Popsbengo

3 hours ago, Dellboy said:

so would the processes included certified range officers  as speaking to an insurance provider linked to the NSRA  no qualified range officer no cover  ..

That's not correct.  The obvious example is shooting at Bisley as an NRA member with an SCC.  Book the lane and crack on - you act as your own RCO.

It's perfectly acceptable to allow competent persons to shoot without an RCO provided that the club has organised to do that.  We have our own club competence card for unsupervised ranges, it requires a test of competence and sufficient observation to be comfortable with issuing the card and we have documentary evidence of the assessment.  We could use the NRA SCC to do the same but we choose to do our process to keep it in-house.  We do issue SCC for members that visit other ranges or shoot in competitions etc - again we have records and proof of assessment (as required by NRA).

9 minutes ago, Dellboy said:

So the individual and the range officer of the club would be held resposible  or the chairman of the club ?  We introduced a written record of amunition being used  with home lods checked prior to firing and after firing two home loads through a chronograph  ,more to prove a point to the amatuer reloaders , unfortunately the club secetary deams it a waste of time ...

"Held responsible"  what does that imply ?  Club officers are insured if they're affiliated to the NRA, they have "professional indemnity".  If clubs have processes and follow them, and officers make considered and sensible decisions, then they are covered.  Clubs failing to have and follow processes do lay themselves open to third party claims but I believe as long as they have not been negligent they may be reassured by having insurance.  As in all things, there is risk.  Having processes, training and keeping records goes a long way to both manage risk down and to underpin any defence should things go wrong.

1 hour ago, RobinC said:

The NRA's SCC route is stated in the journal as it will be the club chairman's job to state the person is safe to reload, as the Chairman currently signs off the person as safe to shoot with the SCC,  but with no comment on how on earth they can know in relation to reloading!!

Do they seriously expect club Chairman  to set up an assessment process!!! Could well soon be a position no one wants!

............

 

While I generally agree with where you're coming from I think we get hung up on signing off.  Signing a form doesn't suddenly impart extra responsibilities or indeed not signing a form doesn't protect us from a duty of care.  

It's important for clubs to have a process written down with some documentation to show the process was followed, it's the same with probation training and issuing SCC.

I'm waiting to see what the NRA propose (impose?) and then write up a procedure for compliance to principles etc.

Google:  'best headphone amp for phone'

plenty to choose from

have you considered a regulator and a large bottle of propane ?  It gives a more consistent flame as cooling due to expansion is moderated by the volume.  I made up some burners connected to a "Y" piece fed from a 13Kg (I had one, there are small ones too) bottle.

28 minutes ago, Leeman said:

So way not just use the starting loads in the manuals or websites and learn to read pressure signs, why even involve the proof house?  Their chambers and barrels have no relevance to yours other than the stamp on the cartridge case.  I've honestly never heard of anyone suggesting involving using the proof house to test your loads, most people have the confidence to read what the fired case is telling them or if not, involve a mentor or someone experienced in handloading.   Surely if you wanted to involve the proof house you would supply them with the rifle to test the loads in?    You can't post ammo so you would have to hand deliver it and then you may as well drop off the rifle so they can check your chamber/throat/barrel and give you a complete print out of the pressure?  Maybe I'm incorrect and that people are driving up and down the country delivering ammunition to the proof house to test?    

We seem to be down the rabbit burrow here.  I'm not sure proof house testing is a serious suggestion

7 hours ago, nCognitos said:

The rumour at Bisley last week was that all handloaders would have to have an SCC endorsement.  They would need to have done an accredited course with the accreditation body being the NRA itself.  This is all due to a person whom, it is rumoured, mixed up rifle and pistol powders in a load.  For those clubs that have been running reloading courses these will be assessed and, if satisfactory, a path may be put in place to get the qualification.  Of course this was rumour and should all be filed under the category of gossip.  The rumoured implementation date would be the end of this year.

Personally, I hope it is just all rumour and gossip but if true it would be better than the alternative of factory ammo only.

The prospect of an SCC endorsement is reality - it's in the latest NRA Journal.  The content of the required training is as yet unpublished.

Going back to my original post - declaration of hand loaded ammunition.

IMO the purpose of a declaration is to prompt the shooter to confirm their load is safe in their rifle.  But in no way can it ensure this - this is obvious.

The consequence of a failure to make rifle-specific safe rounds is potentially very severe.  Most of us (if not all) know this.

Failures are thankfully quite rare.  This supports the view that most people are sensible, but some are just lucky.

Training and experience underpinned by an understanding of potential consequences should result in a reasonable person making every effort to make 'safe' ammunition.  Most people in my experience try to do the right thing, however there's always a risk from people pushing the limits of their knowledge and skill at making ammunition. There's a tiny minority who are just a-holes and no amount of training will alter that. A less than reasonable person is a potential danger to themselves and others.

The best we can expect for those new to the game is to be able to access decent training from whomever can give sound advice and underpinning knowledge.  Credentials to train the subject would be good but not the be-all and end-all.  Advancing one's knowledge is a personal endeavour - some do, some don't.

By introducing a category endorsement on a SCC at least someone has to make a judgement beyond the individual holding the card.  It's not perfect by any means but it does advance safety in asking the question of the club  "is this person sufficiently knowledgable to make safe ammo ?"   And if not how do we help ?   I expect our club will be able to work within the guidance and put some pressure on to members to really think through what they are doing.  I also expect one or two to be advised to steer clear of reloading as they're likely to endanger themselves and others - I would not issue them a card unless I could be totally convinced they were safe and diligent in manufacturing ammunition.

I doubt that we are at risk from offering basic safety related training without some certificate to back it up,  I suggest any training is documented and recorded with some sort of test paper to back up a minimum acquisition of learning the subject.  Stick to basics and safe practice and let 'advanced practices' come as personal experience is gained.

After all, don't clubs train and endorse the skill-at-arms of probationers?  We don't just hand out full-memberships on time-served, we ensure a minimum level of safe behaviour and practice and documented proof of sufficient knowledge to be allowed un-supervised control of firearms.  Should reloading be treated any differently to handling a loaded firearm ?

1 hour ago, Leeman said:

But if it's not fired in your chamber through your barrel it's completely meaningless.   I assume that was what you meant and not sending them the complete barrelled action for them to attempt to destroy/damage as they generally like to do, at your cost.

it's not completely meaningless, how would any manufacturer arrive at a safe load ?  Only loads that are outside of SAAMI or CIP standards would be a problem and specific to one firearm (which is of course why many of us reload).

36 minutes ago, martin_b said:

Not sure where to put this but there goes..

ATM Ive got 250 6.5CM and 250 300PRC on my ticket.. Id like to increase this to 500..

As I shoot most weekends and Im planning a couple of weekends away to orion/eskdale muir (hopefully)  so the 250 allowance means I need to reload at least once a month , but when i do reload Id rather set aside an entire day and load 200+

Does the team think this is a resonable request? ( i dont want to upset Plod!)

your allowance seems miserly,  I have 600 of all my centre fire calibres and 1000 .22LR.  I think you can justify your allowance being increased.

On 7/18/2021 at 3:02 PM, Mattnall said:

This is because Mils is not short for milliradians. There are 2π radians in a circle or roughly 6283 milliradians.

Mils were a military approximation to the milliradians and from what I've heard the west/allies? went with 6400 because it is easily divisible for standard compass points but the Russians and some others went with 6000 as a more rounded figure.

It gets confusing when people keep calling them milliradians or worse still, mil-rads.

 

They'll be calling 'bullets', 'heads' soon and if enough people doeventually it'll become right.😉

Why get confused?  The mil is just a rounded milliradian, approx 2% difference.  It's not confusing.  The principle of ranging is based on milliradian subtension.  I'd rather explain what a milliradian is and how derived than just simplistic 1cm at 100m etc.  I'm fed up of hearing "it's metric".  It's dimensionless but just happens to be easy to do the maths with powers of 10.  One mil or milliradian is 1yd at a 1000 yds (approx) or 1 ft at 1000ft.....

I will have to admit to agreeing re "heads" - but it does help reduce confusion with lay-persons who equate bullet with a round of ammunition.

32 minutes ago, Re-Pete said:

Wait until you see their caterpillars.......

Pete

we had them on some fuchsia a couple of years ago  - blooming impressive !!  Unfortunately we didn't see the moths

28 minutes ago, VarmLR said:

This has caught a few users out!  Spin drift will do exactly that, and is noticeable at longer ranges.  It's due to the Magnusson effect which creates an opposing force proportional to wind strength.  As an aside, some countries experimented with  Magnusson effect "sails" Circa WW1 era whereby cloth sails were replaced by large metal cylinders spinning via motor drive creating the thrust needed to propel the ship.  Exact same forces acting on a spinning bullet, the magnitude of which are related to wind strength and direction.  Litz's ballistic calculator (and others) have a separate column for spin drift.  In order for it to be effective in Strelok,  as well as wind strength, as you've pointed out, wind direction has to be entered and the check box for spin drift enabled.  It becomes essential for first shot target hits much beyond 500 yds but the benefit of including it can be outweighed of course if wind strength is misjudged badly!

Spin drift or gyroscopic drift is not the same as the Magnus Effect.  Spin drift is due to gyroscopic forces causing the bullet to yaw and therefore create a small horizontal shift of impact. The 'yaw of repose' moves the bullet nose towards the direction of spin, caused by the downward force of gravity, presents a small increase in air resistance moving the bullet towards the direction of spin.

The Magnus effect does disturb the bullet in flight and this in turn can increase yaw therefore affecting spin drift however I've read that the Magnus effect is very small compared to other factors.

30 minutes ago, Laurie said:

 

Oh no, some people have hit or even exceeded 3,100 fps with the 155.5gn Berger - never with N135 though.

With a long enough barrel, a suitably throated chamber, the very strong Lapua small primer 'Palma' brass and suitable doses of a small number of powders, this is not only feasible but perfectly safe. This is not confined to the UK alone as top F/TR competitors worldwide load to over 3,050 fps with this bullet weight, many of them shooting in much higher temperatures too than we'd ever see here.

This not a phenomenon restricted to this discipline either, or even originating in it, as the much longer standing 'Match Rifle' has seen some astonishing 308 Win MVs for decades with heavy bullets as a result of enormous amounts of experimentation and innovation ever since the discipline switched from 'any calibre' to 308 Win-only sometime towards the end of the last century. In the early days of F/TR, some competitors were either MR shooters who moved across into it or who had access to MR gurus and sought out tips on achieving stellar velocities. 

As to whether another 50 or 100 fps makes a difference to scores, that's a difficult one to answer. It probably doesn't to me as my wind reading is nowhere up to the standards of Russell Simmonds and some of the other top people. On the way back from the F-Class 'Worlds' at Raton in 2013, I listened in to an interesting conversation in a Denver Airport bar between Russell and Robin (?) Kent one of our two team wind coaches and a World-class GB 'Target Rifle' team shooter and coach for many years. The latter said that he altered his windage values for Russell with his exceptional MVs even compared to the rest of the team.

(A team decision had been made for everyone to shoot the 155.5 Berger - a mistake in hindsight as the conditions were such that the 185gn Berger Juggernaut was clearly superior over any 155, and since those days, the Berger 200gn 200.20X model has become the universal F/TR bullet choice for this level of shooting.) When you get to that level of skill in rifle gunsmithing, handloading, shooting, and wind-reading, here was a man who knows more about how much to change the windage knob than I ever would who says it does make a difference, and does offer a benefit. I'm certainly not going to dispute the issue with anyone with his skills and experience. After 10 days of shooting, first in the US F-Class Nationals, then the FCWC, aggregate scores amounted to several hundreds in both events shot at 800, 900, and 1,000 yards. An extra 50 fps might increase an individual aggregate by a single point, more likely a low single figure number, for a few super-shooters, but one point averaged 9 places in the results listings at that level of super-hot competition. It didn't do Russell any harm as he finished runner-up individual F/TR World Champion despite the bullet handicap, and GB F/TR took Bronze in the team matches.

On MVs being used over that fortnight, Raton's August temperatures hitting the high 90s had their effect. My UK 3,050 fps MV with the now banned IMR-8208XBR rose to exactly 3,100 fps according to a borrowed MagnetoSpeed. Interestingly, that powder charge remained the 'sweet spot' despite the MV increase, and fortunately there were no pressure indications at all. In fact a set of new 'Palma' cases were fired twice under these conditions and went on to reach double-figure loadings and firings in subsequent UK use at c.3,050 fps (reducing to 3,027 fps over the last few hundred rounds due to barrel wear), and remain perfectly usable today. Standard large primer cases of any make are unsuitable for  such loads / pressures - if nothing else, they have to be junked after a small number of firings as case heads and hence primer pockets expand.

Nothing in ballistics comes free though. The price is barrel wear with F/TR barrels having very much shorter lives than those on 'TR' rifles firing the standard 155gn SMK NRA ammo at a bit over 2,900 fps. My 3,050 fps load gave a life of around 3,000 rounds on a Bartlein 'Heavy Palma' profile tube; the people shooting the really warm loads see considerably less.

For Bisley or MoD ranges a 155.5gr at 3,100fps is just HME at 4509 J.   Do F Class or T/R shooters do HME procedures ?

3 hours ago, John MH said:

RS Powder shortage imminent.

Thanks for the tipoff, just secured 2kg of RS62, that'll keep my 6.5CM fed for a bit.  Now off to recover from severe wallet abuse..

40 minutes ago, VarmLR said:

I was sat prepping brass recently and blithely using my Lyman case prep centre which I normally fit with a primer pocket cleaner or pocket uniformer.  I got to thinking on the value (if any) of uniforming new brass pockets and something struck me as fundamentally wrong about the perceived wisdom of using a pocket uniformer.  When  priming an empty case, the reference for my ram  is effectively the forward edge of the case rim as the downward stroke of the ram is what seats the primer, yet the uniforming tool references off the case head!  I would have thought that the whole point of uniforming pockets was to both seat the primer and have the anvil legs at the same reference off datum (base of pocket) each time, or why bother?  As brass migrates with each firing, referencing off the case head must be wrong as for example 2 thou below case head could mean variations in invil to pocket base within the same batch.  I'm not sure how much difference slight variations in anvil make, but some suggest that it can be significant for ignition, hence MV (SD). I've obviously got too much time on my hands...

Yes you have 😂

I have tried uniforming new cases and also not bothering - I could see no discernible benefit on Lapua brass 

13 hours ago, Triffid said:

...

Thinking about it, what I'd find really, really useful is the post-mortem reports into all the accidents that have occurred, particularly identifying the cause and root-cause of the incident.

 

Couldn't agree more.  The NRA should publish (anonymised if necessary) reports, I find real-world examples the most powerful way to remind people of the potential consequences of inattention or bad choices.

40 minutes ago, Artiglio said:

IIRC questionnaire the NRA put out was the initial response to concerns raised by the MOD after there had been incidents involving reloaded ammunition. 
Once the concern has been raised the NRA has to do something, gathering information will no doubt guide what happens next.

Much like the HME rules we now have, concerns were raised and a procedure devised that satisfied those concerns and allowed things to continue. ( you need HME on your SSC and do an HME card each time you visit the range). 
 

Surely much better that its the NRA that puts something in place than have the MOD make a decision.

 

Agreed, let's see what's proposed before getting too excited

Teach the principles, equipment, techniques, sources of data, safety considerations and selection of materials etc.   If a person chooses to then go their own direction that's on them.

If I speed in my car they don't prosecute my driving instructor.  

2 hours ago, John MH said:

It appears, according to the latest NRA Journal, that the NRA are going to add a 'Hand Loading' competency to a Shooter's Certification Card on the nod of your Club Chairman. Who carries the can when some 'Certified' shooter blows up their firearm is not clear. I expect the NRA will be more than happy to charge shooters for 'Certifying' them but I'm not sure they could reasonably be considered a 'Suitably Qualified and Experienced' body to perform such certification.

I did think this was inevitable.  I agree that it just opens another can of worms regarding responsibility - I don't think anyone is 'certifying' but I do think we (club officers) will need to take this responsibility seriously with some evidence of how and why the approval was made for individuals.  We do this for shooting skills at our club, it's not perfect but it does show due process and not just a nod-through.

47 minutes ago, VarmLR said:

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.

nearest grain !! ?    I measure to tenths,  find best group in half grain increments then home in to best at tenths and tweak seating to find best group.  MV ES/SD minimisation is a given.

I'm not particularly bothered about cheek weld, I seem to be able to manage to pick up the same position after marking my data sheet and natural aim point is not an issue with a bipod and bag.  If I were to shoot TR style I'd be hopeless 😁

22 minutes ago, VarmLR said:

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.

Yes, I agree and I did say MV was very important, low ES and low SD (with sufficient sample size) is always a good thing.  I'm not a fan of OCW, I have my own methods.

It must of sounded fabulous

8 hours ago, VarmLR said:

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.

You say "group size tells you little at 100 or even 200.."  Then how do you know you've found an harmonic  node ?  I use group size as my main criteria and so far I get excellent results at 1000yds for 308/6.5cm and I can shoot sub 1moa at a mile with .338LM provided the gods of wind agree.  For sure Mv consistency is very important but I'm not sure it's true to say groups tell you little.  A group is identifying the trajectory of the bullets, they can't miraculously come together at a diverging range except for the slim possibility of elevation due to velocity (Lee Enfield affect) - if the group spread left/right that's only going to get worse as they diverge further.

2 hours ago, Miseryguts said:

Hi, 

In the wanted section of this Forum, I saw a recent thread regarding the Westlake ML revolver, one of the replies to which was somewhat less than complimentary.

As I have my name down for one of these (and the variation for) I was wondering if any one else has any input on these??

I already have two BP ML revolvers and am aware of the loading procedure problems. The cleaning regime when using BP substitutes (I use Triple 7) is not too bad, but the attraction of the Westlake was the fact that it used smokeless powders, and they are powders I keep anyway.

Any and all opinions welcome!

That'll be me then!   Alan Westlake is a lovely chap and a skilled engineer,  I just could not get on with his product especially the near impossibility of loading soft lead wad cutters (his supply) without the bullet distorting due to the very tight fit in the chamber.  I tried resizing a thou smaller with a Lee die and that helped a bit but not enough.  I also found the gun to be inaccurate in my hands - I'm willing to put that down to my lack of skill however I do ok with my Roger & Spencer .44 ball - granted it has a 7" barrel not a 4".  You may be luckier than me and find it all comes together.