gbal

Hmmm....chambers,freebore and barrel rifling (and quality) are not cloned,especially between makers.So there will be some intrinsic precision variation in rifles and ammo. Shooters differ in abilities,so accuracy will have that variable added in.Quite possibly the 'outcome' is not always comparbly described ( is 'very accurate" one moa or... Etc) That said,there do seem to be quite wide reported differences.Shame-if there were not,we'd just have to have one load development per bullet/powder combo,and it would work equally for any rifle. But not neccessarily for every nut behind the butt... :-) gbal

Rich,indeed -it'a hobby in it's own right-pursuable to just basic afe ammo,or seeking optimim performance geared to anindividual rifle (much more work,and probably expense in equipment). Just keep reading good sources-the reloading manuals,and informed experience-none better than Laurie ! BE cautious of individual claims-none of us can actaually measure pressure,and goodness/badness knows what pressures underliesome velocity claims(some might even be accurately measured-that's on a magnetospeed or Lab radar-screen chronos can be less reliable.Measurement is grsreat-so long as it is good measurement. OK,you also build up some 'guidlines/rules of thumb',but proceed with some caution.Just as an example,the RS book data for RS52 with 9.7 g bullet (150g) gives min of 2.61g to max 3.05 g (which is 40.3 min to 47 max grains....and note we are about in the ball park Laurie gave on the varget base...crucially 46+max.....I wouldn't use any 150g bullet loads to extrapolate to a 185 bullet,but you can see that 150-155 with a bit of caution esp at max seems do-able. AS with ANY load,you are looking carefully for pressure signs (stiffer bolt lift,flattening primers,marked case head-from ej plunger ,etc etc-) and not assuming no such symptoms guarantee safe loads-when present thse symptoms say..."ease of",of course. When you can ,look at the very diminishing ballistic returns that the last fractions of a grain actually offer -it might be worthwhile if you are a top competitor at 1000y,but mostly it's not much (under an inch drop/drift eg for 300y 223 loads)...and you get a small bonus of better barrel life with a little reduction...accuracy is sanity,velocity is vanity ! Enjoy. :-) g

Rich,OK -best to be careful when new to reolading-indeed always. But makers data can be used for bullets of the same weight (and general design-eg HPBT) evenif not the named make..you'll see there is quite a differnce between the beginning minimum load and the max;so work up from the lower in say .3g increases till pressure sign/or you get good grouping.Then fine tune. You may have to convert g (grams) to gr (grains)......thus: gx15.432 = grains... So 10.9 g is 168.2 grains,which is one of your bullet weights (and a HPBT)...you can use RS 52 308w data given.... (9.7g is 149.7 grains so you could use this data for your 155gr bullets-generally the heavier the bullet,the lighter the powder load,with the same powder-RS52-but starting with the minimum should be OK,with only a 5gr difference in bullet weight-if you don't get another reloaders data...but be aware,rifle differ a bit,sotaake care with any load approaching say a grain under max....stiff bolt lift,flattened primers are pressuresigns...back off. It's unlikely that CBTO will be identical for differnt bullet weights,but not impossible...but all the detail isn't too relevant to getting the basic powder load-really it's bullet weight that matters (given a similar bullet design).But far better to give it than be vague-it might matter more for some things....eg CBTO will vary between differnt same weight bullets from differnt makers as the bullet 'ogive' (curve) won't be identical -if you want more on this length/ogive read Berger Bullets (Litz) article comparing CBTO woth COAL-but don't worry too much about either yet-load to COAL to just fit your magazine,for starters. But keep asking-it's not rocket science,but you need to get the basics right (just to reassure,commercial ammo is loaded to fit the standard (SAAMI) size magazine....and SAAMI standard chambers (and works ok,maybe not ideal even if the barrels have somewhat differnt 'throats/leades-the gap from chamber to rifling,allowing some COAL-better yet BBTO-vatiation to seeif the rifle has a 'jump' preference...but that's fine tuning,and needs a goodbullet comparator etc-get a few hundred down range before you get into that...a 308 should be good for around 5000 rounds with sensible loads...don't go above book max.....it really will not offer you much extra at all.......so enjoy,safely. gbal

Don't Reload Swiss have data on their website for the main bullet weights in 308,minimumum to maximum should be a ggod guide.

Varm, the Sierra 190 HPBT MK (moly) was/is a good bullet at 1000y at 2530-2560fps (temperature variation). From a good Rem700VSSF ,bench rested 5 shots, it was a mow rifle (minute of wind)...ie with a 5mph wind 5 inches,10mph wind 10 inches,15 mph wind 15 inches..... It may be that more recent BCs have crept up,but in a modest factory rifle,it's still a bullet that is shootable for the casual ' fancy trying 308 at 1000y' shooter (as was/is the Lapua Scenar). I don't see many BR groups from comparable rifles shooting consistently better,though if your rifle likes better BC bullets,that should be your choice. Of course all this is well outclassed competitively by better LR cartridges and rigs-shooting a 308 at LR isn't something a free choice would promote-though some competition arbitrary restrictions do-and simply 'the rifle I have,and I fancy a go at 1000y"....in which case,do...enjoy..and learn. :-) gbal

Andy,quite so-remember these bullet weight/BC/velocity aggregated equivalents are to replicate the 'standard' 6.5x284 1000y performance for wind drift,not trajectory (itself no longer cutting edge).Rifle weight of course comes in too-but has competition class limits. For knownn 1000y competition shooters,trajectory is not much of an issue-it's clicked in ,and gravity does not fluctuate-the wind does. The figures also don't mean the values can be reached ,though it's by calibre rather than cartridge,so as you note a larger 308 calibre cartridge may well do so,even if a 308w is gasping....and it will be.. Ultimately,the requirements are driven by physics,and not everyone's pet will make the cut... It does help explain the two current routes...hot 6.5s,or heavy short magnums....and the 6BR if there isn't much wind (five accurate shots in 15 secs reduces even the smaller windage variation effects). Good luck with the subsonics at 1000y-we won't hear much on that !! g

rich,onc there is any defecxt in the brass-neck split or seriously ,though rare, cracks just above the web area-case separation due-bin them as John says. If you are really asking how many reloads are possible,thenthat depends on the stress of the load-hor=tter loads mean shorter life-often very much shorter-what goes is the primer pocket-once primers are loose,the brass should be trashed. This might be in single figurereloads in very hot loads.Nothing can restore loose primer pockets. Annealing will give more life/reoads compared tonon annnealinguder almost all circumstances-and some anneal after every firing,though others only every 3 or even 5....again ,hotter the load,sooner anneal. Extending case life is probably the main benefit from annealing-especially with expensive brass,or brass than needs much prep time. How many reloads can't really be quantified,but double figures at least for 'ordinary stressed ' brass,and some will get a lot more...chamber fit etc come in,as does tight neck etc etc-100y yard bench rest shooters can get 25+ firings as the brass is not worked much,and tend not to anneal. It's all pretty open ended,but done properly,annealing will give more firings,easier resizing,and probably more consistent neck tension etc-though such advantages tend to only show on target in very precise rifles/shooting rigs. You could try having a batch annealed for you (induction best) for maybe £15/100 and see how it works out before committing to £2-600 for a turntable gas fired annealer. Don't try blow torch/bucket of water-more harm than good is likely. Check out eg AccurateShooter site for reliable annealing info.More shooters here-UKV- are annealing. gbal

The magnetospeed is an excellent choice of chrono-he basic sporter is excellent value too-unless you really,really need the extra featuresf the V3-it won't measure MV any better. Way better in use than screen (antennae) models in several ways-convenience,yes.but also crucially more valid/accurate and independent of light/atmosherics. Anything added to muzzle is a potential change in MV and POI.But it might be near zero-varies with other factors-indeed interacts with some (Ie it very much depends...on barrel weight,harmonics,nodes etc). IF the attachment (mod or magneto or brake,even) changes bullet release harmonics-unpredictable-there will be some POI efffect (3moa seems extreme,but not impossible?). It may/not affect POI-it's a rifle/muzzle weight/harmonics//ammo load complex interaction-but not a deal breaker at all-MV ignorance is a bit more so). Safest option is to load develop without any muzzle attachment-or with the mod you intend to use. Check velocity with magneto on (if you are confident with moderator,and mag fits etc) or without mag on . MV should not be too different.-but might not be exactly the same-check what difference 25 fps makes not much difference,at this stage! Fine tune load. If mag fits etc,test again with the actual shooting rig (rifle,+mod) if possible-mag seems fairly tolerant of dimensions (ie barrel and mod-but mods vary). I would not use mag with a pepper pot brake,with any gas going down... Remember,chrono is to get good data on MV. Almost inevitably,any final tune to eg ballistic solver will need some 'tweaking'-because there are quite a few rather sensitive measurements involved-the magneto is unlikely to cause much-but you dont ned to include it-except as a last check,maybe. And remember,all this is not high up on 'hit' list...but mv is useful...I think I'd get the basic model-gives the crucial data,maybe less flexible with mods on...half the price-but that's another issue. gbal

Cross reference current post on Targetmaster Powder Trickler. Ther must be some slick ergonomics around-or someone isn't using a Tag Heuer *chronograph. Alan (targetmaster) demonstrates loading 42.5 g Varget into cases. Powder thrower set for around 40g,and balance trickled in with his trickler. From Throw of the 40,to 41.5 into the case,it's about 40 seconds. Maybe it could be a tad faster,but there is a fair bit of movement of powder pan,and funnel,and pouring....but that is essential,and needs care. I make that over half an hour for 50 cases to go from empty to charged with 41.5 g each,on the reloading bench (In tag heuer units,it's actually 33m 20 seconds,excluding 2.148 seconds to push tag's button). Clearly using the trickler only for full load would be much longer...much...as John's video shows. The actual trickle time is considerably less-that is but one time component though....to suggest something of the order of 5 secs is like saying barrel life is 3 seconds (the total time bullet in in there-true,but real world non sense). No big deal,and I for one have enough 1/2 hours for it not to matter;and you are indeed getting consistent powder measures to .002 grain....err...very probably (no actual repeat measures of same pan of powder are included,but accept anyhow). The Sartorious ( I checked another video) I found a bit disconcerting-not just the half hour for it to settle-until you move-but the constantly changing 3rd and 4th decimal place....you just have to block that (think about it as if it undecided about the weight of the hole in the last kernel). Genuinely,all very impressive. I note there are no consistent kernel claims made for the Lee plastic spoon.But I could barely get sugar spooned into my coffee at the suggested rates.It may be that my Nigela designed sugar bowl is not optimal,and I used a silver (christening) spoon,which may invalidate it all :-) Come on guys,John and Alan are into precision measures;let's keep the human ergonomics real. gbal * actually an Accurist,so could be out 2/3 seconds total ,if loading 8,400 per week (powder hopper changing etc,excluded)

Well,probably not,Neil. I've read,but not entirely believed statistically, Adam Macdonald's rather persuasive case for .02 being good enough....."Automatic Powder Trickler" (needs lab grade Sartorius scale,of course). Steve- maybe 'perfection' isn't really needed...1 Kernel(varget) is about 1fps, or .035 moa at 1000y ( and that does assume absolute perfection in all other variables). Salazar and Macdonald make for a good thoughtful read,on a quiet Sunday. John,much appreciated info...I am most certainly not critical of accuracy,as a hobby;maybe a tad pragmatic -at least for some other shooters! g

Neil,yes .Read John's post *2 and look at the videos.Impressive. Of course,to get third decimal single kernel precision,you really need standardised kernels.This proceedure was detailed by G Salazar-one of the very top US Bench Rest shooters-and a superb writer on precision shooting issues-available on Accurate Shooter,maybe 2 or 3 years ago..in early April,I recall. g "Powder Kernel Uniforming for Ultimate Long Range Accuracy" 2012

Think a 243 norma SP100g at 200y is a tad under clout, delivering only 1165 ftlb -drop/drift 0/5" So get a 338lapua MAGNUM and try 1000y with Lapua Swift A frame 275g delivering 880ft lb. Drop/drift only 376/93",punk! Seriously,it's not that easy (nor perhaps quite that difficult?) British compromise:308 at 250 -and call it stalking. :-) gbal

cf post 45 I should have rambled on-succinct was not enough. Seldom is on complex issues-still ,any hole in the heart is generally enough,irrespective of final bullet destination. Damage varies-angles,bone -all that stuff. Heather damage is secondary,very! :-) gbal

222 for fox,243 for roe deer.....there could be worse regulation..... "When it comes down to what is enough....." ,well any 30calibre expanding missile through the heart is terminal,on all UK quarry. Details are largely irrelevant to the 'enough' issue. Much the same holds for other legal calibres. " Commensurate with public safety" and other considerations are separate,but important.It's a sport,or hobby,not survival. gbal

Perhaps the differnce between calibre and cartridge (partly) explains it,as the former used to be the prefered 'legat'' term,as well as the 'FAC" term. The Firearms Act /Deer Act was aware of,and used, energy as a criterion. A case can be made for these becoming somewhat muddled (probably in an attempt at simplicity,rather than compromising stalking). Is there a case for 50 Browning as a stalking cartridge? Is it on balance "too much" ? Would stalking be impoverished disproportionally without such energy levels? Have fun, with opinions,then get onto 577 Tyranosaur as a roe cartridge; when you have it all sorted, apply to the CIvil Service,Police,or stand as MP and let democracy decide. Keep the day job meanwhile. gbal

Yeah,Mac,I realised that.Good rib/rip. The 307 was just a tongue in cheek comment and a reminder that,thankfully,the rifle system has -so far- managed to be free of non-sense chamberings..... but think about ("wildcatted") 7.62x39....300 Blackout.....and cry........:-( g

Shuggy confirms it's 308Win... There is of course,a 307 Win,essentially a rimmed 308W for the 1983 model 94 XTR lever action (150g@2600)-bullet has to be seated a little deeper to fit the 94 XTR action (which is beefed up too),and the flat point bullets shed velocity a bit more. Thankfully,this fine rifle has not been handicapped further by rechambering in 307W. :-) gbal

Neil, many of these 'atmospheric' variables -and include Coreolis and spin drift etc etc,are not significant in the UK at normal hunting ranges,with modern ammunition. Trajectory and wind drift are,and these guides are useful/useable aids,which minimise errors in the shooting solutions. (why 12-if you want to have every nuance covered,it would run to hundreds of combinations,but still only a few clicks,at most in extreme for uk conditions (distance and windage excepted). Useable/useful is one set for the modal conditons,and maybe another IF conditions will be radically different. With a 200 zero and then 25y (even 50y) intervals to 400,should cover most shots. Fitted inside the front scope flip up cover is worth considering fast deployment. LR target shooting will be dependent on sighters for windage anyhow-though the same principles apply-not degree by degree,surely.Have a read at the admitedly rather extreme Gelston shoot write up.... gbal

The German Salazar article is about the best I've read on neck turning. He's pretty good on most topics (though I don't think he rates velocity as "the be all and end all of rifle performance" so be prepared,if you think it is ! :-) gSal

Rob, you seem to be advocating education-the references I gave(to Accurate Shooter,and AMP ) are about as good as it gets on annealing,though there is more basic (less informative) stuff around too-as there always is. Which is why I suggested Neil read them.....students usually like to have an actual nod toward a good source,rather than just being told to read.....there are good and less good things to read,and some plain misinformed.How to know ,as a novice? But it is pleasing to see another Scot who appreciates education-the country has one of the best systems around. I am of course biased,but on balance,getting a helpful steer as to what to read for oneself seems advantageous. Whether it is indeed true that unless you can explain it to someone else,you don't understand it yourself is rather a more contentious claim,not one I'd make-but if you can explain,then you probably do understand (assuming you get it right,of course-and what you say is supported by authoritative sources)(Accurate Shooter tends to be pretty well informed,and the easiest of such sources to access). Incidentally,though annealing done reasonably well (as Lubo) should improve case life (more reloads) the other thread was about 'accuracy' (really 'precision') benefits,but almost all the posts gave no evidence of 'accuracy/precision',but plenty on the other ( Scottish ) emphasis on cost effectiveness/economy. Which matters too,irrespective of nationality (200 new lapua should give around 1000 reloads,before some case for annealing might be made;then savings should begin to occur...less (minor) operating costs...AMP cost would buy about six times as many cases,so isn't an obvious no brainer for many shooters....who understandably baulk at the capital investment too...but it probably is 'better' ....I don't have degrees in metalurgy and economics. gbal

OK guys,I was an educator by profession,and it's not easy to just give it all up-especially when there seems a need for information.I don't think the Accurate Shooter article is just 'theory'-it gives a fair summary of practical annealing. AMP seems to me the best,but very pricey ,option for optimal annealing. Lubo's machine has been very well received,and is a more realistic method for most shooters. I don't anneal-but I tend to have a lot of brass in a lot of calibres,so no one case gets very many reloadings. I am thinking about annealing-and considering my uses,would go for Lubo's machine,as a cost effective option for prolonging case life-and in the general spirit of doing what one can,at a hobby level. In theory and practice ,one size seldom fits all,but bespoke is always pricey. I have found no evidence that annealing promotes accuracy,but it does seem to prolong case life,and at a consistent level.This seems more supported by those who load a bit hot-but it may be general. For most of my current uses,there simply is no gains in pushing velocity,and compromising case life,and perhaps precision .Others may have a different mindset. But putting brass into a hot oven is not going to achieve anything positive,and the references given provide the reasons. And Swaro did ask. Better by far,to buy one of Lubo's machines,IMO-to get back on topic-having been deflected by a picture of the Thinker,caught a moment of despair.....but ,alas,offering no explanations. Humour and information can surely co-exist ? :-) gbal

A-NEIL-ING for beginners.... :-) "Anealing -the art and the science of....." Accurate Shooter article has the full traditional story/reasons/methods-and using a domestic oven IS NOT one of them. If you are really serious about getting cartridge brass annealing right (it all differs..),then the current (sic) state of the art/science is by electric induction,and the leading option is the AMP (Anealing Made Perfect) machine-pre calibrated for most brass,but can customise to yours (think £1000 or so,but it's done as right as is currently available). Nothing else can really compete as AMP optimes for your brand of brass,not some approximate average one temperature fits all. gbal

Grum, Many thanks for this data-I suspect savvy shooters often have lots that don't get reported,but might be informative to others. The primer issue is clear enough.with the 210s prett poor (in terms of ES and SD,which are not per se holes onpaper-see below). The answer is not of course to wet tumble and anneal the 210s !! The second data set is indeed interesting-the same load that gave 2778 fps 22.3/8.6 variance,wet and annealed, seems far better than the same load minus the wet/anneal at 2699 fps,and 61.5/25.25.....a 79 fps drop,and 'erratic'. But as you note,it might just be an erratic chrono....which needs wet tumbled and annealed....I'm losing the will to go on....!! ...or a magneto chrono (or two similar days....good luck with that,recently) :-) AND YET ,this load still held 1/2" easily at 100y.....probably not at distance,where all the variations have time to show up clearly....but we don't know... Great data ,though ..... "per ardua ad astra" :-) g .....

Grum,your oven bakes are indeed things of beauty,and an MV ES of 7.67 is something any home loader would be delighted with. I'm not sue it can be 'proof' of the merits of annealing,per se..... A major variable in MV has to be powder,and powder consistency in the reloading process....what would be nice would be data on MV ES with a different cleaning regime,but nothing else changed. We don't often get that sort of data,because few/none of us do controlled tests-we 'just' shoot. But you might have it,and even hoew the powder was weighed-which might inform another current thread about beam/electronic. Your data meanwhile does not seem out of line with my 'beer mat' calculations about the minimal effects of .1 grain variations,and achieving the same....so that helps there too. I certainly agree,an ES of 7.67 says a lot of positives about the loading,including perhaps very clean brass,but not exclusively that. Obviously,stay with your regime. gbal

Indeed,Jay.....a wobble is a wobble ,and is a weak link anywhere on the chain.... ....hence Bench Rest,which leaves only weaknesses in rifle and ammo precision,accuracy,wind reading,the night before;and not ignoring god,the weather and the rest of the human race. Otherwise,you are pretty well good to go. :-) g