An interesting 'day' at the range.

The range opens at 10 AM, and I kinda wanted to be there as close to that as I could reasonably get. I wasn't going to take my dog, so I took him for a walk first. Upon returning home I was really getting a 'negative vibe'. The wind was not 'good'. I decided to 'press on'. Got all loaded up and headed out and was at the end of my street and got another 'negative vibe' about going. I decided to 'press on'.

Got to the range at 1040. The wind was 'howling' for a range session. Fairly constant at least at 20 mph and almost 90 degrees from right to left. Occasional gusts to 25 or so, but brief 'breaks' too. I pressed on.

I had only brought two rifles: The Ruger Model 77 chambered in .338 Win Mag, and the new Sauer 90 also chambered in .338 WM. When I measured the chamber of the Sauer, it was essentially identical to the Ruger so since I had 16 rounds of my standard load for the Ruger in hand, I decided to just go with those and see how they worked in the Sauer. These were 225 Hornadys ahead of 66.0 grains of H4831, seated to the center of the cannelure. These loads shot very straight in my Ruger.

I'll skip all the details of the hassle getting a big target stand to stand up in 20-25 mph wind and simply say "It took a while". Once I had the target set up (at 35 yd) and the MagnetoSpeed chronograph attached, I fired a round from the Ruger.

Ok - That hasn't changed. So I set up the Sauer, and bore-sighted it.


I could live with that. Probably going to be a little high at 100, but no need to waste ammo 'fine tuning' at 35.

I moved the target out to 100, and let fly:


Let me number the shots for you: The middle hole in the vertical group of three on the right is shot #1. The middle hole is shot #2. The left-most hole is shot #3. Back to the 3 vertical shots on the right, the lower one is shot #4, and the upper one is shot #5.

The average muzzle velocity of all of the shots was 2452 f/s with a standard deviation (SD) of 15.3 f/s. That SD is nothing to write home about, but it's not bad either. The spread was 2428 to 2466. (2466, 2453, 2428, 2435, 2452, 2465, 2465.)

The 5-shot group size isn't exactly impressive with a max spread of 1.74", but the vertical spread is only 0.78". The horizontal 1.65". Since the trigger on the Sauer is excellent, so that can't be blamed. With a 20mph wind coming at 90 degrees to the line of fire, that bullet at that MV will be blown 2.8 inches at 100 yd. While I was trying to dope the wind and only shoot when there was a 'lull', I'm blaming most of the horizontal spread on the wind.

That said, I am happy as a pig in a puddle with the performance of the Sauer. I don't see any reason to adjust the recipe from the one for the Ruger. Frankly, I'm very surprised that the Sauer 'digested' the load that works so well in the Ruger.

I have ordered some 225 Accubonds, and they should be arriving today. If so, I'll make up some loads for them, and the next time at the range I'll test those.

Only shot 7 rounds, but the results didn't demand any more. I will fine-tune the elevation and windage on a day when the wind isn't so bad for shooting. If I up the MV in the Accubonds, I'll probably  use about 2" high at 100. We'll see how they shoot. These Hornadys are flat-based. The Accubonds are not.

Paul

I would be happy with that on a bad day. Not too bad on a good day. I find in the wind it is even hard to hold the rifle steady even before exterior ballistics enter into show placement. I would be surprised if that group does not shrink by half on a calm day.

I agree, farmboy. I have a heavy barreled rifle that I took on a caribou hunt year before last. (Or was it two?) There was a VERY stiff wind - 35 to 40 mph - blowing when it came time to shoot. I was really surprised at how difficult even a heavy barrel was to hold in a stiff cross-wind.

Paul

Mentioning the .358 was the problem, I did tell ya!

Good to go!

Quote from: j0e_bl0ggs;143450Mentioning the .358 was the problem, I did tell ya!

Good thing I'm not superstitious! :grin:

Paul

While that MV is acceptable to me, I developed that load 1) A LONG time ago (1985), 2) for precision, and 3) It has 'thumped' many a caribou. Muzzle energy for that weight bullet at that MV is "only" about 3000 ft-lbs. It is therefore pleasant to shoot AND it shoots straight. What's not to 'love'? Well, I suppose the energy at 300 yd, and the drop at 300 yd.

The energy at 300 yd is "only" about 1360 ft-lb, and total (above and below Line-of-Sight), drop is almost 16". Upping the MV by 200 f/s to 2650 puts over 1600 ft-lbs out at 300 yd and reduces total vertical deflection to 12". Both of those are 'desirable' outcomes for me. Of course there ain't no free lunches. That increased energy requires increased energy at the muzzle. Going from 2450 to 2650 increases ME from 3000 ft-lb to 3500 ft-lb. That's not insignificant.

However, of greater importance to me is maintaining the precision. Clearly, this load is on a timing 'sweet spot'. One of the VERY 'cool' aspects of QuickLOAD is having a way to calculate barrel timing of different loads. Since I know that this load is on a timing node, when I want to change bullets or powders or whatever, all I need to do is find the "load" (bullet, seating depth, powder, and charge), that either gives the same timing OR steps up (or down) the next node. Restating that:

Once I know the timing of a rifle, I "know" ALL the timing of the barrel for every bullet and every charge with every powder!

When I want/need to change components, I have THE reference point that allows me to be "on" immediately with the new component(s). To me, this is one of the most powerful aspects of QL. Let me make some "pictures" in explanation.

First, we start with the existing load that I like (shoots straight): 66 grains of H4831; 225 grain Hornady flat-based spitzer; seating dept to center of cannelure. What else is known about the 'system' is 1) the capacity of the case; 2) the chamber length; and 3) the barrel length. From QL the exit time of this load is 1.398 msec. So, if I want to go up to somewhere near 2650 f/s I have a few options:
1) Keep using H4831, but up the charge,
2) Keep using H4831, but increase seating depth,
3) Change powder,
4) Change powder AND seating depth.

Starting over like that without knowing the timing is like starting over from scratch. The fact that I have a load that I know "works" means that all I have to do it match the timing of the existing load OR in this case of increasing MV, match the timing to the next higher timing node.

My intent would be to stick with H4831 and the seating depth, and increase the charge from 66 grains. First let's look at what we have as known "good" load.

This is what I call the "Front Page" of QuickLOAD.

This is all the input and output of QL's calculations. (It's a little fuzzy, but I can't help that without breaking out the four separate tiles. If you need me to do that so you can read it, just let me know.) The upper two tiles are input data. The left tile has all of the input data associated with the bullet, case, and barrel. The upper right tile has the input data for the powder.

The  lower two tiles are output. The lower left is the plot of pressure and velocity with barrel length. The lower right has the estimated muzzle velocity, max pressure, muzzle pressure, muzzle energy, AND BARREL EXIT TIMING. That's the number we're after in this exercise.

Here is the trajectory and energy calculations to complete the 'starting conditions' information of our known good load.

The critical user-input value is the "Height of Sight Above Bore Axis". For the table to be correct for your rifle, this value must be measured. Otherwise the table is RELATIVELY correct.

Ok... so here's what to note from the "Front Page".
1) Note the PREDICTED MV - 2451 f/s. Compare that to the actual MEASURED AVERAGE MV - 2452 f/s. That's CLOSE. (I'm fine being within 50 f/s or less.)
2) Bullet exit timing - 1.398 msec.
3) Max chamber pressure is only 40,632 PSI. PLENTY of headroom to increase charge.
4) % of case capacity used - 98.6. That means I don't have a lot of room (up to about 105% is fine) to add H4831 powder. That means I might have to change powders.

And from the trajectory table.
1) Total vertical displacement is 3" - (-12.7") = 15.7"
2) Muzzle energy is 3000 ft-lb.
3) Energy delivered to 300 yd - 1362 ft-lb.

OK - That's what we KNOW based on actual MEASUREMENTS using the chronograph and paper targets.

I want to up the MV to "something" so that I can get AT LEAST 1500 ft-lbs of energy delivered to 300 yd, AND not have the total vertical deflection be more than about 12 inches, WHILE keeping the muzzle energy (recoil) as low as possible.

First order of business is to figure out what MV I need to accomplish those goals. I get that number by "hunt and peck" in the trajectory calculation page. I input MVs until I get the 1500 ft-lbs of energy at 300 yd. Here's what that looks like:


Note that while we achieve the desired 1500 ft-lbs of energy, the trajectory goal of ~12" is not yet achieved. This total vertical deflection is 13.7". Since the ME only went up to 3266 ft-lbs, and I am "fine" with at least 3400 ft-lb, I have some 'room to move' to improve the trajectory.

Increasing the MV until I get a total vertical deflection of ~12 inches yields value of 2651 f/s. Here's that trajectory table:

You can see that the total vertical deflection is now 12" and the 300 energy is 1631 ft-lb, BUT... the ME went up to 3511 ft-lb. (Ain't no free lunches in ballistics.) I can 'live' with that ME for the time being.

OK... Armed with a new target muzzle velocity AND the barrel timing, I go back to QL's Front Page. Here is where QL's flexibility or "power" can be a bit daunting. You have to pay attention to what you are doing because a 'tweak' here has lots of downstream effects.

QL allows me to tell it that I want a specific MV and it returns a list of powders and charges that give that MV. OR I can tell it I want a specific barrel exit time, and it will return a list of powders and charges that produce that exact barrel time. In both cases it ignores case capacity and max pressure. Let me show you some examples.

First, I'll tell it to select powders and charges based solely on a desired MV of 2651 f/s.
(Here's the top of the table so you can see what each column is.)

Now the rest of the table:



This table is sorted on max pressure (column #7) from highest to lowest. As you can see the first powder listed is Trailboss and the % of case capacity used is 287% and the pressure is 173,831 PSI. So "that's not going to work". Since I don't like to "beat" my guns up, I'll be looking for a max pressure value of somewhere in the mid-50 thousands AND in a powder I have on hand. Since I 'like' H4831, I look at it's values on the table:
1) % of Case Capacity - 106.1% (That's "OK", but I'd prefer it 105 or less.)
2) Max chamber pressure is 51,269 PSI. (That's "good".)
3) Barrel exit timing is 1.256 msec. (Hmm.. I don't know if that is "good" or not.)

At this point, I have to consult another set of data produced from a model of barrel harmonics. While the case capacity for that load is "tolerable",  and the max pressure is "good", I don't know whether the timing on that charge is at the right place on a faster node or not. I have to look at the node timing calculation page I have.


The calculations of the barrel harmonics are dependent ONLY on the length of the barrel. (Actually they are dependent on several characteristics of the barrel, but they are completely independent of the bullet, cartridge, powder, etc.) So, for a 24" barrel, the THEORETICAL timing node that the ORIGINAL charge comes closest to is Node #7. It's THEORETICAL "on node" value is 1.435 msec. That is not 1.398 msec. BUT, 1.398 msec is only about 3% faster than the theoretical value. It has been my experience using this model for several years that the REAL timing node is almost always between plus and minus 3% of the theoretical node. That is the case here where 1.398 msec is 2.6% faster than the theoretical on node value of 1.435 msec.

HOWEVER, our new value for H4831 from the table is 1.256 msec. Where does that fit with respect to the faster theoretical node? According to the model, the next faster theoretical node occurs at 1.308 msec. We know that the "good" timing value is 2.6% faster than the closest theoretical node, (1.398 vs 1.435), so I subtract 2.6% from 1.308 msec and get 1.274 msec. Hmm... Based on my personal experience, 1.274 is not "close enough" to 1.256. If I was starting from "scratch", I would use that value but since I KNOW that the other value is "good", I need to be pretty darn close. (In other words, I have "truth" from the chrono and target data. That is now "the law" in terms of timing for this rifle, NOT the theoretical model.)

At this point, I have a couple of options:
1) Go back to the table and find the powders that give bullet exit times near 1.274 msec.
2) Since the desired timing value of 1.274 msec is slower than the predicted timing value (1.256 msec) for H4831 from the table AT THAT VELOCITY, I could seat the bullet farther out thereby reducing the max pressure and 'slowing it down'.
3) I could simply lower the charge to give me the desired 1.274 msec timing.
4) As I said, I can tell QL to give me a list of powders that produce a specific bullet exit time. I could set the exit time for exactly 1.274 msec (2.6% faster than theoretical node #6), and have it give me a new list.

Here are the issues with each approach:
1) Looking on the table for a powder that produces a timing of 1.274 msec I find I4895 (1.274), and CFE223 (1.271), Ramshot Big Game (1.270), and A4064 (1.276). The good news is that I have all of those powders. I don't "like" I4895 for cases as large as the .338 WM. I don't have a lot of experience with I4895 but of the powders available, I feel the least confident using that one. CFE223 - a relatively new powder from Hodgdon - is showing up in a lot of analyses these days. It has some things going for it in this evaluation:
CFE223
81.4%     62.4grains     4.05grams    2651f/s   100.0%    51349PSI    9033PSI   1.271msec
A) % of case capacity used is only 81.4% - That's "good".
B) It burns 100% of the powder before the bullet exits the barrel.
C) Max pressure is only 51,349 PSI. Good.
Hmm...
 
Ramshot Big Game
86.3     63.3     4.10    2651    99.9    51312    9073   1.270
A) Percent of case capacity - 86.3 - Better than CFE223.
B) Only 99.9% powder burn in barrel - Not so good.
C) Max Pressure - 51,312 PSI - Insignificantly better than CFE223.
Hmm...

Accurate 4064
90.2     60.8     3.94    2651   100.0    55433    8358   1.276  ! Near Maximum !
A) Percent case capacity used - 90.2 - Better yet.
B) 100% powder burned in barrel - Good.
C) Max pressure - 55,433 PSI. Not AS good as the previous two, but not a problem.

So, ONE way to approach the new load is to CHANGE POWDER.

*********************************************************************

The SECOND OPTION is to keep using H4831, and keep CHANGE SEATING DEPTH. Since the timing for this velocity using H4831 is "too fast", I can seat the bullet out farther and 'tune' the timing to 1.274 msec. Maybe. I may not be able to move the bullet far enough out, or it may get too long for the magazine, or it may not leave enough bullet in the neck of the case. It WILL slow it down so that I lose the 12" trajectory goal. Let's see how much.

The first step I would take is to move it out to one caliber seating depth (0.338). That's as far as I would prefer as I prefer at least one caliber in the neck of "big bore" cartridges. Resetting the seating depth to 0.338, the charge to the new value of 71.0 grains, and recalculating, I get a timing value of 1.298 and a MV of 2602 f/s. Since that timing value is now too slow, I don't need to check to see if the trajectory of a MV of 2602 f/s is acceptable. I'll keep fiddling with seating depth 'til I get the time (1.274) that I want.

Turns out that my second "hunt and peck" value of 0.400" yields a bullet exit time of 1.275 msec. That's close enough. The MV is 2628 f/s. A quick check of the trajectory tables puts the 300 yd energy at 1599 ft-lb (good); the ME at 3450 ft-lb (good); and the total vertical deflection at 12.4" (tolerable). Hmm... What I don't like about this option is moving the seating depth OFF of the cannelure. Not a big deal, but something I will have to consider. This charge could "work", but there are other options to consider.

************************************************************

The THIRD OPTION is to keep the seating depth the same (0.455") and lowering the charge from 71.0 grains with its associated timing of 1.256 msec, to a value that gives a bullet exit time of 1.274 msec. That charge turns out to be 70.3 grains. The "time" for that charge is 1.274 msec, the MV is 2634 f/s, and the % of case capacity used goes down to 105% even. (That's "good".) The MV of 2624 f/s is insignificantly different than the 2628 f/s that we got by seating the bullet out to 0.400. (If you think about that, it should make 'perfect' sense to you.) Therefore, the trajectory table will also be insignificantly different. If I want to stick with H4831, this is the approach I would take: Reduce the charge from 71.0 to 70.3 grains.

However, I could choose to keep the velocity up, and use one of those other powders.

******************************************************************

There is the FINAL OPTION, and that is to tell QL that I want a specific timing, (instead of a specific MV, as I did above), and have it give me a new list of powders and charges that give me that exact time. Here's the table that request produces (same column labels):


Note that in this table all of the times (column #9) are all the same. Muzzle velocities are all different though. Checking H4831, we SHOULD find that the predicted charge (column #3) should be our 70.3 grains we found above.
Hodgdon H4831  105.1     70.4     4.56    2624    93.3    49687    9652   1.274

It's a litttle different because of rounding. I round "up" QL rounds "down". But you can see we are so close as to not make a difference. All of the values look "good enough" EXCEPT the % burned in the barrel 93.3, (column #6). I can live with that value IF this load shoots "like a laser".

Let's look at some other powders.

My personal pressure ceiling is in the area of 58,000 PSI. If I have to "go up there" I start looking for other solution. Therefore, let's list powders that generate 58000-ish PSI and less. The list is pretty long based solely on max pressure. I get something approaching 90 of them. (I lost count at 60 something.) However, not all of them give us the MV we need to deliver 1500 ft-lbs of energy to 300 yd AND keep total vertical deflection to 12" or less. That MV is essentially 2600 f/s. (I just picked a 'round number'.) That gives us a total vertical deflection of 12.9". Again, if it shoots like a laser, I'll live with the drop. So it's back to the table we go and look for powders that produce velocities above 2600 f/s, max pressures below 58,000 PSI, and have realistic case capacity charges of less than 106%. That makes a smaller list, but it's not "small":

I sorted the table based on MV. All of these powders and charges give the desired barrel timing of 1.274 msec. They range in velocity from 2700 f/s to 2601 f/s. The load densities range from 106.2% to 76.7% (that's a bit low for me). Percent of powder burnt in the barrel ranges from 100% down to 93.3%. So...

Since velocity is "good" because it delivers energy and flattens trajectories, let's have a look at that 2700 f/s figure and see if the extra recoil is worth it.


Since we know that the trajectory will be flatter than that from 2650 f/s and the energy will be higher, the only real issue is muzzle energy (recoil).

The value for a MV of 2700 f/s is 3642 ft-lbs. That's above my personal ceiling of 3400-ish, but is it 'worth it' in increased energy and flattened trajectory? I don't "think" so. The 300 yd energy is a non-issue because I don't CARE about more than 1500 ft-lbs at 300. 1500 ft-lb IS "THUMPER" ENERGY.

So how much flatter is the trajectory? 2651 f/s gives a total vertical deflection of 12.0" (theoretically!). 2700 f/s at the muzzle yields a total vertical deflection of 11.2". A difference of about 2.4 calibers. Therefore, I'm "paying" 131 ft-lbs of "recoil" (3642 - 3511), for two and a half bullet widths at 300 yd. Hmm...  It's only 131 ft-lbs, but I was already over my 'preferred' value of 3400 by 111 ft-lbs with the 2651 MV, so at 2700 f/s I'm 242 ft-lbs above what I want to gain only 2.4 bullet-widths at 300 yd.

Nah, I'll keep the MV down at 2650 f/s. There are 14 powders to choose from that produce MVs between 2670 and 2630. That should be enough choices for anyone to find a suitable load in.

And that's "the process" if you have an ESTABLISHED LOAD. If you don't have an established load, the general process is the same, but you have to use THEORETICAL values for the timing. That's a "good" start considering the alternative, but... and here's the TAKE HOME from all of the above:

ONCE YOU HAVE A KNOWN LOAD, YOU KNOW EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO CHANGE POWDERS, BULLETS, SEATING DEPTHS, AND CHARGES, AND BE VERY CLOSE TO RIGHT ON WITH YOUR FIRST SHOTS WITH THE NEW LOAD.

I'm sticking with H4831 because it has been "good" to me in all of my "magnum" cases. I 'know' it, and I "like" it, so I'm sticking with it. There might be "better" choices, but I'm not after "fastest" or "flattest" or anything "better" than the standard I have set: 3400-ish ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, 12-ish inches of total vertical deflection over 300 yards, and deliver 1500 ft-lbs to 300 yards. Anything 'better' than that is just 'gravy', and not worth beating myself or my rifle up.

Paul

j0e_bl0ggs got a little "excited" over the fact that I didn't take any more than 16 cartridges to the range. It's a point well-taken to some degree, but the fact is, I have a good "working" load. Since it worked in the Sauer as well, why waste ammo? More significantly, I am looking HARD at the 225 Accubond as a replacement for the 225 Hornady that the above post addressed. No need to shoot more Hornadys when I plan on trying to get a good load with the Accubond.

The Accubond has a significantly higher BC - .550 vs .397. That improves trajectory without having to "pay" in increased recoil. In other words, I can lower the MV to deliver the desired 1500 ft-lbs to 300 yd and still keep the trajectory standard of 12" of total vertical deflection. "How much can you lower the MV?" you might be asking. Here are some quick numbers for you:

If I keep the MV THE SAMEd, I increase the energy delivered to 300 yd to 2046 ft-lbs. That's a big jump! trajectory flattens to 10.2". But you might point out that I said everything over 1500 is gravy. That would be right.

Lowering the MV to a value that maintains 12" of vertical deflection and 1500 ft-lbs at 300 yards means the muzzle energy drops to 3160 ft-lbs. That's a BIG drop! MV drops to 2515 f/s.

BUT... It has to shoot as straight as the Hornady does.

Setting the ME to 3400 ft-lbs, the MV is 2609 f/s, the 300 yd energy is 1975 ft-lbs, and the trajectory is 10.8 inches. Given that I have the knowledge of the barrel timing for this rifle(s), I can quickly find a charge that should put me right where I want to be.

By the way... I'm more than happy to perform this evaluation/analysis for any THL member. Here's the cost: YOU have to get precise measurements of your rifle's case capacity. That means measuring the capacity of 5 cases after they have been fired in your chamber AND RESIZED in your reloading dies. If you are interested in this, send me a PM and we can talk about it.

The Accubonds should be waiting for me at the Post Office today.

Paul

No joy at the PO today.

Paul

If you can't get those Accubonds to shoot, either you or the rifle has  BIG problems.

RJ

I haven't had a lot of experience with ABs. Some, but not a lot. I do have a lot of experience with boat-tails and I'd say that in that experience more of them shot poorly that shot well. I have long held that boat-tails REQUIRE a PERFECT muzzle to shoot straight. If that is true, then I hope the Sauer has a "perfect" muzzle.

I'm a little PO'd about the bullets not being in. The USPS has figured out a way to get around the idiots that refuse to use PO box addresses for shipping: They let us use the Post Office's street address and just add the PO Box number to the address. That way, sellers too lazy to use the USPS and REFUSE to ship to me because I don't have a street address, get fooled into do THE RIGHT THING anyway. I have unkind words for them.

Anyway, when the UPS recognizes the USPS address, they delay the delivery. Rat sons of bachelors. Just makes me hate them all the more. UPS and FedEX better hope I NEVER "get in charge". They will cease to exist.

The bullets have been in Wasilla for TWO DAYS according to UPS's OWN tracking. They have yet to deliver them to the USPS. Scum of the earth.

Paul

Interesting Paul! I am thinking of changing bullets in my 7mm mag and have a really good load right now. If you remember, you did that load on QL with "real" numbers I gave you over skype. I plugged all those numbers in when I got QL. Hopefully changing bullets will go nice and smooth! God bless.

1) I think it is worth noting that the existing "good" charge of 66.0 grains of H4831 has a theoretical % of powder burnt in the barrel of only 90%. That is a figure that would cause me to reject H4831 as a potential powder.

2) I use I4831 in my 7x300 Weatherby. I use 78 grains behind a 115-grain bullet, and while I don't know exactly how much is burnt in the barrel, A LOT is not, as I have seen it on sheets of plywood out in front of my muzzle.

Therefore... Maybe burning all of the powder in the barrel before the bullet exits isn't NECESSARILY "a good thing" with respect to precision (accuracy).

Paul

It should, David. If you need any assistance with QL, gimme a shout and I'll see what I can do.

Paul

I probably will as this will be new to me.God bless.

I posted the following in another thread: http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?p=143577#post143577 on February 29.

The 225 Accubonds came in today.

I had an "Old Mother Hubbard" moment. (Old mother Hubbard went to the cupboard to get her doggy a bone. When she got there, the cupboard was bare and so the poor doggy had none.) I calculated loads to give the correct timing for 7 different powders, 6 of which I "have". The two I was most interested in were H4831 and Accurate 4064. I had exactly ONE charge-worth of powder left in each canister.:frown  But I had plenty of the other ones. I loaded 6 rounds each of I3031, Accurate 2495, and Reloder 17. All were spec'd to give exactly the same exit time of the bullet.

Once I had the .225 ABs in hand, I had to make a few adjustments. First was the ACTUAL bullet length vs QuickLOAD's nominal length. Second was the fact that I wasn't going to unload the cartridges that were loaded with 225 Hornadys because those are good loads. Therefore, I had to use some new brass. The new brass was all federal. The "old" brass was all Remington-Peters. The REALLY good news was that the case capacities were essentially identical once I trimmed the new brass to the same length as the old brass.

After adjusting OverAll Length for the extra length of the AB, I was a little concerned that the relationship of the the bullets to the bore - the "jump" - was going to be different. In fact, I was a little concerned that they might be too long to chamber properly. So the FIRST thing I did was chamber the first AB-bulleted cartridge that I made. It was NOT too long. Next, I got out my Stony Point (Now Hornady Lock-N-Load) cartridge/bullet measuring device. Measuring the OAL from the bore diameter of the bullet to the base of the 225 Hornady-loaded cartridges (the 'old' good load) and the same for the 225 Accubond-loaded cartridges, yielded a difference of only 0.001". No joke! I didn't think I could make the measurements on an ogive to a consistency of 0.001". In fact, I would have had "squinty eyes" if I had read where someone else did that. Skepticism aside, the point is that the ogival length of the "good, old, 225 Hornady" load was essentially identical to the ogival cartridge length of the new Accubond loads.

So... I have done just about everything I can to make the new loads as "identical" to the old, good, loads. I have six cartridge of each charge in each powder. I will shoot two three-shot groups allowing the barrel to cool completely between groups. God willin' and the creek don't rise, one of these three powders will produce good groups. I still need to get some H4831 and Accurate 4064 so I can try those powders as well.

Just thinking about it, I MAY load three more cases in each load in each powder to use to get muzzle velocities. While all the shots in the groups shot in this thread http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18941 had the MagnetoSpeed attached, I don't feel comfortable shooting "for precision" with the MagnetoSpeed attached. By the same token, getting good MV figures is imperative for load workup.

I'm going to try to get to the range tomorrow.

I fired one shot to make sure the rifle was still shooting where I aimed it with the "old" 225 Hornday ammo:


Looks good to me.

The first powder I shot was Reloder 17:

Not too shabby. Don't like that "first bullet" thing, but considering I had changed bullets and powders, not a bad first three shots. The Euclidean distance between farthest apart shots ("max spread") is 1.79".

Next was Accurate 2495:

Now that I LIKE! Since the RL-17 group was a bit high of the POI, I aimed at the dot you see beneath the bullseye. That group is just under half an inch high by a quarter of an inch wide. :D The Euclidean distance between farthest apart shots ("max spread") is 0.43".

The next powder was IMR-3031. I haven't had a lot of luck with I-3031, but I keep coming back to it because QL "likes" it so much.

Interesting! To me. This group is just about opposite of the 2495 group. In other words, about twice as wide as it is high. While not as good as the 2495 group, it's not bad with a Euclidean distance between farthest apart shots ("max spread") of 0.83".

I let the rifle cool for about 5 minutes between each 3-shot group.

I started the sequence over with the second 3-shot groups for each powder.
The first was the Rl-17:

Each bullet hole is numbered with its shot order. The second 3-shot group's max spread was 1.27". Better than the first. The aggregate 6-shot group size was 1.79".

The second 3-shot 2495 group was not as good as the first:

Its max spread was 0.92". The overall max spread for the 6-shot group was 1.17". (Sumpin' funny about the change from the first group to the second. I'm thinking operator error.)

The second 3-shot I-3031 group was about the same as the first:

Its max spread was 1.2". The overall max spread for the 6-shot group was 1.2".

"Being there" and knowing how each group 'felt', I am going with the 2495. But, that's not really the 'exciting' part of this range report. The great news is that I was able to use a KNOWN load's timing information as input to QuickLOAD and predict VERY GOOD loads for a different bullet AND a different powder!

Now it's time to see if moving 0.3 grains up and down from the 2495 load improves the precision, AND get both the elevation and windage exactly where I want them. Current points of impact are a bit higher than I want and too far right. Next range session will have me getting the scope "on target" and getting some muzzle velocities for "the" load.

Paul