Newb rifle reloading question

[M96A1]

First time poster, long time reader... thanks to all for the useful info!

I'm relatively new to reloading (a few 1000 rounds for pistol plinking) but only a couple handful of rounds for rifle for hunting purposes. I would like to work up the ideal load for my assorted hunting rifles and I have a good grasp on the process. Where I'm uncertain, which variable do I adjust first.... The loads I've made were with a "middle-of-the-road" powder charge and a recommended COAL from the 2nd Ed. Lee book. While they were "good enough" to fill my freezer this past fall, it would be fun to see how good they can get. Using that as a foundation, should I keep my current powder charge and start adjusting the COAL or keep my current COAL and tweak the charge weight? Once I achieve the ideal result with one, I'll play with the other and logic would tell me that would be the ideal settings for my current configuration of components. It occurs to me it may not ultimately matter, but I wanted to check with you all.
Thanks again for all feedback!

[rg1]

Hard to say for sure but I'd start changing powder charges then with the best result working up powder then I'd play with seating depth. For hunting rifles though I wouldn't try getting too close to the lands. If the accuracy doesn't get better often a better premium bullet will improve things quicker. Years ago I worked up loads for a couple hunting rifles that was satisfactory and I just don't see the need to change. Other rifles I've done a lot of load testing and playing with them to get the last 1/4 " improvement. Seems every rifle is different but one rifle showed improvement with seating depth changes but only slightly. This particular rifle liked .030" off the lands better than any other length with the powder and charge I was using. Just depends on how much time you have to develop loads and the expense of components. If your present loads put meat in the freezer and you're confident with it at maximum hunting ranges maybe I'd leave it alone but that's one benefit to being a reloader to be able to adjust loads. I'd work up powder charges and when you get the best accuracy then I would try seating depth changes. Note that seating to touch the lands or jammed into the lands greatly increases pressure.

[myfriendis410]

Let me throw a couple of things at you:

We can all make ammo that goes "bang". The idea (with a rifle) is to craft something hand tailored to your rifle. Assuming there are no issues with the gun that could affect potential accuracy-bad trigger, uneven contact on the barrel, loose components, loose or crappy scope etc. there are a couple of things you really should do to make good cartridges.

You've loaded pistol. Rifle is quite different, as is shotgun. So you really are starting out again.

1-Stay with one headstamp and one lot if possible. I like Federal brass.
2-Pick a good bullet; preferably the one you will use hunting. Don't go cheap at this point.
3-I've found that generally Federal primers give the best groups in all of my guns, with the exception of my hunting partners Pre '64 Model 70 in .270--it likes WW (go figure).
4-Trim your brass! This is very important as it will affect the tension on the bullet and change pressures/velocities if it is extreme.

When I develop a load I first reference three manuals and kinda look at the choices. Then I will pick 3 or 4 different powders and load 3 in a midrange charge and take 'em to the range. If I see encouraging results with one I'll go in and make some more .5 gr. and 1 gr. up (if possible). Try em again. Once I've found one that groups pretty well, I'll start playing with seating depth.

Something I've never done is try the Ladder test. It's a great concept and the next rifle I work on is going to get that treatment. It should also save some on components.

If you are loading for hunting, depending on caliber, be careful of how you size the brass. For accuracy a neck size or at most intermediate size is going to give you best results, but frankly function beats accuracy when you are hunting. That means a full length sizing is a good idea. Once you've built up an inventory of hunting loads, run every one through the gun for function. Put em in the magazine and load from there. That way you KNOW those cartridges are gonna feed.

[Bart B.]

What cartridge will you be loading for?

And proper full length sizing typically gives the best accuracy. That's been the norm for decades.

myfriendis410, what's "intermediate sizing?" Is that the same as partial neck sizing?

[M96A1]

rg1: I get what you're thinking. I tested my loads against factory loads and found mine to be more accurate at the distances I would shoot. I don't (yet) have a OAL gauge or bullet comparator so it would be easier to work the powder charges first. Is it necessary? Nope. But if I have the time and ability... Why not have some fun? Thanks for the feedback!


Myfriendis410: we're on the same page as I've already followed most of your recommendations. For the record, my go to rifles are a X-bolt in .270 and a Ruger American in .243. Both are excellent guns and well maintained so no issues there. I have a collection of different manufactures' brass (bought several differnt types to see what factory rounds worked well) and kept the brass to reload. It is mostly Federal and Hornady. My Lee book strongly discourages using Federal primers (not sure if it is a legit warning or more of a CYA by Mr. Lee) so I've been using Winchester primers. On top of that I have some H4831 and topped with a Hornady 130sp. I bought those components mostly because that is what was available and partly based on strong reviews.

I'm not familiar with the Ladder test. If you could point me in the right direction for more info on that, I am always looking for more info to learn from.

I'm not looking to push the limits of anything with my rounds. I'm sure my wife would prefer me to give into the "if it ain't broke..." thoughts I've had but isn't this part of the reason to get into reloading?:

Thanks again for your thoughts.

[M96A1]

Bart: I'm mostly shooting 270 and 243. You comment on full length sizing is curious. Please understand, I'm clearly no authority on the subject, but I just purchased the Lee neck re-sizer for my 270 based on Lee's insistence that sizing the neck is better than full length sizing. Did I play the Gullible Gus and buy a bill of goods?

[jimbob86]

My best loads are once fired brass, neck sized with the Lee collet neck sizing die.

Most consistant in terms of SD, and smallest groups.

Maybe in the world of Benchrest, where Bart B. lives, there is a better way ..... his world is not really exactly relevant to mine: I shoot my groups the same way I hunt- off the same set of sticks I take afield, with the same sling providing the same tension on the forend that I use, given time to use it.... Bart B., no offense, but your suggestions to hunters about "best accuracy" are akin to Medieval Church scholars telling local parishioners "exactly how many angels may dance upon the head of a pin" ...... it's PII*, and you know it.

I imagine the difference between having shooting sticks and a M-1907 sling and having a concrete bench and a cast iron adjustable rest with sand bags fore and aft have more influence on intrinsic accuracy of the system than "proper full length sizing" vs. neck sizing... this matters if everybody on the line uses a bench and bags, and the only major variable is the handloader's technique........ but neck sizing works the brass less (longer case life, for THE single most important factor in practical accuracy: more practice for less money) and takes less time at the bench. No lube (other than graphite or ground mica, which lasts effectively forever) necessary. Lower cost x less time=more practice rounds.


*Preoccupation (with) Inconsequential Increments- "Years ago we coined the appellation, “Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments,” or PII. This peculiarity lies in attributing importance to measurable deviations so small as to be meaningless. You see it in the people who shoot test groups in rifles, awarding a prize to a group which is only thousandths of an inch smaller than those unrewarded. One sees it in speed records awarded in one-thousandths of one mile-per-hour. One sees it in basketball scores which, nearing the century mark, are separated by less than three points. In all such cases Score A is “better” than Score B, but who cares?

An increment may be termed inconsequential when it has no significant relationship to the purpose of the exercise. Of course if the purpose of the exercise is in itself inconsequential some may not think this to be foolish. A very distinguished general at Quantico once caused the sign to be placed over the exit door of every office asking, in brilliant scarlet and gold, “What are you trying to do?” There was a man who knew more about human nature than most."- Jeff Cooper

P.S.- To the OP: What are you trying to do? Make the best hunting round you can?
What worked before? What would you like that load to do better? Go from there ....

[BuckRub]

Well I gotta agree I played into it when I got all neck sizing dies and thought I would be more accurate and work brass less. Well I sold all my neck dies soon after. Alot of them I never used.
Personally I FL size only about .002 less on bolt guns, and ladder test everything. Only on good calm days. Trigger jobs on all my hunting rifles or adj triggers brung to about 2 lbs. I don't really play with seating up or down. Good obtics and it'll come together. Sometimes you have to play with different brand of bullets or different bullet grains but keep on doing these things and it'll almost have to work out.

[Bart B.]

M96A1, you may well have been duped by Gullible Gus; his uncle duped me decades ago. But I wised up thanks to help from top ranked competitors in disciplines where they shoot their rifles off their shoulders. The champions, match winners and record setters all full length sized their cases. As well as a couple of people at a bullet making company who shot their stuff in all sorts of commercial hunting rifles testing loads for accuracy and reloading data to use in their manual. And the 7 or 8 factory hunting rifles I loaded for all shot most accurate with full length sized cases.

Benchresters finally learned a few years ago that proper one-piece full length sizing dies used correctly size cases that have their necks best centered on their shoulders and best aligned with their body axis. Most benchrest folks full length size these days. Their smallest groups shot are still about the same size, but their larger ones are not as big; their aggregate groups are smaller.

The tiniest groups happen when one of two things happens; either everything's perfect or all the variables cancel each other out. There's no way to tell. But the largest groups happen when all those variables add up and put bullet impact the furthest away from group center.

Decades ago, some people honed out the necks on standard full length sizing dies to a couple thousandths smaller than a loaded round's neck diameter. Set them in the press so fired case shoulders were set back only a thousandth or two. Didn't matter how much clearance there was around the case body. When fired, their shoulders centered perfectly in the chamber shoulder from firing pin impact and that's what aligned the case neck dead center in the chamber and also the bullet. And 30 to 40 reloads per case was/is common with max loads, but you'll need to trim the case back every 8 to 10 full length sizings.

Full length bushing dies are probably the best commercial ones to get these days. Or have your standard dies honed out; Forster hones out their full length dies for ten bucks each.

jimbob86, you state:

Maybe in the world of Benchrest, where Bart B. lives, there is a better way. . .

I don't own a benchrest rifle. I don't shoot benchrest matches. And depending on the size of a pin's head and the angels that might dance on one, it depends on the size of the angels as to how many would fit on it.

I know nothing about PII as you explained it. But more along the lines of "Pretty Intensly Ignorant" which you demonstrated claiming I'm a benchrest competitor. As well as what most benchresters do these days. That's OK as we're all PII in that regard about some things.

It's possible your smallest groups come from neck only sizing. What's the size of the biggest ones? But if you think a way of making ammo that produces groups from 1 to 7 units of measurements is better than one that does 2 to 5 units, so be it. Few, if any benchresters holding single 5- or 10-shot single group records also hold aggregate ones comprising several 5- to 10-shot groups' average size.

I (as well as others) typically get better accuracy with new cases in our match and hunting rifles than neck only sized fired ones. Well built M1 and M14 match rifles got 2/3 MOA at worst testing them at 600 yards with good lots of commercial .308 Win ammo. They'll need to shoot near 1/4 MOA at 100 yards to do that.

[myfriendis410]

Intermediate sizing would refer to backing the F/L die off a quarter turn and not bump the shoulder back.

I have shot rifles that showed a definite preference for neck sizing versus F/L sizing. I have one that I CAN'T F/L size: A Ruger No. 1 in 7mm mag that has a long chamber. I can only load brass a few times 'til the head gets to be too big, but if I F/L size, the case head separates on the first firing. Not uncommon for that caliber/rifle.

A F/L sizing DOES (mostly) ensure reliable feed and function in a hunting rifle which to me is more important than getting that last little bit out of your groups. On a good day I can keep my 700 in .300 win mag under 1/2" for three shots, cold bore plus two.

Anything you can do to mimic hunting conditions is a good thing, after developing a good working load. One other thing it does is add a confidence factor to your hunting, just knowing your load shoots well in the gun. After developing a load I will usually practice off sticks and off-hand (standing). Of course, I always prefer a solid rest if I can find it, but that don't happen often.

If you search under "Ladder Test" you'll find instructions. But it's basically loading one round each in .5 gr (for example) increments and shooting a target set up with multiple aiming spots and firing one round at each aiming point. Overlay and compare to find a "node" that determines a stable point in your powder type and charge range. Once you find a node, load in the middle of that range and shoot a group to verify.

[Bart B.]

I've tried intermediate sizing (partial full length sizing in more common terms) and it never worked. Sized case headspace was longer than fired case; squeezing down the case body moved the shoulder forward. The bolt bound up on closing, but never to the same place for each shot. When this happend with benchresters who neck only sized their cases and they bound the bolt after 4 to 5 reloads, they had to resize the cases in a full length sizing die and start all over again. I've never got good accuracy when the bolt bound up in any way closing it on the chambered round.

If the die's set too low in the press, a few full length sizings will set the fired case shoulder back too far, then it gets moved further away from the case head when it's fired, then back and forth for each reloading cycle. This causes the case to stretch most at its pressure ring leading to incipient and finally partial head separation. Every 7mm Rem Mag (and the 30 caliber mag one, too) shooter I shot with in matches who claimed short case life all loaded their ammo way too hot and set their die in the press too low so the fired cases were sized too much.

Setting the full length sizing die to only bump shoulders back 1 to 2 thousandths prevents this and enables 10 to 20 of reloads per case; without annealing. This applies to both rimless and belted cases. 7mm Rem Mag cases have been full length sized many times when the die's set right in the press to minimally size fired cases. Sometimes, a second body die was needed to size the case body a second time reducing the case diameter right in front of the belt that normal dies don't reach and size down.

[myfriendis410]

That has generally been my experience as well. My .300 prefers a full length sizing and I have the collet tool to reduce the head of the case back to .510". I usually have to do this when it finally creeps up to .514". I have yet to throw away a case for any reason with that rifle.

My Browning A Bolt in 7mm mag is a similar story with everything being F/L sized and excellent case life. Never had a case head separation. All of my loads are "book".

The Ruger No. 1 really ought to be rebarreled, but I get good loads out of it by neck sizing brass fired out of the Browning with a .30 caliber expander then neck sizing back with the 7mm die until a sized case barely chambers in the gun, thus creating a "false shoulder". Then all of the brass is done the same way and loaded, fired and then neck sized only from then on. If I shoot FACTORY out of it I get incipient case head separation.

[stubbicatt]

To OP. I think all who have shot rifles built for gilded edge accuracy will agree that there are many variables, and each rifle is a law unto itself, so much so that there is no one, single, right way to do things. That said there is pretty strong empirical evidence to suggest that full length sizing, done right, with proper tools, will be most likely to produce accurate rifle ammunition.

You may be on to something with your Collet Dies. Maybe take the next step and get a Redding body die to use in conjunction with your Collet Dies to size the body of the cases? There are many successful competitors who use this approach, and it does offer benefits including a fairly consistently concentric case neck. Personally I prefer FL bushing sizing dies and properly turned case necks. I experimented with the Collet Dies and did not like the striations left on the case necks, and (what seemed to me) the inconsistent neck pull I obtained.

To my way of seeing things, perhaps the most useful tool you can get at this point is a dial caliper and the Hornady (f/k/a Stoney Point) setup for each chambering. This consists of a bullet comparator, bullet seating depth rod, dummy case, and a shoulder length gage, to help you set up your dies to reduce the variables. Most generally, using these tools one can determine the proper shoulder setback and freebore of his rifle.

Once you have arrived at the external dimensions proper for your rifle's ammunition, you may begin to experiment with the proper propellant, proper charge weight, seating depth, and primer choice.

I start with the bullets just at the lands, or maybe a +.006 to +.010 into the lands for initial load development. I load from starting charge to maximum listed charge, in .3 grain increments, one round each and shoot them until I see maximum pressure. For me, the charge weight .3 grains below first pressure signs becomes my de facto max load. From there I start to load at max, and downwards in .2 grain increments with the chosen powder and components, 5 rounds each.

From here your method of determining the best powder charge begins. Much is written and doesn't bear repeating here, on the OCW or Ladder Tests as well as simply gaging groups and looking for close ES measurements.

Once the best powder charge is determined, then start your efforts to determine best seating depth. I have found that if you can get your target rifle to shoot good from a slight jam, it is easier than having to chase rifling to maintain consistent seating depth, but for a hunting rifle, typically the best seating depth will be at least .010" from the lands, assuming the cartridge will feed from the magazine.

Good luck in working through all this information! Funny thing about the internet, it makes information very easy to obtain, but wisdom seems as elusive as ever! And remember, Keep Em Up The Middle!

[green_MTman]

somewhere between .010 and .050 of the rifling is most often the most accurate seating depth.if your using fast expanding lead bullets with a thin copper jacket generaly as close as possable from the lands and grooves is best.and .010 is a close as you really want.so try those at .010 and if thats not accurate work away from rifling at .005 increments

if you seat the bullet into the rifling you best be prepared to fire every round you chamber because once a bullet is in the rifling it cant be extracted unless its heavily crimped.the shell will come out and the powder will spill all over and you will need a cleaning rod to push the bullet out.

tougher bullets and pure copper bullets like a longer jump from free bore to rifling.so try .075 and if thats not accurate or if .075 causes you to deep seat the bullet work toward the rifling in .005 increments

[Bart B.]

Myfriendis410, I think your 7 Rem Mag Ruger No. 1's chamber has way too much headspace. Case belts don't stop where they should; the chamber headspace ridge is way too far forward from the breech face. It shouldn't be more than about .226" maximum; .220" is ideal and perfect.

Did you acquire that No. 1 new?

Or did you buy it used?

I ask because if it was new and has been that way from the start, Ruger chambered it wrong; way too deep. If you bought it used, the previous owner may have noticed the problem and sold it to get rid of it.

[BuckRub]

Bart, I was thinking the same thing.

[Longshot4]

I have been intensely reading this thread so to try to advance my loading skills. As manny I'm sure. This to me has been a exceptional experience. I believe we had a professor of English commenting on something rather because he was bored or well I won't consider him to be useful in this thread. As for the others that make the forum informative thanks for sticking to the point.
I am not as well skilled in the reloading as those previous although I believe I have a point that haven't been discussed fully although I could be wrong. I have found that when working op loads for accuracy. As I charge 3-5 cases up .3... I will try to duplicate those loads in different sets of primers to find the best (most accurate) loads. For me it has been like magic how 1 type of primer can make the group shrink so much. That's all I feel I can help with. Now it's time to try to figure out what I can do about those neck sizing dies and if I can afford a couple new dies to squeeze a little more out of my .5"< groups. I may be just staying with what I have so I can buy more bullets and do some more Walleye fishing.

[myfriendis410]

Bart: I completely agree that the headspace is way too long. The rifle was a gift bought used over 25 years ago (it's a 1976 vintage) and it is entirely possible the original owner dumped it for this reason. Ideally I would send it back to Ruger, but by performing the operations I listed above I am able to get good life out of the brass and excellent accuracy. Another reason I am reluctant to send it to Ruger is the trigger has been reworked to 2 1/2 lbs. and in all probability Ruger will take it back to "factory" like Smith and Wesson is notorious for doing. I hate that.