Nope, I buy good quality rings (Nightforce, Area 419, American Precision Arms, Spuhr, etc.) and never found the need to. Modern machining capabilities are much better than what they had 30+ years ago, the rings these days are really, really good.

@triggeredprecisionmachinellc I've had 2 sets of Spuhr mounts that were way off. They took care of me and sent out new rings and I returned them but good thing I check all mine or I would of never known probably. It doesn't matter the brand or price to me now days I'll always double check just to be 100%

What's up Jason! 🫡

@@triggeredprecisionmachinellc I’m bummed I haven’t been able to make it out for the challenge yet. Doubt I can beat that other group. I will do it even though it won’t be in time.

Many thanks!

Glad to help, thanks for watching!

Thank you, sir.

OCW testing is done off the lands for a few reasons. First, most bullets, with the exception of VLD bullets, don't mind being jumped. Second, staying off the lands will safely provide you a better understanding of the pressure tolerance of your rifle without having the interference of the lands. Also, when people measure the lands using one of the Hornady modified cases, or a few of the other methods, you are getting a rough estimate of your lands. With the taper of the leade, the profile of the bullet, it is EXTREMELY easy to push the bullet .005" or more into the lands without feeling much pressure at all, so at that point you are technically jammed into the lands. Staying .020" off for the testing is enough to eliminate this and give you a starting reference point. During the OCW testing process, we're looking at several things at once. One of the most important things is looking for pressure signs as we work are way up the load ladder. If done correctly, your last charge weights should be at or very, very near the peak pressure for that combo. We document this, along with the environmentals to set a theoretical boundary for future loads. For example, if we are doing load dev. on a blistering hot day and I start to see definitive pressure signs at 45 grains, I know that is my pressure ceiling and I will work backwards from there and aim to be at least 2% lower in my final charge weight. Conversely, if we are doing load dev. in the winder at 20 degrees and I hit pressure at 45 grains, I know that will almost certainly not be the case with triple digit temperatures hit in the summer so I am much more cautious here, if I am planning to load ammo that will be shot in the hotter times of the year. I will back off 3% of more from that top load and go from there, or re-do the load dev. in the summer to be 100% safe. All that being said, when the OCW process is done correctly, you will generally find two "nodes". One high, and one low. Many times the high node will be too close to the pressure ceiling for comfort, so I default to the low node. These are generally separated by 3-4 increments in powder charges. Take the safety over a little extra speed. Its easier on brass and the target won't know the difference. Now circling back to your question about conducting the OCW off the lands and starting a seating depth test at the lands. Referencing the above, if the test is done correctly, you shouldn't be so close to your pressure ceiling that seating another .020" forward to just barely touch the lands, would cause any problems at all. If you do end up accidentally picking a load that is on the warm side and seat it at the lands, yes, chances are you will see a bit more pressure but on a modern, properly built rifle, this should show up as possibly heavy bolt lift, ejector marks, and worst case, a pierced primer. I've personally never had an issue after using this method for over 20 years. I see a much greater pressure spike if I'm shooting in field condiditons and get moisture in my chamber or on my ammunition. That was long winded, but I thought your question was excellent and brought up a great point some other people were curious about too. Hope that helps, thanks for watching!!! Shawn

On Lapua brass I've found going down .003" and expanding back up for .002" neck tension works very well on annealed brass. On other brass like Winchester, Hornady, etc., I generally will start at .004" and neck up to .002" When you are doing it, pay attention to the feel, if you have some that barely feel like the expander is kissing, maybe try a smaller bushing until you feel the expander contact in the neck. Also, super important, be sure to use a good neck lube when expanding. Not using neck lube can gall the brass and really goof up neck tension.

@@triggeredprecisionmachinellc thank you for the information. I guess I will buy a set of neck bushings so I have options. I only have the one because it is what worked with the brass I have.

Yeah, sometimes its a little annoying when you start out, trying to find the right bushing range to buy can be tricky.

Nope, no ammonia in the copper solvent. I've been using the BoreTech carbon solvent for a few years now and really like it. Its safe and works well.

Thank you!

I shoot them when it is requested by the customer. As far as accuracy, I guarantee my work 100%. I can't guarantee a customer's shooting ability, reloading ability or ammunition selection. I've yet to have a rifle that didn't exceed my customer's expectations. When manufacturers put out accuracy claims I scratch my head. If they guarantee a 1/2" or better gun, what ammo is that with, who was shooting, and how was the rifle shot? Factory ammo lots these days are all over the place, we've had lots of Hornady match in the shop that shoot sub 1/4" and other lots that are barely 1" out of the same rifle. @toddb930 can attest to this. Hope that helps, people love seeing that accuracy guarantee but I can't tell you how many rifles from these big semi-custom companies out there where the shooters aren't able to reach this claim, no matter what they do. I get these rifles in my shop on a regular basis and we try and diagnose the problem. Ofter times they just aren't built "right".

Agreed, this thing is definitely not a plinker.

It's an absolute beast. We could have gone lighter with a different action but I'm honestly not sure I'd want it any lighter. 😂

HA! the colors remind me of the vintage Toyota stickers - the yellow / orange / red. In person they really do look great.

Thank you!

Yes! You can unscrew the torx head screw that retains the bolt release and remove it, then re install the screw.

That is an excellent idea!

100% accurate and great point. If I’m going for .002” neck tension, I usually under size the OD with a bushing .003 - .004, then use the .002” under mandrel to bring the ID back up. I get very consistent neck tension, but I’ve discovered that proper lube is key.

Agreed, I love em and hate em.

I use the “one bullet diameter” for field rifles, you can get away with less on a dedicated target or bench rifle.

Ammo. Time. Barrel fouling. And I've never found that to be necessary. I've tuned several .22's with this method and always had the same, good results. During the rough tuning, you aren't going to miss a node by moving 5 increments. You should see a pattern emerge with one distinct area on the tuner which you explore further by moving around that number in smaller increments.

💪🏻

Lots of information out there. I can tell you the old school Hoppe's #9 (not the benchrest stuff), doesn't do much at all for copper fouling. Don't over think it, grab some Bore Tech, Wipe-Out Patch-Out or some other safe, reputable cleaner and give it a go. Biggest thing is don't get too wrapped around the axel about it, have fun shooting!

Consistency and precision are #1. Speed is a welcome byproduct.

I appreciate that!

Good luck!

I know a guy with a sweet 25-6.5 PRC that would give folks a run for their money. 😁

Yup, it was three shots. Jeff was having a little contest with his nephew and son-in-law. All three shot groups under .25" with Jeff's group winning. 🥇

Yup, a nice tight patch with solvent.

You're welcome! Good luck!

It was basically one single, bullet diameter hole from what I could tell. Pretty impressive. Even if his measurement was off, which is may be because like you said, measuring something that close is really tough, it isn't much bigger than that. Tough to measure though.

With groups, including 1 hole, you measure the widest spread of group or hole, outside to outside, and subtract the diameter of the bullet. This is the best you can do.

It could not have been two round through the same hole 6.5mm = .256”/2=.133” which as was said here the best possible group is .133” so there had to be approximately.090” of offset in the POI

Basically a single bullet hole. Pretty wild. Jeff is a talented shooter and master class reloader.

You are welcome Jeff. Good luck!

I will need it@@triggeredprecisionmachinellc

Hey buddy! I kind of determine that on a case by case basis. If its a rifle I shoot frequently, 99% of the time I will just wipe it down with some CLP and throw it in the safe. It its a rifle that I know won't come out of the safe for months, I'll clean it up for no reason other than its nice to not wonder if the barrel is in need of cleaning when it comes out. A couple things to keep in mind. I'm referring to bolt action rifles above. If you are shooting a semi auto, or even a suppressed semi-auto, those get dirty as a much, much faster interval and get cleaned much more frequently. Also, if you are shooting a rifle with a steel barrel, I would at the very least run a wet patch of CLP through that barrel after shooting and before storing. Those will be prone to rust and oxidation significantly more than a good quality stainless steel barrel. As long as you are shooting good quality, modern ammo with non-corrosive primers and powder, you don't have to worry about major oxidation with stainless barrels. It can still oxidize depending on the environment it's stored in, but I've never seen a barrel ruined by it. I've had some rifles in the shop (factory remington's with stainless sporter barrels) that were legitimately never cleaned in their life. No high round count because they were hunting rifles, but never cleaned over the several years they were owned. The barrels cleaned up fine and looked perfect in the bore scope. With the bolt action rifles I shoot alot, like my match rifles, I still go by the "clean when accuracy falls off" method. My cleaning intervals right now for my 6 BRA match rifle are about every 400 rounds. I don't notice any increased difficulty in getting the barrel clean at this point and accuracy never goes above 3/8" or so. Thanks for watching, I hope that helps.

Good skill, my friend. Get out there and crush it!

I consider "break in" to be two separate animals. The first 20 rounds serve to iron out any burrs left from the rifling and chambering process. Sure, more rounds will smooth things out more, but if the barrel is of good quality and the smith had good machining practices, those first 20 rounds should do the trick. Many people will argue to use a strict protocol of shoot one, clean, shoot one clean, or something of that nature, for the first few rounds. There has never been any proof that this does anything to prolong the life of the barrel or increase accuracy. It just takes time. Now the second part of the "break in" I was referring to are the changes in the bore that take place in the subsequent rounds. What we see in the next 50-200 rounds (this can vary widely), is *usually* a velocity increase and possible an accuracy increase. This is the throat and bore getting smoothed out from being shot. There is no way to predict the number of rounds for the barrel to fully stabilize so this is generally accepted and monitored by match shooters who need to be aware of the velocity changes. Hopefully that makes sense, if you have any other questions, feel free to email me.

@@triggeredprecisionmachinellc Makes perfect sense. Thank you!

Glad you enjoy it! Thanks for watching!!

I had a good laugh myself. I actually went out and bought a larger bottle of the Hoppes for stubborn barrels and sure enough, it works!!!!

@@triggeredprecisionmachinellc I'm actually running your test right now on the foaming Hoppes #9 and Montana X-treme's Copper Killer. That copper killer is so strong it dang near knocks me out everytime I open the bottle so I have to use it outside. I'll let you know how it turns out. I have a week and a half to go still.

AWESOME!!!! I've heard that stuff is pretty amazing. Curious to hear your results.

@@triggeredprecisionmachinellc Tomorrow completes the test, so I'll post the results that I get. The bullet I used was slightly different. I used the Sierra 168 grain Tipped MatchKing (TMK) bullet in .30 cal. I'm curious to see how the Montana Copper killer will compare. It smells so strong I can't use it in doors. I think it's mostly Ammonia, but just opening the bottle causes the air to become unbreathable almost instantly.

So after a 20 day soak in here are the facts. Started Apr 2nd, ended Apr 22nd. I calibrated the scale before taking any measurements. Using the Sierra 168 grain Tipped MatchKing (TMK) bullet in .30 cal Montana Xtreme's Copper Killer - starting weight of 168.08 grains, ending weight of 166.06 grains. Hoppes #9 foaming bore cleaner - starting weight of 168.07grains, ending weight of 166.96 grains. I weight each 3 times and it came up the same every time using my Creedmoor TRX-925 digital scale.

I've played with closer intervals as well and you are right. What I've seen is it is often determined by the bullet. The VLD / Hybrid (Secant / Hybrid Ogive) bullets benefit from the closer intervals more than some of the other tangent ogive bullets like the Sierra Match King. Depending on how the initial seating depth goes, I might find one node that is better than the rest on the "rough test" and do another seating depth test above and below that depth in smaller increments like .0025" or .005" That is a great point! Thank you for bringing that up.

Back yard ranges are the best 💪🏻 Thanks for joining!

Thanks for the heads up, I will inspect mine tomorrow!

@@triggeredprecisionmachinellc that came directly from Trevor at bore tech when I spoke to him on the phone when I asked him about the C4 carbon remover.

Good to know. Thank you!

Are you seeing copper or carbon on the patch? What chemical are you using?

@@triggeredprecisionmachinellc I’m using Hoppes 9 and I’ve tried break free clp and it’s carbon

Try a more aggressive solvent. Hoppes #9 smells nice but its not the best solvent out there. Try Hoppe's benchrest or a Bore Tech product. It may take several cycles of wet patches and scrubbing, but you will get it.

Welcome aboard! Thank you for watching!

Awesome! I hope to see a tight 20-shot group from one of those rifles in the spring challenge!

Yes. That is the way.

Well I appreciate that. It would be awesome to have an actual lab at my disposal to play around with! 😁

It's usually very consistent. I take a lot of notes and try to replicate everything I do, every time.

OCW first, seating depth to fine tune precision. 😁