Case weight and group size

by jlow 7/6/2019, 8:15 am

First topic message reminder :

Sorted my range pickup FC brass and found two batches of weights 57-58 grains and 62 to 63 grains.

In precision rifle reloading, we weight sort our brass because heavier brass means more brass and less case volume. That usually means more pressure and affect POI. We of course shoot long distance 300-1000 yards where a slower round would have more drop and this is why POI changes.

The question is with pistol where we are shooting short distances i.e. 25-50 yards. does brass weight/case volume/pressure/slight MV differences affect group size? I know the theoretical answer is YES, but has any one tested this? FWIW, I know we should always use the same headstamp brass but is that because of the differences in wall thickness (which affects crimp) or is it both?

Case weight and group size - Page 2 Img_1816

by Joe Morgan 7/26/2019, 6:13 pm

jlow wrote:Hey, it's OK. I decided to share something that I found that I think may be of use to someone. But as it is with these things, I understand some think it is a waste of time. Life goes on.

Well, this is a question of knowing your audience. You'll do well do ignore Will (and Dave), if only because his breakdown of percentages of shooters isn't backed by any empirical data.

But you don't really have a lot of the factors going for you that a lot of BE shooters are going to believe on the other end. That said, it's neat to read about these sorts of projects, but I know just as well as the next gal, if you aren't taking a sample of at least 20 per load tested (so, 10 shots x 20 targets = 200 rounds), you wouldn't be breaking the Students test domain, and results could be iffy.

It has been known since the original publishing of the Marine Load article in the NRA's SSSUA magazine that, at the time, the thought was that longer cases were better. There is also the case of the work done by Mike Curtis and Gene Rubin, which was met with claims of heresy. A review of that is here:

https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t3064-brass-variation

What tends to be the case is that the people who arrived at their destination can't believe anyone took another approach (the Cecil and Jon types in the world), or had fun with a diversion.

So you do you, just realize that BE shooters are more than happy to eat their own, because they'd rather do that than have to eat crow (like most other shooters, I suspect).

Joe

by Gary Wells 7/26/2019, 6:56 pm

David R wrote:I have read the whole reloading section from post one to here. The biggest thing I picked up is "Find a load that works and stick with it" Next is "Spend your time trying to imporve your shooting skills or Shot Process instead of trying to find a magic load."

For me, I bought a couple boxes Federal 185 SWC, the match ones and tried to get my reloads to shoot as well as them. I have spent a lot of time doing load development and testing. I would rather practice.

What size of group are you working wiht now? What do you expect to get?

Folks will tell you here that bullet type is the biggest thing to make a difference. More important than weighed powder drop, more than weighed cases, more than type of primer.
Best of luck
David

By any chance did you happen to weigh the loaded rounds?
The weigh tolerance of those rounds is exceptionally tight.
I've been told by Federal staff that they weigh all of their match ammo.
As tight as the weigh tolerance they hold on those 185 gr loaded rounds I.ve always wondered if they also screen by weighbut Federal told me no.

by Arthur 7/26/2019, 7:58 pm

Resources are always the challenge; money, time to train, best equipment. Even if there was a slight advantage, your time is better spent training. Time is your most important resource. Dry firing and planned training will get you farther faster.

Best
Arthur

by **willnewton** 7/27/2019, 6:28 am

Joe Morgan wrote:Well, this is a question of knowing your audience. You'll do well do ignore Will (and Dave), if only because his breakdown of percentages of shooters isn't backed by any empirical data.

Sorry, I don’t have a spreadsheet, just years of experience watching the same thing happen over and over again on this forum. I would say that my data point concerning 120,000% of rifle shooters coming to this forum and placing emphasis on the least effective means of improving their Bullseye score is highly accurate and perhaps an understatement. Laughing

I keep rereading your post looking for the data you used to support your own opinion and can’t find it. So, I guess your post is as useless as mine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

by **Wobbley** 7/27/2019, 5:30 pm

Hey! I am a rifle shooter and I know reloading for pistol and rifle are two different games.

But some things do transfer. Things that transfer are:

Bullet choice is 90% of the battle. Not all makers have the same quality. Your gun may not like a certain style or make of bullet. Bad bullets cannot be made to shoot well by changing other components.

We load ammunition for use in self-loading firearms. Certain techniques and equipment help make ammunition reliable and accurate. The game we play penalizes malfunctions severely, so Accuracy MAY have to take a back seat to function.

Powder selection, charge weight and charge consistency are maybe 5% of the accuracy puzzle but there are some limits. Powder “speed”, too fast or too slow, can be detrimental.

Bad Mechanical assembly can undo a lot of the accuracy potential. Usually improper seating of the bullets.

by jlow 7/27/2019, 6:15 pm

We all have different backgrounds and knowledge and that drives how we approach things. Sure, some are dead ends and some with more experience in specific area may see that as an obvious “flaw”, it is not, it’s just a different approach.

A pistol shooter may end up in a rifle forum and have ideas that we feel are wrong, but ridiculing is a poor approach as it is 1) inappropriate if one wants to encourage discussion and 2) of course one should NEVER assume you know everything just because you have a higher degree or have more experience.

I have a Ph.D in science and I have found that an open mind is important to learning, even if an idea comes from an intern…. Yes, you immediately stop learning when you “think” you know everything…. Nobody should think that is a good idea.

by David R 7/27/2019, 6:18 pm

What I am trying to say is When I am shooting a match, If the gun is pointed at the 7 ring when I pull the trigger, no magic load is going to make it go anywhere else but a 7. My time spent looking for that 1/8 " in group size is not going to help a bit when I pull the trigger and the gun is not pointed at the X. To improve my score, I need to improve how I hold the gun, how steady I can hold and pull the trigger with out disturbing the sight picture. The 10 ring is 3 and 3/8". I am shooting a 2" load. The gun and ammo combination is capable of a 100, I am not.

I too shoot offhand Rifle at 100 and 200 yards standing. I can get a much better score with my Anschutz rimfire rifle than I can with my M1A at 100 yards. Both will shoot a 1.5" group at 100 yards with no wind.

I asked earlier what size groups you are getting now?
David

by jlow 7/27/2019, 6:26 pm

Sure, if I have a rifle that can shoot 1/2 MOA, I am certainly not going to do load development to try to improve on that. I would spent my time improving other things such as my wind call.

However, until I have optimized my load to that degree, you can bet I will look at different things such as the case, neck tension, seating depths, etc to improve my load.

WHERE you are in your load development determines what you spend your time optimizing. I certainly would not spent my time optimizing my rifle's load but I can certainly understand why someone not in my position would. I would also NEVER down play what he may find because even though I do not need it, does not mean it could not be real.

Somewhere along the line, people have to understand that not everything in the world is about YOU...

by dronning 7/27/2019, 10:03 pm

The trouble with your focus on weight only is it isn't a good indicator all on it's own. Weight by it's self doesn't expose variances in case volume, length, wall thickness or case base dimensional difference. 2 cases of the exact same weight could be off on several of the other measurements. You might in this situation produce the worst group not the best.

Just because one case is longer than another doesn't mean they will have a different case volume, because the base dimensions could be at opposite end of tolerance.
- Dave

by jlow 7/28/2019, 8:35 am

I of course agree with you, but it appears that you only read my original post but not my follow-up post where I looked exactly at those parameters...

by CR10X 7/28/2019, 9:34 am

Since my name was dropped into this thread without any involvement or comments from me, I feel the need to respond. Otherwise, y'all continue on you merry way.....

To "Joe Morgan":

I respectfully disagree that I ever said there was "one way" to approach shooting. As a matter of fact there are may ways to get there. However, I have said that obsessing over minutiae of cases, bullets, powder, equipment, etc., is not the best path to improving shooting skills or abilities. I have said, get something that shoots well, find something to shoot in it that works well with acceptable accuracy, and keep training. And I have said, after you get to the acceptable limits of loads and equipment, the only thing that really matters looks at you in the mirror every morning when you brush his teeth.

To the OP:

No I have not tested for case weight, however I have done extensive testing with my loads, in my guns, with a Ransom rest over the past 30+ years. There is not a substantial difference in groups / flyers using exactly the same head stamp, X's fired cases versus a random selection of brass of approximately the same X's fired at 50 yards. Some groups are smaller, some larger and outcome varies across the components. And by "substantial difference", I mean something so completely consistent that I would believe it would have any significant effect on my score. However, I do use same head stamp, X's fired at matches, etc., in order to minimize reliability and consistency issues (and mostly because it's one less thing to worry about.)

However I do test and finds "good loads" that are consistent across the widest deviation of powder charge in order to minimize all the effects related to velocity, pressure, bullet weight variance, etc. So I would recommend using the "incremental load" approach and a good Ransom rest when developing loads for each gun / barrel.

So, in general, for pistols, due to the actual equipment available to me, I do not see any benefits in the additional time for sorting by weight or length, etc., as opposed to doing other things to help my shooting.

Good luck and good shooting.

Cecil
HM, DP#1232, DR#9, D22#76, P100X15, MayleighX2
Orton, Wyman & Gold Cup Trophies

by jlow 7/28/2019, 10:06 am

I’ve had extensive experience reloading and I can honestly relegated techniques to two different bins. There are things that we KNOW and can PROVE is important. For example, bullet type, powder weight, seating depth, etc. Then there are things that makes empirical sense based on what we know about the physics of reloading that SHOULD affect precision but is difficult to prove – for example - head stamp, case weight, case volume, primer, etc. The reason is almost always because its effects are not dramatic and because of the intrinsic variance of shooting i.e. temperature, wind, RR variance, etc. It is not practical to try to tease out its effects.

However, like CR10X, we do tend to toe-the-line with some of these unproven variables because we hope to “minimize reliability and consistent issues”. The other reason is although one variable may not affect our “X” count, stacking a number of them might.

I posted my OP purely as an observation. Like most, I do use one headstamp, but in this specific case of FC brass, it appears that there is yet another intrinsic variable associated with this headstamp which to me is like there are two types of FC headstamp brass. Whether people should sort them by weight is really their choice. I only put it out there as information. Perhaps that might persuade someone to not use FC brass – THAT IS IT.

In the shooting sport, one’s success is due one’s ability to optimize a number of things – a precise gun, a precise load, good shooting skills. One can over obsess or under obsess in any of these three things. The key is a balance approach where one finds the optimal plateau for each of these without going overboard to find a winning combination. Sometimes because of limitation in one due to cost/biology, one has to push one or two of them to compensate. This is different for each person and without being fully cognizant of all the variable, one should not make any general conclusion as to what is right for everyone.

by **Founder** 7/30/2019, 8:10 pm

Hi jlow,

I read through the thread here and I'm sorry if the answers that you were given came across as ridicule, because I have interacted with most of these guys for a very long time, and believe that ridicule is not their intent.

The number of times a discussion exactly like this one has occurred over the years is staggering. The names are just different.

As a USMC rifle shooter, I get where you are coming from.

There is a thread somewhere in this forum by Jerry Keefer (RIP) who did extensive testing of .45acp in a barrel tester at 50 yards. He found that the most important measurement was brass length for 50 yard accuracy with longer lengths being better. He stated that there wasn't brass that was available that was "too long". He found that new starline brass delivered the best results.

That being said, I shoot decent Expert class slow fire targets. I'm really busy and have a poor work/life ratio. Because of this, I tend to reload in a sloppy manner and I have crappy equipment.

Here's one of my targets fired in a match on a day that I had only 86 good loaded rounds of mixed headstamp fired many times. I had a bin of split rounds that were found to be split AFTER they came out of the progressive reloader and I brought them to the match.

I shot this target in competition through my stock barrel and bushing in my Springfield with 4 split brass. Not one of the 10 rounds had the same headstamp or round count....and the 8 went exactly to call.

The stacking of variables just don't reveal themselves at bullseye distances in .45acp. Other calibers have different characteristics.

I hope my findings are helpful.

Case weight and group size - Page 2 20171011

by chopper 7/30/2019, 9:53 pm

That's some nice shooting Rob. I've read on this forum that the brass doesn't matter that much on the short line, but at 50 yds it can have an impact. It makes me wonder what your slow targets would look like if you had some uniform brass, I mean that's master scores.
I also get about 2 or 3 split mouths after they're loaded and have to pitch them to the scrap bucket after I use them. It's time to get some new brass some day and keep track of times loaded. I'm just too cheap and pick up the brass shooters leave on our range.
Stan

by jlow 7/31/2019, 12:16 pm

Hi Founder,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful post. I understand the frustration sometimes reading about an idea that one has come across more than a few times that a new poster think is new. I have of course had the same experience in the rifle reloading boards. Still, my take on this is it is best to always remember our own roots and how we too were in the same boat at one time – that is how I try to remind myself in that situation, but I do understand.

It is interesting to hear about this idea that “longer lengths being better” for 50 yard precision. I understand that pistol brass head space with the case mouth, and so longer brass (within SAAMI specs) I presume will have less play in the chamber, perhaps this is the reason?

I thank you again for sharing your experience with me – it is appreciated! Good shooting BTW!

Chopper - I am with you with your question. For a fact, I know a very good friend and PRS rifle shooter who is notorious in how he just throws loads together but still shoot well. My thought has always been is how much better he could do if....

by **Founder** 7/31/2019, 1:33 pm

I would LOVE to have the time to reload better! ....or to shoot more!

by jlow 7/31/2019, 2:49 pm

Yes, and we also love to tell him we hate him for shooting so well with crappy ammo.... Very Happy

by **PhotoEscape** 7/31/2019, 4:04 pm

IMHO, like in many other areas, reloading in general can be divided into two categories. That would be reloading and best practices reloading. We need to be cognoscente that any reloading is function of time - from collecting brass to reloading and shooting it again there are multiple passes, and each of us selects our own. With that, and leaving aside reloading of 32 and 38 Wadcutters, which I consider to be a reloading discipline by itself within entire pistol reloading, reloading for pistol calibers, even for precision disciplines, is definitely more forgiving then reloading for precision rifle applications. I don't need to count individual particles of Varget, and keep on the back of my mind that it is 0.02 of a grain being added, weight each case, trim each case, measure how deep each primer pocket, etc. Pistol loads are way more forgiving, and yes, in low pressure calibers like 45ACP formula for using brass until it splits plus one more time works...... One component that was not mentioned in this tread, and one that will make or break your ammo is PROJECTILE. You can have mixed brass, split brass, good brass - consistently good bullets will let you get away with whatever you are using as a shell. The most consistent brass will not save your rear end if your bullets have weight variations and / or defects. That is I think should be your primary consideration. Rest is as I mentioned above depends on how much time you are ready to allocate to reloading. I happened to be a purist, and I sort brass, I cull bullets, I try to load big batches with same lot of powder once load is developed, I keep powder charges within +/- 0.05 of a grain, and I test a heck while developing loads and I do such for particular handgun. Your ways might be different, and that is fine. As long as it works for your objective it is YOUR WAY!

Try, fail, analyze, try again, fail again, analyze, try again, .............
AP

by jlow 7/31/2019, 4:27 pm

Thanks for chiming in... You sound scarily like me...

Good rifle reloading requires one to be a purist. Once a purist, very difficult to diverge. The other reality is pistol reloading is significantly less labor intensive and as such, padding extra steps in is not painful - pain of course is always relative. Laughing

by **Wobbley** 7/31/2019, 6:09 pm

PhotoEscape wrote: One component that was not mentioned in this tread, and one that will make or break your ammo is PROJECTILE. You can have mixed brass, split brass, good brass - consistently good bullets will let you get away with whatever you are using as a shell. The most consistent brass will not save your rear end if your bullets have weight variations and / or defects. That is I think should be your primary consideration. Rest is as I mentioned above depends on how much time you are ready to allocate to reloading. I happened to be a purist, and I sort brass, I cull bullets, I try to load big batches with same lot of powder once load is developed, I keep powder charges within +/- 0.05 of a grain, and I test a heck while developing loads and I do such for particular handgun. Your ways might be different, and that is fine. As long as it works for your objective it is YOUR WAY!

Try, fail, analyze, try again, fail again, analyze, try again, .............
AP

Wobbley wrote:Hey! I am a rifle shooter and I know reloading for pistol and rifle are two different games.

But some things do transfer. Things that transfer are:

Bullet choice is 90% of the battle. Not all makers have the same quality. Your gun may not like a certain style or make of bullet. Bad bullets cannot be made to shoot well by changing other components.

We load ammunition for use in self-loading firearms. Certain techniques and equipment help make ammunition reliable and accurate. The game we play penalizes malfunctions severely, so Accuracy MAY have to take a back seat to function.

Powder selection, charge weight and charge consistency are maybe 5% of the accuracy puzzle but there are some limits. Powder “speed”, too fast or too slow, can be detrimental.

Bad Mechanical assembly can undo a lot of the accuracy potential. Usually improper seating of the bullets.

I’m beginning to feel like chopped liver...

by **PhotoEscape** 7/31/2019, 6:22 pm

Sorry Ashley (is it correct?), I missed your post. You were the FIRST! And you are absolutely correct applying 90% value to good bullet. I know that Dave also strong proponent of sorting projectiles. So I'm honored to be in your company!

AP

by David R 7/31/2019, 8:37 pm

David R wrote:I have read the whole reloading section from post one to here. .....Snip.....

Folks will tell you here that bullet type is the biggest thing to make a difference. More important than weighed powder drop, more than weighed cases, more than type of primer.
Best of luck
David

by **PhotoEscape** 8/1/2019, 9:22 am

David R wrote:
David R wrote:I have read the whole reloading section from post one to here. .....Snip.....

Folks will tell you here that bullet type is the biggest thing to make a difference. More important than weighed powder drop, more than weighed cases, more than type of primer.
Best of luck
David

Sorry, David R!

You did mention bullets, and I didn't miss your post! What I missed is adding word "quality" after PROJECTILE in my post. It is often happen with me, - I'm thinking of the phrase, and then get keyboard happy typing away. I view "type" as a general definition of bullet's form, material, coating, etc. Very accurate ammo can be produced with each of the bullet types, - I have very good loads with Remington 185 & 200 JHPs, for example. However once again, I cull these bullets by weight and size. Any imperfection in the jacket relegates bullet to training pile. Same with coated, plated, RNFP, RN, etc. I seldom use pure lead these days, Remington HBWC in 38 is probably only exception.

AP

by David R 8/1/2019, 1:40 pm

No need to apologize. I just ordered two of your powder funnels.

David

by Joe Morgan 8/2/2019, 10:19 pm

willnewton wrote:
Joe Morgan wrote:Well, this is a question of knowing your audience. You'll do well do ignore Will (and Dave), if only because his breakdown of percentages of shooters isn't backed by any empirical data.

Sorry, I don’t have a spreadsheet, just years of experience watching the same thing happen over and over again on this forum. I would say that my data point concerning 120,000% of rifle shooters coming to this forum and placing emphasis on the least effective means of improving their Bullseye score is highly accurate and perhaps an understatement.

I keep rereading your post looking for the data you used to support your own opinion and can’t find it. So, I guess your post is as useless as mine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I know it is hard to say that the emperor has no clothes, but I did, and you of course had to go back the "I'M THE MASTER OF MY DOMAIN BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE FOREVER AND KNOW MORE THAN YOU SIMPLE AND IGNORANT PLEBS."

I've been shooting longer than you've been alive, probably? Ask Neil K. So I guess I know more than you because I'm older and done this longer?

However, keep up the gatekeeping, like Bickar, Jon, and Cecil. Keeps the forum fresh!

Be nice if the mods weren't so sensitive in the skin.

by Sponsored content

Case weight and group size

Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size

Re: Case weight and group size