How far do we need to go in our search for accuracy?

[Maven]

After reading, re-reading and contributing to the "Search for Accuracy" thread, I've come to the conclusion that CB accuracy (user defined) isn't as mysterious as we make it out to be. First of all, much of the "heavy lifting" has been done for us by E.H. Harrison, Handloader, Lyman, RCBS, Veral Smith and the CBA in their various handbooks and publications: Do we need to reinvent the wheel yet again? Second, if you've acquired a new (to you) rifle* that you want to use for CB's, aren't there a known number of steps you'll take to get it to shoot to your satisfaction? If not, wouldn't you either try to fix it (e.g., bedding, trigger, even rebarreling) or trade or sell it? By way of illustration, "The Fouling Shot" #189 (Sept- Oct., 2007) has at least 4 articles that address CB accuracy:

"Loading Ammunition for the Mil. Rifle Nationals" by Ric Bowman
"Sizing Cast Bullets" by Pat Iffland
"Conditioning a Used Barrel" by C.E. Harris
"Getting Useable Accuracy from a Poor Bore" by Fred Davis
"The Wonderful World of PVC Wads" by Mustafa Curtess

With rare exceptions, the various CB manuals are "cookbooks," but you can use " the" or "a" ladder method to refine things can't you? You can use statistical methods too if you wish, or if you fire enough groups using a specific "recipe" and inspect the targets, you can determine its performance just as readily, as Sundog suggested.

Life is short. Why make it and CB accuracy more complicated than it needs to be?


*Production and military surplus rifles. CB accuracy in bench rifles may introduce complications, but some of them apply to the first two as well.

[leftiye]

I agree. Though I don't shoot cast benchrest (nor jacketed), and haven't the credentials of many here, I do approach cast from the perspective of simply "building a load". It doesn't stop there, but that's still the approach. I/we all know a bunch of things about cast boolit accuracy, and apply them at the git go. And, by in large, they do shoot well, with room for improvement. Especially when there is so much Mr. Gunn has to say about it (not all guns like cast), we should not be really upset if all of our cast doesn't shoot 1/2" groups (more like 2"). There may be no rules, but there are many cncepts that outline a well designed load. What there isn't is any guarantee that it will in fact shoot extremely well untul you analyze it and figger out how to make it better (maybe not then).

[Buckshot]

...............I like for my loads to be accurate enough to be fun and useable, Fun and useable meaning to hit pretty darn close to what I wanna hit. I don't have to stack'em in on top of each other for them to be good useable loads.

Bear in mind, many all my rifles are at least 60 years old and a sizeable portion are well over 100 years old. Most have the triggers and sights they left the factory or arsenal with. Most are fairly basic but useable.

Add in 55 year old eyeballs on a guy who wore glasses from the 6th grade on, and trying to milk out another 1/2" in accuracy just can't be done unless the gun was set in concrete :-)

.................Buckshot

[trk]

I think it was Felix that coined the term "minute of beer-can".

For most cast bullet shooting that's good.

...

[Bass Ackward]

Paul,

Accuracy is never going to be an easy topic for obvious reasons that are apparent in these last few big discussions. That is what I tried to explain to Pat who is an author of one of the articles in the Fouling Shot that you listed.

We had a neighbor kid come down with an old 8MM Mauser with an old 4X Bushnell and a box of Remington green box (cheap stuff) factory ammo. Blueing was replaced with a more natural rust process, stock was cracked and so pale it looked as though finish had never been applied to it. He asked if he could sight in for season and we looked at each other and cringed but said sure.

When he didn't hit paper, everyone pitched in with tons of suggestions. We found the screws were lose in his stock, the rifle was all coppered up, his scope adjustments stuck etc, etc. A lot of knowledgeable gun men were around and everyone pitched in to bring it around. Things were good as it was brought slowly to point of aim. When the kid zeroed, he shot a five shot group that could be covered with a nickel. Right there, he went from popular to an orphan. :grin:

Just human nature. :grin: All experimentation stops when individual satisfaction is achieved. The terrible thing for some of us is, we never reach it. :grin:

[buck1]

"Just human nature. All experimentation stops when individual satisfaction is achieved. The terrible thing for some of us is, we never reach it. "

Heck, thats when the fun part stops.

Since I was little I have been a student of the OLD SCHOOL SHOOTERS. They have/had VERY high standards.
They taught me to never accept anything but your best and even then you can always do a little better.

Never be satisfied with your shooting and you will always shoot the best you can, and you will always be chalanged.

I won't shoot agenst anyone else any more, I only shoot agenst myself.
TRY AS I MAY, I HAVENT BEAT ME YET!!
Sub MOA for rifle ,is my standard and has been for years W/ varmit guns needing a little better. Pistols need to do better than 2" at 35 yards. Just a rule of thumb. My gun/load must be able to out shoot me or its not fun to shoot for long.
....Buck

[Char-Gar]

Well, I don't think there is one answer that fits all cast bullet shooters. Most are happy to have fun and get their leverguns, mil-surps and deer rifles to shoot cast as good as comdom loads and are happy as clams doing so. For these folks, there is plenty of information out there to help them reach their goals. They are recreational casters, loaders and shooters.

Then there are the folks who are into cast bullet to prove for themselves whether or not existing dictum is correct. This board has proven some of the existing dictum to be false.

These second bunch of folks also are trying to push the envelope and find where the limits of accuracy are with cast bullets in their rifles. They are on a quest for pure knowledge.

There is plenty of room for both kinds of folks. The first kind profits from the "driven" nature of the second kind and what they learn.

[USARO4]

The limiting factor for accuracy is, with rare exceptions, not my guns or loads, its me. Time has taken a toll on my eyesight and steadiness. That's nature, I accept that which I cannot change. It doesn't stop me from experimenting or enjoying my casting, handloading, gun collecting, or shooting hobbies. I have no more desire to push the envelope, but I enjoy reading and sharing the experiences of those of you who do. Ninety percent of the time minute of beercan accuracy is enough for me.

[joeb33050]

Paul;
As always, I'm here and elsewhere trying to put together a paper on the matter-in this case, How to search for accuracy. About everything I write is a distillation of all that others write in answer to my initial post. What I have trouble with, and what sometimes-rarely-causes me to make an ad hominem attack, is the gaggle of opinioneers who feel the need to leave their scent without leaving any useful comment or contribution. I'm thinking of a code, then they could just reply with a number. 1 = "It can't be done", 2 = "It's just too complex for anyone other than me to understand", 3 = "I don't care about that, why are you talking about it", 4 = "What he said is absolutely correct!", 5 = "_________did this in 1926 and it didn't work", and so on.
However, after all the posts and work, I've got it into three pages, and after I let it digest for a few minutes, I'll post it.
"How far do we need to go?", not far in a straight line, easier without the side trips.
joe b.










After reading, re-reading and contributing to the "Search for Accuracy" thread, I've come to the conclusion that CB accuracy (user defined) isn't as mysterious as we make it out to be. First of all, much of the "heavy lifting" has been done for us by E.H. Harrison, Handloader, Lyman, RCBS, Veral Smith and the CBA in their various handbooks and publications: Do we need to reinvent the wheel yet again? Second, if you've acquired a new (to you) rifle* that you want to use for CB's, aren't there a known number of steps you'll take to get it to shoot to your satisfaction? If not, wouldn't you either try to fix it (e.g., bedding, trigger, even rebarreling) or trade or sell it? By way of illustration, "The Fouling Shot" #189 (Sept- Oct., 2007) has at least 4 articles that address CB accuracy:

"Loading Ammunition for the Mil. Rifle Nationals" by Ric Bowman
"Sizing Cast Bullets" by Pat Iffland
"Conditioning a Used Barrel" by C.E. Harris
"Getting Useable Accuracy from a Poor Bore" by Fred Davis
"The Wonderful World of PVC Wads" by Mustafa Curtess

With rare exceptions, the various CB manuals are "cookbooks," but you can use " the" or "a" ladder method to refine things can't you? You can use statistical methods too if you wish, or if you fire enough groups using a specific "recipe" and inspect the targets, you can determine its performance just as readily, as Sundog suggested.

Life is short. Why make it and CB accuracy more complicated than it needs to be?


*Production and military surplus rifles. CB accuracy in bench rifles may introduce complications, but some of them apply to the first two as well.

[Maven]

Bass, Our range will be open to the public tomorrow to allow the sighting in of rifles prior to the opening of deer season on 11/17. I'm going to see plenty of what you mentioned.

Joe, I probably shoot more CB's from my .30-06 (Win. Mod. 70, Westerner/blind mag., 22" bbl. with Tasco Mag IV 'scope) than my other rifles, but once I had it glass-bedded and a trigger job done, accuracy improved. After studying several of the sources I mentioned yesterday, I selected two powders (IMR 3031 & IMR 4198) and two molds (Lee C309-180-1R & Ly. #311291) and got "acceptable" results, (both drop CB's with undersized noses) i.e., ~2 moa using 29gr. 3031 or 24gr. 4198. After reading about Ed Wosika's tapering dies in TFS, I purchased one and found nirvana or at least something close since accuracy (repeatable) came closer to 1 moa. I eventually purchased a chronograph and tried to keep my loads in the 1,750fps range (for gas checked CB's) with the aforementioned powders and others that I discovered: TVEN, WC 860, IMR 5010, WC 820, AA 5744 (the best!), and whatever Hansen loaded their 7.62 x 54R FMJ ammo with in the early 1990's. I don't generally weigh my brass or turn the necks since it's a production, not a bench rifle. And yes, I sometimes resort to statistical analysis to determine whether the results (velocity or group size) are "real" or not. Untapered CB's (bore riders or Loverins) also do well in that rifle, but only if they fit (at least .301" on the nose & .311" on the body). In other words, it hasn't been that difficult or frustrating to achieve moa accuracy from the rifle and the components. Rather, the problem too often is "operator error" as a friend calls it.

If you look at my posts on the Group Buy Mold Results board about the Lee 30-150-PB-TL in my '06 (as above), you'll see that I've experimented with a variety of powders, charges, sizing diameters and OAL's generally with favorable, but not moa results. Yesterday I posted results with the same CB, tapered in the Hanned die but neither weighed nor segregated by mold cavity. One (of 12) was slightly out of group because of my error, but I doubt I would have done much better if I weighed the brass or neck-turned it, etc., although I may try that next.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even in my "as issued" milsurp rifles, I can usually achieve 2-3 moa without becoming anal retentive about things and I'm not a great marksman by any means. If I want smaller groups though, I have to be a bit more diligent if not "anal" about the entire process.

[Char-Gar]

Maven et al..... With a "good" rifle, bolt or single shot, I don't find it much of a trick to get repeatable and predictable 2 MOA cast bullets accuracy. Please note the word "good" as their are many rifles that don't fit into that category.

If I want to get repeatable and predictable accuracy below 2 MOA, I have to get "anal" about it. When I do that I have a couple of rifles that are real true cast bullet MOA rifles and a couple of others that are 1.5 MOA rifles.

I am talking about off the shelf sporter or military rifles here and not special custom made target rifles.

[leftiye]

Fer my money, this thread says it all! Yes, there are basic things that not only can, but maybe must be done to get good accuracy (ignore at your peril). And yes, there is also a spectrum of options as to what you COULD do to get better accuracy. And we all continue down this path forever as we load new loads and try something else to see if it makes things better. Good news is that these "tuning" efforts are not random, but based on more of the same concepts. It isn't just the load, if you have a *** rifle, it probly shoots like a ***( Eh???). Those in search of "ultimate accuracy" probably get some more intense than some of the others, but whatever blows yer skirt up! Eh?

[Blammer]

My copper jacketed shooting bullets I demand more from. LOTS more...

with my cast lead bullet shooting not so much. I've come to accept that MOA is good enough for me. IE one inch group of 5 at 100yds 2" group of 5 at 200yds.

With lead bullets, If I'm having trouble with a particular rilfe and bullet; I may find that a CONSISTENT 1.5" group at 100 yards is good enough.

I'm not near as demanding from my cast bullets as my jacketed counter part.