The load development sequence I have decided on is powder charge testing first, and then seating depth.  However, most of the folks that I'm modelling the sequence from typically start with seating depth closer to jam.  The headspace in my gun is generous, so I'll be limited by the mag for max length.  Now I'm thinking of starting the powder charge test at the max length based on the mag first.  That way, it will open up (in theory) the options on powder charge.  At least as opposed to starting at the "base" COAL length of 2.800+/- range.

Yup, I would start at yur max COAL/Ogive (BTG) and then work the powder.
 If you do powder first, you'll just have to throw out all of that previous data when you change COAL.
Seating different height will change pressures/FPS
 

Yup, I would start at yur max COAL/Ogive (BTG) and then work the powder.
 If you do powder first, you'll just have to throw out all of that previous data when you change COAL.
Seating different height will change pressures/FPS
 

Yeah, I get that.  However, getting perspectives on how people approach it.  The folks that I've been following and modeling my method start at say "jam minus 0.020".  I think my rifle is "generous" to the point were I don't even think the 175 gr SMK are even beyond the BT.  I THINK I will eventually be trying the longer boolits, where they won't fit in the mags, but focusing on load for use with mags.

The folks I have been following also have a pretty good idea from their previous barrels.  Yeah, new barrels are different, but they have a pretty good idea.  I have a decent idea from the testing and data that I have from different powder charges at the "std" COAL of 2.800ish range.  I was just thinking that if I start with the longest per mag length with powder charge first.  Then even after selecting the powder charge, the max length is the lowest pressure before testing seating depths.  The recommended progression of seating depth is to start with the boolits seated deeper and work your way longer.  That way, if you find the node (sweet spot, whatever), then you can stop and then seat the longer rounds to those depths.  In my case, I won't have that baseline.  So I am thinking I'll start at the longer OAL and work my way to shorter OAL (seated deeper) and keep an eye on the velocities and pressure signs. 

Slammed with work this week and next week.  Still waiting on the annealer too, so have some "idle time". 

I'll save you a few thousandths and refer you back to this to get good start measurement
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38874.msg350067#msg350067

And now cuz you didn't listen the first time, I give you another "professional opinion"  that discounts much of what has been discussed here.

 Which of the variables within a reloader's control have the greatest  impact on rifle accuracy?

Primer uniformity is probably at the top of the list. This is about 60% of accuracy.
But it matters more as the range gets longer.
Non-uniform primers mean a greater velocity spread which means the vertical stringing at the target will be greater.

Case length doesn't matter much. As long as the mouth is square with the case axis, case length can vary 10 to 15 thousandths of an inch and accuracy will still be excellent.

Necks should be reasonably uniform in wall thickness, like no more than a .0005-in. variance. This helps keep the necks straight when the cases are resized.
And they should not be sized too much. If they are, the bullet seating pressure will be too high; too much tension will cause a higher spread in velocity due to the normal variable incountered as each
bullet needs a different amount of force to push it out of the cases. If
neck tension is minimum, the spread of the force to push the bullet out gets lower resulting in a lower velocity spread.

Case weight variance plays a somewhat important part.
Heavier cases have less volume, hence slightly higher pressures and velocities for the same set of components.
A 1% spread in case weight is typically good enough for best accuracy. Any more than that doesn't seem to make any difference.

Primer pockets and flash holes should be uniform.
Pocket depth needs to be consistant so each primer has the same pre-load; more uniform ignition.
Flash holes need to be the same diameter so the same flame properties are transferred to the powder.
But these two things only make about a 1/16th MOA difference in group size.

Case body wall thickness helps too.
They shouldn't have a spread of more than about .003-in. for 30 caliber cartridges; .002-in. for 22 and 24 caliber ones.
But again, this only has a small effect, like about 1/8th MOA or a tad less.

Powder charge weight variance can also cause more velocity spread.
But just as important is powder type and charge weight. It's been my experience that for a given powder, there's two charge weights that tend to produce
the best accuracy; one at about maximum, and one several grains less.
A chronograph is needed to check the velocity spread to determine this.
Charges with no more than a tenth grain variance is plenty good enough.
Primers typically cause a greater difference in velocity spread than a tenth of a grain of powder.

Bullet seating depth also has an effect on accuracy.
Best accuracy is usually going to happen when the bullet contacts the lands.
A lot of folks are reluctant to do this as they claim max pressures will be higher. Well,
they're right, but cutting the powder charge a few tenths of a grain will reduce that pressure.

Bullet concentricity is important, too.
In a .308 Win. for example, if  the bullet runout is more than about .003-in., the groups will start to
open up a bit. If it's more than about .007-in., they probably straighten out as they enter the leade;
   I've not seen any more accuracy reduction with such rounds. The more a bullet has to jump to the lands, the straighter it needs to be.
But bullets that are seated out far enough to be pushed back into the case a few thousandths as the bolt is closed can have a bit more
runout and be accurate as compared to bullets that jump a ways to the lands.
A square case mouth probably does more for letting the bullets seat straight than most other things.

   It's easy to get good cases, bullets, powder and tools to assemble them.
But the hardest thing is getting good, uniform primers. Primers vary quite a bit across several lots; some much more than others.

    For ranges of 200 yards or less, there's not much difference between primers, like about 1/4 MOA in the groups they can produce for the most part.
When longer ranges are used, primer uniformity becomes more important.
A recent batch of match-grade ammo (about 300,000 rounds) was loaded from the same lots of cases, bullets and powder.
Neck tension was quite uniform. Primer pockets were not uniformed nor were flash holes drilled to the same size.
Bullet runout peaked at about .004-in. But several lots of primers were used.
Some loaded lots of this ammo would shoot 2.8-in., 20-shot groups at 600 yards. Other lots would shoot 20-in. 20-shot groups at the same range.
The difference was in the primer lots; some were very uniform, others were not.
BB

     

I'll save you a few thousandths and refer you back to this to get good start measurement
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38874.msg350067#msg350067

Uh, thanks for sharing your research and results.  As mentioned before, part of the fun of the process is trying for myself.

And now cuz you didn't listen the first time, I give you another "professional opinion"  that discounts much of what has been discussed here.

SNIP

Uh, again, thanks.  I'm not "discounting" what you post.  However, all of that is just one perspective, of which there are many.  Anyways, just sharing my thoughts.  Then again, if/when you want to challenge "spinning the plate" again, just lmk.      

 

Uh, thanks for sharing your research and results.  As mentioned before, part of the fun of the process is trying for myself.
Did you try this method ?
It's a good starting point.

Uh, again, thanks.  I'm not "discounting" what you post.  However, all of that is just one perspective, of which there are many.  Anyways, just sharing my thoughts. 
That post was just to harass you as his "perspective" was 60% of rifle accuracy was due to "primer uniformity", something he found hard to find.
I'm still trying to figure out how he could figure out the difference from one good primer in a batch to one that was not ? 
Variance of a 10th of a grain of powder, shell or bullet weight in a round makes a difference.

Then again, if/when you want to challenge "spinning the plate" again, just lmk.      
 

Rockette wants to shoot .308 for Valentines Day (At's my Gurl  ) but Sundays are usually NoGo so maybe we'll try later in the week.
PM me what days work for you.

#NotARealUh

Rockette wants to shoot .308 for Valentines Day (At's my Gurl  ) but Sundays are usually NoGo so maybe we'll try later in the week.
PM me what days work for you.

#NotARealUh

#RocketteRocks

I would start at max mag length, work on powder charge, then all you need to do is seat deeper and test for best COAL.  Going plus and minus the COAL is too much work and too much expended components.   

You probably will not get anywhere near the lands in a factory remington barrel. The bullet will fall out of the case.  😆 lol

I would start at max mag length, work on powder charge, then all you need to do is seat deeper and test for best COAL.  Going plus and minus the COAL is too much work and too much expended components.   

You probably will not get anywhere near the lands in a factory remington barrel. The bullet will fall out of the case.  😆 lol

That's the plan.  I have a few different mags, but the Magpul ones are significantly more limiting.  The metal AICS mags have much more space.  Once I get a full set of brass prepped, including annealing, I'll start with a set of 20 or so powder charge test.  Will likely narrow down to two powders and then move to seating depth as max mag and then reduce.  Will see what my seating die is capable of. 

Yup about my barrel.  I measured the with the Hornady COAL gauge.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but yeah, pretty much no chance with 175 gr.  I was originally planning to try the heavier boolits and just single feed.  But want to get a mag capable load developed first.  That means 168-175 gr range.  Was looking at Berger hybrids, but feedback I read on those were that they aren't ideal for mag length seating. 

That's the plan.  I have a few different mags, but the Magpul ones are significantly more limiting.  The metal AICS mags have much more space.  Once I get a full set of brass prepped, including annealing, I'll start with a set of 20 or so powder charge test.  Will likely narrow down to two powders and then move to seating depth as max mag and then reduce.  Will see what my seating die is capable of. 

Yup about my barrel.  I measured the with the Hornady COAL gauge.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but yeah, pretty much no chance with 175 gr.  I was originally planning to try the heavier boolits and just single feed.  But want to get a mag capable load developed first.  That means 168-175 gr range.  Was looking at Berger hybrids, but feedback I read on those were that they aren't ideal for mag length seating. 

Berger 168 hybrids are really good stuff. My best .308 load is with those projectiles and 8208 XBR. Hot load.  Developed that load for 1k yards, however, that didn't materialize.   The high BC allow them to stay supersonic past 1000. 

I'll have to measure, but I seat them fairly deep in the case.  The reports may be due to those who are errantly attempting to chase the lands.

Berger 168 hybrids are really good stuff. My best .308 load is with those projectiles and 8208 XBR. Hot load.  Developed that load for 1k yards, however, that didn't materialize.   The high BC allow them to stay supersonic past 1000. 

I'll have to measure, but I seat them fairly deep in the case.  The reports may be due to those who are errantly attempting to chase the lands.

I am thinking about starting with the Berger 175 gr target BTHP.  Mostly because they are in stock in a lot of vendors, whereas the 168s seem to be out everywhere. 

The feedback I was reading on the 168 hybrids included direct feedback from Bryan Litz.  Berger's chief ballistician.  He is pretty active on a bunch of threads on the Hide.  Yeah, seems like much of the feedback is specific to jump sensitivity.  However, personal experience is very valuable to me.  If you found good (or at least decent results) with the 168s seated fairly deep, that does very much interest me.  As well as renews my interest in them. 

When you mentioned "Developed that load for 1k yards, however, that didn't materialize".  Are you referring to the completion of the load development?  Or the event/opportunity to shoot 1k? 

The trans sonic performance of the SMK 168 gr is a big reason I went to the 175 gr.  I didn't get to shoot the FGMM (factory) 168 gr beyond 400 yards very much. However, since I had decent results with the 175 gr, that was encouraging.  I still want to try the 185 gr and heavier loads eventually, but the velocities based on load data are pretty darn slow.  First things first though.  Which current plan is more work with the SMK 175 gr and Bergers in 168/175 for mag length.  Then see what's next. 

1) Did you try this method ?
It's a good starting point.


2) That post was just to harass you as his "perspective" was 60% of rifle accuracy was due to "primer uniformity", something he found hard to find.
I'm still trying to figure out how he could figure out the difference from one good primer in a batch to one that was not ? 
Variance of a 10th of a grain of powder, shell or bullet weight in a round makes a difference.

Just noticed the feedback you included in the quotes.
1) Not sure what method you mentioned.  I just saw you post a bunch of load data, which depending on what platform I bring it up on, typically comes out with the alignment messed up, so I couldn't make sense of it.  At least quickly.  In general, I'm following the methodology of Erik Cortina, F-Class John, and a couple other folks.  Essentially all the same basic method/process.

2) Gotcha on the primer uniformity.  I'm going to order a primer tool (like 21st Century) that is supposed to be better for primer seating consistency.  I've been doing primers on a Dillon 550.  It's fast and easy, but also not the best primer uniformity (including of course operator error/inconsistencies).  Then there are some folks that I've been following that have been weighing and sorting their primers.  I'm not going there, but it's interesting that those folks chase down.  As well as it seems like even for their peers, the primer weight sorting get the range of responses.  Maybe 1/4 hell no, 1/4 no but interesting, 1/4 yes I do, then the last 1/4 that are yes but won't admit it in group discussion with other shooters.  As for personal experience, hell, I am just happy that I got a decent amount of LRP. 

Just noticed the feedback you included in the quotes.
1) Not sure what method you mentioned.  I just saw you post a bunch of load data, which depending on what platform I bring it up on, typically comes out with the alignment messed up, so I couldn't make sense of it.  At least quickly.  In general, I'm following the methodology of Erik Cortina, F-Class John, and a couple other folks.  Essentially all the same basic method/process.

2) Gotcha on the primer uniformity.  I'm going to order a primer tool (like 21st Century) that is supposed to be better for primer seating consistency.  I've been doing primers on a Dillon 550.  It's fast and easy, but also not the best primer uniformity (including of course operator error/inconsistencies).  Then there are some folks that I've been following that have been weighing and sorting their primers.  I'm not going there, but it's interesting that those folks chase down.  As well as it seems like even for their peers, the primer weight sorting get the range of responses.  Maybe 1/4 hell no, 1/4 no but interesting, 1/4 yes I do, then the last 1/4 that are yes but won't admit it in group discussion with other shooters.  As for personal experience, hell, I am just happy that I got a decent amount of LRP.

method # 1 was the cutting of the case mouth
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38874.msg350067#msg350067

#2 I'll take all of those "non-uniform" primers off your hands.n 
That 1 or 2 moa aint gonna ruin my game. 

method # 1 was the cutting of the case mouth
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38874.msg350067#msg350067

#2 I'll take all of those "non-uniform" primers off your hands.n 
That 1 or 2 moa aint gonna ruin my game. 

#1 - I'll check.

#2 - I don't discriminate on primers.  Just separated by brand and magnum or non-magnum.  I'll "choot um all". 

Not saying it would ruin anything.  However, any variable to eliminated or reduce, all the better.  But I am NOT going to weight sort my primers.

Have been looking to plan ahead and pick up equipment and supplies for reloading for a while.  Bad timing for that stuff in general, so just trying to be patient and keep an eye out for things coming back into stock and especially in vendors that offer the items at non-inflated prices.  Have been seeing a lot of the components that have been out of stock for a while starting to come back into stock.  Rifle brass and specific boolits among them.  For over a month, some of the components had sold out quickly and have been out at all vendors for a while.  I've seen most of the stuff I'm looking for come back into stock at one vendor at a time, but now have been seeing the stock come back in multiple vendors, so I am able to shop around.  Thankfully have found the brass and specific boolits that I've been looking for in stock and at decent prices.  Some vendors have limited stock and some vendors are limiting the amount that they will offer in a single purchase or address.  But promising that I'm seeing stocks come in.

I'm still doing load development with Fed brass and SMK (primarily 175 gr).  Still have lots to learn, particularly with getting the annealing and resizing down for MY process.  So now I'm trying to stay ahead of things and have components that I envision that I will eventually get into, which right now is Lapua brass and Berger boolits. 

I am thinking about starting with the Berger 175 gr target BTHP.  Mostly because they are in stock in a lot of vendors, whereas the 168s seem to be out everywhere. 

The feedback I was reading on the 168 hybrids included direct feedback from Bryan Litz.  Berger's chief ballistician.  He is pretty active on a bunch of threads on the Hide.  Yeah, seems like much of the feedback is specific to jump sensitivity.  However, personal experience is very valuable to me.  If you found good (or at least decent results) with the 168s seated fairly deep, that does very much interest me.  As well as renews my interest in them. 

When you mentioned "Developed that load for 1k yards, however, that didn't materialize".  Are you referring to the completion of the load development?  Or the event/opportunity to shoot 1k? 

The trans sonic performance of the SMK 168 gr is a big reason I went to the 175 gr.  I didn't get to shoot the FGMM (factory) 168 gr beyond 400 yards very much. However, since I had decent results with the 175 gr, that was encouraging.  I still want to try the 185 gr and heavier loads eventually, but the velocities based on load data are pretty darn slow.  First things first though.  Which current plan is more work with the SMK 175 gr and Bergers in 168/175 for mag length.  Then see what's next.

I didn't find them sensitive to jump at all.  I think the load I am shooting is jumping .020 or .030", IIRC.  The VLD's are the ones that like to be close to the lands.  I've tried those and they are way too finnicky.  The whole design concept of the hybrids are the High BC of the VLD's secant ogive, but the ease of tuning of the tangent style of ogive.


The "however, that didn't materialize" was referring to the range not allowing us the use of 1K for competitions.  

Have been looking to plan ahead and pick up equipment and supplies for reloading for a while.  Bad timing for that stuff in general, so just trying to be patient and keep an eye out for things coming back into stock and especially in vendors that offer the items at non-inflated prices.  Have been seeing a lot of the components that have been out of stock for a while starting to come back into stock.  Rifle brass and specific boolits among them.  For over a month, some of the components had sold out quickly and have been out at all vendors for a while.  I've seen most of the stuff I'm looking for come back into stock at one vendor at a time, but now have been seeing the stock come back in multiple vendors, so I am able to shop around.  Thankfully have found the brass and specific boolits that I've been looking for in stock and at decent prices.  Some vendors have limited stock and some vendors are limiting the amount that they will offer in a single purchase or address.  But promising that I'm seeing stocks come in.

I'm still doing load development with Fed brass and SMK (primarily 175 gr).  Still have lots to learn, particularly with getting the annealing and resizing down for MY process.  So now I'm trying to stay ahead of things and have components that I envision that I will eventually get into, which right now is Lapua brass and Berger boolits.

[/size][/color]

I didn't find them sensitive to jump at all.  I think the load I am shooting is jumping .020 or .030", IIRC.  The VLD's are the ones that like to be close to the lands.  I've tried those and they are way too finnicky.  The whole design concept of the hybrids are the High BC of the VLD's secant ogive, but the ease of tuning of the tangent style of ogive.


The "however, that didn't materialize" was referring to the range not allowing us the use of 1K for competitions.  

Ahh. Gotcha on the 168s. Will def order next time they come in stock at a vendor that isn’t at inflated prices.

Sucks at the range thing. Darn. 1k was one of the big reasons I joined SRGC, but never got to shoot that distance. They had the occasional range day, but I wasn’t able to make it out the rare days they opened the 1k.

Be careful with using those Federal brass for reloading.  That brass is too soft and thin to be reloaded much.  They are notorious for getting case head separation after only a few reloadings.   I would just go ahead and use Lapua brass, and be done with it.  Of course you'll need to anneal the necks to get the max life out of them.  I have Lapua brass on the 10th plus firing, with no signs of it giving up. 

[/size][/color]

Also, you will also need to retune your load when you change brass anyway....   

Yeah. Heard that from others about the Fed brass. My hesitation is the learning curve that I expect with the annealing. I’m already trying to factor in the sacrificial brass for the annealing setup. My Fed brass is mostly in the second firing. I have prob 500+ total, so I was thinking lots to learn on.

I just got 300 Lapua in recently  I have a few hundred more on the way, so I have a good amount. Ahh, might as well jump right in with the Lapua. I also got some once fired and resized Lapua brass from a very kind and generous 2a member. So maybe that will be my test brass for annealing.

If powder was in better supply, I’d say I wouldn’t mind having to retune my loads. But powder isn’t in great supply. Just hope I don’t eff up too much brass as I get started with annealing.

Or I should’ve just bit the bullet and got an AMP Annealer 

Darn COVID. . . 

Ordered annealer almost 4 weeks ago now.  Projected lead time when I ordered was 1-2 weeks.  Not a huge deal as not really urgent.  However, update was that the supplier has a bunch of annealers are waiting on one part.  A part that they had ordered many weeks ago, but supply issues due to COVID.  :kickcan:

Founds some sales on some boolits though.