Popsbengo

I've just finished reading Jeff Siewart's book "Ammunition Demystified". I came to it via listening to him on Hornady podcasts. Very informative and not too hard going save the occasional equation or two. Four hundred pages related to internal ballistics, bullet design and rifle design. There's plenty of food for thought regarding the root causes of shot dispersion, some quite surprising and not at all common place in the usual discussions on optimising ammo, in my experience anyway. Highly recommended to anyone looking to understand what's happening in the rifle and how that affects bullet motion on its way down range.

Compromise available mag... bad positional or poor shooting form ? you're talking .22 rimfire ! Holding an aiming mark at 1 mile with a .338LM is a bit different I think you must agree and also more appropriate to the previous comments to Ralph's original post.

Never had a problem with rings, I use a tip (I forget where from) to use a piece of lead solder as a buffer between the set screw and die thread. Works a treat

I had to think for a minute ! That'll be .22LR !

that's pretty impressive elevation in a 34mm tube

There's something to be said in favour of an Ivey mount or similar to avoid having to use the reticule for elevation hold over. Keeping the scope's optical axis close to centre is optimum for elimination of lens distortion. I may treat myself ...

when you shoot, using your higher magnification, can you get back on target before your shot lands ? If you can that's good to go. There's around three seconds to a hit at the mile. Having a mate as spotter is also good! It's useful to see and measure misses (hence FFP) as there's next to no wind reading options on ELR ranges so the preceding shots are the best info on wind down range. I'm not convinced there's much to be gained spending +£3k. My S&B tracks perfectly (essential for ELR), is more than bright enough and has rock solid parallax adjustment. It's sufficiently rugged to resist knocks and heavy recoil. Not sure what's to be gained in the giddy heights of scopes at +£3k ?

I use a S&B PM2 at 25x for one mile. As OSOK says, good to have plenty of visibility and to get back onto the target for spotting. Mine is FFP in mils. One mile is 18.2 mils for 300gr Lapua Scenar. I have about 30moa rail (mix of moa rail and mil mount) and that's got enough elevation to dial 2000yds. I do have to zero at 200yds though.

Naturally ! Mrs Fox ??

Could this offer a glimmer of respite re ever more controls? 😁 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68097048 I think I remember how to salute but I refuse to do the assault course...

Success at competition certainly is a good measure but I'm sure you'd agree that not everyone that's good at something competes. Also, not everyone that competes is necessarily good at it either.

Your points 1, 2 & 3 are valid summaries from the videos. Point 4 is completely unfair to suggest "throwing different combinations etc" Statistics and the way they apply them in the videos is sound. It points up the nonsense of people quoting SD from a five shot string (or even 3 shot as occasionally posted on this forum). I don't think they are suggesting that load development can't improve the consistency of ammo, it clearly does - it's just how shooters fail to grasp the reality of small sample statistics error bars and say "oh cool I've got a great shooting load" after a good five shot or even five by five shot NRA (US) grouping. For sure 5x5 is realistic - it's what I do, it's just not a great predictor of possible divergence. The thing that gets glossed over in these discussions is the variability of the shooter him/her self. I don't know about others but I can't hold point of aim like a bolted down bench gun. And that variability is effecting group size but not chrono data. Good consistent well made ammo on the chrono, wobbly old me at the trigger. Group size not relatable to just internal ballistics effects but muddied by inherent inaccuracy of the nut behind the butt.

😂 I think the consensus on the video was that wrt factory ammo other factors overwhelm any possible effects from a tuner

Thanks, I managed to get one for £13 off Amazon - it's actually very good and works a treat.

I think what we can agree on is that there's endless scope for debate and theorising about the very complex subject that is internal ballistics. Hand-loading and 'tuning' loads and firearms for optimum performance is fascinating. I've come to the conclusion that it's far easier to eliminate bad performing loads than to arrive at a near perfect marriage between load and rifle. I make ammunition that's as repeatable as I can make it, use only the best components, invest in the best rifle & sight combo I can afford, take care to eliminate poor groupings and then crack on with shooting! I get pleasing accuracy and precision however I'm sure there's something further to be gained - it's just very hard to get that last nth% ..

"race car parts make a race car" is the way they summed it up. Also, your last point is a key observation - if there is any effect from tuners it's tiny compared to so many other factors and because of practical reasons, most load development is limited in numbers of shots, so statistically suspect when comparing results and therefore tuner benefits are inconclusive at best

indeed

"Most people think..." "Most people" also think doing statistics on three shot strings is reasonable in load development. I'd rather take the view of experts under consideration than the views of persons that have spent quite large sums of money on a gadget - confirmation bias being a well known problem. If it adds to confidence then crack on, I'll not be joining the tuner ownership club myself.

1) a clearer understanding of barrel harmonics and the ballistic effects that overwhelm any real-world "tuning" available from adjustable barrel weights. 2) the significance of bullet axial alignment and yaw related dispersion being more significant than I thought 3) some useful links to other related subjects

Well, that was 75mins well spent I think. Very interesting indeed. Well worth a listen. One thing it's validated for me is the care required to ensure bullet alignment is well spent in reducing dispersion due to cross-velocities. I'll not be ordering a muzzle tuner anytime soon though. With the money saved (?) I've ordered Jeff Siewert's book

Could you show us a before and after picture please ?

That's interesting. I like the use of painted letters X, Y to help identify the limits

Hi Calum Lapua small primer brass, CCI BR4 primers, Berger 144 Hybrid. RS62 43.0 gr. I load long (my ogive measure is only meaningful to my rifle), longer than would fit in a magazine. Custom chambered 5R 30" Bartlein barrel. Cheers

when you open the dialog box to post or reply to a message you will see a paperclip symbol and "Drag files here to attach, or choose files..." Do as it says, drag a picture file or select from a folder. Best make sure the file is sensible size.

I agree with you. NRA CoP para 10 Never exceed maximum loads given in hand loading data tables 10, c) Do not exceed the maximum load given in hand loading data tables or the maximum load you have discovered for yourself. Stick to CIP/SAAMI limits! However, Vihtavuori are one source of data. Other competent authorities may have tested on differing test rigs and achieved different maximum recommended numbers. Equally valid I believe. I use Berger and Lyman manuals as well as powder manufacturers data. I've never needed to exceed manufacturers limits to achieve good accuracy over 1000yds .308 or 2000yds .338LM. Chasing MV at all costs seems unnecessary to me.