Author Topic: How Accurate Is The Most Accurate Load ...really? (Read 696 times)

longwinters · « **on:** August 09, 2003, 03:09:51 PM »

So tell me all you reloaders. If you use a reloading manual that tells you "the most accurate powder/grain etc..." for a specific bullet/weight; how accurate is it? What percentage of the time is it "the most accurate" load for YOUR rifle? Just wonderin.

long

Ol` Joe · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2003, 04:56:36 PM »

I don`t have a lot of faith in the books "accuracy" loads. I find the Nosler manual has been close with powder recommendations at times but not always with the charge wgt they state.
I`ve been told the loads that the manuals list are the loads that were the most consistant in their lab tests inre to extreem vel spread and Std deviation, not that they gave the smallest groups on paper. This doesn`t mean much in the real world but, it is a place to start.
I think you are better off finding a powder that fills the case, gives good velocities for the round being tested and working with bullet style / brand changes instead of trying a dozen differant powders.
The bullet used has always had the most influence on the accuracy of my loads, followed by seating depth and then the powder.

crawfish · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2003, 05:09:07 PM »

I like Ol' Joe find that the books are used to give me an idea of what powders were used to get to a certian point. I shoot hard lead cast in everything I own execpt the .223 and the 7X30Waters so the books don't really address my needs very well. I can't recall ever using the exact as written recipe in any loading manual for any caliber I load for.

Darrell Davis · « **Reply #3 on:** August 12, 2003, 10:39:19 AM »

Hey there Longwinters,

I think what we are seeing in the info you refer to comes down to "educated guesses" which are the result of many hours at the loading/shooting bench.

If you have been loading for any length of time, I would guess you have you own list if "go to" powders.

Let me quote some info from Lyman, concerning accuracy, which I read earlier today. "Accuracy Loads: When a load is noted as such in the data tables proper, it means that the given combination of components produce the most uniform internal ballistics of any load tested utilizing that particular bullet design.

Unless noted in 'Comments,' the accuracy load was not fired at targets. The load, however, does have a high potential-assuming all external factors are optimun-for producing outstanding accuracy since uniform internal ballistics are critical to accuracy on target. You can not have one without the other."

This is interesting, but, now we come to the veriables that each firearm has.

Over a year ago I read an artical by Rick Jamison - Shooting Times, in which he wrote that he felt that CHANGES in bullet seating depth would produce changes in groups fired in almost the same way as adjustments to the BOSS found on some of the Browning and Winchester rifles.

Last summer I ran some tests along this line, changing the depth in/out by 1/2 turns of the seating stem between groups. During those tests, I found no decrease in group size when bullets were seated deeper, however when the bullets were seated long things began to change.

I just repeated some of those tests this past week with about the same results. One half turn out from my "standard," showed only limited change. At ONE TURN out the group size dropped by about an inch. At 1 1/2 turns out the groups again opened up to the "standard" size or bigger.

The sweet spot comes at an OAL longer then what the magazine of my Browing A-Bolt (without BOSS) will handle in factory configeration. However, not only does the Browning mag have a shoulder which prevents the bullet tips from getting banged up under recoil, but that piece being made of alum. is easy to modify with a Drumel tool.

I got the rifle slightly used, and the clip/mag. (it is removable) had been modified a bit. Sooooooooo, I have done bit more removel of metal and everything seems to be working fine with the longer OAL. which means I can use a longer then standard "sweetened" hand load which looks like it will make Ol'Betsy shoot a bit more to my liking.

So what is my point? I think experience, tests, etc.etc. all help the companies give us their best guess but there is still need/room for good testing on our part.

Keep em coming! :wink:

Questor · « **Reply #4 on:** August 12, 2003, 12:24:25 PM »

My idea of accuracy is how well I can group them when I'm not firing from a bench rest. This means firing from field positions or competition stances.. All this talk about MOA and sub-MOA is just so much fantasy to me. F'rinstance, I've got a pistol that's more accurate from a bench than my rifle. The rifle hits harder, flies with a flatter trajectory, and groups better from any field position that I can normally hope to obtain. The rifle is more accurate away from the bench.

Darrell Davis · « **Reply #5 on:** August 13, 2003, 03:43:53 AM »

Hey there Questor,

Good to hear those thoughts, guess that is a lot of what keeps this forum interesting.

However, when I spend time at the bench testing or just punching holes it is in an effort to see just what the firearm has to offer. Any fantasy involved on my part would be in thinking I was able to be enough machine like to really find the answer to that question.

Once I have found what the firearm is able to do, with as much of ME removed as possible, and if it is able to produce groups that make me happy or ARE AT LEAST CONSISTENT, then and only then can I FIELD SHOOT with confidence.

Until that point, there is always the question of where the fault lies for shots which may go bad. Was it me or was it the gun. I hunted with a rifle a few years ago which wouldn't give me consistant groups from the bench. I short, I could never trust that firearm and it soon went down the road.

I'd love for everything in the rack to give sub MOA groups, they won't! But, they had better be consistant and prove themselves to be so with as many varyables removed as possible.

Keep em coming! :wink:

Questor · « **Reply #6 on:** August 13, 2003, 04:10:42 AM »

I sometimes have to work (and spend money on components) like a fiend to get top bench accuracy out of my guns. After that, I standardize on my best load and start worrying about my own inherent accuracy.

longwinters · « **Reply #7 on:** August 13, 2003, 01:19:16 PM »

Hmmm, educated guesses eh? I would imagine that these companies are pretty experienced, and I suppose that if they are not shooting the loads out of my rifle that is the best they can do. Good to hear from you again Darrell. Havent seen you on for quite a while. I have not been reloading for long (a few months) but no doubt I always site in off of the bench and even when hunting I rarely have shot "off hand". It has always been easy to find some type of a rest to use. Even when we go out to Wyoming for lopes I will have a shooting stick and maybe a small day pack, either which I would look to use to steady my shot.