Some updates on my travails

[Pegasus]

We join our story in progress after I realized the barrel in my match rifle was overdue for a change.

That barrel had performed well, but it started throwing some WTF shots during matches; it would blast away with Xs and 10s and then throw out an 8 after 12-14 rounds and then just go shotgun from that point on.

My Krieger barrels had arrived after a 14 month wait, and I got them chambered, fitted to the action and prepped for the EC tuner. I have one on the rifle now and the other is standing by.

During the Christmas break, I prepped my ammo and this time, I turned the necks and returned the sizing die. I loaded a ladder test consisting of 6 loads with 5 rounds each. The loads are .02gr increments, with my then-current load as #3.

I took the rifle with the remnants of my match load, the ladder test loads, and the Garmin Xero to the local private range. I set up my tall target at 100 yards, along with another target to verify sights and then went to work.

As I mentioned in another thread, the Xero was flawless. Picked up every shot. The Standard Deviation (SD) for my original load was 8.1 FPS. I believe that turning the necks helped because the ladder test showed the SD dropping to 6.something for 4 loads, to 5.1 for 1 load, and to 3.3 for the load that I ultimately selected as my go to load. It's Extreme Spread (ES) is 9.2FPS.

One characteristic of the ladder test loads (turned necks) is that every cartridge chambered smoothly, whereas I experienced various levels of resistance chambering my erstwhile load.

As I had mentioned earlier, the new barrels are 30 inch Kriegers SS with 1:8 twist of 5R grooves. The barrel cleaned up extremely well and quickly. All the loads except for the first one, were under 0.5 MOA with the selected load (#4) punching in the 3s with no elevation issues to speak of. After a few more rounds and maybe a match or two, I should be able to tighten up this group into the 2s playing with the EC tuner. This is not bad for a .308 throwing long 200gr bullets at over 2600FPS.

It would seem that sorting primers by weight, turning necks, and sorting bullet by length may pay off after all. Now, if I can only learn to press the trigger properly...

[Bigslug]

Any SD under 10 is cause for extreme giddy. Never did take things as extreme as weighing primers. Sorting into batches, I assume?

As to improving your trigger control: Get yourself a DA revolver and forget it even has a single action notch. Has worked wonders for me across everything I shoot.

[Pegasus]

Yeah, I was very happy with the results. I started weighing primers last summer and noticed a definite improvement on the target. For example, at 1000 yards, my 20 shots would usually be waterline inside of 1 MOA (, in other words, all 10-ring level), with a majority clustering closer to the 1/2 MOA.

I use a weekly pill caddy thing during the sort and I set my scale to grams. I use Benchrest SR primers from Remington, the 7 1/2. After weighing about 10-12 of the, I determined that the median weight was between .228 and .230. The pill caddy has 7 slots 9one for each day of the week. So from left to right, I marked it: .224, .226, .228, .230, .232, .234, and .236. Then I started weighing them. I have sorted about 2500 primers so far and I have never seen one less that .224 or greater than .237.

I weight the primer and drop in it the slot with the value of slot-value+1. So a .231 would go in the .230 slot, and a .235 would go in a .234. Each pillbox slot holds a maximum of 200 primers (or so). I empty the slots when they get pretty full putting the primers of that slot back into the original package and then marking the weight on the pack and using blue tape to close it tight. You can really see the distribution with most primers in the .228 to .232 slots. When I change batches of primers, I empty all the slots into their packages and I can then combine neighboring weights into a an ammo box, using all the primers from one weight first then using the next weight to complete the box. So for instance, I have 25 .236s and 75 .234s, I would seat the .236s first, then finish up with the .234s. I also have a box for foulers, and I use the .224s and .236s in those, preferring to have complete ammo boxes with the same primer weight.

I also do the same for bullets, with a little measuring tool for the overall length. The distribution here is much wider and I bought a series of small boxes on Amazon to store the sorted bullets. It's a set of 10 boxes and I have sorted about 1500 bullets so far. I use the really long and really short ones for foulers.

With all this sorting, I have to keep track of what's what, and I now have blue tape notes in the loaded amoo boxes with primer weight and bullet length.

This regimen has really reduced the WTF shots on target and built great confidence in my ammo. But it is time-consuming, good thing all the kids are grown and on their own.

[Pegasus]

Here is a picture of the sorted primers at the end of the current batch. The next batch of 5000 primers will be sorted when I start getting low here. I do not mix batches.

You can see the pill caddy at the top, or the edge of it, with some numbers written on the lids.
The seven boxes in the middle and right are all full boxes of the numbered weights. The lefthand column is made up of the remnants of the batch. You can see the box on top having two weights in it, .234 and .236, The .236s are fairly rare; 19 out of 2500 or so. I have used a few .236s for foulers, now that I have started allocating cases for that practice instead of dipping into my pure match ammo. (A story for another day.)

20240101_102921.jpg (2.24 MiB) Viewed 2686 times

[breamfisher]

Interesting on sorting the primers. Do you think it reduces variability because it creates a more uniform primer flash and powder burn?

[Bigslug]

With regards to your sorting of the bullets by length: Are you working on notions of front-to-back overall length or meplat crimp (aerodynamic shape), ogive location (consistent seating depth off the lands), or length of bearing surface (probably effecting barrel time)? Potentially a lot going on there.

I've never used Remington's primers to any degree. Given the Big Green crash and Federal's assimilation are you expecting a re-tool?

[Pegasus]

Interesting on sorting the primers. Do you think it reduces variability because it creates a more uniform primer flash and powder burn?

The term used to describe the effect of a primer (and other explosives) is brisance. Yes, it comes from the French word "briser", which means to break.

And yes, you are correct. To explain further, to produce the best performing ammo, you have to control as many variables as possible. By best "performance", I mean, most consistent performance. The variation from one primer to the next may be very small, but at some point, you're going to fire a heavy primer, and the next shot will be a light primer. The brisance of each may be a small differential from the mean, but more consequential from each other. I believe the difference in the weight of the primer itself is due to the variability in the amount of compound in the primer. So, while you may think that .010g is not much on a .230g primer, the compound itself may only be .075 or some such. (Note to self, when next I pull out my scale to load ammo, I will weigh several spent primers and see what's what. Thank you for prodding me on this. I will come back here and update when I do that.

[Pegasus]

With regards to your sorting of the bullets by length: Are you working on notions of front-to-back overall length or meplat crimp (aerodynamic shape), ogive location (consistent seating depth off the lands), or length of bearing surface (probably effecting barrel time)? Potentially a lot going on there.

I've never used Remington's primers to any degree. Given the Big Green crash and Federal's assimilation are you expecting a re-tool?

I sort my bullets by overall length. This is something that has been discussed for a while at our club and the consensus has emerged that the best "bang for the buck" is to sort by overall length. I will mention that I measure at .001" (the quintessential 'thou') and thet the variability runs about 14 thou on a bell curve distribution, and the real meat is about 6 thou overall. I have loaded time with a progression of length, either up or down. Just use the ammo in the same direction.

There are two reasons for sorting the primers and bullets:
1- It isolates the very long and very short bullets and the heavy and light primers. It just takes them out of the mix; I use them, but I use them in a coordinated fashion.
2- Provide complete confidence in your handloaded ammo. After you have sorted the components and isolated the extremes, you are much more confident about your ammo.

For the brass, I have turned all the necks, and they are always annealed, F/L resized and trimmed for every load. The shoulder is pushed back .002" from fired.

The powder is dispensed with a AT V4 on an A&D FX-120 to the kernel. (I check all the cases with a flashlight to make sure they are all filled.

I buy my components in bulk. I have used Remington primers throughout my Service Rifle career. I used Wolf and Winchester LR primers for the .308 Win until Lapua released the Palma version of the .308 Win cases. I was only too happy to start using my 7 1/2s once again. I have enough of them to see me through the remainder of my competition days. If I ever get to that bride where I have to buy more, I'll do some tests before burning it. (Yes, I am mixing metaphors.)

[CPJ 2.0]

When weighing the spent primers, I’d make sure to take them apart to ensure there’s no burnt compound remaining.
I mean, if we are going to be picky, let’s be picky.



I wonder how close you need to be to the new fancy pants chronograph for it to read? May be interesting to clock some bullets at distance. What for seeing some real world results as opposed to what the software says the bullet should be doing.

[Pegasus]

I have already considered weighing clean and burnt primers. I will capture both values. My thinking is that clean weight would provide the complete compound load, but that burnt (with residue) would represent the actual amount used in the explosion. I think clean with the anvil will probably be most reliable and indicative of the consumable load.


There are myriad reports coming in from users of the Garmin Xero. I have yet to read on that says it missed a shot. The instructions are very simple and for a rifle, it needs to be within 15 inches of the barrel. I placed mine about 10 inches to the right, just next to my bipod's feet. It worked like a champ. I am going to use it to record all my shots at the 1000yard match this weekend.

I've read a couple reports of people using it with other shooters close by and only their shots were recorded. It looks like Garmin did a great job. So far.

[Bigslug]

I have already considered weighing clean and burnt primers. I will capture both values. My thinking is that clean weight would provide the complete compound load, but that burnt (with residue) would represent the actual amount used in the explosion. I think clean with the anvil will probably be most reliable and indicative of the consumable load.

It would be interesting to know where the most variability in a primer lies. Yeah, the gut concern is size of the pellet of priming material, but the anvil and cup are products of a stamp and cut process. I've never read of any special QC practices applied to assembly of a primer from any quadrant of the industry. I've been down the road of uniforming pocket depth and flash holes, but this is new ground.

I'm guessing weigh the leftovers from each segregated batch and see if the difference in weight still holds?

Chronographing DURING a match? That's a little intriguing. Pop and I still use the corded, 3-screen Oehler 35P he purchased maybe 35 years ago. He bought a Labradar a couple years back - while I can't say it ever got a fair shake, the reason it never did is it seems to be a fussy little bitch with a tendency to auto-shutoff and reading other people's bullets. Ammo and time are both money, and repeated failure to read was a frustrating waste of both.

[Pegasus]

From the depths of my slowly failing memory, I dredged up an anecdote I once read ex planning the difference between regular and benchrest primers. It was trivial, they said the person making the primers, actually applying the explosive paste was a more experienced employee who was more careful. That was all.

We'll see where the data leads us.

Moral of the story is that in order to get to the 2s and smaller, you need to take extraordinary steps in your handloading. Almost at benchrest levels of lrep.

[Bigslug]

This barrel twist issue is where I've run into a particular wall with cast projectiles- pretty much everything in the .30-cal inventory is for jacketed bullets, whether it be stuff from my Highpower competition past, or the more recent deer hunting activities.

There's folks who have been pushing the cast bullet envelope into the 2600-2800+ fps range, but the problem is our standard 1-10" (ish) twist range exceeds an RPM threshold of our base bullet material, and we run into a bit of a barrier around 2100-2300 fps where fouling increases and accuracy goes to hell.

The main trick is slowing the twist down to 14"-16" and going down Pegasus' road of anal-retentive attention to detail with sorting prepping of bullets.

Unfortunate that max performance of cast will require equipment exclusive to the benefit of jacketed. While I'm shooting cast almost exclusively for practice, butilding up a dedicated rig for it isn't a road I'm willing to tread.

[Pegasus]

I attended the match yesterday and shot it. It was interesting to see the progression in the precision of the barrel as the match unfolded. I was able to chrono all three matches and the Xero never missed a shot and never picked up a shot from someone else's rifle. This device is simply amazing.

After the match, I downloaded the strings from the Xero and noticed that the SD was higher for the strings compared to my original 5-shot strings. THis was to be expected with a bigger sample size. The first string had 26 shots with an SD of 9.7. The second string had 23 shots with an SD of 8.7 (I was going to use only 22 shots, but the Etargets missed one shot. We had a few issues with the targets yesterday.) The last string had 21 shots (only 1 sighter, if the etarget had dropped a shot, I was toast,) and an SD of 8.5. These numbers are absolutely excellent for an MV of 2644FPS. The ES was between 31 and 35 for the 3 matches. The wind was pretty nasty but it was coming from the right all day so the SD from the etargets would not be affected. They were respectively 8.3, 8.8, and 6.3. I do not remember seeing such low SD values on the etargets at 1000 yards. We do know that Adam tells us not to completely rely on those figures, but that they are a good indicator of the load. This tells me that with my low SD for the MV, having an equally low SD at the target means that sorting the bullets by length is paying off. A bit more fine-tuning with the EC tuner and another match or so of bullets should produce a great barrel/load combo.

[Pegasus]

This barrel twist issue is where I've run into a particular wall with cast projectiles- pretty much everything in the .30-cal inventory is for jacketed bullets, whether it be stuff from my Highpower competition past, or the more recent deer hunting activities.

There's folks who have been pushing the cast bullet envelope into the 2600-2800+ fps range, but the problem is our standard 1-10" (ish) twist range exceeds an RPM threshold of our base bullet material, and we run into a bit of a barrier around 2100-2300 fps where fouling increases and accuracy goes to hell.

The main trick is slowing the twist down to 14"-16" and going down Pegasus' road of anal-retentive attention to detail with sorting prepping of bullets.

Unfortunate that max performance of cast will require equipment exclusive to the benefit of jacketed. While I'm shooting cast almost exclusively for practice, butilding up a dedicated rig for it isn't a road I'm willing to tread.

Interesting, but I have zero experience with cast bullets in rifles. I didn't even know you could push cast bullets at 2600-2800fps.

[Bigslug]

Interesting, but I have zero experience with cast bullets in rifles. I didn't even know you could push cast bullets at 2600-2800fps.

It's a bit like airplanes: getting your wood & canvas Sopwith Camel to 8,000 feet and 90 mph requires a teaspoon's worth of science, specialized equipment, and attention to detail. That's basically subsonic lumps of soft lead out of a .45 ACP.

Maintaining accuracy with cast bullets above 2,200 fps is more like Chuck Yeager's ride in the Bell X-1 - you need to bring nerds, their nerdy friends, and all their toys.

But a few guys are doing it with a specialized 165 grain mold called the .30 XCB, the right lube in the grooves, slow-twist barrels, and serious Q.C. inspection of the bullets pre-flight. I stopped short of the re-barrel. . .at least for now. The main point of failure seems to be excessive torque on the bullets opening them up to gas blow-by, hence the need for the slow-twist barrels, and slow burn rate powders to make the acceleration more gentle..

[Pegasus]

After a week at SHOT Show 2024, I came back home and loaded ammo for the match tomorrow. I weighed some spent primers and the weight was between. 208 and .211. I weighed quie a bunch. So this means that the primer compound is about .016 and .028 grams. This means the weight variation is much more significant than I thought. I'm now quite convinced that sorting primers, while terribly boring, is worthwhile if you're pursuing very small groups at long distances. If you're shooting at 300 yards or less, don't bother weighing your primers.

[breamfisher]

Honestly Pegasus, I enjoy reading your posts and find them highly informative.

But I am not adopting any of your reloading techniques.

I don't shoot well enough nor far enough for them to matter.

I do find it interesting to hear and read about folks who use benchrest and long-range loading techniques for plinking and action pistol shooting at a club level....

[Pegasus]

Yeah, I get that. You have to be a little nuts to be sorting primers, but that's what it takes to be anywhere near competitive in F-class these days, even at club level.

You would be shocked to hear about the level of preparation the top shooters engage in.

I'm getting too old to go that far down the rabbit hole.

[Pegasus]

Shot the 1000-yard match today, with the Garmin monitoring all the shots. With necks turned on all my brass, sorted primers and bullets and powder measured to the kernel, the SD on the last match was 5.2fps for 24 rounds. The results on the target was a flat waterline holding inside 1 MOA of total elevation. I think I have achieved my goal of not leaving any points on the loading table. The new barrel is a hammer. Now all that remains is for me to learn to shoot and figure out the wind.

[Japhy]

5.2 fps out of 3000 fps is just over 0.17% which is likely within the measurement error of the chronometer.
I haven’t seen the Garmin specs but that is astoundingly consistent.

[Pegasus]

Yeah, I agree with you , we're in the limits of the precision of the device.

It's been a long road, but I am happy with my match ammunition. Finally.