Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/4/2010 2:21:36 PM EDT
|
my lee dies come with a little sheet with some load data, which is pretty handy, tells you what disks used will net you the ballpark correct CC's for certain powders it also has the dimensions of the round that the dies are for. my .223 dies the dimension shows max OAL is 2.260 , but most load data with the 3 powders im working up are around 2.200 and 2.2100 why the difference? im pretty sure 2.260 is too big for magazine length, so is that a dimension you can use for bolt guns? either way i loaded to what the powder suggested for the style bullet im using. well i tried at least. my lee loadmaster is horrible for OAL consistency what is good enough for +/- OAL? what do you guys considered "passable" for consistency? |
|
Quoted:
my lee dies come with a little sheet with some load data, which is pretty handy, tells you what disks used will net you the ballpark correct CC's for certain powders Use a scale to confirm the charge weight. it also has the dimensions of the round that the dies are for. my .223 dies the dimension shows max OAL is 2.260 , but most load data with the 3 powders im working up are around 2.200 and 2.2100 why the difference? The difference is the length of the bullets and the driving band on those bullets. We need about 1 to 1.5 bullet diameters seated into the case neck, if you were to try to seat some of the lighter bullets out to 2.25 or 2.26 inches, they would barely stay in the case and some might not seat at all. im pretty sure 2.260 is too big for magazine length, so is that a dimension you can use for bolt guns? 2.26 inches is about the maximum COAL that is reliable in USGI magazines. It is too long in C Products commercial magazines that I have. Many people load to 2.25 inches for a little more cushion. either way i loaded to what the powder suggested for the style bullet im using. well i tried at least. my lee loadmaster is horrible for OAL consistency what is good enough for +/- OAL? what do you guys considered "passable" for consistency? You'll have to give us more detail to get an answer to your last question, in particular the bullet you are loading. |
|
Actually, 2.260 will feed and fire from an AR mag just dandy, but it is the absolute max length for mag-fed rounds.
Most people go with 2.250 or 2.255 or thereabouts for reliable feeding from magazines. My Hornady 60 gr. V-Max bullets really like to be seated at 2.260, and I've used those in sitting rapid fire and prone rapid fire stages in service rifle matches. Have not had a jam or misfeed or malfunction with that length. Your mileage (and your magazines) may vary. Generally, seating depth and powder charge have a symbiotic relationship. Given an equal powder weight in each of two cases, the one with a bullet seated to 2.20 will generate a little bit more pressure than one seated to 2.21. Also, with most quality bullets, the base to ogive length is reliably consistent, but the base to tip length can vary slightly. Your seater die seats on the ogive, so if you have slight differences in OAL, you shouldn't worry. If you're using bulk 55 gr. FMJ from Winchester or Remington, then variance is the only consistent thing you'll have.  But it's fine for plinking.
I recommend comparing data between 2-3 different manuals rather than relying on just one. You can get current reloading data online from Hodgdon and Sierra and VihtaVuori (without buying their manuals). |
|
for the bullet im currently trying out is LC, 55gr M193 FMJ-BT W/ Canulure i got from surplus ammo. if I seat to around 2.255 +/-.003 the mouth doesnt come close to the canulure. if I seat just a little taller then published suggested min COAL for BLC2 i hit right in the middle of the canulure. i guess what im confused on, is the max COAL is 2.26 but the load data for BLC2 shows a min 2.20 thats a pretty big difference between the two published COAL, which to choose from? whats the ryhme or reason why the difference would be so big. it just makes it mind boggeling to start working up a load when you have such a huge difference in COAL AND working up powder loads as well. factor in light/medium/heavy crimps from a FCD . by the time im done making 10 round trial loads, ill have 1000000 rounds to find and keep track of to see what shoots best... maybe im putting to much thought into it. |
|
The bullet you're shooting is not the same as used for the load data.
If you plan to crimp, then seat to mid cannelure and be done with it. There's no point burning up components trying to tweak accuracy from M193 bullets, they aren't accurate. The next batch of bullets you buy may have the cannelure a different distance from the base. Winchester doesn't even go to the trouble of getting the cannelure in the same location in the same lot of bullets. |
|
I tend to go with the seating depth recommendation of the bullet manufacturer when starting a new load.
Just as I tend to favor the load data from the powder manufacturer when researching a new workup using one of their powders. That's not to say that you shouldn't consult multiple reloading manuals though. |
|
Quoted: not sure i follow what your sayingThe bullet you're shooting is not the same as used for the load data. If you plan to crimp, then seat to mid cannelure and be done with it. There's no point burning up components trying to tweak accuracy from M193 bullets, they aren't accurate. The next batch of bullets you buy may have the cannelure a different distance from the base. Winchester doesn't even go to the trouble of getting the cannelure in the same location in the same lot of bullets. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
not sure i follow what your saying
The bullet you're shooting is not the same as used for the load data. If you plan to crimp, then seat to mid cannelure and be done with it. There's no point burning up components trying to tweak accuracy from M193 bullets, they aren't accurate. The next batch of bullets you buy may have the cannelure a different distance from the base. Winchester doesn't even go to the trouble of getting the cannelure in the same location in the same lot of bullets. Okay, that's a guess. Here's my question. Are you loading the same bullet called for in the load data you're using? This is important. All bullets of the same weight (same caliber) are not the same shape and the loaded lengths get adjusted. |
|
no, i guess im not, i dont have any load data for M193 bullets, nor could find any easily. didnt see any in my lee book, nor on here, or on the hodgen site. i started with data for a 55grn FMJ BT . since that is what M193 is. or am I not thinking this correctly. |
|
Quoted:
no, i guess im not, i dont have any load data for M193 bullets, nor could find any easily. didnt see any in my lee book, nor on here, or on the hodgen site. i started with data for a 55grn FMJ BT . since that is what M193 is. or am I not thinking this correctly. If you have load data for a 55 gr. FMJBT with cannelure, then you will have load data for "M193", though true M193 ammo is a lot hotter than what you will be reproducing. If your manual says, for example, 22.5 gr. of XYZ powder with a maximum of 24.5 gr. (for a 55gr. FMJBT, cannelured or not), then start at the bottom and work up. Load five rounds with 22.0 grains, five with 22.5, five with 23.0, five with 23.5, five with 24.0. Go to the range and shoot each load at five different targets. Your first priority is safe but effective feed and function. Then compare group sizes on paper. Whatever groups the tightest is the load you should use. Some of my most accurate reloads are the bottom end of the starting load/maximum load scale. You don't need the biggest bang or the fastest speed, but the greatest accuracy. If you can't hit what you're aiming at, then why shoot? |
Armory Sponsor