Seating Depth Tested - Can COAL Tune Anything? - Stop Chasing the lands

[@ErikCortina]

Don’t listen to Erik, that guy doesn’t know anything. 😁

[@BoltActionReloading]

Yeah that Erik guy is crazy. Haven't you seen his comments section? I didn't see your name when I saw the comment and wondered who the hell said that, but when I saw it was you it made a little more sense. This combo has been particularly troublesome for me, so I had high hopes. Is the CBTO variance the problem or just test keep testing out further?

[@ntaylor1829]

lol...probably spent more time with Erik than my wife this week. I'm in the doghouse now.

[@ErikCortina]

@@BoltActionReloading Seating depth with reveal the best tune for your load, but it doesn't mean it will be acceptable if you know what I mean. I once had a load that just would not tune, and I kept going. All of the sudden it started working really good.

[@BoltActionReloading]

@@ErikCortina kept going meaning keep decreasing the COAL?

[@ErikCortina]

@@BoltActionReloading Yes.

[@randyemenhiser2573]

I appreciate your vids. You present everything in a way that allows me to learn something, and make my own informed decision as to how to proceed with my loads.

[@upnorthreloading2214]

Bravo and sublime! One thing that really stands out to me, because I'm a weirdo, is how much the points in impact change with all your groups. Although there is a general trend where you groups are either a little bit to the left or right just below the center of the target, even with the "nodes" where there does not seem to be a major shift in the center of the point of impact there is a noted difference in accuracy.

[@aimgood3428]

I really appreciate all your hard work and data collection. It really helps us save time and money In these times where supplies are so limited and expensive. I hope you continue in this series with showing how bullet length affects accuracy in finding The Sweet Spot.

[@WilhelmNauta]

One of the best videos ever on load development. Detailed and supported by facts. Keep it up!

[@cornydad]

I've played around with BCTO with various projectiles, and it seems to me that barrels prefer certain bullets. I am able to improve groups sizes but not every bullet reaches the same accuracy/consistency. So I don't spend a lot of time trying to get a certain bullet to shoot well. I find a powder charge with a low SD/ES and then do the BCTO test one time through.

[@robridesstuff]

Love your work, I'm about to start load dev on 155gr and 175gr .308, between yours and Eric's vids you've probably saved me a lot of frustration and time.

[@BoltActionReloading]

Great to hear!

[@rbm6184]

I agree. I used to chase the lands but don't any more. I look for the chamber sweet spot/accuracy node. All I need to know is accuracy differential/deviation of the COAL. Where the best accuracy is for the chamber in between lower bullet seating depth and higher bullet seating depth. Some rifle chambers will like the bullet closer to the lands and some farther away. But I know longer set the bullet seating depth to the lands. Instead I work on low and high seating depth groupings to find the sweet spot.

[@njgrplr2007]

This is a great video. I know you spent a lot of time and money making this video and I would like to offer a big THANK YOU for your efforts. That said, you certainly answered the question, Can COAL tune anything, when you showed that a 1.3" group can easily become a .4" group with a simple .003" seating depth adjustment. This is something that will help me as I continue testing the 142g Accubond Long Range in my 6.5 Creedmoor. My problem with the Creedmoor is I am constrained to a COAL of 2.800 - 2.830" with my AICS magazines. I will have more latitude to test with my new custom 6.5 PRC, which is being built on a Weatherby Vanguard Long Action. My experience with the 143g ELD-X is very similar to yours. I tested it a lot with H4350, RL-26, Lapua and Peterson brass, CCI 400 and 450 primers, Federal 210 and 210M primers, etc. My best result was a .485" 5-shot group/SD=8 with 41.2g of H4350, but subsequent validation tests were erratic. Frankly, I was only interested in the 143g ELD-X for hunting and gave up on it after finding a much better option in a yellow box. What I find crazy is how the 200g ELD-X shoots consistent one hole groups with my .300 Win Mag. and the 143 is so inconsistent in the 6.5.

[@bwarrior6340]

Will be interesting to see how the PRC handles the 143 Eld X. Could be that it just need a bit more velocity than what the creedmoor can give. Who knows?

[@slightenigma]

Your data is actually pointing toward a good logical conclusion. The 140 is the optimum projectile for your rifle. If you want a longer 6.5 you need to step up to the 260 Remington.

[@BoltActionReloading]

The 140s seem to work well in everything I try them in. The 1:7.5 twist should give me some more freedom with longer stuff. I plan on doing some work with the 147 ELD-M as well as the 150 SMK to see what this extra twist rate lets us accomplish.

[@slightenigma]

@@BoltActionReloading you have plenty of twist, but your engine is gradually being placed into heavier cars. If you want to push a heavy 6.5, may I suggest the merging of nostalgia and technology and look at the 6.5-06?

[@thomasteac8919]

Thank you for all the information and analogies. I’ve been reloading for a while and I cannot keep up with all your charts and graphs. Really I’ve got nothing out of what you’re talking about. Maybe you need to highlight the points you’re talking about on your graphs.

[@Jiminico]

I know it's probably a bit disappointing that the test/results/charts didn't work out/look better. But a couple of things to consider. Although Hornady said they wanted to come up with a hunting bullet, (the ELD-X) that you can shoot a match with, their original marketing campaign even said that this is just half MOA bullet. So one may assume that may be under the best of conditions and not all the time. Then add to that, they say it is a difficult bullet to manufacture because they are blending multiple different technologies. I'm thinking this is causing some inconsistencies even within a single lot, never mind from lot to lot. Also, we may not be comparing apples to apples between these and the 140 ELD-M's. (or 147's) Obviously we know this is a hunting bullet and designed for expanding (and usually very reasonably priced before these crazy times) and of course the ELD-M's are match bullets specifically designed for uniformity and accuracy. Maybe expectations are too high. Not to say we don't try to develop the best load for it especially for a hunting application. I have 140 and 147 ELD-M's on hand and have never shot the 143's. But it seems like the 143 is in some ways very similar to the 147's. I think the length is the same and maybe the profile, bearing surface, etc too. But there's obviously less lead in the 143, in the void at the nose in particular and a bit less around the interlock where there is slightly more (lighter) copper. I'm just wondering how that affects the center of gravity and how they fly, especially if the bullets are difficult to manufacture as they say and possibly may not be as consistent as the ELD-M's. I'll be interested to see where you go from here and best of luck!

[@DakotaDinwoodie]

I haven't been able to find 143 eld-x outside of factory loads, but with the factory length loads they shoot lights out in my gun. Maybe this is still applicable. When I started testing 142ABLRs in my gun, I put them to 20 thou (2.910coal) and started testing. Found my velocity node and its been single digit es's all day, but I could not get sub-moa performance on the paper. Burned though 100 bullets before I decided to do a seating depth test in 20 thou incriments instead in 3 thou. I started with the shortest, at 2.730oal (150 thou shorter than anything I tested before) and it wasn't great. 2.750 also wasn't great. But 2.770 and 2.790 were both clover-leaf groups. Next 2 groups opened up so I went home and seated what I had left in 3 thou incriments between the 2.770 and 2.790. TL;DR seat them a couple hundred thou off the lands and work up in 20 thou incriments. see what happens, worked for me.

[@BoltActionReloading]

Hi Dakota, your description is somewhere close to bergers method. I plan on taking a closer look at it, as well, eventually. The most important thing (IMO) is to have a process and follow it to conclusion. I just have a long history of hate of these projectiles, and its not over yet. The factory OAL that I had on the couple boxes I got (also didn't perform well, for me) was 2.820". Scott Satterlee, Mark (from SAC) and Cal Zant all have some interesting info on projectile jump. I am not using every single style interchangeably (yet) to try and keep things simple. I think it is likely that both have their advantages / disadvantages. My guess is if the answer was .020 off that Erik's procedure wins if its .150 off, the other would win. Just like directions there are many roads that lead to the same place. Finding the google maps directions of getting there fastest is the challenge. Everyone is more sensitive to this with the supply shortage issues of all the components right now. BAR

[@davidschmidt5810]

I like your videos and scientific approach. I’ve done some testing on jump at various distances and found some interesting results. Due to positive compensation, longer distances may give you different results. Since I compete at 600 yards, this is the distance I like to test. Try to pick a calm day, but you’d be surprised on what you can learn. Thanks

[@spencertoolandgrind]

I love the fact that Benchrest techniques are being used.

[@BoltActionReloading]

I am willing to try anything once, maybe even twice!

[@Dwayne7834]

Thanks for the video and information.

[@BoltActionReloading]

No problem!

[@zaynemikita6897]

Would agree, I seriously have never had any issues with 140gr ELDMs. I haven't used the ELDX bullets but I know Johnnys Reloading Bench i believe had good luck with the ELDX bullets. Thank you for all the detailed content!!

[@BoltActionReloading]

JRB has had far more luck with these than I have. This is one of my suspicions that my lot has too much variation in it. Can't find a new box on the shelf at the moment, but buying another box of something that isn't working isn't a great option for me either.

[@redraiderreloading7612]

With the quickload and the run down on bullets per milliseconds barrel time. Gave me my best ever group last weekend.. h4350 and 140 eld I shot a .181 at 100 yards.. I was really surprised that it worked....

[@jeremyjames83]

I would like to see you run overall length tests on 9 mm pistol cartridges

[@diggernash1]

You are all over an old bench rest trick. Load long with almost no neck tension and let closing the bolt finish seating the bullet. Blowing powder out of the action is a pain when you have to eject a round without firing though...lol

[@marelambrechts7712]

As always, excellent, wish I could give you more "thumbs Up"

[@DupsOutdoorAdventures]

I have 2 boxes of the 143 ELDX bullets that shot like crap out of two different rifles (a Tikka, and a Bergara HMR). i measured them last year, (not pulling them out right now) and the numbers were all over the place using my hornady calipers and comp set. I tossed theme up on the shelf and forgot about them. i think i even got 2-3 grains difference in weight... maybe i'll pull them out and verify.

[@cecilandrews7479]

I spent a year going down this road. I ended up doing five groups of each to determine consistency. I found that the Eld's are extremely finicky when it comes to jump.

[@davidgreer9567]

I'm no expert by any means but in my opinion you have fired a lot of rounds and tried many things. Like you said tune something that shoots good already. Unless you just like the challenge and determined to find a load I'd say on to a new test. That being said I kinda want to see you whoop this and show it whose boss:) Thanks for another video

[@kjmdrumz3]

I’ve stopped playing with seating depth much. It’s easier and uses fewer components to slap on an EC Tuner/Brake and dial it in once finding a good charge weight. Find jam, back it off 50-60 thousandths, and tune it in. Works every time.

[@BM905]

Hi. On my experiments I can tell you that I discard the 168gr HPBT (308) because it looked almost like a shotgun group (😁) so I kept using the 175gr HPBT. Then I gave it a try on the spare ones because of these "chase the lands" and COAL theme... and managed to get close to the .3 and .4 groups like the 175. Not as good but close. Now i use them too

[@andy347495]

I wonder if increasing the powder charge at 2.192 aol to get the velocity up ~2900 would bring the group size back down.

[@ryanmichaelking]

I might have missed it, but at the "finding the powder charge" stage of this load development, what CBTO length did you use? 2.240"(0.015" off jam)? Presumably, before testing seating depth you had to decide on a CBTO to test all the charge weights. Just want to understand how you determined that. Thanks!

[@10dannyp89]

I sort my 143’s by bearing surface length, or at least what I can measure running dual comparators, 143’s I have measured up to 7 thou variation. That is sorting 2-300 bullets at a time. That said my rifle prefers the 143 over the 140, and doing full seating depth and powder tuning I am seeing consistently smaller groups with the 143’s.

[@AdamPerkinsPhD]

Thanks for an interesting video - you may be interested to check out Mark and Sams extra long range videos, as they use a simple process. They use the maximum powder load that doesn't cause sticky bolt lift then set the bullet to 75 thou off the lands. They then try different bullet types using those parameters and go with whichever bullet type works best.

[@jessewerner4067]

One more reason NOT to watch those guys. That's asking for problems, possibly serious pressure issues

[@G5Hohn]

42.6 of RL16 is too warm in my Savage. I get swipes and notable case head expansion. 41.5 seems to be the place to be for RL16 in my gun. At least with LRP Starline. I run RL26 in Peterson SRP now. ~46gr is the verge of pressure with 147s and will give just over 2850 in a 26" OEM savage bbl. I'm going to try to find a lower node to help the brass a bit. Super impressed with the Pete so far.

[@BoltActionReloading]

I have nothing but good tings to say about all the Peterson brass I have tested so far. I haven't life cycled it next to lapua but based on case growth I can't imagine its significantly different, but again I have not tested it. There is going to be lot to lot variation on powder and a change in primer can have a affect on peak pressure too. I have an interesting example (IMO) of this on one of my loads that I may cover in a future video.

[@jdfuller1946]

Very interesting. I just ran a test to see what I could get and differences in velocity from two different temperatures actually 31 and ice temperature one at hot water temperature which happened to be about 90°. I was shooting a shot of a A.R. 10 and 65 Creedmoor with a 22 inch heavy barrel and a Harrell tuner break on it… That’s another story Well, I was shocked to find no significant difference in the muscle velocity of the two five round groups. groups. I was shooting 140 grain Nosler RDS over 41.6 grains of R16. The muscle velocity for the 90° load was three feet per second less than the cold load! 2713 hot, 2716 hot. This blew my mind and I am going to repeat the test to see if it’s possibly true. I was getting frustrated trying to find a accuracy node for my AR 10… As I said it’s a heavy barrel, .92” at muzzle. I was probably averaging about 7/8 of an inch groups but felt like I should’ve been able to do better… I tried letters with H4350 and or R16. So I had a bagel curiosity I decided I would try the Harrel tactical 1 inch muzzle brake/tuner. It was a total mind blowing experience. My average group for nine 3 round groups was .66 and I had three groups that were between .3 and .4 inches. I am still experimenting but it looks like if you’re shooting a slower round you have to extend the tuner (in my case, from 100 setting to 110 setting) to maintain the bullet exit on the downward or upward swing/apogee.

[@ironDsteele]

I watched Erik's videos and they are informative. I much prefer how assertive and on point you are in your videos. You summed up two of his in the first 5 minutes of this video, and I had 12 more minutes to analyze and learn much more beyond that. Be that as it may, I have all the respect in the world for what Erik has accomplished. On another note, when you're testing the primer and powder combo are you starting as close to Jam (e.g. - .015") as you plan on testing so you don't run into pressure issues later? When you start backing off CBTO at stage 3 testing to find the best node the pressure will only drop from there.

[@BoltActionReloading]

Hello, I am very glad you enjoy the channel and the presentation style. Everybody learns differently so I think (I am biased) that this complements that information. I need data to understand and wrap my head around something, this is just the way I am. When running the powder / primer test if you are seated as deep into the lands you will ever be and testing for pressure (assuming you are in the lands) this should be the worst case for pressure. (I you start seating super short this may change so YYMV) If you haven't seen the COAL vs Velocity video I go into slightly more detail there. BAR

[@DenverLoveless]

The ELD-X is designed as a Hunting projectile. They are Not designed for paper, as the ELD-M is. Also, more is expected out of "match grade" rather than hunting grade every time. The ELD-X bullets have much thicker jackets, a longer bearing surface, longer oal & the interior is stronger to retain mass for better expansion/penetration in game. Twist/stabilization may be an issue to consider.. Not to mention that tolerances are more liberal for a "hunting" bullet. Ethical hunting should not be in excess of the distance 1300 fps equates to in whatever loading your using. Hence 1 moa is acceptable for most hunting applications. Obtaining 1/2 moa is awesome for that projectile in a Hunting application. Fact is we're not trying to win any 1000 yard competitions when hunting & the ELD-X reflects that.

[@johnnash5118]

Thumbs up from me. Your points were very clear to me, but the OP and most of his followers here don't appear to distinguish the different aspects important between game hunting-terminal ballistics and target shooting-exterior ballistics. I might add though, that these ELD-X bullets are best at terminal velocities between 2,800 and 1,800 fps; less than minimum velocity= inadequate expansion, more than maximum velocity= overexpansion toward disintegration due to its delicate cup and draw lead core. Out of my 260AI, which I chambered my custom barrel for them, they're adequate between 50 and 750 yards for deer, I use Nosler AB's for elk.

[@stevechavez83]

Dude, your are a savage!! Great video. I'm trying to develop a load for this off brand pistol powder called "CBI". It's not working very well with my Glock 17 so I was interested in testing different seating depths in hopes of creating some cost effective plinking ammo for the range. This make me hopeful that I may find a combo that will run the gun and be 1moa or less at 35 - 50yrds. Thanks

[@mtnshooter2487]

I'm going to have to read my Glenn Zediker book again.

[@Nonedw]

I always verify the velocity node. IMHO I believe the reason EC doesn’t is because of his revolving choice of cartridge and he just knows what is going to work due to his experience. I actively load and shoot 20+ cartridges, sell and buy and start again. When you have enough experience...like with a .308W you have a very good idea of where to start.

[@BoltActionReloading]

There is no replacement for experience, that's for sure.

[@treece1]

Are you a sierra fan? I see guys using Sierra and i stared using them in replacement of the Nosler bullets I had been using. My target match projectile is Burger,. But what I was getting at was Im thinking solid monolithic projectiles vs BTs poly tips fly the distance if your pushing envelope with speed. I know the company s have done the research, But there is bullet deformation at higher speeds with poly tip vs Mono. Mono moly was what I think Iv read some those guys use at 1000 yard open sight matches. Don't they need the speed?

[@BoltActionReloading]

Hi Treece, I think most companies make a decent product. I have had the least luck with nosler, so I use them less. I don't have much experience with the monolithic styles yet, so I don't have much to offer you there.

[@wesleyturner1979]

After you found your charge and col did you sort the bullets by weight? I did that with some Barnes and it significantly reduced my groups.

[@BoltActionReloading]

Hi Wesley, I did not sort the projectiles. I plan on covering their subject in appropriate detail but there are so many ways to sort and most people these days are advocating for the OAL more than the weight. I am not making any judgments until I test it out. I am not surprised that this could help the Barnes out as I know I have seen more variation with them, but I am reserving judgment till I put it on paper. BAR

[@wesleyturner1979]

@@BoltActionReloading ya my Barnes had a 4 grain difference between the heaviest and lightest. Most were in the middle about a grain lower than advertised. I’m not surprised your not getting superior accuracy out of a Hornady product either. Every time I buy something Hornady I end up replacing it with something else…. but they’re so cheap it’s hard to resist! I should have resisted their powder thrower that has now magically become a powder scale!

[@clapton924]

Are you shooting a custom barrel? Since the variation is mostly small, you would need to repeat this test a few times to see if it's more than chance.

[@Nonedw]

It is a custom barrel. I agree and other than his case neck having some large variation... I just think his barrel is suck an ID size that it prefers the 140gr

[@jcarry5214]

Your testing attitude, without foregone conclusions, is really great man. Very refreshing. But also: Who's here just to ogle that jug of powder?

[@ntaylor1829]

RL 16 and 23 are top on my list once the shelves are restocked. Until then, I can dream

[@jonnybds3]

Actually, EC does talk about it extensively in another video which he references in that video. "Chasing the lands is stupid" was more of a follow up video.

[@CYOTsNiper]

What if your doing this for an auto? Should you load to max magazine length and work back from there or forget about trying this at all with auto?

[@BoltActionReloading]

Yes start and mag length and shorten.

[@Physics072]

That has to be frustrating all that work to get those groups. I can buy off the shelf ammo for my .204 and beat that even my .17 wsm can beat that with rim fire ammo. Something is wrong here, over thinking and not getting results.

[@kimyoung1093]

I’m currently trying to get the 6 mm eld-x in the 243 to shoot and I’m not having such good luck , 90 grains

[@BoltActionReloading]

What is the twist rate of your barrel?

[@politicallyinsensitive4200]

All o got from this was that 90ish% of the time one round is going to be just as accurate in a given shooters hand as the next.... And I'm going to continue to look for the smallest 5 shot group size.

[@rickm4295]

What is considered heavy for caliber in the 6.5 Creed world? Im still messing around with .308 and I dont even try to shoot 180gr-200+ gr bullets.

[@BoltActionReloading]

Anything over 140 is a little heavy.

[@rickm4295]

@@BoltActionReloading Gotcha, thanks

[@tucobenedicto1780]

Which is the correct order? COAL testing first, then develop the correct powder charge? Or develop the correct powder charge, and COAL testing second? Or a third item--bullet selection? I'm going crazy here.

[@BoltActionReloading]

No one seems to agree, but this process does the powder/primer first and COAL second. The testing showed that changing the COAL did not degrade the statistics that we found with the original test so I don't see a negative to doing the powder first.

[@John_Redcorn_]

I think the overwhelmingly common method is to do the powder/charge weight then fine tune with seating depth. I doubt youll find many loads that are garbage that get magically turned into awesome groups by messing with seating depth. Thats my opinion, anyways. If i dont find a good group with that powder, then i move on to the next one.

[@justinvandee2008]

Did you sort the bullets by measuring base of bullet to ogive? I wrote that comment before you said you sorted the balance. I have had up to 5 thou variance so ditched the eldx. But sorted by BTO they did better. Cheers

[@BoltActionReloading]

Thanks for the reply Justin! I hate having to sub sort groups. I don't want to buy 1000 to get a reasonable number that are the same. I have had many tell me how well they worked it just hasn't been my experience.

[@justinvandee2008]

@@BoltActionReloading even with a box of 100 you can sort and group them together so you do not have possible wide spread. My thinking is if CBTO is set by seater I want the base of bullet to be set at same place in the cartridge too. Plus the profile of the bullets are same. Might not make a huge difference at 100 but step that out to 1000 then helps so you limit vertical and just need to play the wind. Cheers

[@shanerhodes925]

Also your comparing match bullets to hunting bullets. I'm sure match bullets are built to a higher standard than hunting bullets. I would like to see the eldm compared to like a matching

[@Nonedw]

What is the thickness of your necks? Do you neck turn? Do you know the variances of your case neck thickness?

[@BoltActionReloading]

I don't remember off the top of my head. I have never really felt the need to turn Lapua brass, its very consistent and have had very good luck with it.

[@Nonedw]

@@BoltActionReloading understood. I just got Lapua in 7-08. It had 3.5 - 4thou run out prior to mandrel. 2-3thou after and .0005 or less after neck turned. Case neck thickness will impact alignment of the bullet release and impact SD/ES

[@rotasaustralis]

With twenty 3 shot groups, you have enough data points to gain a reasonable idea. So, using your mean group of 0.66 MOA & calculating for a 90% confidence interval & scaling based on 5 shot groups, your future groups should range from 1.57 MOA to 0.43 MOA. If you combine all of your target data & take the overall aggregate, you should find something approaching 1.5 MOA & if not, another 20 groups combined with this lot of 20, will surely get you there. The reason I've calculated based on the mean of the combined 3 shot groups & not the SD's is because the 3 shot SD's have only 2 data points per group &, do not correlate to a 2 dimensional aggregate of 59 data points around the POA however, the mean would not be much different in any case & can be used to correlate a population distribution which, is how you & most others look at this information anyway. Anyhow, great stuff, thanks for the time & effort. Regards Rotas.

[@BoltActionReloading]

Hi Rotas, Glad you see you digging in! BAR

[@rotasaustralis]

@@BoltActionReloading Just to clarify, the figures I quoted are actually very good for most rifles. The two MOA figures of 1.5 & 0.43 should be representative of +/- 2 SD's of the gaussian range which, equates to about 95% of that rifles future group size distribution. That is quite excellent if the rifle isn't an F-Class or Bench rest rifle. Since I did not apply a multiplying factor to the mean value of 0.666 MOA, your groups will be a little larger over the life of the barrel however, 1.5 MOA is close enough & quite excellent for the type of rifle. You can easily measure the rifles accuracy if you overlay your test targets & aggregate all the shots from one POA. By just eyeballing the targets, I can see the aggregate as maybe a little over 1 MOA now. Another 20 groups aggregated to this 20 will tell the tale. This is how Bench rest shooters measure their rifle group size &, the only real way to show a rifles true accuracy potential. If you're unsure of what I'm referring to, look at your targets & pay attention to the target camera app, "centre of each group"; the black cross hair. This is used to calculate ATC or Mean Radius from the POI, not the POA. In order to correlate the absolute ES for these data samples, you must take the aggregate or combined ES for the total data set about a common POA because, the centre of POI for each 3 shot group shifts or, is distributed around the POA. In reality, this has & will apply to every shot the rifle takes over it's lifetime but, to get an idea of what that range will be, we have to use statistics &, those statistics will only predict accurately if, there are enough data to allow the math to reveal where, on a gaussian distribution the rifle is. You said it yourself, "you've never seen more shots produce anything but larger groups" &, that's because that is what actually happens, to a point. Testing should be done in order to reveal where that point is. At the moment you're tracking fairly normally with the ES/SD ratio of 4.01. That will reach about 6, however, the SD will reduce while the ES will enlarge so, it doesn't mean that your rifles 3SD gaussian distribution will get much wider. ALL in all, you did good. Regards.............Rotas.

[@fomerbu]

This is a underrated comment. Great analysis

[@pjwebb6520]

Where can I find that tension mandril kit?

[@BoltActionReloading]

21st century reloading.

[@pjwebb6520]

@@BoltActionReloading thank you

[@G5Hohn]

A couple comments: -- Don't assign any meaning to ES or SD values from 3 shot groups other than one particularly bad ES might be a load to avoid. Statistically, all your ES values are basically indistinguishable from each other (sample of n=3). And only if you trust your chronograph would I rule out the "bad" ES values. See Cal Zant's PrecisionRifleBlog recent posting on shooting stats-- it's really insightful. -- You probably only need to show the best and worst groups, maybe not every single one. And maybe not every possible view of all your data. Remember, you cannot please all your commenters, so adding tons of extra stuff just to please a few commenters will make more work for to produce something that could or should be edited out anyway. -- The cyclic trend of group size opening and closing at each increment of OAL is really fascinating. The best OAL you tested IMO is the 2.836 because the next 0.012" of OAL is pretty stable. Stability is what you want and that OAL range might be the best you can do with this bullet. I'd go with that OAL and see if fine tuning the charge weight might help.

[@BoltActionReloading]

G5, First you are entitled to your opinion, However a few items for consideration. -ES data - If you don't like it don't use it. (probably a reoccurring theme in all of my videos) I am not trying to hide data and everyone likes to look at things differently. While I agree N=3 is not very useful kindly consider that the variation between data points on this chart is .003" What is your process variation? Variation exists in all things. If you combined each data point with the one around it on the chart the ES's hold in almost all cases. So now your N=6, or 9, depends on how you want to look at it. If you watched the How COAL affects velocity video, I dive a little deeper on this data set. I could show this but it borders on adding too much complexity for the intended topic of the video. With this data I am trying to convey 1 thing. Even though the COAL is changing the performance of the load is still very good. Adding all data points form the entire test 52 shots the avg velocity was 2888 SD - 8.6 and ES - 35 changing the COAL over .060" and being in and out of the lands. Many would be happy with these numbers with no intended variation in their process. Also I was validating the data against 2 chronographs, to highlight any disagreements, I believe the data to be valid. Again, if you don't like the data, don't use it. -Groups - if I don't show them in the video I get endless comments about why they aren't there. Everyone looks at things and learns differently, its not wrong, its human. Why a lot of people don't like math is they were taught there was only one way to do it. Again I time stamped the video so if you wanted to skip them you easily could. I have a couple pieces of equipment on order that I hope to add to this conversation, but don't want to go into any detail until I can validate my concept. - The trend is interesting and where I am certainly still building my data set on how to use this test methodology more effectively. Personally I am happy with none of these. Erik's comment below makes me optimistic that there may be consistency at a shorter COAL yet, but I won't know till I test. BAR

[@G5Hohn]

@@BoltActionReloading I forgot to say-- thank you for making the video! It's a lot of work and I appreciate it.

[@Thoseaboutto911]

Same bullet ,same. velocity , different powder, Will they still have the same seating Depth node ?

[@BoltActionReloading]

Good question and something that I hope to look into more in depth.

[@joecombs8236]

Buddy, the problem is your Powder ! I have 3 Crerdmoors For 140 gr stick with H4350 or IMR 4350 for 130 Gr stick with Reloader 15 !!! For 123 or 120 gr stick with Varget !!! I have a 3 Custom Barrels , Keriger , Brux , and a Lilja NONE like Reloader 16 well I should say 1/2 inch groups or bigger. It’s a great hunting powder !! Also try some of the new HUNTER powder works awesome too !!! On all 6.5 !!! Good luck buddy

[@BoltActionReloading]

Hi Joe, I have tried the 143 behind H4350, IMR 4350, RL-17, H100V and probably some I have chose to forget. All pretty disappointing to me. The 143 is just my nemesis.

[@jcarry5214]

Does anyone get great groups out of alliant powder? I've only tried 17 and There was just no tuning it down below .9 for 5 shots with any projectiles, where IMR4451 got me under .7, as low as .5, and h4831 got me under .5 easily and I could expect to shoot multiple .25"or less 5-shot groups in a session. I hear more praise for its speed than its accuracy.

[@mattfleming86]

It depends on the powder. I love AR-Comp. Absolutely my favorite powder. Consistent, wide nodes, very temp stable, very versatile, etc. Reloader 15 has provided good groups but is more finicky. Varmint and 2000MR can give GREAT velocity (much like cfe223) but are not as stable and require more tuning and weather awareness. I typically load for .223/5.56 and 308 though.. Going into 6.5 class powders I have no experience to speak of.

[@jcarry5214]

@@mattfleming86 That makes sense. I bet it depends on the quality of the setup too. I will say my gun s fussy in general. It shoots fine with most ammo but shrinks groups like a poked caterpillar when it likes something. But even with a lot of extra brass detailing I couldn't get better with the 17 than good factory ammo, it was odd. I met a guy the other day who swore his 260AI "only" shot well with RL26 which is just biblically unlucky right now.

[@Prometheuss.cannabis.corner]

Try 19 or 23.

[@jb-dc1tt]

I’ve got an experiment for you try if you haven’t already.... get some dry neck lube and load up several diff charge weights with and without neck lube. You might be surprised!?

[@BoltActionReloading]

I have thought about something like this before but I wanted to figure out what "moly" Lou Merdica uses and have that as part of the sample. I know there are a lot of opinions on the subject.

[@jb-dc1tt]

It’s just about the same thing, graphite “neck lube”. I tested today surprised to say the least.

[@jb-dc1tt]

If you look on the bottle in lou’s vid the bottle, I think it says “powder” on the side.... similar to dry neck lube? I think so.

[@BoltActionReloading]

He calls it moly. I have seen others link to a product but not sure exactly what it is. I am fairly certain it's not graphite, but some use it as well. If I covered it I would like to check a range of options

[@jb-dc1tt]

Agreed I don’t think it’s the same but I do thinks it’s similar, good luck and love the vids

[@daviddiebold7357]

Sometimes they just won’t shoot

[@BoltActionReloading]

That is my feeling on the matter, I haven't really been any good at giving up though😉

[@MrMJD1978]

3 shots are not a good test from my experience. I measure best group of 4 with 5 shots. Data are easier to read and you get clear show of what’s going on

[@jessewerner4067]

If a group of 3 isn't what you're looking for, more rounds will not improve it. Gotta think about this a little differently. Sometimes I'll stop at 2 shots of a 3 shot group if it's not producing what I'm looking for

[@MrMJD1978]

@@jessewerner4067 I think this has a lot to do with the quality of the platform you’re using. My rifle is quite cheap and I’m shooting from a bipod, getting 1 flyer out of a group of five, happens, if I shoot 3rounds per load, I can get some unreadable data. Different story if you have a benchrest rifle with a good heavy rest

[@worksonjunk]

Try h4350 with those bullets. You'll thank me later.

[@BoltActionReloading]

Hi Matt, I have. Probably at least 5 others as well.

[@worksonjunk]

@@BoltActionReloading have you tried using the .263 mandrel in the Sinclair body

[@BoltActionReloading]

Hi Matt, I am not sure exactly what you are asking. I have used multiple expander mandrels in the Sinclair / 21st century body. I have not tried 10 different values of neck tension with this projectile. I know that some have had luck with it. I have not. For this I used the .262 mandrel as I have had the best luck universally keeping the ES / SD low. (hopefully that was apparent in the data) Tuning COAL was the only point of the video, I may try and change the COAL some more to see if it settles in.

[@worksonjunk]

I have not tried all bullets but this one shoots at a short length, and at 41.0 grains h4350 cci br4 srp in Lapua brass. 1 thou of neck tension but I am using a Collet die. Not many like them but I find it can work like a FL die if setup in a certain way.

[@johnholmes4960]

Why is it, when I bought two guns exactly alike, and bought the same exact ammo, they don’t shoot the same? All things being equal here, in watching your videos, you do put a lot of effort in your reloading. You must spend a boat load of money on your hobby. Which is ok fine Jim dandy with me. What I do not see is consistency in your shooting putting bullets in the same hole. Why is that? So, what is the probability of you putting three shots in one hole? Forget standard deviation..........show me. You do it first. Show me the proof what you are telling me, actually works. Now, OGIVE......here is the real deal here. When I look at three reloading books and the SAAMI drawing on .223, it tells me my inside barrel diameter is major 0.224 and the minor is 0.219 and all dimensions are +0.002/-0.0. Somewhere on the bullet is a diameter of 0.219”. That point has to touch the minor diameter with a very specific class of fit. What is it, sir? A cartridge has to have an overall length in order for it to fit properly. It has a “NOT TO EXCEED” value. It can be a little shorter, but not longer. My old Remington 700 BDL in .223 loves, without a doubt, Winchester USA2232 45 grain hollow point that it is a waste of money shooting it. My howa 1500 hates everything. I bought two more Remington 700, one loves a 55 grain, the other hates it. As expected. No two guns will shoot the same because of these two words that people get confused with. Tolerances and clearances. The tolerance is how much can you deviate from the nominal, and the clearance is how much room is needed for things to work properly. They need to be balanced. Reloading is not cheap. It is convenient. It is a hobby. It is a very expensive hobby to get started. Personally, the data collection first is more important that pulling that handle playing with some serious stuff. In all honesty, I have NOT thrown one grain of powder yet. But my data collection at this time is showing me just how expensive this hobby is. Playing highly explosive components can be deadly. So....this just for my take and my own personal process, my safety and others around me come first. What I think or like does not matter here. What my gun likes does. It seems to me, shooting is an effort to probably put only one hole on a piece of paper with five shots going into the same hole, ......probably....I think....maybe.... in 1966 in basic we had M-14 rifles 7.62. Those guys of my same vintage know what I am talking about. To me, this was the worlds best battle rifle, not discounting what General Patton said about the M-1. Putting that hole on paper in the same place as best we can would qualify us. We started at 25 meters or yards. Knocking the target down was good enough at any distance. That was considered a kill shot. This was with open sights. If my round was to make contact with you on the battle field, then we did our job. We being my rifle, my pony and me. So, in closing I am confused when you refer to your interpretation of “standard deviation” how are you using it, and what are you using it for, plus what is your expected outcome,...like....what number are you trying to achieve by showing me on a target with holes that you shot. Thanks. Safety first, always.