on_one_wheel wrote:I love reloading with a hammer.
I've managed to develop outstanding ½" groups using the Lee loader, the only difference being that I batch my brass by weight, weigh every charge, anneal cases and have invested time in seating depth, charge weight, projectile choice.
Lazarus wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:I love reloading with a hammer.
I've managed to develop outstanding ½" groups using the Lee loader, the only difference being that I batch my brass by weight, weigh every charge, anneal cases and have invested time in seating depth, charge weight, projectile choice.
Well done, that man!
Good to see I'm not the only OCD unit weighing brass and obsessing
on_one_wheel wrote:Lazarus wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:I love reloading with a hammer.
I've managed to develop outstanding ½" groups using the Lee loader, the only difference being that I batch my brass by weight, weigh every charge, anneal cases and have invested time in seating depth, charge weight, projectile choice.
Well done, that man!
Good to see I'm not the only OCD unit weighing brass and obsessing
Weighing the brass made a noticeable difference, it can be measured by a reduction in the standard deviation of velocity which tightened up my groups.
One day when I'm old and grey I'm going 100% anal retentive in competitive shooting, I'll be measuring runout, turning necks, measuring neck tensions, uniforming projectiles, seating primers with fandangled micrometre precision thingy bobs, sifting through my powder to ensure all the grains are of equal size and shape then sending those finely tuned suckers through a barrel that resembles a rusty old water pipe with my watery old eyes fixed somewhere near a blurry little dot down range
Can't wait
on_one_wheel wrote:Lazarus wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:I love reloading with a hammer.
I've managed to develop outstanding ½" groups using the Lee loader, the only difference being that I batch my brass by weight, weigh every charge, anneal cases and have invested time in seating depth, charge weight, projectile choice.
Well done, that man!
Good to see I'm not the only OCD unit weighing brass and obsessing
Weighing the brass made a noticeable difference, it can be measured by a reduction in the standard deviation of velocity which tightened up my groups.
One day when I'm old and grey I'm going 100% anal retentive in competitive shooting, I'll be measuring runout, turning necks, measuring neck tensions, uniforming projectiles, seating primers with fandangled micrometre precision thingy bobs, sifting through my powder to ensure all the grains are of equal size and shape then sending those finely tuned suckers through a barrel that resembles a rusty old water pipe with my watery old eyes fixed somewhere near a blurry little dot down range
Can't wait
on_one_wheel wrote:Image trying to hold a straight face when you tell the wife "I'm reloading to save money"
on_one_wheel wrote:I do like to keep things simple but fully understand that in competition every fraction of a percent matters.
I'd love to see a full list of all the procedures and extreme lengths that some competitive shooters do when reloading to ensure the ultimate on consistently.
in2anity wrote:Some can shoot good, some can read wind good. Not many can do both. Precision ammo and efficient calibers are moving in a direction to buoy those looking to cheat the wind and just shoot through those fluctuations. Rest assured, when you ignore the tells and focus solely on your target, eventually you will get caught out. Ammo simply needs to be fit for purpose, nothing more nothing less. By fit, I mean capable of shooting a possible or a full set of integers.
JohnV wrote:Not if your a hunter , fit for purpose in that case just means accurate enough to take game reliably at your chosen ranges and functions properly .
in2anity wrote:JohnV wrote:Not if your a hunter , fit for purpose in that case just means accurate enough to take game reliably at your chosen ranges and functions properly .
Could not agree more. And riddle me this batman; in what world is even further south of a 1moa shooter required for the hunter? Particularly considering your opening shot is likely to have the most user error in it anyway
JohnV wrote:It's also about range Robin . 1 MOA is plenty of a accuracy at short ranges with a light stalking type gun but at 900 meters it's not so good on smaller varmint targets.
in2anity wrote:JohnV wrote:It's also about range Robin . 1 MOA is plenty of a accuracy at short ranges with a light stalking type gun but at 900 meters it's not so good on smaller varmint targets.
What percentage of "hunters" do you think are shooting "smaller varmint" at 900m but? In fact what percentage of "hunters" are taking game shots beyond say 300m? Yes there's a subset, but this is novelty. What I'm saying is that I generally agree for your average hunter, reloading has indeed become way too technical. Just FLS the damned things, give em a wipe, load em up and go hunt
303 and 45-70 are not really good accurate cartridges in the context of what I am saying , to evaluate more precision ideas .Tank wrote:Still use my Lyman 310 tool for .303 and 45-70.
TBH I’ve never noted any loss of accuracy with this method.
Still use RCBS digital powder measure…..which is probably the most important part…..
Old and new in unison!
Imagine that!!
JohnV wrote:FLS is the reason you get early and variable neck hardening and have to toss some brass . If that works for you then fine but there is better ways and they have been around a long time but not pushed by anyone because FLS sells more empty cases . A combination of the body die . Lee collet neck die and an occasional neck annealing will keep neck tensions more even across the batch .
Billo wrote:With the amount of reloading and seating depth info available from manufacturers, FLS ya brass is still the simplest and easiest way in developing an accurate hunting load.
Another trick i use these days when reloading, if I get a flyer or I notice a case with greater or less neck tension I toss it. Reducing variables and chasing consistency is the key.