The Search For Accuracy

[joeb33050]

Now we're starting to make some money. I'm going to address each comment, may not refer to the commenter by name. If I missed a point, let me know.

What we're doing applies to bolt action and single shot rifles with adequate sights. I categorize accuracy here as >2", 2"-1.5", 1.5"-1" and <1". These guns will operate in (some of) these ranges under the conditions stated. I don't know about lever, pump or autoload guns. I don't know how to deal with military rifles with issue sights. The 03A3 is about the only military rifle with a peep near the shooter's eye, and has a blade front. Old people in particular can't shoot 03 Springfield or Mauser guns accurately enough to operate in the >1.5" range even if the rifle is capable.

The objective is a rational accuracy search procedure.

Cookbook loads. The original name of the book included the word "cookbook", and the book has a part called "Cookbook loads that work in any gun". I believe that these loads may not be the most accurate, but will be pretty accurate, and if they ain't accurate there could very well be trouble with the rifle. I also believe that this load development business is not witchcraft, it isn't that hard.

Starting point. Yes, the bullet should fit the gun. We should start with a recognized or cookbook load. Research will help find a starting point.

Chargar has a favorite powder and primer. This is in the cookbook area. He wants the rifle "right". WE NEED more on getting the rifle right, screws, bedding, etc. He wants ctgs straight and concentric. Nice if you've got the setup, but not needed at first??
Then he's linear, one change at a time.
MTGiannji is linear, one change at a time

KYcaster describes "ladder testing", there's an article in the book. It works for me, but doesn't address THE question, does address A question. The practical problem is that half grain changes in powder charges over a ~6 step range don't change elevation much at 100 yards, hence the need for greater range.
That that I wrote doesn't make sense. Another try.
If, after getting rifle and equipment right and powder/bullet/primer/OAL/powder selected; we could ladder test the powder-in half grain increments. Ex: 30/30, 31141, WLP, 2.840", IMR4198. Load one each at 18, 18.5, 19, 19.5, 20, 20.5. Shoot and watch them march up the paper, see where elevation doesn't change much, that's about where the best charge is.
I THINK that at 100 yards the elevation doesn't change enough to show up, but I may be wrong. I'll try it Wednesday. This could be a breakthrough!! I hope so.

So, where are we?
We need something on getting the rifle, scope, bench rest and bench "right", the conditions required.

We don't have disagreement about "change powder, charge, bullet and get from 2" to 1 1/2", except for Chargar's "straight and concentric", which I think comes later.

And we've got the "linear, one change at a time" approach. That's where I started, and I want to find a better = less time and component consuming method. Maybe that ladder testing.

I'm working on it. Anyone else willing to do the "ladder testing" test with a known accurate load at 100 yards? Or even/both 200 yards?

Thanks, keep it coming;
joe b.

[Char-Gar]

Joe.... I guess folks could disagree if accuracy starts with a rifle that is "right" or a load that is "right". But, IMHO the rifle is the place to start. If the rifle is not right, trying to find the most accurate load lis like a dog chasing it's tail.

Now confession time: I truly enjoy building rifles and building them right. When I build a rifle I test it through the process with full snort condom loads. I do this for two reasons;

1) Accurate condom loads are easier to find that accurate cast loads. Most often quality factory ammo is used.

2) If a rifle will handle the recoil and bounce of full snort comdom ammo and deliver good accuracy, it will also deliver the same or better accuracy with cast loads.. The comdom loads puts the bedding to the test in a way the cast does not. You will also find sight problems quicker.

Once the rifle is shooting the way I want, I clean out the copper and it is cast from then on out. I have yet to build or tweak a rifle to shoot well with comdom ammo that did not deliver equal or better accuracy with cast.

I think Bass is correct, that cast accuracy has allot to do with your goals. You need to have a clear idea of what you want to do, and them follow the path to that goal. I would this this is a given and should be understood by anybody taking up the lead dipper. You must know where you want to go in order to get there.

But 4.5 2.1 is also correct that bullet fit is the starting place for whatever goal you choose. Whatever the goal, things go better when the bullet is introduced into the rifling straight and wobble free. Fast, medium or slow velocity ...soft, medium or hard alloy ..bullet fit is where it starts down the path for accuracy. The other variable may.... well..vary...but bullet fit is "Go" on the accuracy board..

[Pat I.]

BA,

This will be the last thing I post In this thread because I think we've interrupted enough.

I'll be happy to participate in any thread you start IF things are explained in a reasonable and timely fashion, IF the BS about people not being able to understand what's being discussed is left out, and IF opposing opinions and results are able to be given without it turning into a pissing contest.

Agreed that telling and showing are two different things but if I could do something that 90% of the people said couldn't be done I'd be chomping at the bit to actually prove it. Personally I don't think shooting cast bullets accurately is some deep dark secret only achievable by a select few so a simple explanation will be more than sufficient for most people with a little more thrown in if there's an additional question or two.

[MT Gianni]

Joe, My reason for linear testing is that trying any other method so far has skipped useful info to me. Gianni

[PatMarlin]

For cryin' our loud...

You're asking for step by step instructions, that can whittled down for cast shooting from a subject that has taken up years of posts here at Cast Boolits. Your gonna need more patience with this one grasshopper..

[PatMarlin]

I think one structure that would be incredably helpful would be real life "Case Study" examples.

For instance following the proceedures of a particular rifle or handgun like... how BassAckward acheived accuracy with the "35 Whelen Bolt Rifle".

Or- How Charles Chargar found cast boolit heaven with his "Model 70's".

There are to many varibles to pin it down to comform to steps 123 in this game, but a caster could see what one guy did and got the desired result, and apply it to his simular firearm which is after all what the Cast Boolits Forum is all about.

Pick examples of the best and the brightest.

[joeb33050]

I think one structure that would be incredably helpful would be real life "Case Study" examples.

For instance following the proceedures of a particular rifle or handgun like... how BassAckward acheived accuracy with the "35 Whelen Bolt Rifle".

Or- How Charles Chargar found cast boolit heaven with his "Model 70's".

There are to many varibles to pin it down to comform to steps 123 in this game, but a caster could see what one guy did and got the desired result, and apply it to his simular firearm which is after all what the Cast Boolits Forum is all about.

Pick examples of the best and the brightest.

I'd like to see some of those case studies, however, "There are to many varibles to pin it down to comform to steps 123 in this game" is not true, in my opinion. Thinmk about it.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Joe, My reason for linear testing is that trying any other method so far has skipped useful info to me. Gianni

Please elaborate, tell us more, with maybe some examples.
Thanks;
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Joe.... I guess folks could disagree if accuracy starts with a rifle that is "right" or a load that is "right". But, IMHO the rifle is the place to start. If the rifle is not right, trying to find the most accurate load lis like a dog chasing it's tail.

Most of us don't build rifles, so we end up with a rifle either stock or custom.
Certainly things need to be done to a new-to-me rifle before shooting cast bullets. What are these things? Not involving machine work, things the average joe can and should do.
How about writing here on that?
Thanks;
joe b.

[joeb33050]

I get good accuracy with 19.5/IMR4198.
I made up three sets for ladder testing, 18, 18.5, 19, 19.5, 20, 20.5, 21--this gives me three charges either side of the 19.5. I'll shoot these Wednesday to see what happens at 100 yards, which is all the range I've got.
How about some of you guys trying some ladder testing?
Thanks;
joe b.

[Char-Gar]

Joe... I think the aspects of a rifle that need attention are well known. They would be

1) The bedding or the marriage of the stock and the metal. You don't want any looseness that will allow the metal to shift in the wood druring recoil. You want the fit to be uniform so there will not be a twisting or bending of the metal. The barrel also needs the freedom to vibrate according to it's own wishes.

The well known glass/gel bedding compound is a common fitxfor these problems. The use of metal pillars on which to rest the bottom of a round action are also popular.

2) The sights must be installed properly and on tight. Scopes bases and rings should be concentric and level so there will be no bending of the scope.

Iron/receivere sights need to be visable and provide for a good sight picture. The flat top post or globe front sights seem to fill the needs of most folks.

3) The barrel crown is a very key part of an accurate rifle. The crown needs to be eve and at a 90 degree angle to the bore. When the bullet escapes the barrel, gas under pressure shoots out around the bullet base. These gases need an even and square surface to push against so the bullet is not shoved one way or another.

4) Laping the bolt bearing surfaces for an even and full fit in the receiver can also be an accuracy booster.

There are many other things than can be done, but you said no machime work. It can be argued that a recrowning is machine work, and so it can be. However is so important that it needs to be included in any list of basics.

[HORNET]

Joe,
Just a couple of comments.
1. Jesse's Tic-Tac-Toe chart should work fine - if you can keep track of the analysis. Its a basic testing pattern from Design-of-Experimentation theory and is intended to provide maximum return for minimum input. The only problem is the data analysis, which confuses people that haven't learned to sort out the results (and some that have). That is the reason most people use linear testing.
2. The 1/2 grain steps are not necessarily appropriate in all cases. I saw in the Accurate Arms Loading manual that they recommend reducing the load 10% and working back up in 2% steps. This makes much more sense than using the same size steps for a wide range of nominal charge weights. I've been doing about the same thing for years and thought that it was really great to have them agree until I found the same advice in a Belding & Mull Handbook from the 50's...

[joeb33050]

Joe,
Just a couple of comments.
1. Jesse's Tic-Tac-Toe chart should work fine - if you can keep track of the analysis. Its a basic testing pattern from Design-of-Experimentation theory and is intended to provide maximum return for minimum input. The only problem is the data analysis, which confuses people that haven't learned to sort out the results (and some that have). That is the reason most people use linear testing.
2. The 1/2 grain steps are not necessarily appropriate in all cases. I saw in the Accurate Arms Loading manual that they recommend reducing the load 10% and working back up in 2% steps. This makes much more sense than using the same size steps for a wide range of nominal charge weights. I've been doing about the same thing for years and thought that it was really great to have them agree until I found the same advice in a Belding & Mull Handbook from the 50's...

Rick;
I will add your 2. to the article. I'm working on making the 1 easier.
Thanks;
joe brennan

[joeb33050]

This whole thing is about WHEN to do what. Do we do XX First, before shooting, or when we are trying to get groups under 1", or when there's horizontal dispersion, or WHEN

Bedding: WHEN do we do this? What is the signal that something needs to be done?

Looseness: All screws tight, can be done FIRST. However, stories abound about "tighten this one and loosen that one a little and it shoots better".

Free floating barrel: Again, WHEN. Many older rifles are stocked tight, free-floating wopuld change the look of the rifle to the worse. How about those cardboard shims we use?

Sights tight and proper. Scope bases and rings? lapping in requires some skill and equipment. I vote for Burris can't-remember-the-name rings tha have plastic inserts that rotate and linje things up.

Iron sights-ok

Crowning: WHEN?? I look and if there's nothing obvious, leave it alone. There's an article on how to crown a rifle barrel at home, if you MUST and can't get a gunsmith to do it. It's a last resort measure, in my mind. I've done it ~10 times, always worked fine, but... Also see "Damaged Bullets" about that uneven gas business.

Lapping the bolt bearing surfaces: When is it needed, what's the sign? I've done this in the kitchen, not hard, but did it ever change my life? Nope. Anyone know of it changing things a lot?

Anyhow, more info is needed, particularly about the WHEN of these, and maybe others.

Thanks;
joe b.

Joe... I think the aspects of a rifle that need attention are well known. They would be

1) The bedding or the marriage of the stock and the metal. You don't want any looseness that will allow the metal to shift in the wood druring recoil. You want the fit to be uniform so there will not be a twisting or bending of the metal. The barrel also needs the freedom to vibrate according to it's own wishes.

The well known glass/gel bedding compound is a common fitxfor these problems. The use of metal pillars on which to rest the bottom of a round action are also popular.

2) The sights must be installed properly and on tight. Scopes bases and rings should be concentric and level so there will be no bending of the scope.

Iron/receivere sights need to be visable and provide for a good sight picture. The flat top post or globe front sights seem to fill the needs of most folks.

3) The barrel crown is a very key part of an accurate rifle. The crown needs to be eve and at a 90 degree angle to the bore. When the bullet escapes the barrel, gas under pressure shoots out around the bullet base. These gases need an even and square surface to push against so the bullet is not shoved one way or another.

4) Laping the bolt bearing surfaces for an even and full fit in the receiver can also be an accuracy booster.

There are many other things than can be done, but you said no machime work. It can be argued that a recrowning is machine work, and so it can be. However is so important that it needs to be included in any list of basics.

[joeb33050]

For cryin' our loud...

You're asking for step by step instructions, that can whittled down for cast shooting from a subject that has taken up years of posts here at Cast Boolits. Your gonna need more patience with this one grasshopper..

You've got it, by thunder! We must know how to do this, after all those posts! (I don't flux while casting.)
joe b.

[Char-Gar]

Joe... If a rifle shoots better with a screw backed off that is a clear sight of a problem. There is situation where the action is being bend, twisted and/or the barrel jamed down into the wood in the wrong way. The problem needs to be chased down and located. Then corrected with bedding compound so the screw can be cinched down and the acton and barrel will be in proper alighment.

Now I am talking about acton screws here. Barrel band, barrel retaining screws and others things that hold on the barrel are different matters.

[joeb33050]

We were enjoying the end of a hurricane Wednesday, so I went to the range yesterday. I wish I could take better pictures.
Here's the target. Yesterday was the first time in my memory that a primer didn't set the charge off-yes, there was powder in the case. 100 Yards
joe b.

[joeb33050]

I get good accuracy with 19.5/IMR4198.
I made up three sets for ladder testing, 18, 18.5, 19, 19.5, 20, 20.5, 21--this gives me three charges either side of the 19.5. I'll shoot these Wednesday to see what happens at 100 yards, which is all the range I've got.
How about some of you guys trying some ladder testing?
Thanks;
joe b.

Here's a better picture of the ladder test. Loring Hall advised me lon ago to take the targess home, let them cook, then examine them. It took me two days to find the pattern here. More tests Wed.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Here's a better picture of the ladder test. Loring Hall advised me lon ago to take the targess home, let them cook, then examine them. It took me two days to find the pattern here. More tests Wed.
joe b.

Another try

[Sailman]

Joe

I have been shooting lead bullets since apx. 1955. Just like any one else, you develop your own system of trying to obtain accuracy. The system you develop may or may not agree with other people. However, over a period of years, one does come up with a system that works for yourself. The following are things that have worked for me:

What bullet size works for a certain rifle.
As an example, if the rifle I am going to be testing is a 30-06, to find out what bullet
size works best in that rifle, I will take a given proven load from another 30-06 and use
that power and charge. I will size 10 bullets .308, .309, and .310. What ever size gave
the smallest group will be the size that rifle will shoot with that bullet ( I have had
occasions where different bullets require a different size than the standard size that
rifle wants to shoot ). I will repeat this test again. After two tests if the results are the
same, I assume that the bullet size has been established for that bullet in that rifle.

Bullet seating depth.
I have over the years been satisified with seating the bullet as far out as possible, just
short of tuching the lands and groves. Once I estiblished the seating depth, I make a
seating gauge for that bullet. I seat a bullet in a case ( the primer pocket has been
drilled out ). I mark a number on that case and record the bullet number on a piece of
paper ( example # 4 = 311291 ). I have small containers for each rifle and store all
the bullet seating gauges for that rifle in that container.

Distance
All my testing is done at 100 yds.


Powder charges
When trying to establish what powder charge works best, I test charges progressively.
As an example, I am currently testing bullet 311291 with 2400 powder in my Savage
308 rifle. I start out by loading 10 rounds each with 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 grs. I
will repeat that test again. After two tests, I will select the three best charges. As an
example 16, 17, & 18 grs. I will then test 10 rounds each with 16, 16 1/2, 17,17 1/2,
18, and 18 1/2 grains. I will then do that test again. I will then select the three best
charge groups. I will test the three best groups, as an example, 17, 17 1/2, and 18gr
with 20 shot groups. I will repeat the 17,17 1/2, 18gr 20 shot group test again. By this
time, I will have reasonably good confidence that the charge I have selected is the charge
required for best accuracy.


I think that most people do not consider the effect of basic statistics when establishing the group size for testing. THE LARGER THE SAMPLE SIZE, THE MORE ACCURATE WILL BE THE PREDICTION. In my opinion, 5 shot groups will NOT give you an accurate estimate of your predicted group size. 10 shot groups will put you in the ball park. 20 shot groups will provide a much better prediction. However, you should shoot more than one or two 20 shot groups to establish what size that load will shoot. Even with multiple 20 shot groups there is the chance of error. As an example, on the 24th of Oct. I shot a 10 shot group using 311291 with 17 1/2 gr of 2400 that measured 1 5/8 in. On the 31 of Oct I shot a 20 shot group with the same load that measured 2 5/8 inch. I have more faith in the 2 5/8 results. Tomorrow I am going to shoot another 20 shot group for 17, 17 1/2, and 18 grains of 2400. After tomorrow I should have a reasonable estimate of the accuracy of the 17 1/2 gr. load.

What is an accurate load.
When shooting a 20 shot group, if you can consistently get 2 1/2 inch groups at 100 yds, I would say that is very acceptable. Yes, you will get smaller groups at times, however, 2 1/2 inch groups is about all you can expect for a 20 shot group.

I know that many folks feel that a 2 1/2 inch group at 100 yds is not all that impressive, but, when shooting a 20 shot group you will get a much better idea what your rifle will do with that particular load. It is nothing more that basic statistics.

Joe, a quick unrelated question. In 1990, four of us sailed a boat form St. Thomas to Clear Lake Texas. We stopped at Marathon for two days. From the little knowledge I got from that visit, my question is where is the range you do you shooting?

Sailman