PDA

View Full Version : Two approaches to CB accuracy



joeb33050
11-04-2007, 07:33 AM
I wrote and posted this some time ago:
Cast Bullet Accuracy-Two Points Of View

I read, almost daily, what's posted on the various cast-bullet-related forums, and think that I see two different views of how to achieve accuracy when shooting cast bullets.

One view holds that there are many variables in the cast bullet shooting business, and that selection of the selectable quantities or qualities of these variables within narrow limits is required to find accuracy. We can call this view the "small increment" view for ease of reference.
The variables include bullet hardness and weight and composition and dimensions, powder choice and charge weight, cartridge case make and dimensions and annealing and sizing diameter and expansion diameter, primer choice, action/barrel bedding/clearance, barrel vibration and harmonics and diameter and length and chamber dimensions and bore/land smoothness and crown, scope make and type and power and mounting, bench rest type and setup, and many more.
Selectable quantities or qualities are the those that are within the control of the shooter; so that powder choice and charge weight are (almost) always within the control of the shooter, while barrel diameter and chamber dimensions are infrequently within the control of the shooter for technical or financial or time reasons.
The "small increment" shooter believes that precise quantities or qualities of variables are necessary to achieve accuracy; powder charges measured to tenths of grains, precise bedding of actions, carefully cast and weighed and bumped/swaged bullets made of precise alloys, and so on.

The other point of view is that there are some clearcut rules for achieving accuracy with cast bullets, and that these rules are either known or knowable. Let us call this the "cookbook" view.
"Cookbook" guys point to the 30/06 IMR4895 300 meter load, 14.5 grains of IMR4227 in 32/40, 14 grains of Unique in 45/70, and the various current day commercial "target" loads for rifle and pistol that seem to work accurately in most guns across a wide spectrum.
These recipe guys cite broad bullet hardness/composition vs. velocity relationships, measure powder charges to the nearest half grain, believe that they see accuracy across a range of bullet dimensions and weights, powder choices, primer choices, seating depths and cartridge case variables.

I think that I see these two points of view in the posts in the various forums; these syntheses are approximations intended to differentiate between the two-not to be precise definitions.

Perhaps some of the argument we see is caused by these two differing world views, and perhaps if I'm right about the two views, we can at least begin to understand each other.

joe brennan.

Then I see this:
Originally Posted by 44man
I just thought of something else. We work out the most accurate load and shoot some super groups. Next week they look like **** so we clean the barrel and do all the gyrations. The one thing not thought of is the weather changed on us. Burn of the powder, even barrel harmonics have changed enough to take away the edge.
Old timers used to find a good load, then go up and down with the powder charge to make sure the boolits hit the same place so there would be no change in the sights for hunting when weather changes. But when we work in 1/10 gr increments, that luxury isn't there.
I believe this is one big reason we have so much trouble duplicating groups over the course of the year. We might blame our shooting on that day or the lube when it is really out of our control. I guess you could work out a new load for every few degrees and humidity change---much fun there!
--------------------------

Perhaps what's going on here is not a difference in view, but a difference in the number of groups shot.
Any given load will shoot different size groups. This is just part of the deal, the inherent variability of the man-gun-load-equipment system.
In a set of five, five shot groups; on average, the largest group of the five will be TWICE the size of the smallest group.
Sets of five, five shot groups will have different average group sizes-so if you find a good load Monday that load might shoot poorly Tuesday. I don't know the statistics about this, but I will.
It takes a LOT of groups to make any kind of precise statement about a load or a pair of loads.
I'm starting to think here that what may be going on here is this:
I get a good load, it shoots great.
Next time I shoot it, it shoots poorly. Second time is colder than the first. Obviously, this load shoots better in warm than cold temperatures.
I change the lube, shoot it on a cold day, and it shoots great. Now I know that the lube makes this load shoot better on cold days.
What just happened is that the load variability got mixed up with the weather and the lube, and I drew some conclusions that may or may not be correct.
We've got the statistics AND the weather/lube changes going on, and draw conclusions.
The only way that I know of to separate the two is to test enough so that there is some statistical validity to the results.
Detecting which of the points of view is correct requires two things.
First is the reporting of the data leading to any question or conclusion. Second is the analysis of that data to find the statements that can be made.
Without that data, the number of groups shot, shots per group, distance and group sizes-at least-everything written about accuracy with ANY load, or the factors contributing to accuracy, is merely opinion-and we didn't design the F22 based on opinion.
joe b.

Char-Gar
11-04-2007, 08:10 AM
Good Post Joe.... I think we have talked about the different ways of looking at cast bullet accuracy before. You are very correct, that much of our disagreement comes from a fundamental difference in the way we view cast bullet accuracy and our approaches to finding it.

I think I would fall (loosely of course) into the cookbook school as I feel there are rule and principals of cast bullet accuracy and they are knoweable. Accuracy is found by following those principals in a linear fashion to the end.

I spent decade shooting cast bullets by the "stab in the dark" method. Sometime I had good result and sometimes I didn't. I could not understand why the difference. Today, I understand some of the fundamental principals and can force my will on just about any rifle, to turn in the best accuracy it can give with cast bullets.

Now as to the last section of your post... To be certain weather plays a factor, but that is just another of the variable you must factor into to what you call accuracy.

As I read these threads I am aware of a difference between myself and some others in how they define accuracy. In my pea brain, the accuracy of any given rifle is what you can produce on any given day. You don't have a 1 MOA rifle and load, unless you can produce 1 MOA groups day in and day out. The accuracy is an average of what you can produce on demand, providing of course, we are doing our part.

If my rifle produces 1 MOA groups today and 2 MOA groups tomorrow with the same loads, then I need to know if it is the rifle, the load or me that has caused the groups to open up. Only by understanding what is going on, can I correct the problem and have reliable consistant accuracy.

I guess I get a little preevish, when I see folks post targets or groups that are clearly cherry picked and do not represent what the rifle and load can do "on demand". I think we do a diservice to others when we post our fluke braggin groups and lift them up as proof of what we can do with our rifle and load.

We don't help others by posting groups that are do not represent real world on demand accuracy. I don't post allot of stats, but when I do they are the average of what I did that day at the range.

Anyway... This should be a good discusson, because tis true, we do come at these things from different points of views and many of our disagreements arise from this fact.

Bret4207
11-04-2007, 09:01 AM
IMHO the accuracy search is a combination of both methods Joe mentioned. I try to start with a known "good" or at least recommended load. (As an aside- if it worked for Ken Waters or Frank Marshall it usually works for me) From there I tweak things and try and find a dependable, if not world class load. I simply don't have the time to play with things as I would like. I do have certain habits or methods I use that give me good results- use the fattest boolit the throat will take, seat into or almost into the lands if possible, uniformly trimmed brass ( a biggy with 32WCF!), neck sizing or partially neck sizing only, a good heavy crimp with the hotter handgun rounds like the 357 and 44, Lee FCD for the thinner brassed cases especially, check runout...things like that. I use nearly straight WW for all my shooting, I'm no velocity freak and not a benchrester either. I aim for a load combo that is pleasant, reliable, effective in the field and not too complex to produce since my time is very limited. My methods and expectations would no doubt be laughable to some and drive others to drink for the lack of gyrations in producing it.

My expectation is that is that my best loads equal or exceed factory jacketed ammo.
Once I have a load meeting my reliability requirements and wish to see it bettered, I start with simple things like seating depth/OAL. I find this makes the biggest difference right off the bat. Some guns just like the boolit set back a bit or forced into the lands. Beyond that I may try water quenching followed by OAL again. This worked great in one rifle, a 308 I think. Then I may try sizing, OAL. Then sizing, quench, OAL. Quenching has worked well for me in handguns too. It's easy, you don't have to add expensive components and you still have a ductile boolit. Different lubes I haven't gotten into because until recently I only had 1 sizer and had a large supply of 50/50 Alox to use up. I have to modify that because I do use Mule Snot. I have not seen a difference in accuracy with Alox vs Mule Snot in cartridges I felt the LLA was appropriate in, that is up to 14-1500 fps in caliber 30 and larger big game and military cartridges. Now that I have 3 sizers and we have so many types available I hope to experiment a bit. I have not seen one brand of lube perform magic yet. I think I have tried Lymans Black and Orange magic, the old RCBS green lube, Rooster soft, a Tarmak or Tammarack brand, one of the purple Crayola type very hard wax lubes (YUCK!), a couple other long gone brands and the 50/50. The 50/50 worked best for me considering the expense vs ease of use vs results. Again, I don't have time anymore to play around with it. (I'm babysitting as I write this, you know the story) I shoot year round and haven't seen a huge difference in -25 to +100 degree weather with my loads.

So IMO accuracy depends on your definition, uses, available time and components and expectations. A 45AR load that gets me 3" at 25 yards everyday is a fine load for me. My eyes won't do better with that guns sights. My 357's and 44's should do to 2" or under. My 32 Mag Ruger SS with scope will hold near 1" at 50 so far. A 32-20 rifle load that holds 1.5" at 75 yards gets me all I'll need. I expect (hope?) my 30WCF, 8mm's, 7.5 Swiss, 7.65 Mauser, 8x56R to hold 2- 2 1/2"or smaller at 100 yards. In a scope sighted rifle I expect the groups to run 1/2-3/4" smaller at 100.

So I think accuracy depends on your requirements in addition to the "mechanics" of the exercise. My expectations will be far below what many will want, and above what others need. I think thats an across the board rule, that we all have different expectations and requirements.

Bass Ackward
11-04-2007, 09:36 AM
we do come at these things from different points of views and many of our disagreements arise from this fact.


Forget the idea of gun quality for a minute. How do you simplify and categorize? Take me. I can be both types on the same gun.

Every gun goes through a life cycle just like us. Another way to say this is that it goes through an accuracy life cycle:

1. It's made
2. It breaks in.
3. It improves.
4. It stabilizes.
5. It deteriorates.
6. It becomes a wall hanger.

The better the steel, the longer the cycle. The better the maintenance, the longer the life cycle. The less shooting under hot conditions, the longer the life cycle. The less jacketed, the longer the life cycle. The less pressure, the longer the life cycle. And the list goes on.

Each stage has a different definition of "plausible" accuracy and different steps that are required to make cast or anything else work in it. The definition of accuracy to a 460 WBY man isn't the same as a 6MM PPC guy either. In order to discuss from the same point of reference, we all have to be in the same part of the life cycle with the same set of conditions.

Then is a Handy owner less happy with accuracy than a guy with a bench rig? I've seen some pretty sorry bench guns and some fairly good shootin Handies.

Then there is the killer clause to everything we do, "well, but not always".

Here is the key: When satisfaction sets in, all experimentation stops. Accuracy is or will be what it is. I suggest that there are two types methods or types. Accepters and chasers. And each can be happy.

But you must understand the cycle of life and be in balance with everything, grasshopper. :grin:

Lloyd Smale
11-04-2007, 09:39 AM
I agree and posted about this elsewhere. theres a big difference in what i call what a gun will shoot and what a gun does shoot. A gun that gives one inch 25 or 50 yard groups on one or two occasions is a can do gun. One that will do it each and every time is a will do gun and will do guns are rare as will do women! I can pick any gun out of the safe and if i shoot a load enough can get a great group i can take a picture of and brag my gun is great but who am i fooling? Just myself! Like was said earlier in the post. A good point made was the point about what the old timers did. For my purposes theres not a spit of differnce betwee a gun that is used to kill a deer at a 100 yards if it shoots 2 inch groups or 4 inch groups. Same with a handgun. Any load that will shoot into 5 inch groups at 50 yards will handle any big game hunting. Granted i do try for better but dont loose sleep if my sixgun is shooting 2 inch 25 yard groups. What you have to understand is on this fourm your dealing with the most anal and knowlegable cast bullet shooters in the country and to alot of them its a game or a hobby to take a gun and get the absoullte most out of it whethere its needed or not.

To me as to your theroys its a combination of both but with a twist. Sure ive used elmers loads and others but for the most part ive worked up loads the hard way by experimenting and lots of shooting. But i do find that some of the loads ive found through the years tend to be accurate in a good portion of the guns ive tried them in and some just dont shoot in anything and i dont waste my time much with the loads and bullets that dont shoot anymore.

I also have thoughts on what powders primers crimp strength alloys ect work for differnt applications and go to them first. Example would be trying to get high velocity from a fast burning powder or plinking loads from a slow burning powder

so i guess im a combination of all of it. Ive took advice from others that i knew earned it the hard way but stay away from advise that was passed down and recieved by guys that just think they have the answers. This is one of the only fourms where you will actually get more good advise then bad and a guy would be a fool to ignore it. But proably 75 percent of my opinoin on what works is gained the old fashioned way. A pile of ammo and a bench and trying about everything I can think of.

My accuracy standards might not be the same as the next guy. I have alot of handguns and just dont have the time to sit everyday for a year testing just one. I also dont fool long with a bad one. If it doesnt shoot its gone. But if a guy looks on here and takes a load suggestion and just uses it hes missing out on alot of fun shooting and pride in knowing you yourself figured out what your gun likes. Like ive said before my accuracy standard for a sixgun is 2 inch at 25 yards. Some laugh at that but when i say it will shoot 2 inch it will shoot two inch every single time its at the range and under any condtions and a small variation in a batch of alloy or a batch of lube i made up isnt going to push it over 2 inch.

You will never see me post a picture of a group i shot with a gun. For one its to much work to try to figure this computer out and if i had to give a true representation of what my gun does id have to post pictures of every group i shot for 20 days and i dont think anyone wants to take the time to look.

Scrounger
11-04-2007, 10:07 AM
OK, I guess some of us here are in BA's first four categories, a lot of us are Category Five, and some (Fortunately few) Category Six. I think I'm hovering between Five and Six...

Pepe Ray
11-04-2007, 01:26 PM
I accept being an acceptor 3rd grade.
Pepe Ray :???:

joeb33050
11-04-2007, 02:30 PM
Forget the idea of gun quality for a minute. How do you simplify and categorize? Take me. I can be both types on the same gun.

Every gun goes through a life cycle just like us. Another way to say this is that it goes through an accuracy life cycle:

1. It's made
2. It breaks in.
3. It improves.
4. It stabilizes.
5. It deteriorates.
6. It becomes a wall hanger.


But you must understand the cycle of life and be in balance with everything, grasshopper. :grin:

I do not know this to be true.
Break in recommendations from rifle and barrel makers, cast bullets, are conflicting to the point of confusion.
It certainly is not true in my experience, with rifles shooting cast lead bullets at velocities about 1500 fps, that rifles or barrels wear out in any meaningful time.
I have a Martini bench rifle in 30/30 with a Douglas barrel that has been shot well over 10,000 times, never with jacketed, and I'm suspecting that its accuracy is deteriorating, but I can't prove that. More shooting is needed.
My opinion is that cast bullet rifles fired at medium velocities will essentially last forever-well into the tens of thousands of rounds. This does not mean that there is no wear, is means that the accuracy does not deteriorate.
I believe that I have read a quote from H. M. Pope saying that his #150 had fired over 50,000 shots without accuracy deteriorating, but can't put my finger on it.
For a Pope reference to a barrel that had fired over 20,000 rounds, see "Respectfully Yours, H. M. Pope, page 8.
Also see "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting" by Ed McGivern, page 166, for targets shot with a S&W K22 after shooting over 200,000 shots.
Please provide us the data that supports this six step story, with the rifle and loads and group sizes and ranges.
I think that cast bullet rifles don't wear out in any meaningful number of shots or period of time. Look at the Pope and Schoyen and Peterson and Perry and Winchester and Stevens and Ballard and Hepburn and ...... rifles that were made a hundred years ago and that are still going strong.
Data?
joe brennan

joeb33050
11-04-2007, 02:43 PM
There seems to be some confusion here. Let me try to clarify things.
I know next to nothing about handguns, I'm talking about bolt action and single shot rifles.
Accuracy is easy, it's five shot 100 yard groups shot in reasonable conditions with 10 shots plus foulers in a 15 minute time period, or so. It's not about taking 6 hours to shoot 10 shots in perfect conditions, as some of the SS guys do.
That's it. Maybe it's not what you want to talk about, maybe accuracy to you means something else. But this is what I'm talking about-the other arguments are interesting and thought provoking, but I can't deal with them AND what's going on here.
Five shot groups vary in size. Averages of five (or 2 or 11) five shot groups vary in size. This because of the way the world works.
Group size = accuracy varies with zillions of variables, or so we're told. Wind and temperature and powder and charge and bullet and diameter and gas check seating and lube and quantity of lube and ..........
My question is simply this:" Can we, and if so how, can we differentiate between random variation and a changed variable in the load? As you can see, data will be required.

Respectfylly Yours;
joe brennan

joeb33050
11-04-2007, 02:54 PM
If my rifle produces 1 MOA groups today and 2 MOA groups tomorrow with the same loads, then I need to know if it is the rifle, the load or me that has caused the groups to open up. Only by understanding what is going on, can I correct the problem and have reliable consistant accuracy.

.

There's the rifle, there's the load, there's you, and there's random variation.
If you flip a coin 6 times in a row heads, then try it the next day and only flip 4 (or 1 or 2 or 3 or 5) out of 6 heads, you would probably not blame your failure to flip 6 heads on the coin or your procedure or you-you'd blame it or explain it by saying that it's random variation.
If you shoot three 10 shot groups into an average of 1.25" at 100 yards, on Monday, then do it again Tuesday and the average is 1.75", the difference could very well be random variation-the way the world works.
I'm looking to be able to make some statements about these things.
Respectfully Yours;
joe b.

felix
11-04-2007, 03:12 PM
Random variation is a function of ??????? ... felix

"""Can we, and if so how, can we differentiate between random variation and a changed variable in the load? ......the difference could very well be random variation-the way the world works. """"

What world?????? ... felix

Scrounger
11-04-2007, 03:25 PM
Herein lies madness.... The temperature, barometric pressure, and any number of factors (Maybe the moon?) affect the gun, the ammunition, and for sure the shooter. In theory one bullet should follow exactly the same path as the previous one if the same aiming point is used. But we know the bullets aren't stacked that way in the backstop. And while we can examine and should try to control all the mitigating factors, we should never expect to be successful at it, for therein lies madness.

Char-Gar
11-04-2007, 03:58 PM
[QUOTE=joeb33050;241210]There's the rifle, there's the load, there's you, and there's random variation. If you flip a coin 6 times in a row heads, then try it the next day and only flip 4 (or 1 or 2 or 3 or 5) out of 6 heads, you would probably not blame your failure to flip 6 heads on the coin or your procedure or you-you'd blame it or explain it by saying that it's random variation

Joe... Coin tossing is one thing and shooting is another. I don't believe in random variation in shooting. Shooting as far as the rifle and load goes follows the laws of physics and chemistry. This not magic, mystic force or random variation.

If the problem is me, there is a reason why I shoot better one day than another day.

All of these variable can be known and defeated. This is a war! A war in which a human being strives to enforce his will on inanimate objects. Rifle, load, weather, and self, are all just battles to be won. The results of a battle are not determined by random variation. The results are determined by knowledge, preparation and effort.

When I look at a traget, I do not see random variation, chance, or magic. I see the results of my knowledge, preparation and effort. If it is not on the paper, it is my fault. I lacked knowledge of the rifle, the load, the weather or my physical and mental state.

You can take a rifle to the limits of it mechanical accuracy and that is where it stops. The battle is won! You can stop any place along the journey and call it satisfactory. That is fine, but you have not won, you have just stoped fighting. You call a truce and be happy with what you have gained.

leftiye
11-04-2007, 03:58 PM
As has been said here several times, we start by building a load we think should be accurate. This means we build it the way we think configures the variables and components "the best way" as we concieve that to be. In other words we do the best we know how, and work onward from there by analyizing (and guessing) as to how we might possibly gain an improvement. The first part is "cookbooking" I don't know what to call the other part (experimenting?). Are we still looking for steps? Because we have different knowledge and concepts, and actually think in different processes, it displays a shotgun pattern from here on.

Char-Gar
11-04-2007, 04:07 PM
Herein lies madness.... The temperature, barometric pressure, and any number of factors (Maybe the moon?) affect the gun, the ammunition, and for sure the shooter. In theory one bullet should follow exactly the same path as the previous one if the same aiming point is used. But we know the bullets aren't stacked that way in the backstop. And while we can examine and should try to control all the mitigating factors, we should never expect to be successful at it, for therein lies madness.

Nope... don't buy it!! I expect to be successful!! My expectations may not be met, but I will not lower the bar and accept less. There is a reason why I was not sucessful today and a lesson to be learned. Tomorrow I will have another time "at bat". You can never achieve what you don't believe can be achieved. You can't hit what you don't shoot at.

It is not madness, but determinaton.

Larry Gibson
11-04-2007, 04:55 PM
I agree with Charger

While the weather may and can have some effect on the internal ballistics of a load if it is a good accurate load it will not be effected to a very discernable degree accuracy wise. The caveat there is at or below freezing. If I go out today and a load shoots good, say under 2 moa, and I go out tomorrow and that same load shoots 3-4 moa then I suspect the load if the rifle is still in sound condition. That the temperature and humidity were a little difference should not have that discernable an effect. The wind may have that much effect but I know how to deal with that. I've got a lot of loads that shoot consistantly well day in and day out. I do not need a 2 gigabite thumb drive to keep alibi's in for bad shooting loads.

There are rules and certain laws of physics that apply to cast bullet shooting. If you follow them you most likely will find good consistant shooting loads. Most firearms are a story unto themselves. The experimentation part for me is to find out what loads that particular firearm likes. There are varibles that determine that load but that load will adhere to the rules and laws or it will not shoot consistantly well.

There are some loads that fit well enough in the spectrum of rules and laws that they are consistantly accurate, day after day, in most any firearm chambered for that cartridge.

If you go outside the rules and laws that apply to cast bullet shooting you may find an accurate load now and then, today yes - tomorrow maybe - the next day horrible.......I prefer to stay inside the rules of cast bullets and laws of physics. Makes for more pleasant shooting and a lot less consternation about your loads.

I have had too many individuals tell me the rifle "normally" shoot a load into moa. But on that day when he has fired several 3-4 moa groups with THAT LOAD in front of me it is the "weather, a change in the lube, a different batch of WWs" or some other reason ad nauseum as to why the load is not shooting moa. As we say in the military; The max effective range of an excuse is zero meters! Not flaming anyone here just saying where I make my stand.

Larry Gibson

454PB
11-04-2007, 05:13 PM
I think it was P.O. Ackley that said "only accurate rifles are interesting". For me, and I suspect a lot of others, it's just the opposite. Once I find an accurate combination in a gun, I put it away and grab another to work on. It's the challenge of making it accurate that is interesting.

Scrounger
11-04-2007, 05:19 PM
I think it was P.O. Ackley that said "only accurate rifles are interesting". For me, and I suspect a lot of others, it's just the opposite. Once I find an accurate combination in a gun, I put it away and grab another to work on. It's the challenge of making it accurate that is interesting.

It was Col. Townsend Whelan but I agree with you. In years past as soon as I worked all the bugs out of a rifle and got it shooting good, I lost interest, sold it, and bought something else to play with.

leftiye
11-04-2007, 06:50 PM
Chargar, Larry yer sure that "that way lies madness" isn't an occurrence that has already occurred?

454, Scrounger, I'm kinda like that. I see it as - got that one runnin, now for the next one" the gun's ready when I need it.

Pat I.
11-04-2007, 07:15 PM
The way I look at it accuracy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If the gun shoots to your satisfaction and does what you want it to do it's accurate. I think the big problem and why discussions about accuracy come up is that since the advent of the internet 1/2 groups have become so commonplace both in jacketed and cast bullet shooting that people think their loads suck unless they're shooting at or close to them.

I don't care if your alloy consists of eye of newt mixed with corn of cob your not going to turn your Marlin lever gun into a tack driver so just enjoy what you find acceptable, which is probably a lot closer to reality than some people post, and have a good time.

Char-Gar
11-04-2007, 07:40 PM
Leftiye.... One man's madness is another man's calling. A fellow has to do something with his life. He just can't stand around with a ten penny nail holding up his jeans waiting for a watermelon to fall from heaven.

Bass Ackward
11-04-2007, 09:51 PM
I do not know this to be true. I have a Martini bench rifle in 30/30 with a Douglas barrel that has been shot well over 10,000 times, never with jacketed, and I'm suspecting that its accuracy is deteriorating, but I can't prove that. More shooting is needed.
My opinion is that cast bullet rifles fired at medium velocities will essentially last forever-well into the tens of thousands of rounds. This does not mean that there is no wear, is means that the accuracy does not deteriorate. joe brennan


Joe,

Forgetting your 223? What was that? 800 rounds and the throat walked out? Why did you sell it? Bet accuracy wasn't improving.

Trust me, the life cycle is real, it is the same for rifles, shotguns and handguns. Only the life span changes based on the variables we all know.

floodgate
11-04-2007, 10:40 PM
"If you flip a coin 6 times in a row heads..."

If I flip a coin and get six heads in a row, the FIRST thing is, I'm going to do is look at that coin and count the number of heads on it. Sorry, don't mean to be flippant - but there IS a point here.

But this IS a good discussion, so keep it going.

floodgate

Pat I.
11-04-2007, 11:51 PM
Bass,

Not to get going in yet another thread but if a 223 wore the throat out in 800 rounds I'd be on the horn to the manufacuter griping about inferior barrel material and looking for a replacement. I looked at Larry Rickertsen's 30 BR bench gun quite a few years ago when he claimed it had at least 5000 rnds through it and the throat showed a little wear but besides that it looked good. He's still shooting it today and winning matches with it, in fact he won the big match with it after I looked so don't know how many rnds it had by that time. One thing I can say about that gun is that I've never seen him clean it. Kind of makes me believe more barrels are wrecked by cleaning rods than ever wore out from being shot.

Moral of the story. Use a bore guide and a good coated rod and don't drag a bunch of **** back and forth through the barrel and it might last a lot longer than you think.

Bullshop
11-04-2007, 11:59 PM
Say Bas I got one for ya, My Cooper 22ccm. I agree with ya on the life cycle but this thing is amazing. I was recently having a conversation with Dan Cooper as part on my campain to bring back the 22 ccm. He wanted to know about haw many rounds have been through my rifle. By rough estimate I put it at about 5000 all but a very few being boolits. The thing is I dont think it has peaked yet, it just keeps getting better. Shooting 5 tp 7 gn powder with 45gn lead at about 2000 fps and I dont know what pressure but likely something similar the the 22 wmr.
Talk about life cycle I remember reading about how often Tony Boyer changes barrels. His barrel life is just a bit shorter than mine. A normal fella could buy his shot out ones and live happily ever after.
Dan told me he built the mod 38 22 ccm to last 100 years but I think that is an under estimate. He was very curious to know how mine has held up as he knows of no other that has been put to steady use for so long as mine has. Life cycle is true sure nuf but it depends on many differant things but the most troublesome I would think being heat and pressure. If you can keep them down then you know you can see a dramatic differance. There always seems to be this battle going on in my mind dealing with that life cycle. If I want high performance with long life how best to get it, small case at high pressure or big case at low pressure? Theres good points from both sides. Under bore cases seem so loader friendly and agreable while big over bore cases a bit more finiky. I dont put much in the case shape thing as I do case volume when looking at the life of a barrel. I just cant decide what would be better say if I am looking for 4000 fps in a certain caliber/ bullet weight. Do I want say a 40gn case capacity at 60,000 psi or do I want a 60gn capacity case at 45,000 psi. Maybe they both give the 4000 fps I want but can one be expected to be longer lived than the other. I DONT KNOW, but its fun tryin ta find out.
BIC/**

felix
11-04-2007, 11:59 PM
Pat, on average, BA is correct. The throats take a beating with 65K or better CUP. Most cast guns don't use those pressures, so should wear considerably longer than 1K rounds. It took about 5K rounds to seat a 22 wadcutter (the Bator boolit) into my 22 BR gun. I started using a fast powder at a good pressure: N110 at 12.5 grains with the 225646 when the barrel had about 700 rounds of competitive condoms. That gun was perfect for that boolit then, but now I have to shoot the Bator. ... felix

felix
11-05-2007, 12:11 AM
Me too, Dan. I'll buy Tony's barrels without hesitation, even at the price of his purchasing a new one. His barrels by definition would be broken in for cast perfectly. ... felix

Pat I.
11-05-2007, 12:19 AM
But Felix we're not talking where a .020 loss of accuracy in an aggregate will knock you out of the winners circle at the Super Shoot. There's no denying that throats do take a beating and some cartridges do more damage than others but that's one of the big advantages of cast bullets, you have the option of fitting the bullet. If I was cooking the throats out of my cast bullet guns in 1000 rnds I'd look for something besides wear from shooting as the culprit.

felix
11-05-2007, 12:30 AM
5K rounds in the gun and still shooting fine with the Bator. Might go for another 5K, because that boolit gets 9.0 grains of N105. Prolly still around 35K CUP or so. ... felix

Bass Ackward
11-05-2007, 07:18 AM
Mine walk considerably. The culprit is that lead polishes and powder roughs up. Dan at Mountain molds filled his throat at .311 when his 700 Remington was new. 1000 rounds later he finished at .318. He purchased a new ER Shaw to put on it, but I don't know where he is at.

And I have had two 44 with the forcing cones that eventually cracked at 45,000 - 60,000 rounds. Never done that with a 38. So wear happens even if it ain't on yours. But bear in mind. Not all guys here only shoot cast in their guns. And you guys are thinking rifles. This also goes for handguns. Everything breaks in / seats in and moves to the improvement stage. For handguns, this ends about 10,000-12,000 rounds. By then you got what your gonna get from it.


Dan,

The ideal case capacity would not be a capacity but a design of which one doesn't exist. It would need a long enough neck for the powder range you wanted to burn. The barrel life issue has been tested with the 243 and 6MM Remnigton which are very close in capacity with longer life edge going to the 6MM. The idea that the longer brass absorbs more heat. Not my test, so don't shoot the piano player.

Problem is that there aren't any cartridges out there with long enough necks as the powder capacity is increased. In fact, as any case design comes down in bore diameter, the neck gets shorter because it's on a taper. And if you make use of a neck, you will have a bore diameter large enough, 4000 fps ain't hapnin.

Heat is the main enemy and it is aided by pressure. The larger the sourse of material to burn, the longer the heat sourse has to work. Going to a large case cuts pressure so that you can launch a softer bullet faster, but you lose the reloading flexibility on the low end as you noted. I assume we are talking copper and cast here. Sharp shoulders do retard powder flow forward which enhances burn. This also maximizes case capacity in a smaller case design. But I don't like it for cast myself. But anything large enough for 4000 fps will lack for low end cast anyway.

Bottom line, no free lunch. Use what you want, enjoy it while it lasts, and barrel life will be what it is. Chances are our interests move on to other things before something is worn out anyway. So very few people actually shoot out a barrel. More end up ruined by cleaning as Pat said.

joeb33050
11-05-2007, 10:09 AM
Random variation is a function of ??????? ... felix

"""Can we, and if so how, can we differentiate between random variation and a changed variable in the load? ......the difference could very well be random variation-the way the world works. """"

What world?????? ... felix

Random variation is a function of nothing, else it would not be random. N'est ce pas? We know that random variation exists, since no set of anything has the same characteristics. We can't cast 100, or 2 bullets that weigh EXACTLY the same. We can't shoot 10, or most frequently 2 bullets through the same hole. We can't find two pieces of cloth that have exactly the same color. Random variation is what's left after the causes of variation are removed.

What world????? The one we live in, this world.

Get it?
joe brennan

felix
11-05-2007, 10:22 AM
Here we go again, Joe. We live in two different worlds, and that to me is extremely apparent. In my world, the word "chance" does not exist. Nor do the words "variance" and "random". If something is delegated into these quoted words by the quality control statistician, then the engineer in charge has not designed the experiment well enough to include all independent variables that are required to solve the problem on hand. Now, where the number of variables is deemed satisfactory is where and when the cost-effect line is drawn. ... felix

joeb33050
11-05-2007, 10:23 AM
Since Bass has not produced any data, I'm left with the awesome responsibility to define this off-track topic.
Bass is incorrect. Here's how it works.
A cast bullet rifle may or may not require "breaking in", confusion reigns. As the new barrel is shot, the throat "wears", as a diminishing function of # of shots fired.
After some number of shots, into the tens of thousands, the barrel may become polished and accuracy may diminish. See Horace Warner's article on page 7 of The Rifle, May 1888. If it happens lately, it may be fixed with an abrasive attack; but evidence is skimpy at best.
As time goes on, accuracy remains constant. This for somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 shots, if H. M. Pope and Ed McGivern are accurate.
During the years involved in shooting this number of shots, the owner may clean it to inaccuracy, ait may corrode, or there may be damage to the throat, bore or crown that degrade accuracy.
Eventually the rifle changes owners or the owner goes to heaven and the rifle goes to the dump or Big Ricky, who gets it going with jacketed bullets and man-sized loads.
So in some sense, rifle accuracy, cast bullets, low to moderate velocity; live accurately forever.

Now it's remotely possible that I (and H.M.Pope and Ed McGivern) are incorrect, and I'm happy to change my opinion, if there's ant data supporting that change.

Otherwise, folks, they last forever.

joe brennan

joeb33050
11-05-2007, 10:37 AM
Here we go again, Joe. We live in two different worlds, and that to me is extremely apparent. In my world, the word "chance" does not exist. Nor do the words "variance" and "random". If something is delegated into these quoted words by the quality control statistician, then the engineer in charge has not designed the experiment well enough to include all independent variables that are required to solve the problem on hand. Now, where the number of variables is deemed satisfactory is where and when the cost-efficiency line is drawn. ... felix

You may live in another world, Felix, but it's a very small world with very few inhabitants.
"Chance" is very well understood by card players, who are familiar with the phrases: "I couldn't win a hand all night." and "I couldn't do anything to keep from winning all night." And, "I don't stand a ghost of a chance with you." And "Chances are, (though I wear a silly grin...)
"Variance" is the square of S.D., has a clear meaning in my world. It describes, among other things, physical characteristics of human beings, and is inherently crucial to deciding on what and how in the medical community.
"Random" is what we hope is happening when names are drawn from a bowl, when draft numbers were picked, when bingo happens, when lottery numbers are selected, and when polls are taken-as they are with greater frequency tha seems reasonable today.

Do not let unfamiliarity with statistical notions cause you to condemn the use of statistics and statistical analysis. I can recommend several entry level books that might help you become familiar with statistics.

Respectfully yours;
joe b.

joeb33050
11-05-2007, 10:43 AM
Mine walk considerably. The culprit is that lead polishes and powder roughs up. Dan at Mountain molds filled his throat at .311 when his 700 Remington was new. 1000 rounds later he finished at .318. He purchased a new ER Shaw to put on it, but I don't know where he is at.

.
I think that there's a mistake here. It is not possible to increase the throat of a cast bullet rifle from .311 to .318 in 1000 shots, and probably not ever. Somebody made a typo here.
Most humbly;
joe b.

felix
11-05-2007, 11:07 AM
Very true, Joe, from your point of view in your present world. I know, I've been there. Insurance companies thrive in yours, and when they get lied to by their math department, they get bailed out just as the banks do. The medical and weather folks have been trying to figure out those independent variables since Sin was committed.

The following might help you get a feel for what gun accuracy is all about:

http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/max357/houston.html

... felix

45 2.1
11-05-2007, 11:15 AM
I think that there's a mistake here. It is not possible to increase the throat of a cast bullet rifle from .311 to .318 in 1000 shots, and probably not ever. Somebody made a typo here.
Most humbly;
joe b.

Yes it is possible, but it would involve an abrasive.

Char-Gar
11-05-2007, 12:18 PM
I hate if when you guys get into "tech talk" as I can't play. But I want to stick my neck out and risk a comment on Joe's understand of "random". If I understand what he is saying, he is saying the difference that is left after the known variables have been removed is this stuff called "random".

That reminds of of some old Psychology. In the not to far distance past, human funky thinking that could not be explained by any known theory were all lumped into a catagory called "hysteria".

Random just sound like hysteria to me. It becomes the dumping ground for the things we don't understand. In this case, it sound to me like "random" is just the unknown variables. If we could undestand and work with them, they cease to be random.

joeb33050
11-05-2007, 12:47 PM
I hate if when you guys get into "tech talk" as I can't play. But I want to stick my neck out and risk a comment on Joe's understand of "random". If I understand what he is saying, he is saying the difference that is left after the known variables have been removed is this stuff called "random".

That reminds of of some old Psychology. In the not to far distance past, human funky thinking that could not be explained by any known theory were all lumped into a catagory called "hysteria".

Random just sound like hysteria to me. It becomes the dumping ground for the things we don't understand. In this case, it sound to me like "random" is just the unknown variables. If we could undestand and work with them, they cease to be random.

"Random", the word, has some meanings in my world. One is about "without plan or bias"
In the sense of random variation, of anything, we get into a philosophical and perhaps sophist argument.
Some contend that random variation is a characteristic of the world, hence outcomes vary.
Some contend that the causal factors vary, ever so slightly perhaps, randomly, and cause outcomes to vary.
There is a distinction and a difference.
Certainly there are variables that effect group size.
And certainly we can identify and control those variables to reduce group size.
But we cannot cause variables to have IDENTICAL values, we can't control bullet weight so that each of a set of bullets has IDENTICAL weight, and we don't begin to understand how variation in these variables changes out outcomes.
Then we have a set of variables that we can control within ranges, EX .1 grain for bullet weight, and we're left with all those variables at different values, randomly distributed; and the outcomes have, because of that/those random variations, random outcomes within some range, groups of 1" with S.D. of .2" for example.
OR, try the other approach. Can you imagine a variable with identical values over a large number of trys? Can you imagine a rifle/load that will consistently and over a long period of time shoot bullets through the same, IDENTICAL hole? I can't, and we all can cite the reasons for objecting. Then, SOMETHING makes the groups not equal zero, and that something is called random variation.
It's more about world view and such, less about the world in which we live.
Random Variation can be a state of nature, or the sum of random variation of the variables affecting or controlling the process. Whichever you like.
Whatever the definition, I get a lot of it in my shooting, and so do you all.
Most humbly and respectfully submitted for your consideration by
joe brennan

felix
11-05-2007, 01:00 PM
Joe, the difference between perfection and the amount of variance from that perfection is called random chance by those who do not need to accomplish perfection. It is that simple. Zero error is perfection by definition. ... felix

felix
11-05-2007, 01:20 PM
Charles, your neck is still very much intact. You got it PERFECTLY. ... felix

joeb33050
11-05-2007, 01:45 PM
Joe, the difference between perfection and the amount of variance from that perfection is called random chance by those who do not need to accomplish perfection. It is that simple. Zero error is perfection by definition. ... felix

I am unable to achieve perfection. Try as I may.
I think you're offering an opinion here, Felix; and certainly you're welcome to do so. We can all learn from others. Or most of us can.
If those who do ot need to accomplish perfection call ...... "random chance", what do those of us who need to accomplish perfection call it?
Are you among those who achieve perfection? Are you a perfection needer?
This has been wonderful, and I'm very glad that you're here to explain things to us, and decide for us. I can only assume that you have achieved perfection.
Respectfully and imperfectly yours;
joe b.

Char-Gar
11-05-2007, 02:10 PM
I suspect that Joe is correct that all of this random vs. perfect stuff has more to do with world view and philosphy than science.

As I have said a number of times, I am not a science type. I am a religious type and in that context the words "perfect" and "human" are contridictions of terms.

There are many, many things about all of life we do not know. We do learn, and the things we don't know, grow fewer and fewer. However, when it is all said and done, we cannot move beyond the human. The created can never fully understand the workings of the creator.

Now, I don't attribute a bad group to an act of God, nor do I attribute it to some mystic randomness of the universe. I attribute a bad group to fallible human nature and knowledge.

There may be perfect math, but there will never be perfect human knowledge or action. No matter how far we advance, we can not become more than human.

So lack of perfection can be laid at the feet of uknown ramdom forces in the universe or it can be understood as just the limitations of being human.

When we use the term perfect, we have to be certain how we understand that term and to what is it being applied.

joeb33050
11-06-2007, 08:22 AM
I like both the practical and the theoretical or philisophical or world view discussions.
However, it's time to get back to work.
The sense of the triggering post, and what may be the difference between the cookbook guys and the too-many-variables-to-control guys may be that there's no simple and easily understandable answer to questions such as these:

Rifle X has shot load y into about 1 1/2" 5 shot 100 yard groups for years. Yesterday I shot three groups with the identical lube and they averaged 2.1". Has accuracy decreased?

Rifle X has shot load y into about 1 1/2" 5 shot 100 yard groups for years. Yesterday I shot 5 groups using a different lube, they averaged 1.1". Is the new lube more accurate?


Rifle X has shot load y into about 1 1/2" 5 shot 100 yard groups for years. I changed the bullet, the alloy, the diameter, the powder and took off my lucky hat; and five groups at 100 yards averaged 1.5". Does this mean that nothing affects the accuracy of this rifle?

Now the answers lie hidden in the thicket of statistics, and I think that I can extract them. Statistics is boring, difficult to understand, way too complicated, laden with assumptions that if not met call conclusions into question, and uses greek letters that I can't remember how to pronounce. That's my opinion, and I'm a cheerer for statistics.

To find a way to answer questions like these, certain things must be operating.

You must accept the notion that group sizes are affected by random variation-wherever it comes from, and that regardless of how closely we control the variables, group size will hardly ever be, and never average, zero.

Then ROUND groups are acceptable, sets of groups that show common non-round shapes are not. This is a subjective matter.

You must keep records of group sizes. If you don't have records, there's no way to apply statistics.

With these three operating it may be possible to work out the answer or procedure or table.

In the book there are several ways to answer these questions using what may be too confusing an explanation.

I'd be interested in comments and other questions about them group sizes, while I try to work this thing out.
Thanks to all for the help so far;
joe brennan

mag_01
11-06-2007, 10:06 AM
:coffee: ----- Very interesting post --- A lot of discussion with a good deal of information --- Not every thing written in stone is in itself true -- But in whole A definite in-site into the problems of our world of -- CAST --- Every ones input is important -- More post of this type get us to thinking ( and this is a good thing) and in a way enabling better results on our score card (targets -- Mag_01

felix
11-06-2007, 11:00 AM
If the group is not ROUND, then the load is not optimized for that gun system at that particular moment when the group was fired. No exceptions. ... felix

sundog
11-06-2007, 11:20 AM
Felix, about the round groups. Dave Scott documented that writing about Virgil King's 'adventure' in the Houston Warehouse. Horizontal to vertical stringing by adjusting charge and seating depth (and neck tension). The sweet spot. Ah, to only have the resources....

felix
11-06-2007, 11:31 AM
Yep, Corky, it boils down to ignition characteristics to get everything started on the right foot. Emphasis is placed on the plural version of the word characteristic. ... felix

Char-Gar
11-06-2007, 12:06 PM
I would "amen" the notion of round groups....providing the rifle is capable of giving round groups with any load. If a rifle won't deliver round groups then the problem will be found with the rifle and not the load. Bedding problem, barrel warping as it get's hot and those sort of things.

So, in order for round groups to have load significance, the rifle must be capable of producing round groups to start with.

This would seem to be pretty basic stuff, but over the years, I have known many shooters to chase the holy grail of the right load without sucess when the problem was with the rifle all along.

felix
11-06-2007, 12:46 PM
Absolutely, Charles, without question. ... felix

joeb33050
11-06-2007, 02:36 PM
If the group is not ROUND, then the load is not optimized for that gun system at that particular moment when the group was fired. No exceptions. ... felix

What does "optimized" mean to you, Felix?

A set of groups, not one but a few, that are fired with the same load/same conditions, that are not round, are probably a sign that there are TWO accuracy affecting processes going on. One is the normal random variation, the second could be wind-causing L/R or U/D variation; or IGNITION, generally causing U'D variation.
But it's pretty subjective at the threshold.
One group of a set with a wide shopt or great relative dispersion may be a sign that something funny is going on.

ONE group can and will be out-of-round just by pure chance, and is not a sign, unless it's WAY out of round.
Round groups, in the Statistical Process Control jargon, are said to be "in control".
joe brennan

Maven
11-06-2007, 03:30 PM
I think joe b. is correct about the "cookbook" v. the multiple variable approach to CB accuracy (as defined & measured by the user), but I don't think these 2 positions are mutually exclusive. E.g., if you have a .30-06 and a CB that fits it, wouldn't you start with or at least consider starting with C.E. Harris' "universal load" of 13gr. of Red Dot or 16gr. of Hercules/Alliant 2400 or a combination found in a Lyman, Lee, or RCBS reloading manual? If accuracy was only so-so, wouldn't you consider changing one variable, e.g., powder charge, at a time to see if it makes a difference. Even if accuracy (target, not hunting) was very good-to-excellent, wouldn't you try to change one thing at a time to wring the last bit of performance/accuracy/"perfection" from the rifle? Moreover, if you did these things, kept careful records and found, by inspection, your targets were somehow different, how would you know whether it was due to the change you made or to random variation aka chance? If you were motivated enough to continue your experiment so that you accumulated data for say 100 5-shot groups (using your chosen or proven load), you could (a) pretty much rule out human error and (b) perform a simple statistical analysis to demonstrate whether changing a given factor produced meaningful (rather than random or chance) & repeatable results. Finally, if you were trying to maximize accuracy with a given rifle, load & CB, etc., I assume you wouldn't shoot in a howling gale or blizzard, wouldn't leave your loaded rounds in the hot sun or encased in ice, etc., but would choose reasonably calm days that were temperate enough so that you wouldn't shiver. Then too statistical analysis doesn't assume that you'll spend the rest of your days gathering enough data to make meaningful claims or to refute other claims: That's what probability & inferential statistics are for. Beyond that, what's the problem with the statistical approach?

As for statistics, what they do and how we can apply them to our hobby/sport, doesn't require a Ph.D as there are, as joe b. suggested, several excellent books & articles about them. First and foremost is the excellent article, "Statistics for Handloaders" by Dennis Marshall* in the NRA's book, "Handloading" (1981). The other is a non-mathematical discussion of statistics in an out-of-print book, "The Nature of Statistics" by W. Allen Wallis & Harry V. Roberts (The Free Press, 1965). Used book dealers/Amazon can get this for you if you're interested. Even the recent best seller, "Freakonomics" shows how statistics can be honestly** used to support or refute given claims.

In sum, I don't think there are an infinite number of variables that affect whatever we choose to define as CB accuracy. I also think many of them are known, knowable and quantifiable (but not necessarily by me!) and apply to the great majority of rifles and maybe handguns as well. Why are we pretending this is as difficult as Einstein's theory of Special Relativity?



*A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I used to teach Sociology and spent at least 1 week each semester (15 wks.) discusssing scientific methodology, fallacious logic and statistics (both descriptive and analytical), as did my colleagues in Psychology. Once I discovered Marshall's article, I recommended it to them and my students as an eminently readable introduction to the subject.


**I find the assertion that "figures lie and liars figure" to be uniformed at best, and highly disrespectful if not insulting to those who have developed, perfected and applied statisitcs so as to improve the human condition.

sundog
11-06-2007, 04:32 PM
If the equipment (rifle, sight, bench, bags, etc.) is capable under good conditions, and you are not shooting small round groups at a hundred then one of two things need adjustment, you or the load..., or both.

If the equipment is not capable, then you're just wasting ammunition (unless you discover the problem), or you have to accept the results. If you continue shooting with a diagnosed equipment problem, then you ARE wasting ammo, and time that you could be using to fix the problem.

Char-Gar
11-06-2007, 05:49 PM
Corky... You da man!!! I know far to many shooters who are on the "accuracy hunt" with crappy rifles, crappy equipment and crappy skills!

montana_charlie
11-06-2007, 06:52 PM
Hmm...It looks like (maybe) you guys are staring to concentrate on the topic.

You have discussed, argued, and philosophied about crappy scopes, weather, worn out barrels, poor eyesigfht, and everything but "CB accuracy".

I have assumed (while reading along) that CB accuracy means 'accuracy with cast bullets', so all of that other stuff should be considered as 'presumed good'. If you're half blind, shooting a worn out rifle that won't even handle jacketed bullets, and shooting in a hurricane...what does a cast bullet have to do with anything?

The question has been boiled down to the ammunition, itself...or the thread would have a different title.

So...I am waiting for the real facts. And, if you can explain how a guy who keeps his bullets in a coffee can; and shakes them in a margarine tub to lube 'em; ever sends a bullet down the bore with square corners on the base and driving bands...I'd love to hear it.

And if those corners aren't square any more (or never were), is that the guy who likes to crow when his favorite rifle finally gets 'accurate' enough to make those 3-inch 50 yard groups?

CM

crabo
11-07-2007, 01:25 AM
I just read something that made sense to me,

"So...I am waiting for the real facts. And, if you can explain how a guy who keeps his bullets in a coffee can; and shakes them in a margarine tub to lube 'em; ever sends a bullet down the bore with square corners on the base and driving bands...I'd love to hear it."

I remember reading one of LA Silouette Club articles where someone was searching for the ultimate cast bullet load, and he talked about putting his cast bullets in a divided cartridge box with one stacked on top of another so they didn't get damaged. Anyone considering treatment of the bullet, once it is cast, lubed, how it is handled and stored, as part of the equation? How anal should someone be?

How about some synthesis here. Anyone want to summerize any conclusions that 3 pages of discussion has shaken out?

Crabo

joeb33050
11-07-2007, 06:57 AM
I just read something that made sense to me,

"So...I am waiting for the real facts. And, if you can explain how a guy who keeps his bullets in a coffee can; and shakes them in a margarine tub to lube 'em; ever sends a bullet down the bore with square corners on the base and driving bands...I'd love to hear it."

I remember reading one of LA Silouette Club articles where someone was searching for the ultimate cast bullet load, and he talked about putting his cast bullets in a divided cartridge box with one stacked on top of another so they didn't get damaged. Anyone considering treatment of the bullet, once it is cast, lubed, how it is handled and stored, as part of the equation? How anal should someone be?

How about some synthesis here. Anyone want to summerize any conclusions that 3 pages of discussion has shaken out?

Crabo

This thread is about the questions in #44 above, and similar questions. It is about resolving or explaining the two sort-of-opposing views explained in my first post.
Understand that in the forum world some feel the dog-hydrant need, and must scent as many threads as possible, even if their contribution has little or nothing to do with the thread.
If I can work out the statistics, maybe this can come to a conclusion. Or maybe someone else could work out or on the statistics.
There's a lot of advice here, little actual help.
joe b.

Bass Ackward
11-07-2007, 07:04 AM
If you don't want to fool with a lot of statistics, you can simply hand the rifle to someone else.

Anyone can shoot an accurate rifle if they are close to your physical stature. Take yourself out of the equation. What you will find through statistics is that " YOU " shoot lighter recoiling rounds more consistently which is another reason that long shooting strings of low velocity cast is the easiest to find accuracy with.

porkchop bob
11-07-2007, 08:48 AM
There seems to be some confusion here. Let me try to clarify things. ...
Accuracy is easy, it's five shot 100 yard groups shot in reasonable conditions with 10 shots plus foulers in a 15 minute time period, or so. ...
Five shot groups vary in size. Averages of five (or 2 or 11) five shot groups vary in size. This because of the way the world works.
Group size = accuracy varies with zillions of variables, or so we're told. Wind and temperature and powder and charge and bullet and diameter and gas check seating and lube and quantity of lube and ..........
My question is simply this:" Can we, and if so how, can we differentiate between random variation and a changed variable in the load? As you can see, data will be required.

Respectfylly Yours;
joe brennan

Good morning Joe.

You are asking for data reporting results of a 5 shot strings, about 2 strings shot every 15 minutes. In an hour that is 40 shots or 2.5 hours for 20 strings totaling 100 shots. Lets call the 20 strings a run. Under these conditions 10 runs or 1,000 shots will take me a month or so to conduct. How many runs should we conduct before a change is made?

Can you provide an Excel schedule we can use to record this data and send the completed schedule back to you? Along with the schedule, tell us exactly what is required.

If nothing else happens, in 6 months I will become a better shooter and be more constant in my reloading routine.

Thanks, Bob

sundog
11-07-2007, 09:53 AM
Joe, my dawg ain't never seen a far plug.

Now about your statistics. YOU crunch the numbers. At least for me, they mean nothing. YOU are the one who asked.

I shoot well enough that I can generally tell within the first 10 shots if something is going to work, whether that would be 2 MOA or sub 1/2 MOA.

Here's just one example. I've been competing in hundred yard bolt action military bench matches for well over ten years - missed maybe two or three. That's 10 yrs x 12 mos x 50 record rounds per match in all sorts of wx conditions from extremes of near zero, completely iced over (one of my smallest groups ever) to well over a hunert. And wind. LOTS of wind. That's roughly 6K rounds, almost all cast, fired in no more than 4 rifles. This does not include what my grandson has done - add maybe another 1K. No numbers crunched, but I KNOW what works in this venue. AND what does not. All record rounds are fired on a center over the sighter. The endo of match composite with over 50 rounds tells a true story of equipment, ammo, and shooter.

Now, about that dog. With all due respect, you have not been listening.

joeb33050
11-08-2007, 07:26 AM
Good morning Joe.

You are asking for data reporting results of a 5 shot strings, about 2 strings shot every 15 minutes. In an hour that is 40 shots or 2.5 hours for 20 strings totaling 100 shots. Lets call the 20 strings a run. Under these conditions 10 runs or 1,000 shots will take me a month or so to conduct. How many runs should we conduct before a change is made?

Can you provide an Excel schedule we can use to record this data and send the completed schedule back to you? Along with the schedule, tell us exactly what is required.

If nothing else happens, in 6 months I will become a better shooter and be more constant in my reloading routine.

Thanks, Bob

Bob;
My apologies for the confusion. I'm not looking for anything, no data, no shooting, no nothing, on this thread..
I shoot ~2-3 foulers and 10 record shots, 2 sets of 5, in a 15 minute relay. Then, depending on how many others are at the range, it can take 10-20 minutes for a target change. I tend to shoot 3 sets of 5, 5 shot groups, with foulers etc about 100 shots, from 9AM to 1PM. That's enough for me, I can't concentrate/don't want to shoot after that.
Soon I'll have the stats worked out, and this thread will finally be over.
Sorry again;
joe b.

joeb33050
11-08-2007, 07:33 AM
Joe, my dawg ain't never seen a far plug.

Now about your statistics. YOU crunch the numbers. At least for me, they mean nothing. YOU are the one who asked.

I shoot well enough that I can generally tell within the first 10 shots if something is going to work, whether that would be 2 MOA or sub 1/2 MOA.

Here's just one example. I've been competing in hundred yard bolt action military bench matches for well over ten years - missed maybe two or three. That's 10 yrs x 12 mos x 50 record rounds per match in all sorts of wx conditions from extremes of near zero, completely iced over (one of my smallest groups ever) to well over a hunert. And wind. LOTS of wind. That's roughly 6K rounds, almost all cast, fired in no more than 4 rifles. This does not include what my grandson has done - add maybe another 1K. No numbers crunched, but I KNOW what works in this venue. AND what does not. All record rounds are fired on a center over the sighter. The endo of match composite with over 50 rounds tells a true story of equipment, ammo, and shooter.

Now, about that dog. With all due respect, you have not been listening.

Sundog;
Sorry about your dog. Or happy. Whichever is appropriate.
I'm taking care of the statistics, you don't have to do a thing.
I'm glad that you've worked out your load development strategy to your satisfaction.
I don't begin to understand what your post has to do with the thread, or why it's here-but you're always welcome to chime in.
joe b.