Ooh, baby!

I got something in the mail today:





Not the scope. The EAW Apel base and rings made for the Anschutz, courtesy of j0e_bl0ggs. A very generous gift! I decided to put the Zeiss 4.5 - 14 Conquest on the Hornet using these rings and bases. Nice!

At that point, I got back to reloading. I decided to increase the BULLSEYE load to 3.5 grains and load up some 100%-of-case-capacity (3.5 grains) of IMR TrailBoss.

Armed with the new infor regarding QuickLOAD and "small" cases, the predicted MVs for the above loads are 1869 f/s for the BULLSEYE and 1595 f/s for the TrailBoss. I was planning to use the Hornady factory ammo for sighting in the scope.

All groups fired at 30 meters.

Here is the 1st group fired with the Hornady factory ammo.

That's five shots. Not bad even if at 30M. About 1.5 MoA vertical, and 1 MoA horizontal. Not terrible.

Here are the MVs in firing order, 3031, 3048, 2990, 3039, 3033.
Average = 3026 f/s
Standard Deviation = 22 f/s

Here's the group shot with the TrailBoss:

Not so great. Vertically about 4.5 MoA; horizontally about 1 MoA.
Notice the velocities: 1459, 1526, 1206, 1102, 1444. The elevation of the shots coincide exactly with their MVs. In other words, the two lowest Points of Impact are the two lowest velocities, etc.
Average = 1347 f/s.
Standard Deviation = 183 f/s.
Without the two lowest vlaues, the average is 1476 f/s. QL estimate was 1595 f/s. More than 100 f/s too high.
I can only think that there MIGHT have been some "sissy" primers in the priming tray. Otherwise, TrailBoss is unacceptable. I will take primers right from box in next batch.

Here's the group shot with the BULLSEYE:

I screwed up and shot two targets. The picture is of one target superimposed on the other.
MVs are: 1842, 1885, 1885, 1799, 1834.
Average =1849 f/s
Standard Deviation = 37 f/s.
Average without 1799 shot is 1862 f/s (SD=27). QL estimate was 1869 f/s. That's pretty close.

So...

Factory load isn't 'bad'. Will have to shoot at 100 yd as see what there is to see at that range.

TrailBoss is either too variable or there were two types of primers used. I don't think so, but there is stil a small amount of doubt in my mind.

QL seems to be predicting BULLSEYE values fairly well. MIGHT have been a different primer for the 1799 shot.

I'm not sure if the next range report will be at 100 yards or not. I'd like to load up some "full charge" Li'lGun loads and see what they produce, AND use them to actually put the scope on target. I can do that at home at 33 yd. Time will tell.

Paul

Factory appears to work. What was noise level on the bullseye and trailboss loads like?

TrailBoss was very 'light'. Not quite a high velocity .22 RF 'crack'. The elevated BULLSEYE load was louder than .22 RF and I actually noticed the recoil. I've been shooting with ear protection so I'm not really hearing as one would walking about in the woods. I think hunting and shooting without ear protection would be fine. I don't think shooting from the bench would be 'fine' without protection.

Paul

Paul,

There is a US based fella on the Saubier forum who is looking to import RWS hornet brass from Germany, first lot being 100,000 cases. Might be worth looking into.

Marcus

Thanks, Marcus. I will.

Paul

Well, well, well. Sakorick, I have good news for you! (Sakorick was kind enough to send me 50 cases to use until I could get some ammo purchased or find some cases.)

I have long known, (since I started reloading for my .17 Remington in the early '80s), that small cartridges bring out the minutia in reloading. All the little aspects that are insignificant for larger cartridges HAVE to be paid attention to with small cartridges. The .22 Hornet is a SMALL cartridge.

After the last range session, I was a little bothered by the occasional BIG diversion of one or two shots. Sometimes almost 200 f/s difference. I chalked it up to the possibility of different primers. (A small case issue. NEVER an issue for me with larger cases.) However, that was bothering me for the last batch. I was pretty sure I hadn't mixed any primers yet I still had some real wild MV values. When things are getting hazier instead of clearer, especially with small cartridges, it's time to get 'focused'. So... I trimmed all of the cases to uniform length - 1.400" and reprimed them with Remington BR 7 1/2s. I then weighed each of them and MEASURED the case capacity of EACH case. The results were enlightening.



Notice the extraordinarily wide spread of case weights and capacities for the Winchester Western brass, and notice the rather small variation in both weight and capacity in the Hornady brass. There is as much as 0.7 grains of difference in capacity in the WW brass! In a case that only holds 14-ish grains, 0.7 grains is 5%. In a case like a .308 Win that holds about 50 grains, that 5% would be 2.5 grains! Imagine throwing charges that were different by 2.5 grains in a .308 Win case!

Here's what QuickLOAD predicts with respect to the same charge in two different cases, one with a capacity of 14.8 grains and the other with a capacity of 15.5 grains.

First the case with the smaller capacity (14.8 grains):
Powder - Hodgdon Li'lGun
Charge - 13.5 grains
Max pressure - 38036 psi
MV - 3033 f/s

Now the case with a capacity of 15.5 grains:
Powder - Hodgdon Li'lGun
Charge - 13.5 grains
Max pressure - 33,443 psi
MV - 2964 f/s

That's a 4,593 psi change, and a 69 f/s change in MV. That doesn't explain a MV spread of almost 200 f/s, but 70 f/s isn't 'chump change' either, and I suspect accounts for a lot of variability in the Point of Impact or "inaccuracy".

Notice in the graph of the WW brass that there are basically two weights: one between 48 and 49 grains, and one between 53 and 54 grains. While it would be a complete waste of time to weigh the Hornady brass to estimate case capacity, it would WELL be worth it to weigh the WW brass. The "light" ones have the 15.3-ish grain capacity, and the "heavy" ones have the 14.8-ish capacity. I intend to sort the WW brass by weight, and load accordingly. I'll also reload the Hornady brass with an assumption of uniformity of capacity.

We'll see what this analysis brings at the target butts.

Paul

I have run into the same issues even with larger cases. Federal seems to be the worst followed by Rem and Win in that order. The last batch of new Win brass had some terrible primer sockets too. We have been forced into grabbing anything we can get our hands on for the last two years now. I am going to start weighing all new brass I buy and checking water capacities before I reload any of them including Nosler and Norma brass which are both typically far more expensive. Another step in the process......what a shame that QC has disappeared in the brass industry. Try getting a rep on the phone to complain!

I believe they call it ............................... progress!




     In todays industry it means cut corners make it cheaper and charge more.