VarmLR

...on Youtube:  

I wonder what the UKV views are on "2 thou' seating difference" becoming significant to harmonic nodes?

Is this just naval gazing or is 2 thou really that sensitive in relation to barrel time?

I agree in principle with not chasing lands, which I've found even  for shooting VLD type bullets is meaningless given that the throat and jump to lands is a changing feast.  I've always started by noting the bullet jam seating for the bullets I intend on using, in a new barrel, then starting 10 thou off and working backwards during load development until I found a node, then tweaking powder charge for lowest MV SD.  I've found that iterative because powder charge then can alter barrel time hence optimum seating depth again but usually I find a couple of nodes for optimum group size and SD at perhaps 2 seating depths back from my start position and these become my seating depths which then I don't alter.  If temperatures change enough to affect load, I tweak the load and note the data for temperature and revised load as I update Strelok for powder sensitivity using this data but the seating depth I keep the same.

From the interview, I was surprised to note Jack's method of "two shot" groups to get one hole, and developing loads on that basis.

19 hours ago, Triffid said:

I agree too.

In this instance I think the NRA is acting correctly in getting ahead of MOD concerns about reloaded ammunition.

However as  a Club Chairman, it looks like I'm going to be asked to sign-off on the competence of my members who reload, which gives me some concerns. But if the NRA is going to issue a code of practise, that would help. Otherwise I'll have to stipulate that members (including myself) attend a course, but I do that anyway for things that are beyond my competence to assess (eg Target Shotgun and HME).

Triffid

You're in an awkward position there and I can see why you have to do something to demonstrate some sort of risk mitigation.  However, many reloaders who are experienced could probably well give the course, so sitting in on a basic reloading safety course won't prevent stupid.  It's those with little reloading experience jumping straight in at the deep end with the club perhaps unaware which surely is where the emphasis needs to be?  It'll all be based on trust whichever way it goes unless we get to the stage no one wants to be at such as sitting exams to wave a nationally recognised piece of paper about.   Simple measures have existed in the past such as a declaration of load which can be cross checked, but who will do the checking and as raised before, book values are not something universal as many target shooters with custom rifles develop their own safe limits which may be very different in their rifles to a load manual.  It's a difficult one in order to become sensible without becoming unworkable or meaningless.  I agree that the NRA have to do something as the MOD might otherwise decide keep their ranges shut to clubs.

I have long expected the day when "certification" of shooters would come as far as home reloading is concerned.  What puzzles me is on what basis other then being petrified of litigation, has this decision to up the anti by the NRA been based upon?  Is it the number of related incidents at ranges in the UK each year?  I have yet to personally witness any accident due to home  loaded ammunition in donkey's years of shooting at ranges, although there may have been the odd few.  Surely risk assessment is based on the need and need has to have some basis in real terms (ie incidents occurring) other than "it's a risky business so we need paperwork to prove that someone is "certified"".  It sounds like the thin end of a  long wedge which may yet result in this spreading to disciplines outside ranges...deer stalking for example?  Just another nail in the coffin of freedoms of (mainly) responsible people.  The ramifications if the NRA go down this route seem quite serious for the whole shooting scene.

Yes, my bad.  I meant 1/10ths, not grains!

Cheek weld is usually pretty consistent for me too, with a couple of my rifles that fior very well but one doesn't have a high enough cheek piece (no adjustment) so I have to be more deliberate about positioning each shot.  I should really get around to adding a riser to the cheek piece on that one.

On 6/26/2022 at 12:18 PM, jcampbellsmith said:

https://www.dmq.org.uk/latest-news/ is worth a read. 'Trained Hunter qualification' is no longer achieved by passing DSC 1.

Regards

JCS

I think there've been a few changes over the years but undertood that those qualifying at DSC1 level prior to 2019 automatically retain their Trained Hunter status.  The only other changes noted are the changes to the shooting test, to include follow up (Humane Dispatch) shots.

Depends.  Hornady, I wouldn't pay more than £15 /100 as you don't get that many reloads from it, perhaps a couple (unless they've improved from a few years ago).  Primer pockets come loose fairly quickly and it stretches quicker than the better makes.  It might be worth it to someone, but you'll be lucky to get any more for it.  I wouldn't risk my neck on used Hornady brass personally.

Now if it were Lapua, Norma, Sako, Nosler, or even Starline or Peterson brass, it'll last much longer so command a higher price, typically £35 to £50/100 genuine once fired.  I bought a batch of Norma once fired (with original factory primers still in p[lace) and I think I paid £25/100 for that 2 years back.

S&B I wouldn't touch.  Cases can be very variable and brass isn't  great quality. Not well thought of by most reloaders.

Everyone has their own preferences for their own good reasons.  I get on with OCW but for it to be reliable, care must be taken in case prep and load precision (nearest grain seems ok for most cases). The one drawback with it is the shooting ladder means changing POA for each shot so consistency in natural aim point and cheek weld are important.

I meant that grouping alone at 100m won't be much good to you if you have an SD of 30, at 1000 yds or whatever.  By that distance, the spread will have increased beyond proportionally.  I think you knew this already though.  Grouping is an indicator of a harmonic node, granted but MV consistency from the load data is as important at range. OCW is a good way to see the POI variations "around the clock" so you can concentrate on those with low SD/ES about a similar vertical plane, with low vertical spread.

Some barrels shoot some bullets better than others, granted, but all barrels are subject to laws of physics and most certainly harmonic nodes  determine optimum loads.  For each powder and bullet type I've generally found at least two nodes, sometimes three between min and max loads.  I generally chose the lowest MV which satisfied the required terminal velocity.

Group sizes tell you little at 100 or even 200 yards.  ES or SD are a far more reliable indicator for longer range where variations in MV only widen the terminal velocity differences, hence vertical and horizontal spread.  I'd always take a 0.7moa load with sub double figure SD/ES any day of the week than a sub 0.5 5 shot group at 100 yds with higher SD/ES.

You can't always rely on "flat spots" or graphs unless case prep is consistent and absolutely impeccably done for precision, and where loads are literally to within 0.1 or 0.2 grains.  That's been over popularised in You Tube videos where the shooters may have gone to extraordinary lengths for consistency in case prep and tried various primers for the best SD and consistency.  

At 1200 yds, you're on a hiding to nothing unless you can get SD and ES down to within double figures...But rule of thumb, at that range, calibre and bullet dependant, using the higher MV loads will always yield less variation given similar SD results and groups as lower MV nodes.

People fret too much over barrel break in from hammer forged or button rifled barrels imho.  I simply clean a new barrel to remove proof house fouling, and so if desired can inspect the barrel using a borescope to make sure from new it's in a decent state, then just go and shoot the thing.  As long as you don't go mad and wreck the throat from rapid fire, I can't see any real difference between the barrel's I followed careful break in procedures on and the ones I just shot.  My Tikkas were just shot and remain as accurate today as the day I bought them.  

I'm afraid the world we live in seems these days to be full of box ticking exercises more to demonstrate compliance with procedural matters than to be substantively reliable.  I do share Laurie and Brillo's views but John MH has made a good point about the validity of some of the information, because there are no checks and balances (pardon the pun) other than on trust.  Whilst it's no great hardship and no bother to complete a form if asked to do so (after all, it may be a condition of the range operator at whose pleasure we enjoy shooting at). it won't be of much help except to cover Landmarc (or whoever) in the event of an unfortunate incident happening.  Even then it will inevitably be a case of strengthening procedures "to ensure nothing like this can happen again".  I think such statements are worth about as much as the info on the paper they're written on but safety has to rely largely on the trust of the individuals we place it in.

1 hour ago, John MH said:

Next they will be asking when your scales were last calibrated at a UKAS accredited calibration facility. 

🤣

That sounds sensible Mark.  I guess for most not using QL, it's a matter of stating the powder manufacturer's guide or that of a recognised load manual and that loads were within maximum recommended.

I terms of the OP, The Violent Crime Reduction Act as amended in 2006 does not relate to possession of primers or primed cases, but to the purchase of such.  You have to have lawful reason to purchase primers or primed cases, basically meaning that you should provide and present your FAC at purchase even if nothing is written into it.  It is however illegal under the Firearms Act to possess primed cases for which you have no certificate to cover that calibre/chambering.  It is also illegal under the Act to possess primers without lawful reason.  Pretty clear cut.  The chap referred to by the OP has admitted he's making up primed cases or ammunition for calibres which he does not yet have lawful permission on his certificate.  He is in breach of the act, and by admitting what he's doing publicly may not be holding his FAC for much longer if reported.  In terms of primed cases, the advice from my own FEO was that as soon as they are primed, they are capable of discharge even if no powder or bullets are loaded, so intent is clearly shown and therefore they would, as far as he was concerned, count as "ammunition" under the Act and should be stored as such.  Whether they were counted towards your allocation is debateable since no bullets are loaded but they should be securely stored.  If in doubt, common sense should dictate that acting responsibly is a given.

Also, a moot point, but playing devil's advocate for the moment, wouldn't anyone with the knowledge of another who is illegally holding ammunition or firearms be in for a rough ride by the police if later that was discovered?  You can see the case where someone admits to holding rounds they have no permission for and then, however unlikely it may seem, obtains the means to use them and a crime is committed. I think that the police would take a dim view if this was known at the outset and that person wasn't either reported or "given advice" which if he ignores, and is then reported.  I would have thought in these circumstances that it would be in the interests of the club secretary to be brought up to speed as technically, a member of their club is acting illegally which could result in the club itself being suspended pending a full investigation, whether innocent or not.  The police are clamping down hard on such matters these days and it only takes a breach of conditions (allowing someone who is clearly in breach of their conditions to remain at the club) for H/O approval of the club to be rescinded. 

Never been asked to provide details of handloads at Landmarc sites but was once asked to sign off that I was using hand loaded ammunition.  I can't see anyone sitting down pouring through sheets of load data only to come back prior to a shoot to say something like "according to QL, your load exceeds MV/energy limits for this range" which might seem the whole point of such details, at least originally.  Sounds like a box ticking exercise of dubious merit.  As to passing on secrets, I wouldn't worry one bit about that.  Anyone with sufficient knowledge and experience is capable of working up good loads for themselves given the choice of bullets and powders available today, not to mention the raft of online data plus load development time proving a load.  I have been next to someone on a range, who like me, was using hand loaded ammunition.  After his umpteenth very sticky bolt in a row and flat as a pancake primers, I decided that prudence was order of the day and left that shooting lane for one more distant!  I did though suggest, tactfully, that perhaps he might want to rethink shooting any more of that batch.

N133.  Consistent, achieves good velocities and accuracy in the 50 to 60grn bullet range.

There IS statistical relevance in sample size when it comes to load development.  It's been done to death many times but the long and short of it is that anyone going out shooting 2 or 3 round "groups" won't get anything very meaningful from that exercise which can accurately and consistently be relied upon further out.  5 to 7 rounds, statistically, is about the best ratio of economy to relevancy and anything much over 7 is probably not that worthwhile in economy terms.  Some comp target shooters will shoot 7 to 10.

I always use 5 shot groups and use OCW methods rather than stepped ladder testing, and usually find one or two nodes for each powder/projectile combo, then tweak the seating to improve precision/lower group size.  Beyond that and achieving a low enough SD/ES for the range being developed for, there's little more to be done, other than be consistent batch to batch with case prep.  You can fiddle about with primers to improve things further but if what you have is achieving the right ES/MV for you then stick with what you use.

If sticking with Vhit powders, my recommendation would be N150 over N140.  RS62 is what I use for this combo though and have never varied my loads over anything outside of 43.8 to 44gr for the 139 Scenar (small primer/flash hole brass) for very reliable, accurate results.  If you want to interpret graphs, one useful thing from them might be to see where your load is flattening out, ie where a 0.2gr load either side has very little difference (sub 10fps) on MV.  From this, I'd be playing around with the middle of that plateau and then tweaking seating until I had a consistent and accurate load. I look for very small vertical deviation on target for a decent harmonic node.  Just my tuppence worth.  Others will have their preferred methods but experience and lots of load dev has settled in my mind anyway the most reliable way to go about it for me anyway.

Yep, well worth attending.  Did mine years ago and was taken by the number of old hands attending who seemed to get a lot out of it.  Old dogs learning new tricks.  The other thing I was surprised at was the number of experienced shots who didn't fare too well on the grouping tests.  Some could barely get three shots into 3 inches prone.  Could have been nerves though as tests can do that.

Thanks Richie.  Just got some more from Dauntsey but they say supplies of all Sierra are getting sketchy so may look at alternatives after this batch.

Only had the Delta Titanium. A few issues with it but minor for hunting purposes.  The one I had was the Delta Titanium 2.5-15 x 56.  Was one of the first I think to try one when OW started importing them. Excellent centre to 3/4 image glass...up there with several from Zeiss and swaro that I compared it with BUT noticeable chromatic aberrations showing as a tell tale yellow fringe making margins blur out.

Turrets were, frankly, crap.   Caps definitely needed leaving on in the field as they would turn way too easily and lose zero at the slightest brush thanks to a crudely simple and undersized o-ring retainer but clicks were positive and tracking good.  My main beef was with pricing.  They started out as offering excellent value, and really were in almost premiere league for low light use but as popularity rose, so did the price, way beyond what I Later thought they were worth.  IMHO they were eclipsed by the Gen 2 Vortex optics for not a lot more.  Made in the same factory were some of the Bushnell scopes, and whilst I still have the tank-like build Bushnell Tactical Elite on my .308, I no longer have the Delta.  

A wise man once said only a rich man can afford to buy cheap glass;  in this case he was wrong as the Delta offered decent enough performance at the price but as the price rose, the niggles became unviable at the new price points and only a rich man could afford to blow money on the Titanium when it was bettered in quality by the likes of Steiner's Ranger series and Vortex offerings.  Can't speak for other models, just the one I owned.

Another  vote for the venerable .223.  Most versatile rifle in my gun cabinet and still relatively inexpensive to load for.  I use a 1/8 twist for a wider variety of bullets.  Shoots everything from 50gr to 77 gr without complaint.  40's not so well...jackets a little too thin for 1/8 twist.  They tend to come out in bits!

Up until now, the Sierra #1390 Gameking driven at 3,200fps.  Devastatingly reliable on fox and Muntjac.  Now looking to Lapua for alternatives such is the dire state of Sierra bullet supply.

Agreed.  Not tried Lapua 77's yet but regularly use their 6.5 scenars which are good value as well as excellent bullets so a better shout than Sierra for now.  TMK's on pigeon or rabbit this side of 150 yds had a similar effect to watching a pillow explode.

Bitter experience has taught me that failing to remove all or most of carbon fouling then storing the rifle for prolonged periods in a relatively humid environment for prolonged periods between shooting can lead to corrosion and pitting.  I had this in one barrel.  I now use copious amounts of carbon cleaner followed by wipeout after shooting, even just a few rounds, which conditions the barrel helping to prevent corrosion and leave a few sachets of silicon beads in the gun safe.  Never a problem with any of my rifles since then.  Your best bet might be to patch out using carbon cleaner to remove all traces of carbon fouling then dry patch and add a little ACF50 to a patch or nylon brush to arrest any remaining corrosion before a patch with barrel conditioner like wipeout or M Pro-7.  I don't use oil patches because they contaminate the chamber leading to poor obturation which has its dangers.  I had a few issues when oiling barrels until I cleaned the chamber with meths to remove all oil traces which alerted me to the cause.  Obvious when you think about it. If using ACF50, you still need to remove all traces from the chamber using a solvent.     

I have heard stories about Tikkas and rust, yet none of my T3 or TAC barrels have ever had any such issues.  Perhaps I've been lucky but I am very careful about cleaning and conditioning barrels.                                                                                                                                           

I'd stick with a sfp for stalking.  FFP can have very fine rets and even if illuminated the hash or mildots are still very fine at low mags which is where many shots will be taken.   I had a Delta Titanium 2.5-15 which was a better stalking alternative, lighter and better in lower light.  The only time I'd consider using one of my FFP scopes when stalking might be for some of my valley stalking or hill stalking where distances can go out to 400 yds on the rare occasion.   Even then, I generally use Strelok Pro to help, or my drop charts from load dev (laminated and kept in top pocket) so just have to estimate windage.