The other question is primer seating. Fclass John and others have tested primer seating. Having some "crush" on the primer is important along with consistent seating. Watch FClass John's video about using the lee primer and his hacks. Also significant improvements in groups to be had.
I uniform all of my primer pockets and I just use a RCBS Hand Priming Tool. I can feel that the primer bottoms out and then I give it a bit of crush. As of now, I only go off of feel. I have a new Priming Tool that I have not yet even unboxed.
@@mattsreloadingbench Matt, You can also watch several great video's from Bryan Zolnikov on primer seating and sorting. I'm set at 0.006" crush. Your not crushing the casing of the primer, your moving the anvil into the primer. I could not do this with a hand primer. Once I switched to the Lee and added the adjustable seating depth, then I could do the crush very consistently.
Interesting. I am using Hornady 153 A-tip, Federal 210 primers, ADI-2255 powder with a 0.054" jump in my Ruger Precision Rifle. My groups are in the order of 0.6 MOA.
Four shot groups work well for load development. I use them, and I know national champion f-class shooters that use them. Saving time and money is always nice too.
Matt, enjoying your videos for the 6.5 PRC. I also have a Gunwerks 6.5 PRC and shoot Retumbo powder and 147 ELDM. Couple of questions. What is your fired case neck diameter and your loaded case diameter? Also what is your bushing diameter?
The reason for asking is that neck gap is very important. At one time it was considered a secret by the US Fclass team. Watch the Bob Siebold interview, it's revealed there in a very short segment. I've seen remarkable improvements in ES and group size by getting the gap right. Erick and Bob say 0.005", in my testing 0.006" is better. Especially in commercial rifles not precision chambered. In .224 barrels 0.004" is good. The test is whether a bullet will pass through the neck of a fired case with little to no contact. When a round is fired the brass expands to contact the chamber neck. If there is gap between the bullet and the brass, the bullet can move to the bore without any guiding by the case.
I do not know that off hand. I have never even had this topic brought up. I turn all of my necks so that they are at minimum 90% consistent. I use a Bushing 0.003 smaller than case neck diameter with a seated bullet. I will have to look for those numbers. I do not know them off hand.
seems like maybe we should move on from this combination. Seems the 153 is not tuning consistently at distance. I would have expected better with high quality components and a nice rifle.
Why do you go in .002 increments with what I think is your initial seating depth test. With the people that achieve the ultimate in long range accuracy use .003 and are able to cover a wider range of seating depths and are not using more components than needed. Going with .010 increments initially is beneficial, too. With that, you will be to cover a wider range and find that window easier. Then this second trip you are doing would be to fine tune your load. Let's say you do find your node on this trip. You will still be using more components with your current method of .002 increments. Not trying to bust your balls, I just wanted to point out something that might be beneficial in the end.
@@mattsreloadingbench For Lapua brass, I would recommend not touching the primer pockets. Neither flash hole or pocket reaming. It's been proven that you introduce more inconsistency into your brass by doing these prep steps.
@@mattsreloadingbench I've been bench rest loading and shooting for well over 40 years. We always, prepped brass reaming primer pockets and deburring flash holes. It was hard to stop, but once I tested several calibers and found no improvements in ES or SDs, I gave up the practice. And I could never prove anything on the target. I find that Hornady and Sig Sauer brass are very good quality brass and easy to get low ES/SDs without any prep other than adjusting neck gap and annealing. The neck gap makes a big difference in groups size and ES/SD and you can see it immediately on the target. The other big factor is annealing. I would like to see your annealing machine. I use a DIY rolling drum flame annealer. It works well, but I shoot a lot of small cases, like BR/Dasher cases that are more difficult to anneal due to the slower heat up time using a flame getting the entire case hot. I've looked into induction annealing, but got concerned about reports of inconsistent heating results as the coils heat up with use. Consistent annealing is the key reason I would want to upgrade. So, I've backed off for now.
@@edhyde1741 well, I use flame with the Annealeez AND I have been toying with a diy induction annealer. Check out the videos on North East Texas Tactical. I actually received a control module from the guy in those videos. It works great. But like you said, it's all about keeping everything cool. I have been annealing all of my larger brass with it and I get better groups than with the flame annealing.
True. But I have found that it stays relatively close to the original. If I end up choosing this powder and charge, I will shoot more in the setup and get measurements then for ES and SD.
@Matt's Reloading Bench watching ES seems to help me explain anomalies. My experience also aligns with yours for the most part. I like to compare group size with ES, and it seems to help interpret what is going on with a group size or shape, and when you go back and look at trends you can spot loads to stay away from or to explore more. It's also been beneficial to be able to compare group to group ES, which hasn't always mirrored previous groups.
@@reloadingfun I agree. At this point, I am looking for accuracy nodes. I have had it where if I add 1 or subtract 1 granular of powder, it may be where I need to be after I find the accuracy node to really dial it in.
@Matt's Reloading Bench when you say granular, do you mean one individual piece of powder? If you do mean one individual piece if powder it is unlikely that one piece made a difference. There may be another variable that affecting your results. If one piece did indeed make a difference, you are on the edge of a node, the very very edge and it would lost likely not be consistent even if the load varied 2 or 3 individual pieces. An individual piece of powder weighs roughly .02 grains, maybe .03. Testing that has shown in itself is almost insignificant, especially with rifles, that 99.99% of us are shooting then add in the rest we are using. Even measuring that weight accurately is hard in most cases. That's within most scales accuracy range. There is just too many variable to say that is a cause of anything. That's from test and multiple world class shooters experiences.
@@reloadingfun you are taking this all the wrong way. I am no expert nor do I claim to be. I don't seek to win anything. I do not claim to be the best. Quite frankly, I know that I am FAR from it. I post these videos to show people things that can be done with mostly basic equipment. Thanks for watching and have fun with your reloading.
Your load development is off by a mile. No bullets on target are not helpful. Your extreme spread is not useful either. You have no known node. You will see this at 600 yards plus. The target will show the least vertical when the load comes in. For the most part your chrono is the least of your worries. Believe the results. You hsd a few good vertical groups.
The other question is primer seating. Fclass John and others have tested primer seating. Having some "crush" on the primer is important along with consistent seating. Watch FClass John's video about using the lee primer and his hacks. Also significant improvements in groups to be had.
I uniform all of my primer pockets and I just use a RCBS Hand Priming Tool. I can feel that the primer bottoms out and then I give it a bit of crush. As of now, I only go off of feel. I have a new Priming Tool that I have not yet even unboxed.
@@mattsreloadingbench I hand primed for years. When I changed, I realized how inconsistent this method is. Watch the fClass John Video.
I will check it out
@@edhyde1741 I watched the video. How much crush do you use?
@@mattsreloadingbench Matt, You can also watch several great video's from Bryan Zolnikov on primer seating and sorting. I'm set at 0.006" crush. Your not crushing the casing of the primer, your moving the anvil into the primer. I could not do this with a hand primer. Once I switched to the Lee and added the adjustable seating depth, then I could do the crush very consistently.
Interesting. I am using Hornady 153 A-tip, Federal 210 primers, ADI-2255 powder with a 0.054" jump in my Ruger Precision Rifle. My groups are in the order of 0.6 MOA.
I am noticing that the prc likes that seating depth. Or close to it.
Four shot groups work well for load development. I use them, and I know national champion f-class shooters that use them. Saving time and money is always nice too.
Very true.
Is the rifle worn out yet? New barrel time and start over😂
Nah. It is shooting just fine. Not even any signs of wear yet
Matt, enjoying your videos for the 6.5 PRC. I also have a Gunwerks 6.5 PRC and shoot Retumbo powder and 147 ELDM. Couple of questions. What is your fired case neck diameter and your loaded case diameter? Also what is your bushing diameter?
The reason for asking is that neck gap is very important. At one time it was considered a secret by the US Fclass team. Watch the Bob Siebold interview, it's revealed there in a very short segment. I've seen remarkable improvements in ES and group size by getting the gap right. Erick and Bob say 0.005", in my testing 0.006" is better. Especially in commercial rifles not precision chambered. In .224 barrels 0.004" is good. The test is whether a bullet will pass through the neck of a fired case with little to no contact. When a round is fired the brass expands to contact the chamber neck. If there is gap between the bullet and the brass, the bullet can move to the bore without any guiding by the case.
I do not know that off hand. I have never even had this topic brought up. I turn all of my necks so that they are at minimum 90% consistent. I use a Bushing 0.003 smaller than case neck diameter with a seated bullet. I will have to look for those numbers. I do not know them off hand.
@@mattsreloadingbench The gap has to be in a certain range. If you over turn, you loose accuracy. It's not about consistent neck thickness.
seems like maybe we should move on from this combination. Seems the 153 is not tuning consistently at distance. I would have expected better with high quality components and a nice rifle.
More to come
Why do you go in .002 increments with what I think is your initial seating depth test. With the people that achieve the ultimate in long range accuracy use .003 and are able to cover a wider range of seating depths and are not using more components than needed.
Going with .010 increments initially is beneficial, too. With that, you will be to cover a wider range and find that window easier. Then this second trip you are doing would be to fine tune your load. Let's say you do find your node on this trip. You will still be using more components with your current method of .002 increments. Not trying to bust your balls, I just wanted to point out something that might be beneficial in the end.
It is just how I do it. I will take into consideration your points.
Oh, what manufacture brass are you shooting?
Lapua
@@mattsreloadingbench For Lapua brass, I would recommend not touching the primer pockets. Neither flash hole or pocket reaming. It's been proven that you introduce more inconsistency into your brass by doing these prep steps.
@@edhyde1741 Thanks for that info. I will take that into consideration!
@@mattsreloadingbench I've been bench rest loading and shooting for well over 40 years. We always, prepped brass reaming primer pockets and deburring flash holes. It was hard to stop, but once I tested several calibers and found no improvements in ES or SDs, I gave up the practice. And I could never prove anything on the target.
I find that Hornady and Sig Sauer brass are very good quality brass and easy to get low ES/SDs without any prep other than adjusting neck gap and annealing. The neck gap makes a big difference in groups size and ES/SD and you can see it immediately on the target.
The other big factor is annealing. I would like to see your annealing machine. I use a DIY rolling drum flame annealer. It works well, but I shoot a lot of small cases, like BR/Dasher cases that are more difficult to anneal due to the slower heat up time using a flame getting the entire case hot. I've looked into induction annealing, but got concerned about reports of inconsistent heating results as the coils heat up with use. Consistent annealing is the key reason I would want to upgrade. So, I've backed off for now.
@@edhyde1741 well, I use flame with the Annealeez AND I have been toying with a diy induction annealer.
Check out the videos on North East Texas Tactical. I actually received a control module from the guy in those videos. It works great. But like you said, it's all about keeping everything cool. I have been annealing all of my larger brass with it and I get better groups than with the flame annealing.
Too bad you don't have velocity data to go along with this. It would be nice to see the ES to help interpret what is going on with the group.
True. But I have found that it stays relatively close to the original. If I end up choosing this powder and charge, I will shoot more in the setup and get measurements then for ES and SD.
@Matt's Reloading Bench watching ES seems to help me explain anomalies.
My experience also aligns with yours for the most part. I like to compare group size with ES, and it seems to help interpret what is going on with a group size or shape, and when you go back and look at trends you can spot loads to stay away from or to explore more. It's also been beneficial to be able to compare group to group ES, which hasn't always mirrored previous groups.
@@reloadingfun I agree. At this point, I am looking for accuracy nodes. I have had it where if I add 1 or subtract 1 granular of powder, it may be where I need to be after I find the accuracy node to really dial it in.
@Matt's Reloading Bench when you say granular, do you mean one individual piece of powder? If you do mean one individual piece if powder it is unlikely that one piece made a difference. There may be another variable that affecting your results. If one piece did indeed make a difference, you are on the edge of a node, the very very edge and it would lost likely not be consistent even if the load varied 2 or 3 individual pieces.
An individual piece of powder weighs roughly .02 grains, maybe .03. Testing that has shown in itself is almost insignificant, especially with rifles, that 99.99% of us are shooting then add in the rest we are using. Even measuring that weight accurately is hard in most cases. That's within most scales accuracy range. There is just too many variable to say that is a cause of anything. That's from test and multiple world class shooters experiences.
@@reloadingfun you are taking this all the wrong way. I am no expert nor do I claim to be. I don't seek to win anything. I do not claim to be the best. Quite frankly, I know that I am FAR from it. I post these videos to show people things that can be done with mostly basic equipment.
Thanks for watching and have fun with your reloading.
Your load development is off by a mile. No bullets on target are not helpful. Your extreme spread is not useful either. You have no known node. You will see this at 600 yards plus. The target will show the least vertical when the load comes in. For the most part your chrono is the least of your worries. Believe the results. You hsd a few good vertical groups.
Thanks for watching!