KABOOM

And now I see the second posting lol well ok that's clear now to me.

8 hours ago, Elmerfudd said:

Good day to you all, I have some Hornady 53gr Vmax loaded up ready to test sat 20thou from lands but does anyone on here have any factory 53gr ammunition that could measure me the OAL to the ogive please 

A few questions, is this a magazine rifle, and if it fits the magazine I have to wonder why? Your not jammed in the lead so unless you want exact factory ammo specs I do not understand your purpose. Best wishes for good shooting.

2 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

That's very interesting, kudos for digging that info out.  I understand that most sniper 'action' took place at moderate distances so that would make good sense.  The offset at >200 would be of little worry, dead is dead.

Correct, I have never been a sniper however I have read accounts of those who where and the question of " what is the preferred range to engage" the reply I agree with is the closer the better. Another way to express I read from one the Lords of The Admiralty  gunnery gunnery gunnery HIT the target all else is twaddle. I may have some error in the quote and do not recall which Lord. Best wishes for good shooting.

On 5/17/2020 at 5:31 AM, Popsbengo said:

I be interested to understand how the M1C/D was zeroed due to the issue of introducing a "windage angle" correct only at the zero distance.  Did the military issue a standard drop chart that included instructions for dialing out the horizontal error at differing distances or did they adopt the more obvious practice (to me) of setting the scope parallel to the barrel and just allowing for a fixed offset at all ranges?  Obviously at more distant ranges the parallel error becomes largely irrelevant ( 2" at 100yds is a 'large' error where as, 2" at 600yds is irrelevant as it's lost in the general variability in the system)

I found reference in a magazine article the m1C/D was zeroed at between 200-300 yds to help with ever problematic windage nothing more precise noted. 

On 5/25/2020 at 3:13 PM, Elmerfudd said:

Evening everyone I have a load of 52gr eld-m that groups tiny cloverleaf, just wondered if anyone can actually verify if these expand on vermin or not. The old 52 Amax did but not tried these as yet. Anyone using them in .223 please 

My information is that the ELD-M is the same projectile with a slight change in the polymer tip. I se no reason that they wont work as well as the old Amax did. I liked the Amax better than the V-max for two reasons, it was on hand when the v-max was sold out and they grouped as well or better with better bc compared to the 50grn v-max. I have several hundred Amax on hand and when they run out I would not hesitate to buy the ELDM for the same uses.

My day was spent sorting the reloading area, much too my surprise I located dies ( for a long sold caliber), 11lbs of powder I forgot purchasing and its like Christmas in may.

I feel regret at not remembering what I stored away, will be used in time. If only my banking would "self refill" as the powder cabinet seemingly did. I can only hope.

On 5/25/2020 at 5:43 PM, Elliott said:

Who else shoots the 204 Ruger? I have one. A CZ527 Varmint. Love the rifle. Shoots really well with 39gr Blitz. Amazing on foxes and corvids. Had some really long shots on crows and rabbits. Must be the perfect varmint calibre.

I shoot a Ruger no1V stainless laminate and love it! works well on sage rats and jackrabbits, coyote ect. I prefer the 39grn Sierra as well.  I have rather a lot of the 32 grn on hand  but that's last resort. Powder of choice is either CFE223 or IMR 8208xbr and CCI BR4 primers, nosler brass. Very nice group! Best wishes for good shooting.

1 minute ago, GT3_richy said:

RL15 seems to be pretty temp sensitive - my 6BRA was mint at 8c with no pressure signs - in the summer at mid-20s it was stamped heads with the ejector and heavy to lift ;s

Part of my initial trouble was the load listed had a very short shank bullet, I loaded a same weight with a much longer shank and that sure didn't lower pressures any. RL15 was my go to powder for all prarie dog loads in 22-250 zero issues with it. I changed to IMR8208xbr when it came out and now to CFE223. I still use RL15 to duplicate 30 caliber ball loads for my M-1 and 1903 Springfields, US 1917 ect. Heat is sure a factor and the longer I do this (handloading ) the more I learn and tend to insert greater caution with development of loads.

2 hours ago, Adam curtiss said:

Hello everyone, 

Over the last few months I have finally bought a Tikka T3x lite in 6.5x55 Swedish which I will be using for deer, vermin and also to get back into target shooting. I am looking into starting reloading for it however thought I'd ask what other peoples experiences and information are on reloading this calibre, for example bullet head choice etc. 

The rifle has a 20" barrel in 1:8 twist.

Thanks, Adam.

Welcome to the Swede club. For assorted vermin you just cant beat the 95 grain VMAX, I shoot a model 38 short rifle and tbh its one of my most favored rifles. For deer any 140 hunting bullet will work. Target work I would go 143 Match kings or some thing similar. Powders I use are very probably not r e a c h compliant so I cant recommend. Enjoy your swede and best wishes for good shooting.

On 2/19/2020 at 3:59 AM, Sherlock said:

I have used 55 gr Blitzking in a previous 243 -  just before I had it re-barrelled in to a tight twist 22.250.     

The 55gr or 58 gr pills are very potent Fox medicine and definitely have a splat factor.

I guess when shooters select these light weight bullets they are looking to drive them fast and flat,  Obviously this means more powder / more velocity / more pressure .....   which equals less barrel life.    Run them at 3500 fps and I don't think barrel life will suffer.

Personally I think the 70 grn SKB are a better choice  - They still have a very flat trajectory , but hit harder and better in the wind  - perfect for foxing IME

I am with you on the 70 grainers, I  worked a load with RL15 that will hit 3400 with that bullet and it has some splat factor indeed. My first version went even faster  however I tested it at 32 degrees F scale, worked fine, at 95 degrees F scale the bolt was sticky to open and this I self reminded test loads in the heat. I backed that load down at least 1 grain and now it works way better from safety standpoint.

On 2/18/2020 at 12:27 PM, skydancer said:

Does any body know if reloading 243 win with 55grain heads would be a barrel burner my soaur 101is very accurate on this load what are your thoughts chaps

 I rather doubt that 55 grainer will cause any trouble at all, barrel life is largely about total round count and lbs of powder used, pressures ect. I don't use. the 55 in my 243 I prefer a 70 for all varmint uses. If i take it after deer or pronghorn then I go with any 100 grainer or 85 grain barnes tsx. I bought my 243 well used and I know I have shot at least 3k rounds , had it cattle branding hot and it still does half inch at 100 if I do my part. Best wishes for good shooting.

16 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

I be interested to understand how the M1C/D was zeroed due to the issue of introducing a "windage angle" correct only at the zero distance.  Did the military issue a standard drop chart that included instructions for dialing out the horizontal error at differing distances or did they adopt the more obvious practice (to me) of setting the scope parallel to the barrel and just allowing for a fixed offset at all ranges?  Obviously at more distant ranges the parallel error becomes largely irrelevant ( 2" at 100yds is a 'large' error where as, 2" at 600yds is irrelevant as it's lost in the general variability in the system)

if I knew I would tell you, Never have seen the tech manuals or instructed on that system, Time to ponder just where that info exists. Im curious too and possibly the NRA has info in the USA, they may have published some in our monthly magazine in the last year.Back to work Monday and if nothing else time to think about where I may have stashed that months American Rifleman. Best Wishes for good shooting.

1 hour ago, terryh said:

Kaboom,

Personally I do not taper crimp CF rifles

I did though crimp the 22K Hornet when I had one and it made a difference, but think this was due to the thin cases in this cartridge.

Not had issues with SD’s I’m achieving, pay attention to case prep, control (as best I can) neck tension seems to to be enough to give low ES and SD’s. Caveat - not sure if my test group sizes give a meaningful SD?

T

Thank you, my thought was it may reduce sd,  key word may. In the end I do agree with you and after some thought I think most of my trouble was from a powder funnel with a step in the neck, now replaced. Time with the chronograph will tell me.

On 5/14/2020 at 6:02 PM, saddler said:

A long established problem, but for other reasons

The WW2 Garand sniper rifle could only be clip loaded from the top, so a scope was offset on the left of the receiver and a special cheekrest made to push the cheekweld over by the same amount to allow the eye to be inline with the scope - there had been a few similar scopes set up this way in WW1 as well to allow stripper clip feeding.

Early gun designs before regular/obligatory scope usage became a thing were commonly top eject. To allow scope use on this type of gun, some firms had side mounts to allow scope fitting without interference with the cartridge ejection.
The main firm that did make these mounts was Weaver - they are still available

As to convergence - the scope is offset to the bore by maybe an inch or so - but parallel. I'd say for the average shooter you'd be pushed to tell the difference on target once the scope is zero'd on paper -  but maybe if a modern scope is used notes could be made for the correct windage mark for each distance?

The M1C or M1D from reading were decent sniper systems to 600 yards or so but not comfortable to use. I don't own one sadly and never shot one. The offset was a factor in accuracy and I would think a huge factor in finally looking for a replacement. Not sure exactly when the USA Armed Forces decided to go with non walnut stocks in sniper rifles perhaps after the 70''s?

So I posted today and by some miracle I now am "Advanced Member" this makes me feel my pending geezer hood. What makes the status change, number of posts or is there a gnome that evaluates posts for being helpful or some other reason?🙂

On 4/23/2020 at 5:13 PM, RobertH said:

Thank you both for your helpful replies, it seems I have an embarrassing but interesting outcome. I stripped the rifle down last night and measured the stock and metalwork separately. I was primarily interested in what I have read on several sites about the bottom metalwork touching the receiver, thinking maybe they are contacting in such a way as to cause rocking or insufficient clamping force instead of clamping solidly to provide an adequate platform for the barrel. (this didn't appear to be an issue as my measurements suggested there was some .023" clearance between the top and bottom metal bits) Despite pulling the rifle apart three times and careful reassembling, at one point removing the nasty split-pin pillar on the rear action screw, and every time using your technique Lantohorse, of putting it together with the magazine in place (Good tip!) it still shot badly.

 

So, here's the embarrassing and interesting bit about which I'd appreciate some suggestions!  The Rifle is in 223 and  I developed two 60 gr V-max loads last autumn using the OCW system that, the last time I had need of the rifle, shot into less than .3 minute. If anyone's interested, one used Viht's book max of 24.7 gr of N133, but I settled for the other slower, more comfortable but just as accurate 23.8 grains of N133 (both at a coal of 2.215") which is quite short and a compressed load.  No pressure signs and an average MV of 3086.  Anyway, (please stay awake!) I made up 100 of these rounds with five times fired and neck sized Norma brass, together with 100 brand new Lapua cases.   BUT,  I had previously made the 100 Lapua cases up into the 24.7gr book max loads that chronographed at an average 3200 fps. A blistering, very accurate round that was nevertheless a bit of a flincher.  So I pulled the remaining bullets, about 85 and reloaded them to exactly the same specs as the norma load.   These are the rounds I have been using yesterday and today, until I thought to take out and try the Norma rounds which shot impeccably back into .3 minute. Why would a brand new case using a pulled bullet shoot a group of between 1.75 and 2 minutes compared to a neck sized one producing .3? I still can't quite get my head around it.      Anyway I am still considering bedding as a method of eliminating more variables. If you've managed to stay awake, I thank you.       Answers on a postcard etc.................

 

 

 

 

 

My thought would be neck tension was the culprit, after a resize things should return to normal. As for the bedding and climate issues sealing with spar varnish if contact surfaces are even, if not light sanding and seal. My CZ550 had lumps in the barrel channel once those were handled superb results, that stock is laminate not walnut. The split pin pillar prob caused troubles too. Best wishes for good shooting.

Considering a taper crimp to reduce sd has anyone done this? Not planning to roll crimp when the bullet in question has no canelure

On 5/11/2020 at 8:16 AM, Popsbengo said:

In the spirit of whiling away some lockdown time 😁😁-  I'm doing some case capacity measuring for comparison purposes and also for Quickload calculations.  What's the community thoughts?

The usual method suggested is to derive case volumetric capacity from water filled weight, less the dry weight (I should refer to 'mass' but weight will do).  The resultant weight of water derives the volume of the case and that's the important parameter for internal ballistics pressure calculations.

The received wisdom seems to be to use water in a trimmed and prepped, fire-sized case prior to full-length resizing:  Weight of H2O in grains is then entered into QL.  There's a few problems with that method:

1. water mass and volume vary with temperature:   By my calculations QL uses a normalised temp of 25C (77F) in their conversion (0.998 SG at 25C)
2. water out of the tap could be full of minerals and will have dissolved gasses therefore the weight is not just pure water
3. water produces a pronounced meniscus and entraps bubbles making it hard to be precise and introduces measuring errors
4. a fired case will have residues coated onto the inside of the case

Of course we can improve on this by using de-gassed, distilled water at room temperature in cleaned cases.  A tiny amount of rinse-aid will help with wetting so reduce bubbles and meniscus.

OR

don't use water at all.  In my past working life we needed to measure capacity but used clean filtered paraffin (kerosene to our American friends) at standard room temperature.  Paraffin does not form a noticeable meniscus and it doesn't entrap air and, as we derive its mass by weighing, the chemical constituents are allowed for.

1. Measure out, say 200ml of paraffin at room temperature and weigh it  (I pick 200ml as I have a lab cylinder that's ±1% and it's almost 60x the amount of a .308 so I get a decent sample size. Also that's about 164g so my scales are in range).   This is ensure you have an accurate SG reference as paraffins can vary
2. Use paraffin at room temp, fill the case and weigh as in the H2O method above
3. Using the volume/weight derived from (1) above calculate the volume of paraffin
4. use that volume in QL instead of "Grains H2O"

OK, some faffing about but no more than obtaining distilled, degassed water.  Advantages are no trapped bubble errors, no meniscus errors, no unknown SG errors.  Once the paraffin SG is determined just store in a sealed bottle for reuse as you need.

Thanks for reading, any thoughts?  

Good sir that's 99% more thought than I ever thought possible on the subject, While I agree consistency is key, I limit my self to cases from the same lot and manufacture. I do find it interesting. Best wishes for good shooting.

13 hours ago, Bob57 said:

20 practical is not a factory round, so not possible!!

my mistake I missed the cartridge in question.

6 hours ago, outlanda said:

Good evening and thank you for your comments gents. The brass has only ever been used in this barrel. I only run mild loads now(18gr IMR 4198 behind 40gr berger hpbt or Hornady v max and CCi400 primers). Velocity is 3200fps approx., and no signs of over pressure. Hard bolt lift/closing has been a problem and the redding body former die has helped fix this 98%. Closing bolt is easier now with custom JR bolt handle. I have changed the extractor a few times now and wondered if there is a problem with Brownell extractors. All sizing has been with a redding s type full length die. I thought the brass might be worn out so have just tried some new PPU and once fired IMI and still marking the rims.  Thank you Ian I will investigate the M16 extractor option 

Steve

Most thing s I would think are causing this were mentioned, if possible I would try some factory ammo to see what the rims look like should be interesting and wont cost huge money. I don't own a single Remington rifle and haven't seen this in my CZ, Ruger, or Savage rifles.

On 5/8/2020 at 12:44 PM, That bald headed Geordie said:

Is it just me that I find Mary Poppins sexually attractive and I would 'give her some sugar.'    Ok just me then!

Its not just you good sir.

On 8/26/2019 at 11:47 PM, MichalS said:

I started experimenting with N160 in 6.5CM

The book max for 139 Scenar is 42.1gr at 2.717" COAL. I got a bit surprised when I heard a cracking noise of compressing powder as the data don't indicate it should be compressed... What's even more interesting is that Scenar 136L data go up to 46.0gr...

Anyone have experience with compressed loads of N160?

TIA,

Michal

Not with that powder but yes compressed loads, haven't seen trouble at all honestly.  Brass varys some less room others more.

4 hours ago, saddler said:

….you might need to get your eyes tested - I've dated better looking women than her, she's an Alaska 6 at best - a UK 9 pinter 
Words alone cannot describe her beauty, but numbers can = 3/10

I love that expression UK 9pinter. All things considered I never did understand the infatuation with royalty here in the USA. Not quite sure exactly a nonce  is seems not a compliment to me.  Meghan could find work as a lot lizard im sure, most I have seen are insults to the eye.

8 hours ago, saddler said:

He chose, poorly....

Very well said!!!

9 hours ago, MarinePMI said:

What a damned shame.  Smh...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/meghan-doesnt-like-it-harry-sells-rifle-collection-to-reportedly-please-meghan?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

Proof Harry is a fool, She might be pretty but a witch never changes her ways.