Why I always load my own ammo

[DaveT]

 

 

The two targets which (hopefully!) appear above (I am a Photobucket numpty) have restored my faith in my AR15 and confirmed why I ALWAYS load my own ammo....to explain.

 

Both targets were shot within a few minutes of each other this weekend using the same rifle and position (prone at 100 yards) on a fairly blustery day.

 

The first target was using GGG milsurp 5.56 ammo......I had heard very good things about this ammo and its relatively cheap so I went straight to it rather than buy Lapua which is my normal brass of choice!

 

I have wasted God knows how many trips to the range and untold hours buggering about trying to get a zero using this ammo and had cast suspicion on the rifle, the trigger, the scope , the mounts, my own shooting ability etc etc etc as I constantly chased anything that even resembled a group....in the end having seldom bettered the first target I put the rifle away in complete frustration.

 

Months after the initial abandoned trials I prepared and reloaded the once-fired GGG brass with 24.5g of N140 under a 77g SMK.....see second target.

 

That's two groups in the same conditions on target 2 ...the first 4 or 5 shots and the second three shots after a windage tweak......couldn't be more different to GGG results!

 

The only good thing that I can say about the GGG stuff is that it appears to be consistent in thickness around the neck and its cheap enough to buy, dismantle and reuse just as donor brass compared to Lapua match 223 brass....I can't think of a single reason why I would use it as it comes.

 

By the way...my belated thanks to Baldie for the AR ....now I am using SMKs I have a rifle to treasure.

 

Any other views?

[bradders]

That's about right, still good enough for CSR and PR though.

Mr Cottrell (amongst others) seems to do well with it, winning regularly and cleaning the targets at 300.

 

It's mass produced ball ammo with a SS109 bullet with a steel penetrator inside it.

It's never going to be match ammo, although some seem to think it is

[DaveT]

Mark

 

Understood and I wasn't expecting handloaded performance...but....I really struggled to set a confident zero with the ammo printing all over the place despite what I did with the scope turrets to try and dial-in the 'group ' centre.

 

I am happy that I will just have to load the SMKs .....so problem over at last with a bit of extra effort.

 

Peter is clearly a skilled shooter and I am not surprised that he can 'do the biz' with Milsurp....I need all the advantage that I can sneak in!!!

[bradders]

So are we now going to see you on 7th March?

[baldie]

The first 2000 rounds I ever had of the stuff would produce sub inch groups in my service rifle, and gave me 5th place in the Imperial last year.

 

The current stuff will only hold 2.5" in any AR I,ve built and tested with it Dave. My own rifle now holds 2.5" with it. I,m still about 4th place in the winter league at Bisley with it, and I won the Diggle League for the 3rd year running with it.

 

Its plenty good enough for CSR/Practical.

 

However, when this batch is finished I,m going to reload the brass with 69 and 77 grain SMK,s, as they defiantly shoot better.

 

The ammo has changed....the guns haven't.

[DaveT]

So are we now going to see you on 7th March?

You will see me at the CSR intro day on Feb 22 complete with 'virgin' AR15 (Already booked .....yes I am starting all over again!) ...I am also doing the RBL shoot on March 8th but will be using my 260 rem stalker.

 

Now I am sorted out AR15 kit-wise I can focus on drop tables & especially positional shooting practice at which I am totally & utterly 'pants' at present (Please take the opportunity to 'rag' me mercilessly during the CSR intro event as I demonstrate a fair approximation of the early onset of Parkinsons as I try to steady my aim) ........I am a definite for CSR at the next go round and will make sure that I pay up in advance this time to avoid the anticipated 'slings & arrows' if I don't !!!

[bradders]

Ok, I'm back from America a few days before that so will most likely be there in a helping/coaching capacity

See you there then

[DaveT]

Would appreciate your advice on the day....cheers

[gbal]

DaveT: this is interesting (when I'm not finessing a 2oz trigger to give .2 moa groups,I quite like Aug-ing fig 11s- with Wolf and Barnaul non reloadable ,once cheap ,steel case Russian 5.56 .Mostly,it seems to put down fig 11s pretty reliably at 300,at least...gets a bit iffy by 600 (probably I do to).

 

Mark,that is very informative-the GGG Nato standard (not really mil surp) seems to be shooting about 2moa for Dave,and that,you say,is about good enough for CSR and PR competitions,at least with a good shooter.

 

Yet DaveT's rife,using the GGG brass to load V140 and 77SMKs seem to be a 1/2 moa combination,which can't be a handicap.

 

So be it:as suspected the word "accurate' is really very relative,as long suspected and phrases like 'hits all day long"/silly accurate/gong smasher etc etc are not at all comparable (well,they are-they hit the different sized targets). Well,that's absolutely fine by me,missing targets isn't.

 

Bicycle biathalon anyone? snow is unreliable ! :-)

[Laurie]

The first 2000 rounds I ever had of the stuff would produce sub inch groups in my service rifle, and gave me 5th place in the Imperial last year.

 

The current stuff will only hold 2.5" in any AR I,ve built and tested with it Dave. My own rifle now holds 2.5" with it. I,m still about 4th place in the winter league at Bisley with it, and I won the Diggle League for the 3rd year running with it.

 

Its plenty good enough for CSR/Practical.

 

However, when this batch is finished I,m going to reload the brass with 69 and 77 grain SMK,s, as they defiantly shoot better.

 

The ammo has changed....the guns haven't.

 

 

Interesting - that's a big change to put it mildly. You have to wonder if it was because the tooling was all new, or maybe they were simply making stuff to a higher grade than the primary market (governments) either needed or was willing to pay for.

 

Some years back (shortly after Gulf War 1) a well known northern dealer got in lots and lots of surplus 7.62 with Farsi headstamps, was oily, sandy, and somewhat battered, and came in 5-round disintegrating MG links, having obviously originated as 5 Ball + 1 Tracer MG ammo. I bought some with a view to demilling it and it must have contained the worst 146gn FMJBT bullets I've seen - square bases and split jacket ends on some.

 

There were three lots and charge weights of powder - two ball and one stick and the ball powders had a huge range of granule diameters (a BAD sign). Anyway, rebullet it (after rejecting a few cases that had such serious wall or case-head defects they were likely to be weak to the point of being dangerous) with 155gn SMKs and the old Lapua 150gn B series 'Lock-Base' bullets and they shot well under an MOA at shorter ranges in a Ruger 77V I had at the time. Lot of work though!

 

However, club shoots at Strensall were full of moaning b*ggers who complained that this £10 / 100 ammo wouldn't shoot well! As they (the Romans who were no fools) would say 'Caveat emptor!'

[DaveT]

I totally accept that ammo can be 'good enough' for purpose but the OCD 'dark-side' of me insists on making ammo the best I can so as to take it out of the equation when I screw up... IE I know its me and not the kit at fault.

 

The most disconcerting use of Milsurp ammo that I ever saw was when one of my clubs had a probationer and set him off at 1000 yards (yes 1000 yards!) with a 308 Win that must have easily had 20,000 rounds through it AND gave him Milsurp ammo.

 

I tried to help him but the ammo was total crap and there was NO WAY to repeat a shot and he became VERY disillusioned until I gave him my 260 and saw his eyes light up as he drilled the target at 1000...happy days but it could have gone sooo wrong for him.

[gbal]

Laurie,interesting.Suggests that ,even with pretty indifferent brass and variable powder,it's the bullet that is the main component in ammo accuracy. (I bet it's the barrel in a rifle).

Not too surprising-your bullet change seems to be worth repeating some cold Feb afternoon,if the Russian 5.56 will give up it's bullets,and mate with some sierras etc. I can imagine the nail varnish remover versus laquer will be the messiest bit,if needed,but might result in some super spangles if it needs redoing.

georgina

[bradders]

DaveT: this is interesting (when I'm not finessing a 2oz trigger to give .2 moa groups,I quite like Aug-ing fig 11s- with Wolf and Barnaul non reloadable ,once cheap ,steel case Russian 5.56 .Mostly,it seems to put down fig 11s pretty reliably at 300,at least...gets a bit iffy by 600 (probably I do to).

 

Mark,that is very informative-the GGG Nato standard (not really mil surp) seems to be shooting about 2moa for Dave,and that,you say,is about good enough for CSR and PR competitions,at least with a good shooter.

 

Yet DaveT's rife,using the GGG brass to load V140 and 77SMKs seem to be a 1/2 moa combination,which can't be a handicap.

 

So be it:as suspected the word "accurate' is really very relative,as long suspected and phrases like 'hits all day long"/silly accurate/gong smasher etc etc are not at all comparable (well,they are-they hit the different sized targets). Well,that's absolutely fine by me,missing targets isn't.

 

Bicycle biathalon anyone? snow is unreliable ! :-)

 

Put it like this, everyone with a super dooper rifle and calibre combination and the best hand loaded bullets they can craft is the worlds greatest shooter who can shoot iddy biddy groups and ring gongs beyond the horizon.

The reality is that this hasn't been the case at JMH's Precision Sharpshooting comps, where on more than one occasion the top banana has been someone with an ordinary .223 or .308, yet who possesses above average shooting fundamentals.

 

Put another way, a good shooter can shoot better with mediocre equipment than a mediocre shooter with all the gear

 

Dave, come to one of our matches and shoot the stages twice, once with your handloads and the other with something like GGG, and as a newbie you will see little difference in score on target

[DaveT]

Mark

 

Agree that its the shooters capabilities that will make the real difference....Hence Peter Cottrells showing.

 

In all likelihood your prediction of me shooting the same at CSR with GGG or handloads will come true!!!....BUT I will get better!

[baldie]

 

Put it like this, everyone with a super dooper rifle and calibre combination and the best hand loaded bullets they can craft is the worlds greatest shooter who can shoot iddy biddy groups and ring gongs beyond the horizon.

The reality is that this hasn't been the case at JMH's Precision Sharpshooting comps, where on more than one occasion the top banana has been someone with an ordinary .223 or .308, yet who possesses above average shooting fundamentals.

 

Put another way, a good shooter can shoot better with mediocre equipment than a mediocre shooter with all the gear

 

Dave, come to one of our matches and shoot the stages twice, once with your handloads and the other with something like GGG, and as a newbie you will see little difference in score on target

 

Never a truer word spoken Mark.

[baldie]

Dave,

If you fancy a go at Diggle, we have an Urban contact and a short range match on the 14th of Feb [ saturday ] you can come up friday night and stop at my place. Food and beer.

 

Leave my firkin wife alone.

[DaveT]

Dave

 

You are a true Gent ...but I am going to the shooting show!

 

Trust me with your money and your life....but not your wife eh?....who said that?!!!

 

I will defo take you up on your offer ASAP.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[gbal]

Mark,I hope you are being facetious,and know full well that I'm not saying what you imply at all.

Buying a Fender Stratocaster does not make you a (rock-or any ) guitarist,far less a good one,and even less a musician.

 

Let's put it the proper way- a skilled shooter will always shoot even better with good equipment.

There is a cut off point where as equipment deteriorates,and skill increases,the two pass and there is a reversal-the less expert shooter with the veery good gear shoots better than the exert shooter with the poos gear.

Lets not bother with analogies of how bad the car has to be before the F! driver loses to the less skilled driver in ever better cars.There is simply an interaction and there will be a cross over point.

I'm not even suggesting that one discipline is superior,or inferior, because it's shooters can put many bullets through the same small hole,somewhere on a close in target,or because the other disciple can often hit much bigger targets much farther away. Different skill sets.

JMH's competition is perhaps middle ground.I note that at the big US Precision championships,there is not much 'ordinary' equipment being used by the top 50,at least.Of course not-better equipment in skilled hands leads to better performance. "Ordinary' calibres perhaps-though there is quite a move to the specialist 6 and 6.5s.I'd see this discipline as the 'best of both'-it needs considerable gun handling,and maybe trajectory skills,under more dynamic pressure,but not the unerring the bug hole precision from near ideal rifle rests.

No one is suggesting pole vaulters are better than high jumpers because they clear a higher bar,and long jumpers are without merit because they don't even have a bar.And yes,an athlete rated barely in the country's top ten in his event can,in that event, beat the country's record holder in another.Daley Thomsons also come along from time to time,though their time in the 800m might not be too impressive. **

 

Hope you have an enjoyable time in the US,and your mind is recovering from apparent jet lag, (:-) and thanks for the tip about the Aug spring.

There is a good video on Seb Lambang's facebook about a surprising good little 'un,trying to take on an indifferent big un,but I'll let you judge the outcome. It's a (black) belter!

atb

g

** ps,of course the proper analogy/comparison is with "handicapping" as in professional horse racing,or track athletics.The better horse is weighed down,or the better runner has to concede a start ,to the lesser competitor,and there is most certainly some point where the handicaps will not be overcome-the skilled handicapper aims for a dead heat.Alas,the human back marker,at least,tries hard not to reveal his true season prowess in advance,and if he wins earlier races,it's by a whisker. I can remember my dad,a pro runner part time,also suggesting(around 1960) that a ten minute start in an hour took a lot of catching up by a chasing second car...well,you could argue about the minutes relative to drivers and cars,but the principle is sound.

The best does not always win,especially when there is more than one factor.

 

Even if the speedster runs twice as fast,in any one time interval all he can do is halve the distance he is behind.It's broccoli,but why,Zeno?But he does not always win either.

[bradders]

Facetious? No. Dead serious

Once a bullet leaves the barrel the rifle and shooter have no more influence on it, but how a man with a worn out barrel shooting substandard ammo can continually put the beatdown on fellow shooters shooting fresher equipment with better ammo who not only think they're good shooters, but are is a remarkable achievement.

 

I'm not here to slag off other disciplines.....but some of them have drifted so far off course that it's really the equipment doing the winning and not the shooter.

Some people strive to improve, others.....well they look for a better tool

[gbal]

Facetious? No. Dead serious

Once a bullet leaves the barrel the rifle and shooter have no more influence on it, but how a man with a worn out barrel shooting substandard ammo can continually put the beatdown on fellow shooters shooting fresher equipment with better ammo who not only think they're good shooters, but are is a remarkable achievement.

 

I'm not here to slag off other disciplines.....but some of them have drifted so far off course that it's really the equipment doing the winning and not the shooter.

Some people strive to improve, others.....well they look for a better tool

 

It can happen to a limited extent,but only when some other factor is different-let's call it the shooter's skill,and I agree.

But the skilled shooter would be even better with some gear upgrade.

 

You just don't address the obvious point that there has to be a cross over point.Whether some try to buy success is not the issue,because there is another factor-in a word "skill'',which is not for sale,(though good tuition could be bought).

Most very good performers are alert to the possible improvement better gear might give them-whether they need it depends on the competition from others. I am 100% certain that there were no bamboo,or aluminium poles in the pole vault at any Olympics since the 1960s.It's also unlikely,though unknown,that any of the medal winners would have podiumed had they had only such equipment.

Perhaps you were a fan of Wilson the wonder athlete in the (Hotspur/Wizzard-1950's) but it really ain't quite like that-the best in the world can't pick up a scaffold pole,and win,he'll be last(and probably so in the current women's competition too).

 

Come on Mark,you have good points to make,but this isn't one of them.

If my analogy with a foot race is not convincing,why is it not?

The better performer cannot give away too much advantage,or tolerate any amount of disadvantage and still win.

 

10%?

As a myoptic 10 year old,I was shooting 94 ish in 25y 22rf (remember that?)-pretty mediocre,but the best shot in the club -who rarely shot anything but a possible 100-and 10 xs-actually dots all away at that-could not give me any more than 6%,and later -when I got some specs-it would be 3%,yet he was leagues better.That would be with very similar rifle/ammo- a couple of remington rounds in his ten would probably have been enough to snooker him.The principle holds. Much of the equipment race so derives-at the highest level,absolute prowess can be within 1%,so what gives an edge? Simples,a Bradley bipod :-)

That said- I absolutely agree that the vey best often have more than 1% advantage derived from their skill.10%...not (m)any are that ahead of the field.....I would not bet against a top skeet shooter with a .410 beating a club shooter with any shotgun,because he will get 25 straight anyhow.He may not at "down the line"-handicap is too much.

 

Sorry for all the shooting examples,maybe you don't understand the principle of racing handicaps,which put numbers to it.(5 and a half yards,8 lbs).The favourite sometimes can't cope.

 

gee gee bal

[brown dog]

Perhaps you were a fan of Wilson the wonder athlete in the (Hotspur/Wizzard-1950's) but it really ain't quite like that-the best in the world can't pick up a scaffold pole,and win,he'll be last(and probably so in the current women's competition too).

 

......

The better performer cannot give away too much advantage,or tolerate any amount of disadvantage and still win.

 

 

 

That's made me smile.

 

That's the reality; not the 'celebration' of mediocrity.

 

(Reminds me a of a joke:

"Are you a pole vaulter?"

"No, I am German.......How did you know my name was Walter?")

 

 

.......I'm left bemused by folk celebrating 2-4MOA rifles as 'good enough' .....and yet putting £300 triggers in said 2-4 MOA rifles.

 

Non-sequitur to the supposed/affected celebration of mediocrity...not to mention, rather pointless.

 

"Sensible pole vaulters don't choose scaffolding poles"

 

There is undoubtedly a skill/equipment crossover point.

[John MH]

Most rifles are generally capable of 1 MOA accuracy or better with homelands, the problems are with expecting 1 MOA or better with any ammunition particularly NATO Ball. Some combinations will shoot 1 MOA or better but as has been seen with GGG, based on the anecdotal evidence, is that the current supply is not shooting as well as that available 1 or 2 years ago.

 

What is 'good enough' depends on who you are, what you are shooting at and what your tolerance level is. If you are shooting a particular discipline and getting a maximum or near maximum score at each distance there is probably no need for you to change anything. If you are not shooting as well as you think you should be then you'll naturally start to look for things that you can do to improve your scores be that modification or changes to your equipment or ammunition or just more practice with what you've already got. The thing that returns the most cost benefit is usually more practice but unfortunately for most of us the investment in time is something we cannot make nor are the facilities available when we'd like, therefore, people seek to change the things that are easy to change i.e. equipment/ammunition.

 

Its up to the individual to decide where to invest in their pursuit of better scores.

[brown dog]

Happy with that; but my 'acceptance' is challenged when the numbers being thrown around as acceptable 'if you're good enough' are actually North of 2 MOA and nearer 4 MOA (look at Dave's first target).

 

Doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to realise that - even if you entirely absent 'skill' and fire the rifle from a machine rest - a random 4MOA dispersion will put you randomly off the target at less than 300m.

 

Recreational skiiers don't choose pusser's planks. There's a reason for this

[tackb]

my take is that shooting well is a combination of many things coming together to achieve success ? a lot of things can be improved by throwing cash and time at it like the ammo and rifle to deliver it but the most important thing to improve is the squishy bit holding the rifle ?

 

win or lose , it's all good training.

[bradders]

Happy with that; but my 'acceptance' is challenged when the numbers being thrown around as acceptable 'if you're good enough' are actually North of 2 MOA and nearer 4 MOA (look at Dave's first target).

 

Doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to realise that - even if you entirely absent 'skill' and fire the rifle from a machine rest - a random 4MOA dispersion will put you randomly off the target at less than 300m.

 

Recreational skiiers don't choose pusser's planks. There's a reason for this

I've seen enough high and winning scores shot with this 'unacceptable' ammunition to show me otherwise, some people can't be convinced of that though....even when they see it with their own eyes.

 

JMH, remind me again how many rounds have been down PC's barrel and what ammo he's using?