Laurie

I couldn't agree more! However, that's the world we inhabit now. After a fatal incident, the inevitable Monday-morning quarterback investigation will pose the rhetorical question. "You're telling me that you allowed people on your range to fire ammunition they'd created at home for high-power rifles with no checks at all on their competence, or even asked them what data they used?" I have a direct parallel experience here, many many years ago on a private commercial range, not an MoD one. Most times I went there, there was a guy with a repro Winchester 1866 'Yellow Boy' levergun in 44-40WCF. As I had a passing interest in the cartridge, I asked him about components and loads and got some bullshit replies. Then, he came clean and it turned out that he'd NO knowledge at all about his loads. A mate had set him up with a Lee Turret press and dies complete with the Auto-Disk measure and had set everything up for him and chosen the components and loads. All the owner had to do was to feed in primers to its magazine, pour powder into the Auto-Disk hopper, and finger-seat bullets while pulling the handle to size cases and work the primer and measure. I had (in my own head) mixed views on this, but decided in the end that it seemed to work, but nevertheless I'd be far happier if he'd read a manual or two and knew what he was doing. Long after I'd stopped going there, I mentioned this fellow to another shooter who knew the range in question. 'Oh, he blew that rifle up very comprehensively was the response!' Every day almost, I read posts and see questions asked on forums supposed to be populated by experts that simply wouldn't be there if the poster had done even minimum basic research and/or read any of the bullet company manuals. The degree of ignorance revealed is sometimes breathtaking especially when injected into a discussion that is contingent on the use of rifles with non-standard chambers and freebores which have a considerable effect on pressures, or loads require employment of particular cases.

I quite agree. This comes back to the MoD's / Landmarc's legal obligations under Health & Safety at Work legislation. Let's just hope we never have some idiot with a grossly overloaded cartridge and/or loaded with a quite unsuitable powder/bullet combination kill or seriously injure somebody else on the firing point. Personal tragedy aside, handloads would be doubtless banned within days with the possible exception of those holding some sort of handloading competence certificate as per the Safe Shooter certification only more onerous.

I did some research on this for a Target Sports magazine feature on the last of the No.4 target rifles many, many years ago. IIRC, the 303 / SR to 7.62 / TR changeover was phased over 1967 and 68 with the latter year seeing all major comps transferred to the new discipline. As to when the MoD stopped the ammo subsidy, that I don't know. It might have lasted a little while into the TR / 7.62 era. Irrespective, costs rose across the board as the changeover started an equipment and technology race. Whilst large numbers of No.4s were initially converted with heavy barrels and cut-back furniture by A J Parker, Parker-Hale Ltd and Bisley's G E Fulton & Son for both individual and collective club owners, many shooters saw them as stop-gaps and immediately sought out alternatives. At local club level, there was an initially small movement from everybody using a club rifle to private purchase and individual ownership / use. My first decent 7.62 TR rifle was one such Schulz & Larsen built on a Mauser '98 action. The sole previous owner who'd shot it for over 20 seasons at that point told me it was the first privately owned rifle in the club when he'd bought it in 1968 or 69, and had provoked considerable resentment and personal hostility. However, within a couple of years, every other 'serious' competitor in the club had found the dosh to buy a similar grade rifle. At Bisley club and national level it soon ignited two, or even more rifles per individual competitor in private ownership for a couple of reasons. One was the Mauser action's superiority at up to 600 yards in heavy barrel rifles whilst the No.4's 'action compensation' feature provided better results with the barely ballistically capable and sh*tty-quality issue 7.62 ball at 800-1,000 yards. There was also so much variation between bullet diameters on different makes and even lots of military spec 7.62 in its early years that optimal internal barrel dimensions and chambers were equally varied, and it was said that wealthier shooters therefore had several chambered barrels or even rifles and chose the best match to the ammo being used that year. How widespread that practice was, or even if it happened at all, I wouldn't know, but suspect that many such rumours were apocryphal, even put about by the also-rans. 😀 Many shooters had hoped that when the NRA was forced to make the ammo change that things and SR would continue unchanged bar a simple rebarreling, extractor claw and ammo change. But the NRA concluded that the fully stocked No.4 wouldn't perform consistently with the higher pressure cartridge with a same weight/profile barrel and full length woodwork / nosecap set-up. (The Army was similarly disappointed it seems as there were attempts to refurbish 303 No.4s as light-barrel 7.62mm reserve rifles with appropriate magazine and feed / ejection changes when the L1A1 SLR came into service from 1957, but this wasn't carried out in major numbers. I'm sure that this offspring was given an L-something new format rifle designation, but Googling doesn't come up with any information I can find. I think India though did a relatively simple 303 to 7.62 conversion on far larger numbers for police, paramiltary, and reserve forces at a later date, many still in service today.) The GB NRA's investigation included attempts to stiffen 303 receivers with welded-on bars and strips, but that wasn't a success as well as the new-build SMLE action 2A1 model from Ishapore arsenal. (Contrarily, Canada's equivalent DCRA governing body commissioned Canadian Armaments Ltd to rebarrel a few thousand FTR'd No4 Mk1/2s for match use and these reportedly shoot well. Pics I've seen show them as per 303s with original military issue sights, not double-zero type match rearsights and front tunnels as used on HBar TR conversions. I wouldn't have thought that the ammo change made a great difference (if any) to range danger area specifications leading to smaller militia range closures. I think that it was a steadily hardening of attitudes over health & safety standards in which many such venues were singularly lacking. Certainly, I've been told by several sources that the many closures of former militia / WW2 Home Guard ranges that took place across North Yorkshire resulted from public and local authority pressure usually as a result of footpaths intersecting ranges and/or danger areas, poor or non-existent sightlines and the resulting near misses. Certainly, many things one reads, or were recounted verbally by the WW2 generation suggest that basic safety standards were simply ditched during the WW2 emergency. (Remember, the UK saw more deaths and serious injuries between the September 1939 outbreak of war and D-Day on 06.06.1944 from road traffic accidents caused by letting barely trained individuals drive military and other official vehicles and the effects of the black-out, than from action with the enemy across all three forces in all theatres!)

Well, they are of course 😀 IIRC, the old Service Rifle 5-ring was 3.5-MOA in Enfield / P'14 days. No V-Bull either, and the overall size of the 'black' was far larger than today's TR target. There have been several target and ring size reductions since TR was introduced in 1968, and arguably they're still on the large size for 'Imperial' competitors in good conditions.

I suggest you do some research on American sites such as the Accurate Shooter Forum where it has been beaten to death. The supply drought has been building up for at least two years coincident with the change in the US presidency which instituted near panic among many US shooters (as did Barak Obama winning a second term eight years earlier). This time, things are worse for a wide range of reasons including Covid supply chain disruptions and the international shipping crisis. However, a primary reason has been a sea-change in the American public's thinking. BLM and similar disruptions and 'defunding' police forces as a politically inspired move has put the frighteners on many previously anti-gun Americans. The rate of acquisition of new guns of all types in the USA over recent years has been staggering. It's known precisely how many pistols are being bought including whether by new or existing gun owners as a Federal application to purchase is required and applications are seeing three-figure % growth year on year. New guns and owners = increased demand for factory ammunition and the machines that make brass or bullets can only do one job at a time. It's no coincidence that both Berger and more recently Sierra have joined the ranks of factory ammo manufacturers in a big way and it's more profitable to sell ammo than the bits for the user to make it him/herself. All of the main bullet makers have increased capacity, shifts worked etc and still can't make enough. Primers have become a primary constraint and the reasons for their shortages is a subject in itself. Then there is a (much needed) move (maybe!) by some European NATO members to actually equip and train troops properly and there may be some diversion of particularly powder and primers to military ammo. Thanks to globalisation and privatisation policies across the West, there are no longer any government propellant factories nor government arsenal manufactories bar the US Lake City and associated New River powder works (which are contracted out to private sector company management - currently Olin-Winchester). So you're competing with governments for at least some components and it is a difficult and expensive job to expand anything involving explosives these days with fierce local opposition, health & safety regs etc etc. Private company shareholders need to have guaranteed returns too before spending the large amounts needed. Finally people are just shooting more and consuming more ammo and more components, especially in the US where the Black Rifle in semi-auto form has become almost standard kit. Participation by and demand from existing recreational shooters in all branches of the sport has skyrocketed in recent years. The shortly to arrive 1970s level inflation, stagflation, and maybe severe recessions may take some of the heat out of demand growth, but in a very painful/brutal way for many, sadly.

Not new. This requirement was introduced shortly after the 1988 Firearms Acts changes that banned self-loaders, so must have been c. 1989/90. I can remember photocopying a pro-forma slip at work and filling in the blanks for multiple loads / cartridges and taking them to club range days at MoD Strensall. I was never asked to show one to anybody on site then (MoD wardens, pre-Landmarc) and never heard of anybody else being asked to. So, after 12 or 18 months nobody bothered any more about this. As well as quoting the data-set source and affirming the handload used conformed to it, it was primarily a declaration that one had loaded ammunition in accordance with the prevailing MoD MV and ME ceilings. This was long, long before today's tighter limits and the resulting HME compliance regime was instituted of course and one could have loaded up compliant 338LM ammo for most sites.

Are you selling or wanting them. If the latter you're in the wrong Forum section. If 'wanting', I might be able to help.

I though various lowlifes and members of the criminal classes already had that well in hand!

Thanks Mick for the information. I can remember loading vast numbers of Norma 146gn (??) FMJBTs and the occasional 150gn SMK in 308 for an Enfield No.4 TR rifle some 30 odd years ago. It was an ex club rifle, one of several the club had owned in 303 SR form which had then been converted to 7.62 by Fultons c.1968 using the Enfield kit.

AFAIK all of the original Enfield Lock heavy barrels for No.4 conversions were 1 in 12 twist rate, bar a specially commissioned lot for Norman Clark that used the then common 14 twist rate optimised for 144-146gn bulleted 7.62 ammunition. 12 twist handles most 308 bullets well unless you fancy loading the latest generation of 200gn match bullets like the Berger 200.20X and the longer heavier VLD designs of 190gn or so. It'll shoot well with the 185gn Berger LRBT Juggernaut should you be so lucky as to find any for sale - a waste of money IMO though for a rifle like this, even though the 'Jugg' is now recommended for 11 twist for optimal ballistics. What you have to watch much more with original Enfield barrels is that they were deliberately manufactured 'tight' to suit the very undersize bullets used in military 7.62 ball ammo in the pre 155 RG and Sierra MK days, as little as 0.3073" reportedly in some lots, although NATO specification is 0.3077" IIRC. This means that when loaded with a 'proper' 30-calibre bullet (ie 0.3080" nominally, but SMKs for example are usually a tad fatter at 0.3082-83") they generate much higher pressures than in a 'proper' SAAMI spec barrel (0.300" bore / 0.3080" groove diameters). This coupled to the relatively weak L-E No.4 action is why the NRA advised that its commercially purchased TR ammunition loaded with the original 155gn Sierra MK shouldn't be fired in these rifles.

You have a problem in that IME 6.5X47L is in its internal ballistics at a boundary. Some rifles perform very well with VarGet equivalent powders; others (rather fewer) don't and need a slower burner; a few work across both types. You need to find out which bracket your rifle slots into. Of the Viht powders, N150/550 are probably the best to start with of the lightly slower burners, especially with 136/140gn bullets. However, if you have one of the faster burning powder lovers, you come down to H. VarGet alternatives - N140/540; RS50/52; Lovex S062; Re15/N203-B; the new Alliant Re TS 15.5 if and when it ever gets here. The other factor that has a bearing on this is just how your rifle is chambered vis a vis freebore length. There is a lot of variation here, and many chambers have insufficient freebore to allow bullet seating to anywhere near the CIP 2.800" maximum COAL, and are better suited to shorter 123/130gn bullets. In turn, this affects charge fill-ratios and powder choice / performance.

Most people really whack the magnification setting up in F-Class/FTR, but you don't have to to do well. Russell Simmonds who has been both GB F/TR league champion and World Champion (twice I think) used to shoot with his scope set at around 18-power to give a wider field of view. Until electronic targets appeared, I'd set my Sightrons (I have five 8-32X56 Series IIIs and an SII fixed power BR scope) for a tad higher, 22-24 power, and that still let me see the target on either side with minimal rifle panning to see how my neighbours' latest shots had reacted to any wind change. With Shot Marker scoring, there's no benefit now but I still don't necessarily use the max 32 setting, never mind the >50X settings many people feel that have to shoot at. Some people do better at very high mags, but not everybody. I'd start her off with the 6-24 Sightron and see how she gets on with it. I'm amused by the 'mouse gun' warnings. Apart from my having been the sole GB F/TR League competitor to seriously use 223 (and make 7th GB league championship place in 2011), what you and your daughter are doing is the norm in US F/TR club shooting, and far from everyone then having to 'trade up' to 308, it's often the case that Junior outshoots Dad who then starts to 'borrow' Junior's rifle before having an out & out long-range match example built for himself. 223, even with 90s, can't match (heavily loaded) 308's external ballistics these days with the Berger 200.20X for 800 yards and beyond, but can still do very well at 200-600, although a lot depends on how 'tricky' winds are on the range(s) in question. However, the 223 is so easy to shoot in an F/TR weight rifle, it's ideal for tyros especially lightly built ladies and youths, and lets them concentrate on rifle hold, steady aim, trigger control and wind reading. So many people who jump straight into shooting 308 with heavy loads under 185s and 200s spend their first year of competitive shooting trying to get the rifle/bipod to track correctly and overcome 'bipod-hop'.

Compressed loads are endemic in 223 at magazine COAL with longer, heavier bullets, especially with the slower burning powders such as N140. Some loading data sources use a compressed load indicator, some don't, and some seem to do so only when they remember the issue. Viht lists 25.9gn N140 as maximum for the 69gn Sierra MK at 2.26-inch COAL which implies that is for the standard SAAMI chamber with its very short freebore. That is in Lapua brass and is a hot load. Remember, published loads data applies solely to the listed components, so the Hornady cases you're using may have more or less internal capacity. If less, that increases the case-fill level, also peak pressures. If more, the reverse. The SMK and TMK are also different enough to change things. The ogive / neck radius and central shank are pretty well the same, but the TMK has a longer less sharply angled boat-tail section, and of course has the acetyl tip stuck on the front end lengthening, in conjunction these factors producing a greater bullet OAL. Seated to the same COAL, 2.26", it is seated necessarily deeper than the SMK so there is less space for powder and higher fill-ratios with any charge weight. QuickLOAD gives Viht's maximum N140 charge a 106% fill-ratio with the SMK, rising to nearly 110% with the TMK seated to the same COAL. Compression in itself doesn't raise pressures but creates various other problems. First, just getting the stuff in. If you regularly load this or similar bullets to magazine length, you really need a powder funnel with a longer drop tube. The Forster universal funnel with 5.5-inch tube is very good but expensive. It and a slow angled pour will let you get another 1.5 or so gn powder into the case through better settling. But even so, using top loads with this powder will see compression, and that nasty feeling / sounding 'crunch'. It's then important to subsequently check COALs, as heavily compressed charges can push bullets back out increasing COALs depending on the degree of neck tension being created by the sizer die. Then we get into rifle type (Bolt or straight-pull) and chamber type / freebore as single-loading with long-throated factory chambers, even more so competition ones like the Wylde or those with longer freebores allow bullet seating to longer COALs. Be VERY wary of comments that suggest Viht gives 'mild' max loadings. QuickLOAD says this charge weight exceeds the US SAAMI 55,000 psi limit and is much closer to the CIP / NATO ceiling of 62,000 psi in Lapua brass. Those sort of pressure levels from Viht powders from factory loads are in line with what I see in loading the 223 with heavier bullets.

That's short-range and ideal for these bullets. The .224 77s from Sierra, Nosler, Berger, Lapua will all shoot much further but they're blunt, low-BC designs that become increasingly wind affected at longer ranges, also fall into trans-sonic speeds too at under 800 yards with 223 Rem MVs. The 77 SMK, the original one of the quartet, was designed for a specific task - to shoot well with a lot of jump in 223 Rem Wylde or 5.56 chambers whilst feeding reliably when loaded to 2.25-2.26" to fit AR-15 magazines for the 200 (off-hand) and 300 (kneeling or sitting) yards rapid-fire (semi-auto) stages in US Hi-Power Service Rifle competitions. (80s would then be single loaded for the final 600 yards prone slowfire stage.) As is often the case, they'll still perform well when outside of their original design parameters, but they're first and foremost shorter distance models.

As with all Scenars, they are very well made. They don't need a 7-twist barrel; eight is fine. They're capable of excellent short-range precision on paper - I can't comment on any other use. They do have a longer shank than the equivalent Sierra Match King and will generate higher pressures all other things being equal. This is probably why Viht's maximum charge weights for them are around 1gn lower than for the 77 SMK. (And for some reason, the 77 TMK is allowed a grain higher still max charges over the SMK despite having apparently identical dimensions to the HPBT MK version other than the meplat/tip.)

Hmmmm, you have a problem! Logically, the simple way out this conundrum to increase the scope adjustment range substantially, either by buying something on the lines of the March Genesis, or changing the rail to one with an inbuilt adjustable elevation facility - as commonly used by Ko2M and other mile-plus shooters. I'd not presume to comment on the optimal / most cost-effective solution. You'd be better off contacting people in the ELR community who have experience in this field. The other factor / question / solution is whether you intend to use the rifle at shorter distances, or once sorted will use it solely at long and ELR distances on non-MoD regulated venues. If the latter, find a non-MoD regulated range that will let you get a zero / load-test in at say 500 yards without HME.

What is your definition of 'long range', what bullet are you using, and what MV does your combination produce? For most conventional rifle ranges and kit combinations, 30-MOA is excessive unless you have one of the expensive super LR-scopes with a vast elevation adjustment range. Anything much over Barnard's 24-MOA taper rails will see the rifle shoot too high on its minimum elevation setting at 100 yards with scopes of 60 to 70 MOA adjustment ranges. Even if the scope provides enough adjustment, that amount of taper is still often OTT as the ideal set-up sees your scope elevation close to the central adjustment point at its longest distance setting. (This provides the full nominal windage adjustment range.)

Yes fine as a Varminter, but not as a high annual round count rifle for serious competition. The Canadians didn't give up on 223 Rem, but instead were leaders in developing very effective long-range heavy bullet loads. One of the reasons the Americans have taken so much to the Grendel is that combined with its suitability for AR-15s is long barrel in its 'cooking' 6.5mm version - 9/10,000 rounds isn't unusual. The .22 version will only give a fraction of that, but like your 22-250 fast-twist rifle, is more of a specialised varmint round. (Even so, in an ergonomic, well-built AR with functioning gas system, it would probably take greater strength of will than I possess not to p*ss the barrel life away as this must be a real fun combination begging to 'kill' rocks and old cans!)

22-250 Rem and .22 Grendel aren't at all comparable. The 22-250 case holds around 43.5gn water; my 6.5G Lapua cases hold 36.6, so that'll be 36gn or less after necking down. Barrel life and several other things are determined or at the least heavily influenced by the case capacity to bore area ratio. (Hence the commonly used but rarely defined expression about some large case cartridges as being 'over bore capacity'.) 22-250's ratio is 1,104; 22G considerably lower at 913 (224 bore area is 0.0394 sq inches). At 1,100 you're getting into high capacity to bore ratio values and reduced barrel life. 1,100 exceeds the ratios for the 6XC, 300WSM, 284 Win and is only a little below that of the 6mm Creedmoor. Canadian sling and F-Class prone competitors have traditionally made much more use of 22-cal centrefires than we do (going back to the Canadian equivalent of the MoD giving the DCRA free supplies of 5.56 Nato ammunition long after this practice stopped here). In the early days of F-Class, 22-250 with a faster twist barrel and longer throat loaded with 80gn bullets was 'in' for a while in Canada, but not for long with a barrel accuracy life of 900-1,000 rounds. SAAMI MAP for the 22-250 Rem is a very healthy (or unhealthy for barrel throats) 65,000 psi - it is a true 'pocket magnum'. Typical 55gn bullet maximum powder charges run at 35-40gn; you can't get anywhere close to that amount physically into a Grendel case and maximum charges are typically 25-28gn, often compressed at the top end of that range. Likely a bit more in Robert Whitley's 'improved' wildcats. The real differences between the pair - and why the Grendel case is so popular in the US in both factory and wildcat versions - are their external dimensions. With a 0.473" diameter case-head and SAAMI COAL of 2.350 (but considerably longer in heavy bullet / custom barrel form), the 22-250 needs a conventional short-action bolt-action, or an AR-10 based gas gun. The Grendel and its variants are designed to fit in the AR-15 or other small gas-gun equivalents. The .22G wildcats give way, way more performance than the original 223 Rem in this type of rifle. This is despite the Grendel's 0.441" dia case-head really pushing the envelope on the AR-15 bolt design and hence its chamber pressures having to be severely restricted. (52,000 psi SAAMI, another 6,000 psi for us in CIP.) Since bolt-actions with 0.441" dia. bolt-faces are rare, or were as Savage, CZ, and Howa all now provide models for the Grendel and/or 6ARC, the .22BR is a simpler, easier and cheaper route to a high-performance wildcat in the calibre. It is not such a step up from the Grendel case as most people think though. The BR case capacity is a tad under 38gn in 6mm form, so will be less than 2gn greater water capacity than the Grendel when necked-down to 22. 22BR is nothing like as 'over-bore' as 22-250, but has more than enough capacity to give excellent performance.

Using the bullet drawings in Bryan Litz's Ballistic Performance of Rifle Bullets 3rd edition, the two versions have similar bearing surface lengths and nose section radii. Both are true tangent ogive designs. On that basis, they would be expected to generate similar pressures and CBTO measurements at any given distance from the lands. The TMK does have an improved tail section, longer and with an improved angle to the boat-tail and this alongside the acetyl tip gives it a slightly higher BC. By contrast the 77gn SMK and TMKs are identical bar the meplat/tip. Despite this Vihtavuori gives it another 0.8 grain N140 maximum in 223 Rem (and both exceed the maximum charge for very similar shape 77gn Lapua Scenar). I did wonder if this difference is 'real' or a result of testing at different times with two pressure barrels, but I did find on trying a few TMKs that they produce lower MVs than the old-fashioned (ie cheaper!) SMKs with same charges RS50 and same CBTO lengths. So maybe the 0.224 TMKs have thinner jackets generating lower pressures - they've certainly been picked up as frangible bullets by 'varminters'.

Yes please Vince. Like you, I'm 'on' in the afternoon.

Thanks John

Who stocks DTACs these days? Still HPS?

That'll be the fairly new 'Mini' action version, nearly an inch shorter bolt and receiver than the standard 1500 'short' action model and geared to cartridges with the 223/204's 2.26" COAL. It's a very nice, smooth little action - similar size and weight to the well known and now withdrawn Cz527 'Mini Mauser', but better IMO. Good trigger which can be easily improved (pull lightened to 1.5 lb by changing two springs which are available from a guy in Australia for under £20). If you decide to buy it, I'd do so fairly soon as Leisure Sports International in the USA which determines the Howa range options and distributes the marque worldwide dropped the Mini action / 204 option after only a year or two's availability, so they must be as common as hens' teeth. Looking at LSI's 2022 catalogue, I can't see 204 offered in any model / stock option now. https://www.legacysports.com/brands/howa_catalog/ The 'Mini Oryx' is now available only in 223, 7.62X39, 6.5 Grendel, and the new 6mm ARC in Oryx form plus 350 Legacy in plastic stock and some other chassis variants. (The ARC version would make quite a foxing / varmint rifle handloaded with lighter bullets.) The MDT Oryx is a superbly strong and rigid one-piece, but basic chassis type - which I see as a plus as I'm not a fan of many of the overpriced, fancy, folding butt etc, etc chassis designs out there. You have to like 'inline' + AR-type pistol grip stocks though, and not everybody does. It has to be set up properly for prone use - LOP set right (butt spacers kit is available) and high or even super-high scope mounts used to get a comfortable head position. This really is an online design.

If you dig into information on the 'Type S' on Redding's website, you'll eventually find a description / instructions. Use of the expander ball / 'button' is optional. Redding advises that when sizing neck-turned brass, the 'button' is omitted and the final neck wall position is set by the bushing diameter alone. For out of the box brass, the recommendation is to use the die with the expander 'button' installed in conjunction with a bushing diameter that just sees the 'button' kiss the inside neck walls on the return press stroke with that make of case. The reason for the different approaches is that few out of the box cases have an identical neck thickness at every point. Variations vary depending on both make and production lot. IME experience, measuring recent manufacture 223 Rem or 308 Win Lapua cases out of the box will produce a ~0.002" range form the lowest to highest readings across the entire sample of 30 or 50 cases, and a 3-reading around the neck range of nil or 0.0001" to on or just over one thou' on individual cases. Median thickness will vary around a half thou' across a Lapua 100-ct. box and varies from lot to lot. ie one box may have average values of a shade over 0.014", another lot hovers around 0.015". Differences between makes and time of production can be considerable. Whilst modern 308 Win brass from the three European 'quality' producers is usually 14 to 15 thou', I have some remaining Norma 1980s so-called 160 grain 308s (around 30gn less than normal) with very thin walls, some necks averaging only 12 thou' thickness. Currently I have recently measured samples from Lapua plus A.N.Other's make of 6.5mm Grendel brass. Lapua is very consistent across the sample, and also within individual cases, all under 1 thou' and 50% or more under a half thou'. The other make has a different (thicker) norm and much larger variations - one case with a range of just under 3 thou' around the neck. Omitting the expander 'button' and using the bushing alone would probably be fine for the Lapua brass, certainly not for the other make. The reason for Redding's advice to combine bushing and expander is that if case necks have variations, the bushing-size action will produce a near-perfect circular external result, but transfers the case neck-wall variations to the inside surfaces which the bullet then sizes back out into a circular form when seated. Do enough sizing-by-bullet and you get a poor result. If expansion post-bushing sizing is used, it doesn't have to be with the 'button' in the die. Mandrel expansion after sizing is superior but adds more kit and an additional case preparation task. The considerable variations between makes of case and even between lots means that if a variety of brass makes and origins is being loaded, different size bushings should be used, especially if the expander 'button' is removed and no other expansion method replaces it. I doubt if GGG brass has the same neck thickness as RWS or Lapua 308 for instance. Never having handled GGG, I've no insight into how consistent its neck thickness is. The bushing size-down and 'button' re-expand is designed to cope with such variations. Unless you are loading very high-precision ammunition for a rifle capable of matching and utilising that precision is another factor.