Ranking importance of reloading factors

[joelkdouglas]

Gents,

Recent events (shooting of the new 25-06) have me questioning the significance of an accuracy node / optimal barrel time. The 25-06 shoots pretty much any load into an inch, except for two loads. In the first, the rifle apparently didn't like the seating depth. In the second, it doesn't seem to like IMR4350 as much as H4350 or H4831.

I believe the accuracy node / barrel time theory to be valid. However, for accuracy it doesn't seem to be as important as other factors. I think (after only 2.5 years hand loading) I would rank accuracy factors as this:

1. Bullet selection
2. Seating depth
3. Concentricity
4. Powder selection (including case fill volume, pressure of burn, and appropriate burn rate)
5. Brass selection and tolerance (including brass uniformity, i.e. neck thickness variance)
6. Powder temperature tolerance
7. Accuracy node / barrel time

How would you rate factors for handloading accuracy? What have you seen in your handloading to be more important than something else? Hey--I'm still pretty much a newb at this reloading stuff, compared to a lot of you!

v/r
Joel

P.S. I think in terms of priorities often, probably because a significant amount of my professional time is allocating things that destroy against things that blow up. It drives my wife crazy.

 

[DrMike]

None of the factors you list can be ignored if you want accurate ammunition. Accuracy, however, is relative. What is acceptable in a hunting rifle might be way out of line for a benchrest rifle, and vice versa. I am more concerned when selecting bullets to keep performance weighed against the task I will require the projectile to perform. Seating depth is a major factor in discovering barrel nodes. For accuracy, concentricity is very important. Powder selection, unfortunately, is dictated at this present time as much by availability as by burn rates. I have some general ideals for case fill and burn rates, dependent in no small measure by bullet weight. Powder temperature tolerance seldom is factored in when working up a load. Ergo, my own list would run along these lines:

1. Bullet selection
2. Powder choice
3. Seating depth (which addresses the accuracy node)
4. Brass selection

The other factors will be addresses, if necessary, as required.

 

[Elkman]

I am with mike on the bullet selection. None of my rifles shoot the Nosler PT as well as they do other bullets. However they are my first choice for hunting.
2. Powder
3. Seating depth
4. Case brand.
5. Primer

 

[dubyam]

I guess it all depends on the goal at hand. As has been said, you could be after hyper accuracy for all the Xs you can get. Or you could be after the best terminal bullet performace on a particular type of game. These will drive accuracy goals and bullet choice, which will then drive powder choice and COL. Consistency of ammo is the first key to accuracy altogether, of course, so brass quality and concentricity are not so much considerations as they are means to the end.

The bottom line is, purpose drives handloading. Determine your desired purpose for a rifle/load and build off that purpose. Ultimately, if you're pursuing any kind of precision, you have to chase harmonics.

 

[JD338]

I agree with all of the above.
Once you determine what the purpose of the rifle/cartridge, you can select the bullet, powder, case and primer.
I strive for consistent sub MOA accuracy and single digit SD's. Velocity is what it is.

JD338

 

[Partisan]

I agree with DrMike's opinion...

1. Bullet selection
2. Powder choice
3. Seating depth (which addresses the accuracy node)
4. Brass selection

 

[joelkdouglas]

Dr. Mike, when you adjust seating depth, how many inches do you adjust? I'm expecting 0.005 or something similar, but someone told me to adjust by "screwing in the seating plug 1/4 turn at a time". On a Redding Comp seater that would be about 0.0125, but on a Forster Comp seater that would be less.

 

[DrMike]

Joel,

When I have a load that has low standard deviation, I will set up three tests spaced at 0.040 inch intervals. One of those is likely to stand out, approximating an accuracy node. From that, I will test 0.005 either side of the standout seating depth. Experience has taught me to begin with AccuBonds and all monolithic bullets (except for Hornady GMX) at 0.100 inches off the lands. All cup and core bullets are started 0.010 inches off the lands. The work up proceeds from there.

 

[joelkdouglas]

Thanks Dr. Mike. To support your theory, the ABs from yesterday shot best 0.10 off the lands. I was planning on adjusting depth -0.005, 0.005, and 0.010 inches. I am also considering dropping the powder charge a half grain.

 

[joelkdouglas]

Dr. Mike, I just re-read your post. If you start with ABs 0.100 off the lands, do you run your first test with 0.100, 0.140, and 0.180 off the lands?

 

[DrMike]

Dr. Mike, I just re-read your post. If you start with ABs 0.100 off the lands, do you run your first test with 0.100, 0.140, and 0.180 off the lands?

I would likely go 0.040, 0.080 and 0.120 inches off the lands. I have found a few instances in which a node is found closer to the lands; however, the norm is frequently in the vicinity of 0.100 inches off the lands. Hence, I want to cover the high percentage OALs.

 

[joelkdouglas]

Gotcha. Thanks Dr. Mike.

 

[JD338]

FWIW, I have had a lot of success at .015-.020" of the lands.
Every rifle is different so you will have to experiment to find what your rifle likes best.

JD338

 

[ScreaminEagle]

I'd say
1. Bullet
2. Powder
3. Seating depth
4. Primer ( yes this can make a difference)
5. Brass ie, neck tension, flash holes, uniformity

 

[Polaris]

1. Rifle/barrel
2. Consistency
3. Bullet Selection
4. Consistency
5. """
6"""
7. Did I mention consistency???

I've seen quality rifles/barrels that are finicky or give only mediocre accuracy, but they are the exception. Given quality rifles/barrels, most will shoot consistent ammo consistently well within their design parameters. Powder, primer, brass; given consistency and suitability for a purpose (IE not on either extreme of burning rate for bullet weight) seem to make little difference for practical accuracy (bench resting and F-class are a whole different game). Like the OP, over the years I have worked up "control" loads in some of the calibers I shoot. These have proven accurate across the board of my rifles and are a good benchmark when evaluating a new rifle or component set.

As far as things you can modify, I look to bullet and seating depth as the first things to tweak given a suitable powder in the cartridge/weight.

 

[Guy Miner]

Seating the bullet straight.

 

[hubcap]

I recently was loading and testing the nosler 150 LRAB for my .270 using two different powders. I did not alter or change anything other than powder. Much to my surprise H4831sc shot two groups in row at a mediocre two inches or so while IMR-4831 delivered pretty much a three shot one holer. Because of this particular experience I,m a lot more open minded about powder selection and more likely to try more than one powder if groups arn,t what I want. Like others have already mentioned I find my self playing with seating depth a lot also.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I don't believe ranking them in order is the proper way to look at it...a reloaded round is the sum of its parts and assembly...doing everything right, every time....consistently.

The firearm plays its role in accuracy, as does the nut behind the trigger...but the ammo must be consistent because even "not so accurate" ammo is unpredictable if its not consistent...and with ammo like that, you're chasing your tail...I know this from experience, lol.

I consider myself an experienced novice reloader...been reloading for years, and still learning...for many years I just threw ammo together, gave little to no thought to things like neck tension, neck wall thickness, concentricity, flash holes, etc....and the ammo was decently accurate and served me well enough for hunting...better than factory ammo.

But in the last few years as my thirst for more accuracy and greater range really kicked in....I stepped it up a notch in my reloading, paying close attention to those little details...and my ammo got more accurate as a result.

Its sorta like high performance cars...there are plenty that are pretty darn fast...but the really fast ones that are easy to drive, they are built from the ground up to be just that...high performance...every part and its assembly is with that in mind.

And that last little bit of performance...is generally a little expensive to acquire (the tools and components)...reloading is no different.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Vince]

While I believe it's a combination of factors one of the easiest to adjust is the powder.
Working with my 25-06 taught me the importance of selecting the right powder followed by bullet.

 

[Songdog]

And that last little bit of performance...is generally a little expensive to acquire (the tools and components)...reloading is no different.

There's a phrase I use all the time when talking with potential clients and associates:

"The final 10%... takes 90% of the effort (or cost, or time, etc.)"

Seems appropriate here. Though, if your rifle doesn't like a particular bullet... it won't matter what powder, primer, OAL, case, run-out, etc. is.... it probably ain't gonna shoot it. If it does like it... it probably won't matter much what powder, primer, etc....

I've found that the bullet matters the most.... then OAL. But, squeezing out that last .25"-.5" in group size often requires a lot of effort compared to finding that 1" load...