stuff is good. But it’s also an older method developed when most didn’t have access to the chronos we do today. Using a chrono works fine.

 

[padom]

FYI, many of the top F class shooters in the country are finding their powder node solely via chrono.

Then tuning seating depth with that node.

Newberry’s stuff is good. But it’s also an older method developed when most didn’t have access to the chronos we do today. Using a chrono works fine.

Ill have to disagree from all my testing. Does it work sometimes, yes. Is it a 100% accurate method of finding a node across every caliber/rifle you do load workup for? My testing says no. And I have many many targets I can post up showing center of nodes based off clear, consistent POI that you would not pick if you solely went off velocity.... I also shoot all my OCW's over a LabRadar for another data point. But I dont use that data to solely pick a charge weight or determine the node.. Dan's OCW is old, yes. But it works 100% of the time, every time if performed properly. I cannot say the same solely using velocity numbers. The OP is a perfect example. Saying he has a 1.2gr wide node and picked 2 charge weights because the node is so wide based off velocity data alone? Id love to see those original OCW targets, if shot properly. That would tell us a lot.

 

[RmeJu]

The OP is a perfect example. Saying he has a 1.2gr wide node and picked 2 charge weights because the node is so wide based off velocity data alone? Id love to see those original OCW targets, if shot properly. That would tell us a lot.

I did not say that I did this. And, I did not do this. I did not post my original charge weight test methodology so as not to make the post so lengthy that people would not read it. I was merely noting my chrono data to respond to another poster. That data did serve as one of my data points in selecting a charge weight, but it was not the only criteria I used.

This is not to say i don't appreciate your response. I do. Given that the question has now been asked, I will post the targets tonight, along with my methodology so that you have that to comment on. It may, of course, be that you would've picked a different charge than me, and if so, I'm certainly open to hearing about that.

 

[RmeJu]

Here are some targets from 2 other tests. All were .010 jump.

First one was the "node" targets i referenced from round one. Target 17 corresponds to the heavier charge weight, and target 16 to the lighter one. I must have misspoke earlier, the "node" (avg speed over 5 shots) was 1 gr wide (not 1.2). I note that two of these 5 seemed to be hitting .1 mil left of the others.

The test was trying 5 rounds in .2 gr increments. Chrono data, group size, and placement as compared to neighboring targets factored in. I don't think there was a prefect choice, but 17 has been, and still seems to be, shooting alright.

Fwiw, I retested a couple on 17. 2nd pic, no chrono data... thought I had spare batteries that day but did not, so all i have is the groups. I also tested a couple others in the second round (not pictured) but "17" seemed to be shooting best, so I tried that for depth. I did test "16" in the depth test too, just to try it.