In the long run which is more precise or accurate on target

andy...are you sure you don't mean 4198...not the 4895 you wrote ??
20 gr of 4895 with a 52 gr bullet is only 2500fps with very low pressure and about 80% case capacity.
20 gr of 4198 with a 52 gr bullet is aprox 3200 fps and 100% case capacity.
mike in co


Andy Cross said:
At the time of testing I was using a 222. 20gn I believe is /was a reasonable amount of powder for that cartridge. I don't really have any interest in conducting the tests again when it is something anyone could do if they wanted to. But if it is of any interest the variances became less as the charges thrown became larger. ....and no before you ask I didn't invistigate why it was so. I don't believe there was an importer here for N133 at the time the tests were done. The importer for the IMR powders had just closed up as well. So what is 2206 to the rest of the world. You use what you can obtain in your world. Pretty simple really.

I view of the fact the velocity differences obtained from the various charge weights with these powders doesn't relate to anything reasonable I don't see the point.
Andy.
Click to expand...
 
andy

the point is,

that for the 222 and 6ppc, you have made unsubstantiated statements, that 0.5 grain of powder charge variation (2206 or H4895) has little effect in aggs, velocity or pressure levels. IMHO,others who have experience loading these calibres would also question your claims.

goodi
 
Last edited:
Testing is good. But sometimes theoretical considerations help clear the fog. The energy comes from the powder. Different quantities of powder are probably the most significant variable, but there are other considerations with smokeless powder -- the deterrent coating, the size -- length, thickness, hole through center, etc. of the individual granules, and probably others I've forgotten or don't know about.

I get a kick out of people who can weigh to a single granule of powder. Do you use a big one, or a small one to get the weight just perfect? In the thread on mixing lots of powder, Larry Costa -- a truly world-class shooter -- remarked that N-133 had all different sizes of granules. I don't know how the deterrent coating is put on. Likely there can be variance there, too.

You can sift ball powder, but not stick powder. IIRC, in an old thread on BR Central when it was a list, the most consistent velocities were obtained by sifting ball powder, 748 for the PPC. I don't remember the actual chronograph numbers, but ES/SD was way down there. Whether or not it gave the smallest groups is another story.

Offsetting this, with one lot of Rel-22, I managed single-digit ES and an SD of 7 fps in a large case -- a .300 Dakota. Charges were weighted, but I never tried simply throwing them. Different lot of R-22, different results.

Dave Tooley use to use an old Bruno center-fill measure for 1,000 yard BR, and he was pretty successful -- Dave ranks 16th on the IBS lifetime Long Range Marksman list, and with all his commitments, doesn't make as many matches as most of us. I do believe he's changed to weighing his charges, but knowing Dave, he might just have said that to get the rest of us off his back.

So the "offsetting" gets us back to testing. There are too many variables to say one tool always works best. A chronograph used to test a large enough sample size will let you know what works best for you.

Then we have column B. Most of us, at one time or another, whether it be for short or long range, have used powders that gave lower ES/SD with velocity, but didn't give as small groups/highest scores as another powder.

So it isn't just the chronograph, but the target. And there are so many things that affect "the target." In the final analysis, world-class shooters have used quite an array of tooling. The one thing they obviously have in common is they've figured out how to use their tools.
 
Last edited:
mikecr said:
To the OP, is the context of your question which of powder volume -or- powder weight is more accurate?
If so, I don't know(sorry), would like to know, and so far missed any discussion about it.
Click to expand...

Without answering the question, I would say that they work together and if you change one everything changes.

Ken
 
This discussion comes up at least once per year on here it seems. I never expect to see a definitive answer because the results tend to be what one wants to believe them to be, from what I have seen. Personally, I weigh everything to the .01 now. I realized years ago I sucked real bad at using Powder Measures so bought a CHargemaster. My results improved. After a couple of years I realized, while better than powder measures, the Chargemaster was not precise enough for my taste. I now use a Good Quality Lab Balance= more expensive electronic scale with a cover (Acu-Lab). I recently was turned on to a trickler that will actually allow one to precicely drop 1 curnel of powder. Pricey little thing but MAN, is it SLICK!

In testing, unless one makes sure that each loaded round measures exactly the same where the bullet will touch the lands, no amount of precise weighing is going to provide reliable date. I believe that it is impossible to make ammo that is too good :) .
 
Last edited:
way to go pete.....
someone who has seen the light and learned from it......

mike in co
 
As it applies to short range BR, what method have the world record holders used to date?
 
Charles E said:
Testing is good. But sometimes theoretical considerations help clear the fog. The energy comes from the powder. Different quantities of powder are probably the most significant variable, but there are other considerations with smokeless powder -- the deterrent coating, the size -- length, thickness, hole through center, etc. of the individual granules, and probably others I've forgotten or don't know about.

I get a kick out of people who can weigh to a single granule of powder. Do you use a big one, or a small one to get the weight just perfect? In the thread on mixing lots of powder, Larry Costa -- a truly world-class shooter -- remarked that N-133 had all different sizes of granules. I don't know how the deterrent coating is put on. Likely there can be variance there, too.

You can sift ball powder, but not stick powder. IIRC, in an old thread on BR Central when it was a list, the most consistent velocities were obtained by sifting ball powder, 748 for the PPC. I don't remember the actual chronograph numbers, but ES/SD was way down there. Whether or not it gave the smallest groups is another story.

Offsetting this, with one lot of Rel-22, I managed single-digit ES and an SD of 7 fps in a large case -- a .300 Dakota. Charges were weighted, but I never tried simply throwing them. Different lot of R-22, different results.

Dave Tooley use to use an old Bruno center-fill measure for 1,000 yard BR, and he was pretty successful -- Dave ranks 16th on the IBS lifetime Long Range Marksman list, and with all his commitments, doesn't make as many matches as most of us. I do believe he's changed to weighing his charges, but knowing Dave, he might just have said that to get the rest of us off his back.

So the "offsetting" gets us back to testing. There are too many variables to say one tool always works best. A chronograph used to test a large enough sample size will let you know what works best for you.

Then we have column B. Most of us, at one time or another, whether it be for short or long range, have used powders that gave lower ES/SD with velocity, but didn't give as small groups/highest scores as another powder.

So it isn't just the chronograph, but the target. And there are so many things that affect "the target." In the final analysis, world-class shooters have used quite an array of tooling. The one thing they obviously have in common is they've figured out how to use their tools.
Click to expand...

I get a kick out of trying to sort out your message here Charles, but here's a FACT for you.

The only way to get ES down is to weigh your powder charge.

Let's try this again...... "The only way to get ES down is to weigh your powder charge."

Everything else is irrelevant. It all may be TRUE but it's irrelevant. So to all of you reading this board Who're interested in the question of "which is better?" try weighing powder.

To the kernel.

Don't take the advice of someone who wonders "which kernel do they pick?" Just weigh charges.

There is no downside. You CANNOT somehow be "less accurate" while weighing your charges. When the mirrors are removed and the smoke clears it simply IS about weight of charge.

Whether this is important or not is completely irrelevant.

So if you care, weigh your charges.

At least until someone mans up to show some testing evidence to the contrary. Anecdotal, comprehensive, word-of-mouth, heck I don't care if it's "but me' aged m'ither found that her Baldenheusen-447 Auto Thrauer gave lower ES numbers than weighing to the kernel"............ ANYthing........

but it won't happen, as those of us who've actually tested the processes know.

So pick your velocity, pick your powder, pick your load, pick your seating depth, pick your nose........... pick your poison but know this, a weighed charge CANNOT ever be "worse than" the same charge thrown, all else being equal.

al
 
if are stupid enough to use that logic, i think you would also be shooting a 222 rem....not a ppc.
there is no logic it what you propose...none.
shooters have thrown charges at the range so they can tune for conditions. the problem has been documented that thrown charges are not as accurate as charge master charges and neither are even close to lab scale measuremnets...
times change, move with the changes, learn from changes or sit back and be a lemming
mike in co
MarkR said:
As it applies to short range BR, what method have the world record holders used to date?
Click to expand...
 
mikecr said:
To the OP, is the context of your question which of powder volume -or- powder weight is more accurate?
If so, I don't know(sorry), would like to know, and so far missed any discussion about it.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, was and has been.

XBR in the .223 with a 77 Sierra MK Note the Oehler tape...

The load while more than consistant was not on the node... darn it. The charges were weighed.

DSCN0029-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would say that with powders of grain sizes that allow reasonable consistency of charge weight, that some excellent work can be done, if one is well practiced with the right measure technique, especially when shooting at 200 yd. and less. Several top shooters that I know of have taken to using Chargemasters when loading at the range. I believe that this is to make their powder charges more consistent so as to remove most of one variable in the accuracy equation. If you look at the current short range world records, I feel safe in saying that almost all were shot with loads that were put together at the range, between matches, with thrown charges. The only reason that I have not gotten a Chargemaster is that I already haul more stuff to the range than I like dealing with, and I do not think that one would help any with what I think are larger issues that limit my performance. I have used them, and I am pretty sure that although they are not as good as what some are using at home (higher resolution scales), they do produce results that are more consistent than throwing, unless you are using a fine grained powder, something easier to throw than 133. One area that I see where many shooters could improve performance is the method that they use to work up loads, especially those that preload. They need to get over their aversion to loading at the range, at least for load development. IMO it is illogical.
 
Last edited:
thrown charges, then weighed on an acculab mx-123( 0.02 accuracy/0.03 sensitivity)

n133 plus or minus .2......... with an occassional 0.3....
xbr8208....plus or minus 0.09........
oem 8208....plus or minus 0.05......
yes kernal size has a lot to do with thrown charge accuracy....it is why oem 8208 shot so well, great powder/with great metering.

mike in co
 
mike in co said:
if are stupid enough to use that logic, i think you would also be shooting a 222 rem....not a ppc.
there is no logic it what you propose...none.
shooters have thrown charges at the range so they can tune for conditions. the problem has been documented that thrown charges are not as accurate as charge master charges and neither are even close to lab scale measuremnets...
times change, move with the changes, learn from changes or sit back and be a lemming
mike in co
Click to expand...

First of all Mike...I don't care to be called stupid, especially when asking a very simple question that requires only a simple answer. Secondly....I didn't propose anything with regard to which method is better. Obviously you haven't been to enough real short range BR matches to see the many that throw their charges. my experience is limited though and I do realize that many now are weighing their charges as well but I just can't understand your attitude since you shoot the plastic and aluminum rifles...I would think that a Lee powder dipper set would be all that you need for the Mattel rifle. :)
 
shows how narrow your benchrest education is.......MOST BENCHREST RIFLES ARE PLASTIC (STOCKS) AND ALUMINIUM COMPONENTS...WITH SS BBLS.......JUST LIKE MY AR'S.
so try again.....
mike in co
MarkR said:
I just can't understand your attitude since you shoot the plastic and aluminum rifles.... :)
Click to expand...
 
in MY OPINION, your question IMPLIES we should do what the record holders DID.
i say "did" because in nbrsa 3 of the 4 100 yd 5 shot group records were set in the 70's..over thirty years ago..............
so no i do not want to follow them....thier skills yes, their loading technique..no.

mike in co
MarkR said:
As it applies to short range BR, what method have the world record holders used to date?
Click to expand...
 
all else being equal

I do not disagree; however, if I want to add more weight to a full case I need to increase the volumetric density. I think Charles is correct; there are numerous mechanisms that affect Burn Rates.

Ken
 
With the short BR length cases we use in the "point Blank" score games I have found times when adding more powder made the crono report a slower speed. I have also seen more and more people either coming to matches with loaded rounds or bringing vials of powder they had precicely weighed at home. Years ago I read an article in Car & Driver Magazine in which was this quote" If you look out the window and everyone is running down the street in the same direction, it probably isn't a coincidence".

There are still plenty of guys who shoot very well and load at the range. I have often wondered how much better they would do if every round they fired was as precicely loaded as they could have it. I am thinking they would pick the extra xes and shoot even smaller groups. I realize some folks are more interested in Aggs than being exact also.
 
Once again mike, I didn't "imply" anything. It simply asks what the short range record holders used......thrown or weighed.
If you prefer to weigh your charges to the inth degree....by all means do so. Although...please don't act pompous about your BR knowledge....which is obviously quite minimal. By the way my rifles are laminated wood and steel and don't have gas ports and really will shoot very tiny groups...not just BS'ing about them on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top