Load development by group consensus Part 2 seating depth
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2024
- Join Patreon / fclassjohn for full length videos, live chats and more.
Help support my channel by shopping Amazon amzn.to/35YA4h8
Checkout www.bigshottumblers.com for the ultimate wet or dry tumbler
DISCLAIMER: This and all videos on my channel are not meant or intended to be viewed by anyone under the age of 18. This video and description may contain affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. This helps support the channel and allows us to continue to make videos like this. Thank you for the support! Videos on this channel are for informative, and entertainment purposes only. Using any of the information is at the risk of the individual using the information. We (including CZcams) will not be held liable for any injury to yourself or damage to your firearms resulting from attempting anything shown in any our videos. By viewing or flagging this video you are acknowledging the above. #fclassjohn #reloading
2.305 gets my vote, great video. Thanks for doing the interactive seating depth test, very helpful. This is part of my reloading process where I can improve.
You fell for the trap
I’m liking 2.340 to 2.330 because impact is consistent. I’d start 2.340” and as it erodes you’re still fairly consistent to 2.320”. But honestly, this bullet isn’t working.
Yep I agree, the combo would normally get reset but I want to ride it out to show people what happens. I'll start over with my known competent combo next time.
This is what I came here to write too. But in all fairness, I think these groups are not great for 100yds. Maybe we got the powder charge wrong 😅
Ps, the powder charge john used here was the one I would’ve picked from the first test… it wasn’t the best velocity node, but I chose it because it felt like the “better node” was just at too slow a velocity.
@@FClassJohn I love the idea of letting the audience guide your development, it seems like a lot of fun at least on our side. I think it's a great idea to stick with the "less than ideal projectile". It'll show people what can be done with a sub par projectile, for better or worse, even if it's not a match winning load in the end. It'll also show the importance of projectile selection if you're after 1 hole groups like you normally are. I'm sure many of us have worked up cheap loads for plinking and playing with the best combination giving us 1.5 MOA, I know I have. The after action review in the end will definitely be educational whether you're a new reloader, a casual reloader, or a serious competition reloader.
@@erick7862 that was 100% my thoughts as well. I think his gun doesn’t like this bullet.
@@erick7862 there’s an old saying in f class, speed kills…..the one thing I think a lot of people overlooked was the much higher BC of the 190 hybrids over the 180s. This has actually been a really good series and I’ll do it again when we are done here with another component combo. I will also talk about where I would’ve gone with this combo when we are done.
2.305 is my vote. Love the content.
2.335 gets my vote! Really enjoying this. Hope you do a recap of what you would've done with this scenario.
I'm glad you showed even the bad results. I had a similar test yesterday where nothing shot particularly well. Your vid encouraged me to keep trying different stuff!
That's great and the whole reason I wanted to do these videos. Life and testing isn't always perfect.
2.305 - tightest group
At first glance I’d say go with 2.340”. Looks like there’s 10 thou of room on the deeper side to work into. Some larger groups in that region would be nice to confirm. Very Nice SD!
This is some sort of Fudd Reloader Nightmare! Let the inter webs decide your load 😂👍🏻I'm loving it man
Glad you like it, thank you.
I'd give up on that combination already
Yeah in all fairness I would too, but I'm going to finish this out to show everyone what happens.
When you “give up on that combination” where do you go next? I’ve been frustrated with this in the past. Faster powder, slower powder, bullet weight, bullet brand, primer?
@@threequarter4071 Well in this particular situation I would go with a lighter bullet to better match the barrel twist. For this test I'm using the 190 Hybrids which technically stabilize in a 1:9 that I'm using but really do better in an 8.5 or even an 8. So that's one approach. Another would be to go down in bullet weight such as the 184s or 180 hybrids. Lots of ways to approach it. Powder is a whole other rabbit hole as well.
2.340. Room for throat erosion. I personally wouldn't be thrilled with these results though. I don't think this powder charge, or component combo is quite right.Thanks for doing this though John, I think it's such a great idea to see how a top pro approaches load dev.
Thank you. The load definitely isn't where I'd normally want it to be but it's been fun so far and I want to see it through for everyone. I'll do another after this with my normal components and I think it'll be good for everyone to see the difference between components that are meant to work together and those that aren't.
@@FClassJohn
I’m not understanding what the few comments that don’t think these components are working together are seeing. I have dozen of targets like this. Of course I’ve never achieved my goal of shooting 5 shots through 1 hole. I’ve only been at it for a year and a half.
Fun Fun!
Thanks for the help👍
I agree and think this is a very accurate statement
2.340" seems to work well and indicates you have about 0.010" of erosion (maybe more if 2.320" group is fluke) before needing to adjust seating depth again.
SO many 2 and 1 groups. SO many potential variables for the 1's.
Phew. A lot to unpack here!
Well, for starters, great shooting, and this is fascinating because I've never had the opportunity to fire a high-end platform before, so it's great to follow along on this load development and see how higher-end equipment reacts.
My initial impression of this is how you can readily see some of the harmonics and you work through your strings. I see 2.340 through 2.330 as a fairly stable, but maybe not ideal, node. 2.325 is when we start to enter our "scatter node", where the point of impact shifts left and gets very ugly at 2.320 and 2.310. I'm not surprised that 2.305 tightens up again, and that precision looks promising and worth investigating, but I wouldn't place much stock into it because the next string, 2.300 opens up and shows leftward POI again, but also upward. Lastly, 2.295 takes a huge jump to the right, and goes further up.
I didn't bother taking the ones that jumped 0.010" into account, but it's really cool to see how the next string after 2.295 has the whole group in an upward POI, which completes that trend, and from there we can see it creep back down and left again. That's awesome!
I'm in Michigan, where during the summer it's a swamp, and during the winter it's a cold barren desert. I like wide harmonic nodes and the OCW method, so I would test further in that 2.235-2.330 range. I don't have a tuner, so I'd do 0.002" for seating depth. Since we have a tuner, I guess we could try... 2.330. That looks like the "most honest" group. I don't think that very tight group, 2.305, can really be improved upon - I think either way you try to tune it you'll find yourself angry.
These videos are interesting for sure. As far as this gos I'd go with 2.290 and test also like 2.330 and 2.340.thanks again and keep up the good work
2.340“ is the one. As the throat of the chamber erodes you’ll still shoot pretty tight groups. 2.305 is what a novice would choose. Look at the group just to the right. That’s what your rifle will start shooting as the chamber erodes.
2.330 to 2.335 looks like good seating depth node to allow for throat erosion. Load 2.330. DON'T CHASE THE LANDS 👍
2.340 or just a couple of thousandths shorter to allow for variations. Since 2.340, 2.335 and 2.330 all look like they group in the same area, that should keep things consistent for a good amount of wear and tear on the lands before you have to recheck.
Bullet/powder combo seems less accurate than high level F-class expectations (for that barrel)...
Thanks for this interesting group experiment.
I like consistent impacts of 2.335 + or -, try tuning further. I am not a competition shooter just a hunter that enjoys accuracy.
2.305 for the win. Having fun with this!!
2.338”
Thanks for the great experiment!! Test @ 2.335.
2.285 to 2.295 looks like the sweet spot. Very forgiving, same point of impact, horizontal tendency.
You mentioned your cases don't have a donut because you pushed it out. I'd like to see a video of your process for this. Great videos thanks so much!
Well, 2.305" appears to be the best here. So if I understand, you started at0.005" OTL, so that means it is jumping 0.040". I still wish we could have started at -0.020" into the lands. Cool test, thanks for sharing John.
2.340 to allow extra room of node change in future as will be using barrel tuner next .
Thanks John !
Awesome project and learning experience - think I would move on to different something
2.335 is my choice. You have three seating depths that are pretty good before they jump. During the powder test I thought low ES was the most important. Then after you have low ES you work on seating depth and then turner testing.
I like 2.335 since the group on either side are pretty tight as well. This one only has vertical stringing which tells me it's a good node with some velocity affecting point of aim.
That was my thought on powder charge but looking at the results I think I would have stopped shooting part way through and tried a lower charge. You might get something accurate but looks to me as if it will end up a knife edge load with hardly any room for error.
Very interesting video. You might catch up with Erik’s subs if you do more of this.
Anyway we never had a gear review with the shaving equipment did we? It did a superb job 😂😂
That's a lot of location change in the groups. I would go back and explore the 2.330 to 2.340 in 3 thou changes. The 2.305 has nasty on both sides.
Thanks again
This is fun and interesting! Thanks.
2.335 seems to be round groups and stable on both sides of seating depth. So I would pick that one myself.
Lapua bullets, I've heard they like a little jump. Soooo, 2.290
2.338 is my vote. I agree that this combo isn't working the greatest but if we are sticking with this you have room for erosion and a fairly wide tolerance. Secondary 2.290
Yep, the combo ain't looking great but I want to follow this through so everyone can see what happens. We will do this again with another combo next time.
Love your rest
2.335. I hope that tuner will help. so far it doesn't look great. If this doesn't work head in to the lands and see if it gets better.
Agree with 2.335 since it has decent groups on either side.
The powder charge that I liked on the last video was not the popular choice, so based on the winner and the new group on paper it looks like there could be a node from 2.34 and 2.33. 2.305 Unfortunately falls b/w two lousy ones other wise it would be a start also. But i still think the not so great charge will creep up later. Just my 2 cents
I'd probably move on to pitting 2.335" vs 2.305" and see which one groups more consistently over a few 5 shot groups. Just to weed out any possibility of either being a "lucky group".
2.340 looks good and seems to hold until 2.330 area, which will give you room for throat erosion so I would either call it good there or try going longer (into the lands).
2.340 with expectation that the right tuner setting will make it happier.
2.305 looks good to me.
Thank u
My vote is on the 2340 load - you should be able to tune in on that one
Wow! Those look awesome! Are your shooting those for TSRA 😮
Looks like a fun project John. Full on pro CZcams’R soft box lighting now..? Nice 👍🏻
I'm sure everyone at TSRA would love me bringing this combo out there 🤣
2.335
If I saw these results from one of my barrels I'd assume that something in my system was broken. A few of those groups should never happen with a custom barrel and good components unless something is wrong with the rifle system(scope, stock, action, rest or bad barrel).
2.335”
There being reasonable groups either side.
But I would like to have done another round of three shot groups from 2.340-2.330 in .001” increments to see if there was anything better or how they opened or closed up.
I’d try 2.337”. I usually do my testing in .003” increments. I feel like in between the first and second length looks promising. But then I’m a hunter. Not a F-class shooter.
Looks like you may get a small seating window out of it, but too many 2 and 1 groups. Powder is off a bit I reckon.
I'd probably retest the 2.305 to see if it would replicate and I would probably try 2.345 and 2.350. But what I see from this test I too would probably go with 2.335 based on similar groupings before and after.
I'd go with one of the first 3 because it looked like they had close speeds on the chrono
Truth be told 2.340 to 2.330 is really the only range the loads were semi consistent I would go to the bottom of that node 2.330. The 2.305 group is just an odd ball group nothing around it was consistent enough to call that a node.
2.335 is my vote. The groups on either side are similar in size and there is nothing crazy going on. I would have chose 2.305 if the groups on either side were less erratic.
Just looking at the results & leaving all the assumptions out, from 2.340 to 2.255 you had a velocity SD of 6.9 & ES of 28 across the board. That tells me that with the mass of projectile & the powder burn rate used, that seating depth has little to no effect on velocity stability. This is a common result in my experience when using heavy for caliber projectiles & slow burn rate powders.
As for the shot to shot distribution, I think it reasonable to assume that you have one genuine outlier at 2.320 which happens. With the POSSIBLE exception of 2.310 as either an outlier or a 99th percentile shot, the groups appear to me to be well within a normal distribution radius.
Until the sample rate is increased per group, there's very little to discriminate between each group dispersion without the liberal employment of a whole lot of assumption.
2.305 looks like the best
2.335” is my vote. What do you think about that David Tubb nosering cutter?
2.330”-2.340” looks to be a node. I would pick 2.330”
2.305 is the tightest group of the bunch!
I would do a 2.285 - 2.295 test again. I really liked the 2.305 but, on both sides it a bit to radical.
Jeff D
2.305 was my favorite
2.338 is what I would go with there.
2.335" gets my vote.
2.340, gives you about 10 thou of wear before before seating depth needs to be reworked.
I'd pick the 54.6.. so I was close 😁.
On this jump-test I've have shosed 2.320 if I have no tuner ,but in this case with tuner I'd settled with 2.335 in the middle of a stable POI and good precision in comparison to the whole test .
The 2.305 is nice... but probably a fluke with two uglys on both sides.
So... 2.335 with tuner to come 👍
I would start with 2.335, but again mine pick didn't get enough vote last time.....
2.340-2.330 should be retested in .003 increments my opinion but it think out of those I’d go 2.335.
i would try 53.8 seating depth test
Thinkni missed something, but why start at 5 off the lands, why not like 2 off and work back?
I have found that most of my bullets and loads like it around 2 off 🙂
I need to see 6, 9, 12, and 15 thou in the lands before I make a decision.....Load up 5 rounds at 54.8 or 55 at 12thou into the lands....Thats where I think it'll shoot.
First of all you went down the wrong rabbit hole on the charges. Your patrons chose to large of a ES and SD. 6 more shots in stage one and you might have something good.
Second, Now your seating depth jumps are to large (you will find it hard to get two good charges in the same node) Anyway good experiment. Please make a video about the correct choices for comparison.
Given what we have to choose from 2.340 is clearly the best choice.
Please test.002 on each side of 2.305 Thank you.
I would test .002 on both sides of 2.305..
To me this is just crazy
2.340
2.335 looks good. It'll give ya some wiggle room to load quickly.
2.305 is my vote
I would say the 2.340 that way you have some room for throat erosion. I'm not 100% on powder charge.
2.335 and see if you can tune it in or not
Where do you get your mirage shield for your barrel?
2305 for the win
2.330, as barrel erodes, it will head for the 2.340😉
2.305 gets my vote
you are set at 2.333. You should put the scope video on
i would try 2.335
If I only had one number to go with at this point it would be 2.332. If I was trying to zero in more I would try 2.338 also, two 5 shot groups at each.
2.335 or 2.290 or 2.280 look like theybwould be the center point of the nodes possably? Unless the 2.295 to 2.275 is one big node then inwould choose that
2.340”
What was the seating depth for the initial powder charge weight tests?
Will you tell us where you would have started instead of the 54.5 grain and why you would have chosen that specific charge weight? If that's something you are not willing to divulge I understand. Enjoying this very much.
I think he said in the video he would have tried around the 53,5 range.
@@rustynut1967 thank you for that, I must've missed it when I was watching. Sorry about that.
I'd go with 54.8 as, it HELD Vertical,.. BEST !
I would work with 2.300 to 2.310 .
2.338 - 2.337
2.339” is my vote
2.340. Now rinse & repeat is my method. (who is watching the polling booth?) 😎
Why not 53.8 ?and 2.305 .
2.340.
2.305 has the smallest group of the lot
2.340 to 2.330 in finer increments. 2.335 should work though. 2.295 to 2.285 would be worth investigating also.
2.340 - 2.330 is the best bet
2.305 is tightest in my opinion.......
.340 to .330. Somewhere in there I think