Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/30/2019 5:18:56 PM EDT
|
As per this thread, I was looking for something productive to do a few weeks back. Reloading experiments you haven't seen yet I had a few setbacks but finally got this thing going. Here are the results of the first test. Group 1 had 4 gr of Bullseye, CCI 450 primer and a 55gr FMJ seated to 2.200" OAL. Brass was LC 88, WCC 14 and Wolf Gold. LC group 1 control: Group Size: .95", 1.81 MOA Velocities: 1341, 1342, 1333, 1331, 1330 Average: 1335.4 SD: 5.08 LC group 1 Test: Group Size: .77", 1.47 MOA Velocities: 1319, 1350, 1347, 1328, 1351 Average: 1339 SD: 13.04 WCC group 1 control: Group Size: .75", 1.44MOA Velocities: 1356, 1372, 1364, 1368, 1375 Average: 1367 SD: 6.63 WCC group 1 Test: Group Size: 1.23", 2.35MOA Velocities: 1342, 1341, 1348, 1345, 1353 Average: 1345.8 SD: 4.35 Wolf Gold group 1 control: Group Size: 1.22", 2.34MOA Velocities: 1359, 1347, 1352, 1335, 1339 Average: 1346 SD: 8.66 Wolf Gold group 1 test: Group Size: 1.23", 2.36MOA Velocities: 1355, 1346, 1345, 1355, 1348 Average: 1349.8 SD: 4.35 Group 1 observations: LC did better in groups but worse in SD. Inversely, WCC and Wolf Gold did worse in group size but did better in SD's. Group 1 results: Inconclusive. I will post some pics of the groups and my notes soon as well as the other 2 test groups. |
|
Group 2 had 4.5 gr of bullseye, CCI 450 primer, 55gr FMJ and used LC 88, WCC 14 and Wolf Gold Cases. LC Group 2 control: Group Size: .93", 1.78MOA Velocities: 1515, 1500, 1497, 1498, 1482 Average: 1498.4 SD: 10.48 LC Group 2 Test: Group Size: .66", 1.25MOA Velocities: 1467, 1471, 1463, 1451, 1460 Average: 1462.4 SD: 6.8 WCC group 2 control: Group Size: .93, 1.77MOA Velocities: 1512, 1506, 1511, 1514, 1495 Average: 1507.6 SD: 6.83 WCC group 2 test: Group Size: 1.43", 2.74MOA Velocities: 1495, 1472, 1474, 1473, 1480 Average: 1478.8 SD: 8.57 Wolf Gold group 2 Control: Group Size: .83", 1.59MOA Velocities: 1521, 1505, 1520, 1512, 1520 Average: 1515.6 SD: 6.22 Wolf Gold group 2 Test: Group Size: .87", 1.66MOA (1 possible flyer. Group would be .64", 1.22MOA without it) Velocities: 1478, 1469, 1458*, 1476, 1453 Average: 1466.8 SD: 9.83 Group 2 observations: LC improved in both groups and SD. Inversely WCC and Wolf gold got worse in both group size and SD. Group 2 results: Inconclusive. |
|
Group 3 is 5gr of Bullseye, CCI 450 primer, 55 gr FMJ and used LC 88, WCC 14 and wolf gold cases. LC group 3 control: Group Size: .72", 1.38MOA Velocities: 1593, 1602, 1596, 1613, 1594 Average: 1599.6 SD: 7.39 LC group 3 test: Group Size: .64", 1.22MOA Velocities: 1599, 1589, 1577, 1588, 1586 Average: 1587 SD: 7.03 WCC group 3 control: Group Size: 1.22", 2.33MOA Velocities: 1609, 1606, 1604, 1616, 1618 Average: 1610.6 SD: 5.5 WCC group 4 Test: Group Size: .98", 1.86MOA Velocities: 1601, 1607, 1607, 1597, 1597 Average: 1601.8 SD: 4.49 Wolf Gold Group 3 control: Group Size: .82", 1.57MOA Velocities: 1608, 1602, 1605, 1602, 1613 Average: 1606 SD: 4.15 Wolf Gold group 3 test: Group Size: .97", 1.84MOA Velocities: 1596, 1594, 1601, 1607, 1600 Average: 1599.6 SD: 4.5 Group 3 observations: LC and WCC improved in group size and SD. Wolf gold got worse in group size and SD, but the difference was small. Group 3 results: Inconclusive, but seems to have helped more at the higher charge weights. |
|
Pictures: Attached File Attached File Attached File Overall experiment observations: Group size and SD seemed to improve as charge weights increased. Flash hole deburing seemed to help more or in the case of Wolf, seemed to hurt less as charge weights increased. LC 88 improved consistently with flash hole deburring. WCC and Wolf gold have a higher case weight and therefore less case capacity possibly leading to the requirement to need higher charge weights to get consistent accuracy improvements with the uniformed flash hole. Results: Inconclusive for all brass types, but for LC 88 specifically, it improved performance. Next test will be with a medium weight bullet at normal velocities. I am thinking the 60gr Vmax. |
|
Accuracy matters more than statistics at short range.
I'll guess you are fighting gunpowder position, and definitely have poor case fill. Last week I chronographed .45 ACP ammunition. Winchester White Box had the best numbers and the worst accuracy, closely followed by Federal GMM with 230 grain bullets. The best accuracy was a 185 gr Hornady SWC with Titegroup (0.55 inches), with far and away the worst numbers. Next best was Federal185 gr SWC's with slightly better SD and ES. My next step will be to try the USMC 50 yard load to find out if my pistol is capable of an inch. |
|
Quoted:
Accuracy matters more than statistics at short range. I'll guess you are fighting gunpowder position, and definitely have poor case fill. Snip I agree that accuracy matters way more than velocity at 50 yards. At 300 yards, a 1500 fps load will show major group size issues if the SD numbers are big. Tonight, after we cut down a Christmas tree, I resized and trimmed on the RT1200 all the brass being careful to not mix them up. They are marked with a sharpie but that can wear off. The "Control" group brass is tumbling right now. The "Test" group is sitting on the bench waiting its turn. Side note, homemade case lube does not like to cooperate at sub freezing temperatures. I need a space heater for he garage. |
|
Quoted:
Isn't Bullseye a pistol powder? And, recoil is so mild that I could literally see the bullet holes forming. 
|
|
OP:
I appreciate the test but: -I'm not sure what results were before and after the deburring. You weren't clear in posting them. -I personally feel that using reduced loads like the ones you used added some unnecessary variables that may have confused the results. Can you use full-powered loads next time? Some load that is commonly used? Also, if you are going to shoot groups to assess accuracy, shoot them as far out as you can. IMHO, 50yds groups tell me little to nothing. Can you atleast do 100yds? if not 200yds? |
|
Quoted:
OP: I appreciate the test but: -I'm not sure what results were before and after the deburring. You weren't clear in posting them. -I personally feel that using reduced loads like the ones you used added some unnecessary variables that may have confused the results. Can you use full-powered loads next time? Some load that is commonly used? To summarize, I had 2 batches of identical brass that were processed exactly the same with one difference, the "test" group had the flash hole debured. |
|
Quoted:
OP - Good on you for testing, but man you really need to run a traditional rifle powder, and more importantly a bullet that isn't an FMJ. More data is needed to come to a true conclusion if there is one. This was just the first step in the journey. |
|
Quoted:
Nothing noticeable is my guess. Enlarging the size of the flash holes would have made a more noticeable difference Quoted:
Quoted:
OP: I appreciate the test but: -I'm not sure what results were before and after the deburring. You weren't clear in posting them.? Enlarging the size of the flash holes would have made a more noticeable difference The Deburred were marked "Control" and the Not-deburred were marked "Test". From there he tested several different brands of cases (LC, WCC and Wolf) and listed both group size and SD. |
|
Quoted: Well, he clarified the confusion (atleast for me I found it confusing)…… The Deburred were marked "Control" and the Not-deburred were marked "Test". From there he tested several different brands of cases (LC, WCC and Wolf) and listed both group size and SD. |
|
What are the group size numbers, are they max spread or mean deviation or,...?
If you have the tools, you could look at mean deviation versus process (with/without case prep). You could also look at standard deviation from geometric center of group. All your results are subject to the vagaries of small sample tests but it is still interesting to look and see if the data tells you anything. Even if there's a trend, your confidence level is very low because of the sample size. It's just that the load(s) you selected are so far out of the norm, even if you find a correlation, will it be useful to anyone??? |
|
Quoted:
What are the group size numbers, are they max spread or mean deviation or,...? If you have the tools, you could look at mean deviation versus process (with/without case prep). You could also look at standard deviation from geometric center of group. All your results are subject to the vagaries of small sample tests but it is still interesting to look and see if the data tells you anything. Even if there's a trend, your confidence level is very low because of the sample size. It's just that the load(s) you selected are so far out of the norm, even if you find a correlation, will it be useful to anyone??? I am not a scientist with lots of equipment to facilitate precise measurements or the detection of trends based on small amounts of data. I am hoping that the next couple tests with more standard charges reveals some more information. If the groups continue to improve on the LC brass only and decrease on the other 2 head stamps, what about them is different? Or, will they all suffer decreased performance? Or will they all start to perform slightly better with increased pressures as we have seen in this first round of testing. Data at this point is just data. Too small of an sample size limits its credibility but with further testing, maybe an answer will be revealed. Or we will all realize that it is a waste of time and stop uniforming primer flash holes. |
|
Quoted:
What are the group size numbers, are they max spread or mean deviation or,...? If you have the tools, you could look at mean deviation versus process (with/without case prep). You could also look at standard deviation from geometric center of group. All your results are subject to the vagaries of small sample tests but it is still interesting to look and see if the data tells you anything. Even if there's a trend, your confidence level is very low because of the sample size. It's just that the load(s) you selected are so far out of the norm, even if you find a correlation, will it be useful to anyone??? Boman, I wonder if ball and extruded powder should be included in both the "Start" and "5.56" level loads. |
|
Quoted:
I'll run OnTarget soon so we can have mean radius numbers. More loads are coming. Boman, I wonder if ball and extruded powder should be included in both the "Start" and "5.56" level loads. To increase the data set, using H4895 with the same bullet on the 3rd set of rounds would be 24 start to 26 max with a mid load at 25gr. Then, to cap off the last test, If I have enough of them, 77gr SMK over a stout load of CFE 223 at 22.5 start, 23.4 mid, and 24.5 max. (Looking at my data, 24.3 gave me the best groups in this barrel in the past) If the brass is holding up, we can try to continue with Varget and the 77 SMK (depending on quantity on hand) to get the most out of this test. None of the above data sets would attempt to get the best accuracy though. Guess that is the price we pay for limited resources. Inversely, I can try to identify a node and shoot a load set based on it? The "Test" brass is tumbling now. I will try to do something with it tomorrow night. It's snowing right now! |
|
Quoted: H335 at start load for a 60gr vmax is 22.5 and max is 24. Splitting the difference to make a mid level load would be 23.3. To increase the data set, using H4895 with the same bullet on the 3rd set of rounds would be 24 start to 26 max with a mid load at 25gr. Then, to cap off the last test, If I have enough of them, 77gr SMK over a stout load of CFE 223 at 22.5 start, 23.4 mid, and 24.5 max. (Looking at my data, 24.3 gave me the best groups in this barrel in the past) If the brass is holding up, we can try to continue with Varget and the 77 SMK (depending on quantity on hand) to get the most out of this test. None of the above data sets would attempt to get the best accuracy though. Guess that is the price we pay for limited resources. Inversely, I can try to identify a node and shoot a load set based on it? The "Test" brass is tumbling now. I will try to do something with it tomorrow night. It's snowing right now! Just my 2% ....... Instead of bouncing around with all these loads, pick one or 2. Like that CFE/77SMK you've shot before and increase the load numbers, so instead of a whole bunch of 5 shot groups, start using 10. Since you've shot it before, in theory, you'll know if something is different in your results. I wouldn't be too concerned about the groups sizes either. What I would be looking at is the ES or SD differences between the burred and deburred loads. No offense but I don't know your abilities and looking at the ES/SD means more to me. So if, for example, you show a 20fps difference between the two, I can apply that in my loads. |
|
Quoted:
All the group sizes are based on a 50 yard target. Max spread is the inch number and MOA is based on max group and distance. I thought so but it is always worth double checking either by asking or by re-measuring. I am not a scientist with lots of equipment to facilitate precise measurements or the detection of trends based on small amounts of data. All it takes is a pencil and paper or calculator or spreadsheet. I am hoping that the next couple tests with more standard charges reveals some more information. If the groups continue to improve on the LC brass only and decrease on the other 2 head stamps, what about them is different? Or, will they all suffer decreased performance? Or will they all start to perform slightly better with increased pressures as we have seen in this first round of testing. My guess at the most likely outcome - your testing will not find a significant difference with case prep, at least none in which you can be reasonably confident. Your differences, if any, will be hidden in a blur of aiming errors, windage errors and normal variation in velocity. As a guess at rough order of magnitude, there is 1 fps reduction in SD of MV. Average MV may not even change. Proving that it is "real" will require a heck of a lot of testing which you will not do. Think about how many samples are required to find that 1 fps with 80% confidence. Data at this point is just data. Too small of an sample size limits its credibility but with further testing, maybe an answer will be revealed. Or we will all realize that it is a waste of time and stop uniforming primer flash holes. My recommendation - do this testing with a very standard load, not an oddball load, so everyone will be able to use the results. 50 yards, pistol powder, pistol velocities,... none build confidence in the results. Try it with 24.0 gr Varget, 77 SMK, 100-200 yards, high magnification scope from a solid bench rest, calm wind conditions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: All the group sizes are based on a 50 yard target. Max spread is the inch number and MOA is based on max group and distance. I thought so but it is always worth double checking either by asking or by re-measuring. I am not a scientist with lots of equipment to facilitate precise measurements or the detection of trends based on small amounts of data. All it takes is a pencil and paper or calculator or spreadsheet. I am hoping that the next couple tests with more standard charges reveals some more information. If the groups continue to improve on the LC brass only and decrease on the other 2 head stamps, what about them is different? Or, will they all suffer decreased performance? Or will they all start to perform slightly better with increased pressures as we have seen in this first round of testing. My guess at the most likely outcome - your testing will not find a significant difference with case prep, at least none in which you can be reasonably confident. Your differences, if any, will be hidden in a blur of aiming errors, windage errors and normal variation in velocity. As a guess at rough order of magnitude, there is 1 fps reduction in SD of MV. Average MV may not even change. Proving that it is "real" will require a heck of a lot of testing which you will not do. Think about how many samples are required to find that 1 fps with 80% confidence. Data at this point is just data. Too small of an sample size limits its credibility but with further testing, maybe an answer will be revealed. Or we will all realize that it is a waste of time and stop uniforming primer flash holes. My recommendation - do this testing with a very standard load, not an oddball load, so everyone will be able to use the results. 50 yards, pistol powder, pistol velocities,... none build confidence in the results. Try it with 24.0 gr Varget, 77 SMK, 100-200 yards, high magnification scope from a solid bench rest, calm wind conditions. FH deburring is one of those highly subtle things that will only be noticed in the most extreme of precise conditions (if then). FWIW, in my experience, it's an unneeded step for essentially anything that's a semi-auto. Which isn't to say testing is a waste of time though; as that's the point of your testing, was to scientifically provide additional data to that question. I also suggest doing at least 5 replicates of both test and control, done blind, and intermixed. I look forward to your continued work - though do suggest switching to something like 77 gr match bullets using standard loads and running them out to 200 yards - as that will be much more meaningful to most readers. However, of course, that's at your discretion sir! (you don't owe anybody anything!) |
|
The point of this test isn't to convince myself that flash hole deburing and uniforming is going to drastically improve my groups or SD. It is to determine if the average shooter can tell a difference in any way. If a difference is not noticed at all, why would anyone spend the $15 or so to get a tool and spend the time to do the work? (mine was from a lot sale, almost free, don't judge) In the original thread, it was discussed that one may test multiple times with different load types to determine a difference, if any, across a variety of situations. Quote below. Quoted:
5.56 Effect of flash hole uniforming on velocity and group size. Perhaps with a reduced load like 5.0gr Red Dot/50gr bullet, a moderate load like 25gr H4895/50gr bullet, and stout load like 24.5gr Varget/75gr bullet. |
|
Quoted:
The point of this test isn't to convince myself that flash hole deburing and uniforming is going to drastically improve my groups or SD. It is to determine if the average shooter can tell a difference in any way. If a difference is not noticed at all, why would anyone spend the $15 or so to get a tool and spend the time to do the work? (mine was from a lot sale, almost free, don't judge) In the original thread, it was discussed that one may test multiple times with different load types to determine a difference, if any, across a variety of situations. Quote below. Time will tell if I have wasted time and components. But, like Old_Painless says: "shooting stuff is fun". You're actually doing the work. We are just reading about it. I've done this test at least twice on two different cartridges, so I know my "answer". I already have the tools. Nonetheless, sometimes I will sit there and debur flash holes and uniform primer pockets. It's a one time thing. Personally speaking, my comments are meant as critique not criticism. The idea behind them is to find areas where the experiment can be improved. In that way, they are intended as help, a positive contribution - something to think about (without giving you an answer) as your plan and execute your experiment. In no way are they intended to be negative. |
My 2 cents OP, Loading ammo is all about consistency, some things can make a noticeable difference, some make a minuscule difference..Do enough of those minuscule things and its noticeable..fh deburring and pocket uniforming is a one time deal for the life of the brass and its not costing you a pile of time or energy to do it...I still focus mainly on neck tension, but all my brass gets the fh deburred and the pockets uniformed...
|
|
Quoted:
My 2 cents OP, Loading ammo is all about consistency, some things can make a noticeable difference, some make a minuscule difference..Do enough of those minuscule things and its noticeable..fh deburring and pocket uniforming is a one time deal for the life of the brass and its not costing you a pile of time or energy to do it...I still focus mainly on neck tension, but all my brass gets trimmed, deburred, chamfered, the flashole deburred and the primer pockets uniformed... |
|
Quoted:
The point of this test isn't to convince myself that flash hole deburing and uniforming is going to drastically improve my groups or SD. It is to determine if the average shooter can tell a difference in any way. If a difference is not noticed at all, why would anyone spend the $15 or so to get a tool and spend the time to do the work? (mine was from a lot sale, almost free, don't judge) In the original thread, it was discussed that one may test multiple times with different load types to determine a difference, if any, across a variety of situations. Quote below. Time will tell if I have wasted time and components. But, like Old_Painless says: "shooting stuff is fun". Quoted:
The point of this test isn't to convince myself that flash hole deburing and uniforming is going to drastically improve my groups or SD. It is to determine if the average shooter can tell a difference in any way. If a difference is not noticed at all, why would anyone spend the $15 or so to get a tool and spend the time to do the work? (mine was from a lot sale, almost free, don't judge) In the original thread, it was discussed that one may test multiple times with different load types to determine a difference, if any, across a variety of situations. Quote below. Quoted:
5.56 Effect of flash hole uniforming on velocity and group size. Perhaps with a reduced load like 5.0gr Red Dot/50gr bullet, a moderate load like 25gr H4895/50gr bullet, and stout load like 24.5gr Varget/75gr bullet. I do deburr my brass but I shoot out 1000yds...….. where a 10? 20? FPS ES difference is significant. I've not tested it though which is why I'm curious to see what you come up with. I do it because it's cheap, quick (takes me about 1/10th or so of a second) and a one-time-thing. But that's also why I hope you use some normal loads to test this out...…….. |
|
I'm also interested in what real load results provide. In my experience of deburring a few thousand cases, most cases will be reasonably clear of a burr, but sometimes the burr can be enormous and I expect it would influence a loaded rounds performance. But if you never ran a tool in there to check, you'll never know. You might visually inspect some cases until you find a significant burr, compare that to a case with a smaller burr and then one that's been deburred all with the same load. With an N of 5, there's a high probability your not going to get a significant burr in your test specimens unless it's purposefully put there. I'd separate deburring and the prime pocket uniforming as well because it's an independent variable. For the pocket uniforming, find cases that have significant differences in pocket depth and see what the result is through the chrony and on paper. Good luck with your testing! |
|
For the next test I am going to do 24.3 gr of CFE 223 and the 77 gr SMK across all the brass samples. Each group will be 15 rounds. 45 of unmodified brass and 45 of the flash hole uniformed brass. This will be using the exact same batch of brass from the first test. I just verified this is the most accurate load for this rifle with some other brass. These super short days are kicking my butt. Did an oil change on the car, burnt some trash and somehow I am running out of daylight, and its only 230. |
|
I tested FH deburring with my .280AI. I used Winchester fire-formed .280 for my testing.
I trimmed them all to 2.520 and seated the 160 grain Nosler BT bullet over 55.0 IMR-4350 to 3.325" COAL. The only difference is that I deburred the flash holes on 1 batch with a Lyman FH deburring tool and left the other uncut. It took a few cases to get a consistent cut that just "kissed" the interior of the base. Out to 300 yards, there was no difference in accuracy. Past that, the deburred cases showed a slight edge. I had to stop at 600 yards because I was outta range distance and ammo and my shoulder was getting a bit sore. Chronographed loads had a small bit of difference, but not enough to have any significant meaning. Since I am a bit of a cheapskate, my chronos don't calculate SD or ES and I don't do math unless forced to. For that particular rifle and load, FH deburring is unnecessary, since I didn't see the slight edge as significant and I am not trying to win a match. I keep the tool handy because it may be the thing that makes a rifle go from a dud to a real shooter. |
|
Quoted:
I tested FH deburring with my .280AI. I used Winchester fire-formed .280 for my testing. I trimmed them all to 2.520 and seated the 160 grain Nosler BT bullet over 55.0 IMR-4350 to 3.325" COAL. The only difference is that I deburred the flash holes on 1 batch with a Lyman FH deburring tool and left the other uncut. It took a few cases to get a consistent cut that just "kissed" the interior of the base. Out to 300 yards, there was no difference in accuracy. Past that, the deburred cases showed a slight edge. I had to stop at 600 yards because I was outta range distance and ammo and my shoulder was getting a bit sore. Chronographed loads had a small bit of difference, but not enough to have any significant meaning. Since I am a bit of a cheapskate, my chronos don't calculate SD or ES and I don't do math unless forced to. For that particular rifle and load, FH deburring is unnecessary, since I didn't see the slight edge as significant and I am not trying to win a match. I keep the tool handy because it may be the thing that makes a rifle go from a dud to a real shooter. Also Extreme Spread is the difference between the fastest and slowest shot in the group. (IE.... the fastest was 3145fps and the slowest was 3100= 45fps ES). Do you still have your notes? What then was the ES you had? |
|
Quoted: What is a "slight edge" in accuracy? What were your groups sizes? Also Extreme Spread is the difference between the fastest and slowest shot in the group. (IE.... the fastest was 3145fps and the slowest was 3100= 45fps ES). Do you still have your notes? What then was the ES you had? The slight edge was less than 1/2 MOA out to 600- not enough to be significant for my purposes. It wouldn't amount to a miss on a game animal. |
|
Quoted:
I know what extreme spread is, thank you very much. I didn't calculate it then and I won't now (notes are gone). The slight edge was less than 1/2 MOA out to 600- not enough to be significant for my purposes. It wouldn't amount to a miss on a game animal. Quoted:
Quoted: What is a "slight edge" in accuracy? What were your groups sizes? Also Extreme Spread is the difference between the fastest and slowest shot in the group. (IE.... the fastest was 3145fps and the slowest was 3100= 45fps ES). Do you still have your notes? What then was the ES you had? The slight edge was less than 1/2 MOA out to 600- not enough to be significant for my purposes. It wouldn't amount to a miss on a game animal. I was just hoping you might have some actual numbers to contribute to this thread is all. And I didn't mean to insult you but when you say, ".....my chronos don't calculate SD or ES and I don't do math unless forced to...….." I wasn't sure if you knew how to calculate it. |
|
Quoted: Ok, Thanks! I was just hoping you might have some actual numbers to contribute to this thread is all. And I didn't mean to insult you but when you say, ".....my chronos don't calculate SD or ES and I don't do math unless forced to...….." I wasn't sure if you knew how to calculate it. Good thread topic. Hope it gets more traction. |
|
I had some difficulty with the Bullseye/55gr photo in OnTarget, so I'll just type the numbers I got. I rounded to the nearest hundreth.
For reference, to keep from scrolling all the way up: Attached File Wolf Gold 1st Control: Extreme Spread - 2.38 MOA. Mean Radius - 0.68 MOA. WG 2nd Control: ES - 1.66 MOA. MR - 0.48 MOA. WG 3rd Control: ES - 1.59 MOA. MR - 0.68 MOA. WG 1st Test: ES - 2.73 MOA. MR - 0.85 MOA. WG 2nd Test: ES - 1.74 MOA. MR - 0.66 MOA. WG 3rd Test: ES - 2.16 MOA. MR - 0.99 MOA. Lake City 1st Control: NA LC 2nd Control: ES - 1.76 MOA. MR - 0.77 MOA. LC 3rd Control: ES - 1.45 MOA. MR - 0.56 MOA. LC 1st Test: ES - 1.61 MOA. MR - 0.55 MOA. LC 2nd Test: ES - 1.27 MOA. MR - 0.55 MOA. LC 3rd Test: ES - 1.28 MOA. MR - 0.55 MOA. Western Cartridge Co. 1st Control: NA WCC 2nd Control: ES - 1.87 MOA. MR - 0.71 MOA. WCC 3rd Control: ES - 2.23 MOA. MR - 0.80 MOA. WCC 1st Test: ES - 2.44 MOA. MR - 0.97 MOA. WCC 2nd Test: ES - 2.68 MOA. MR - 0.95 MOA. WCC 3rd Test: ES - 1.91 MOA. MR - 0.60 MOA. |
|
Completed the second test today. Had some excitement with a guy walking into my firing line but other than that, all went normal. Some pictures of the velocities. "Test" is the brass that has had the flash hole uniformed. "Control" is brass that has been unaltered. All loads were 24.3gr CFE223, CCI450 primers and 77gr SMK. Brass was LC 88, WCC 14, and Wolf Gold. Attached File Attached File Here is a picture of the target. Test groups on the left, control groups on the right. Attached File Lake City got worse in both group size and SD. WCC and WG improved on group size, including a sub moa group with WCC. WCC also improved in SD while WG did not. This is inconsistent with the first test where lake city improved with flash hole uniformity but WCC and WG did not. I will post closer pictures of the groups soon with any notes about flyers. There were no called flyers this test. But I did annotate if one was outside the group for recording purposes. |
|
This load was worked up in LC brass that I did not modify. It is consistent for this rifle. .75" .72MOA
Attached File I believe this wanted to group but couldn't for some reason. First 2 rounds were high and the 12th round also went high. Without the 3 flyers, it is still a .88" group. With all rounds accounted for, 1.22" 1.16 MOA. Attached File |
|
This group seemed to have lots of different impact points. I was checking scope tightness constantly and was very frustrated. Attached File While not a pretty group, it did improve drastically over the control group. .96", .92 MOA Attached File |
|
This was the worst group of the day. It also had the highest velocities by almost 30fps. The 4th round was a flyer. Not called. It is the round in the orange. There are multiple groups within the group. 1.74". 1.66 MOA
Attached File Major improvement over the control group. The bottom most round was a flyer on shot 9. Not called, just noticed. The other shots seemed to fill in the gap after it. 1.28". 1.22 MOA. Attached File |
|
Boman250, First off, I want to applaud you for doing the test and doing it well. Do you have the On-Target software? If so, process your targets and get mean radius and deviation from the mean. You can do it without the software but it is more work. Get that info and you can we get rid of terms such as, "wanting to group", "seemed like",... and others. A couple of important things to remember - even though you have decent sample sizes, your statistics are still just estimates of velocity, group size, SD, etc. Despite your decent sample sizes, the confidence in your numbers will be low, lower than might think. To get high confidence you must have large sample sizes, much larger. |
|
Quoted:
Boman250, First off, I want to applaud you for doing the test and doing it well. Do you have the On-Target software? If so, process your targets and get mean radius and deviation from the mean. Then can we get rid of speech such as, "wanting to group", "seemed like" and others. A couple of important things to remember - even though you have decent sample sizes, your statistics are still just estimates of velocity, group size, SD, etc. Despite your decent sample sizes, the confidence in your numbers will be low, lower than might think. To get high confidence you must have large sample sizes, much larger. I know my sample size is small, but I hope with more testing with different loads, a pattern would emerge. And, from what I have seen with just these 2 tests, Lake City (or at least LC 88) is proving to be a different beast than the other 2 headstamps. I hope that trend continues and maybe proves something or gives others the initiative to test for themselves to increase sample size? Once is an occurrence, twice is a coincidence, 3 times is a pattern. |
|
Quoted:
I kinda want to prep some fresh 1x Winchester and FC brass. I've got Bullseye, CFE223, and maybe enough H4895. Hornady 55 FMJs and 75 BTHP. |
Armory Sponsor