General process question-where to start?

[Nealc]

When starting to work on a new load, I’m curious whether most of you look for an optimal powder charge first, or try to find the best seating depth. Berger bullets recommends loading multiple rounds at the min powder charge and testing different seating depths before testing varying powder charges. This is opposite from how many I know would start.

I want to minimize component use getting to the finish line, of course. I would appreciate any thoughts you more experienced reloaders would have with this. Thanks

 

[Ridgerunner665]

How precision are you wanting to be?

I can load ammo that is great for 600 yard hunting and never even mess with seating depth, most of the time... it won't win a bench rest match, but it will be sub MOA.

I'm not the precision ELR shooter some of these guys in here are (I'd like to be, but can't afford to feed those expensive toys, lol).

I'm not knocking being more meticulous, not at all... just saying, depending on exactly what you're trying to accomplish, you may not "need" to mess with it either.

 

[Nealc]

Great question. I guess it depends on the rifle I’m loading for. My Kimber 7-08 is a 4-500 yards gun at max, but I aspire to some longer max ranges (and thus greater precision) with the 28 nosler.

 

[DrMike]

Ridge Runner has given you some excellent advice. When working up new loads, I certainly wouldn't dispute what Walt Berger says; he knows whereof he speaks. For sure, if seeking to deliver the goods at extreme long ranges, then seating depth plays an outsized role in finding the optimal load. That sounds as if it could be the case for your 28 Nosler. For ranges under 500 yards, finding the node will suffice to give you an optimal load. I am a hunter, and not a long range shooter. Consequently, most of my work focuses on working with an optimal charge weight at first. It has sufficed that for most of my rifles, and many of those I worked on for customers, delivered 0.5 MOA or better. If, in discussions with a customer, they intended to shoot at ELR, I would focus heavily on seating depth early on in the load development.

 

[Charlie-NY]

In a hunting rifle. I start with bullets loaded to magazine length, which should be well short of a length which would reach the rifling. Then I look for an optimal charge weight of a proven powder for the cartridge. Once I've got an idea of what charge I'd like to use, based on accuracy and velocity, then I test with various OALs. Changing the OAL of the cartridge has often made a BIG difference in group size. Once the best OAL is established then I would likely try to fine tune the powder charge.

 

[hunter24605]

To conserve components as much as possible, I start with the powders that are the "go to" powder for that particular cartridge, and load up 10-15 test loads with .3 to .5 grain increases. I seat the bullets by what my experience tells me; bonded and mono's I jump .100" and cup /core bullets I seat about .015" off the lands. Usually there will be a velocity node somewhere near the top. I then load 5 test loads in the middle of that node, and shoot for a group. Usually it will be a little on either side of MOA, and very often 3/4 to 1/2 MOA. Well beyond the accuracy I need for hunting at reasonable ranges. If it doesn't produce abound 1.5 MOA, I'll move on and not wast more components trying to force it. If I'm seeking more accuracy, I'll tweak seating depth. If conserving components isn't an issue, then there's a ton more development that can be done.

 

[Nealc]

Thank you gentlemen

 

[Winshortmag]

To conserve components as much as possible, I start with the powders that are the "go to" powder for that particular cartridge, and load up 10-15 test loads with .3 to .5 grain increases. I seat the bullets by what my experience tells me; bonded and mono's I jump .100" and cup /core bullets I seat about .015" off the lands. Usually there will be a velocity node somewhere near the top. I then load 5 test loads in the middle of that node, and shoot for a group. Usually it will be a little on either side of MOA, and very often 3/4 to 1/2 MOA. Well beyond the accuracy I need for hunting at reasonable ranges. If it doesn't produce abound 1.5 MOA, I'll move on and not wast more components trying to force it. If I'm seeking more accuracy, I'll tweak seating depth. If conserving components isn't an issue, then there's a ton more development that can be done.

Conserving components is important these days! I like that thought process..

 

[jimbires]

I have been doing the seating depth first for quite awhile now . it seems to work well for me . by finding best seating first , I've even changed powders and the best seating was still best seating with the new powder . I'll find best seating , then work on best powder charge , then retest my seating to see if I can improve on it .

what really opened my eyes to this method , was working with reduced recoil loads for new shooters . I'll pick a powder charge according to the recoil generated . I will not vary this charge weight . I'll only work seating depth to find my accuracy . I can get these loads to shoot an inch , or less at 100 yards .

 

[Ridge_Runner]

First I look for a single base powder that gives at least 90% fill at max velocity, load a couple at mid level, chrony them, bump the powder charge up till I get the velocity I want or see pressure signs. Then shoot a couple 5 shot groups to evaluate for seating depth changes. Bergers normally like a bit of jump, I start .030 off the lands.

 

[ShadeTree]

I have been doing the seating depth first for quite awhile now . it seems to work well for me . by finding best seating first , I've even changed powders and the best seating was still best seating with the new powder . I'll find best seating , then work on best powder charge , then retest my seating to see if I can improve on it .

what really opened my eyes to this method , was working with reduced recoil loads for new shooters . I'll pick a powder charge according to the recoil generated . I will not vary this charge weight . I'll only work seating depth to find my accuracy . I can get these loads to shoot an inch , or less at 100 yards .

Jim, couple questions. I remember you saying before about you working with seating depth only with a reduced load. I still tend to work on powder charge, then seating depth, but not against trying something different.

Question 1. I recall you implying that sometimes seating depth with the reduced loads is pretty extreme.....I.E. very deep seating, or very short overall length that apparently counteracts the reduced load. So within a normal load, would you say once you find the best seating depth, that it is the best depth from starting charge weight all the way up to max?

Question 2. You're saying you find best seating, then work on best powder charge. If you end up working on both anyways, do you think the opposite holds true? Example, find the best powder charge, then work on best seating depth like I typically do. In other words do the 2 end up meeting at the same destination no matter which direction you start from?

 

[300WSM]

When starting to work on a new load, I’m curious whether most of you look for an optimal powder charge first, or try to find the best seating depth. Berger bullets recommends loading multiple rounds at the min powder charge and testing different seating depths before testing varying powder charges. This is opposite from how many I know would start.

I want to minimize component use getting to the finish line, of course. I would appreciate any thoughts you more experienced reloaders would have with this. Thanks

It's 6:5 and pick em'
Every action( no pun, but maybe)can have a reaction.

When I'm starting a new load I seat .010 below the mfg advertised seating depth.

I was taught by an old timer who forgot more about the craft than most will ever know.
I asked many questions along the way and his reasoning was by seating .010 below you are removing all seating depths from the equation and focusing solely on the bullet/powder type/charge combo.
In other words find the best group playing with the charges of said powder and once you hit the pinnacle of your goals and accuracy with that particular powder/bullet combo it's now time to play with seating depths. Starting .010 below listed COAL immediately allows at least that much adjustment...and truthfully you've got much further to seat on most platforms.

The other reason is quickest path to your goals.
Exanple...
you're trying to hit a certain velocity level with a certain bullet ... perhaps you also want a powder that meters very easy...

It's easier to adjust your seating depth simply by turning your die out than it is to keep chasing velocity with said bullet and differing powders and charges or backing yourself in to xyz powders that also reach your goals that meter well...

Is it the right way? Who knows...but it was the way I was taught and it made sense as to why ‍♂
Too many variables to hit your goals so once that's achieved all you've got left is to fine tune everything with the depth.

Good luck

 

[jimbires]

Jim, couple questions. I remember you saying before about you working with seating depth only with a reduced load. I still tend to work on powder charge, then seating depth, but not against trying something different.

Question 1. I recall you implying that sometimes seating depth with the reduced loads is pretty extreme.....I.E. very deep seating, or very short overall length that apparently counteracts the reduced load. So within a normal load, would you say once you find the best seating depth, that it is the best depth from starting charge weight all the way up to max?

Question 2. You're saying you find best seating, then work on best powder charge. If you end up working on both anyways, do you think the opposite holds true? Example, find the best powder charge, then work on best seating depth like I typically do. In other words do the 2 end up meeting at the same destination no matter which direction you start from?

ST , I wish I knew for sure why my reduced loads like to be seated so deep . I'm not sure if it's the short COAL increasing pressure a little , or if it's the big running start to get the bullet through the barrel without causing a lot of barrel oscillation . I'm kind of thinking it's the big running start , but can't say for sure and nothing to back up my thoughts .

Q 1 ) so far yes . maybe a little tweek , but nothing much is needed . it seems that finding best seating first makes it all about the barrel and bullet . I've found best seating first , changed to a different powder , and it was still my best seating . I'll be watching for this in my 338 Lapua as I switch from RL33 to N570 powder .I'll be eager to see if my seating depth holds true . I've found best seating at min powder charge and used that right up through max , no changes to COAL . my Grandsons reduced load is still using the same, extremely short, COAL with 9.0 more grains of powder added , and it still shoots good .

my seating depth test target. using 26.0 grains of H4895.


close up of 2.600 COAL .



same 2.600 COAL , 35.0 grains of H4895. I forget exactly , I think this increased velocity around 600 or 700 FPS . this is only 2 shots from 100 yards . point of impact has went high , but groups small .

.


Q 2 ) I'm going to say no . you will most likely have different COAL and powder charge between the methods .


I want to say ; I'm not knocking anybody , powder first has been the industry standard since forever . this seating first just seems to make sense to me , I'm building on a solid foundation .

when starting doing load development , the normal way is to pick a seating depth , and work powder charge until we get a good group , then we work with seating depth to close this group to where we are happy . how did we pick this seating depth ? I found it was best to start out as long as possible . I'd start out with about a .010 jump , or whatever the max length my magazine box allowed . this way when I was going to work seating depth I only had one way to adjust , shorter . this eliminated the question of , should I go longer , or shorter, to tighten this group up . so now I've pretty much picked a seating depth out of thin air , could be decent , or very bad . now I'm working with an unknown seating depth to find my best powder charge . after this I'll fine tune seating to a powder charge that was built on an unknown seating depth . see where I'm going with this ? I think this could be why we have some loads that are temperamental .the load wasn't built on anything solid to start with . does this way work ? sure does and has for many years . could it be better ? maybe . could it be easier ? maybe . could we eliminate some temperamental loads ? I'll say , probably .

when finding seating depth first . we DO NOT want to be in a powder node , so we use the minimum powder charge to find our best seating . we want to find best seating with no influence from powder charge . I think this makes it all about the bullet and barrel . now we have best seating to work up the powder charge and find our best group . then we can tweak seating depth if needed .


I've probably PM'd with at least ten guys on this . a few guys seem to do well on finding seating first , other guys don't have any luck , I can't say why some struggle with it . maybe a problem gun , or a poor powder choice , I don't know . a few guys just like the old way better . since I've started doing it seating depth first , I've had no problems getting a load worked up . this is in factory and custom rifles .

 

[ShadeTree]

Jim, thanks for the detailed explanation. I have a bullet that I had planned on trying a reduced load with in my new to me 308 in a 788. I already had in my head to use your method with that because I have a pre-set powder charge/ speed in mind............so I was gonna let powder charge alone as long as my speed was within the parameters I was figuring, and work solely on seating depth. Based on your experience with reduced loads, I was thinking I might end up very short on O.A.L. on what works best with that load.

What you say makes sense. At least in theory. I'll also try it with a normal load on whatever rifle I try a new load with next and see how it works for me. Thanks again.

 

[jimbires]

years ago I worked with a young girl that was a new shooter . I made her a reduced load for her 308 . I'm fairly sure I used 125 gr Ballistic tips and IMR4198 . this was before I got into using H4895 for reduced loads . and once again I think the COAL was very short . I'm pretty sure I did a write up on this forum about it . I'll look back and see if I can find it . there might be something there to help you .


*quick story on the type of guys hanging out on this forum . *

I never had a 308 , so I had nothing laying around to help her get going . there was a very generous gentleman on this forum that gifted brass to me , for her . a few days later that same gentleman sent me two hats , one each , for the two young shooters I was working with at that time . every time I took those two kids shooting , they wore their hats .

 

[jimbires]

here is my most recent reduced load for my Grandson .

reduced recoil load

I did a reduced recoil load today for the grandson's 260 . I used the hodgdon procedure of 60% of the max load of H4895 . I came up with 26.0 grains as the minimum charge weight .I'll use this as I want to keep recoil as low as possible . 26 grains generates roughly 4.25 ft lbs of free...

forum.nosler.com

 

[jimbires]

here is the start of the 308

low recoil 308

Guys I know a new shooter / hunter . she is 13 years old and weighs about 75 or 80 pounds . her dad bought her a 308 for deer hunting , and it's to much for her . I was kind of asked if there is anything I could do to help . so I'm doing a little research, and wanted other opinions just in...

forum.nosler.com

 

[jimbires]

this still isn't the one I'm thinking of .

Seating Depth Progression

Finally got around to shooting 160ABs in my 284, which is what I originally intended to shoot with it! After a few charge variations I settled on 50.8gr RL-17 and decided to look at seating depth. The top group (2.983" COL) is what I had done my initial testing at and is pretty much exactly what...

forum.nosler.com