I really enjoy all of your videos. I just wanted to say I think most of us are watching these on a smart TV with no option to comment. We can "like + Subscribe" but thats it. RUclips should realize this in their algorithm
Interesting test John, I have a problem comparing seating depth performance (accuracy) with only one round per depth. I think a minimum of 3 shots each depth so that one can see the potential precision of each group between the seating depths. Just me, and I know there are many ways to do comparisons. Thanks for sharing.
Yes, I agree and do the same, a 3 shot group could reveal the most precise load yet shoot 1 inch right of POA. Adjust scope in that case, not the ammo.
Hi John! From my recent loads I found that with lower pressures and less speed, example: I dropped my speed down 340fps running less powder and now my 140gr nosler does not care where I seat it. Long as -3000 from jam and to short as 180k from jam. It just wants to group. So I am with you on this test. Also fun fact, my ES went down to 2fps from 16fps. 2510fps av 140gr nosler RDF 6.5mmCM using s365 Solchem Powder
Funny you bring this up. I shoot PRS gas gun division using 6 ARC. 6 ARC is a great cartridge BUT is extremely tricky to load for using temp stable extruded powders. (Very easy to over pressure if trying to get higher velocity) I've found that it really likes slower velocities. That's where it groups the best. I did a ladder test with VV N550 and hornady 105gr bthp's. The thought was I'll get more velocity out of a lower charge. Turns out the velocity was way slower than I would have liked BUT the grouping throughout the test was very good. (.690" For a factory gas gun that's very acceptable) I honestly didn't know what to make of it as it wasn't what I expected.
@@oif3vetk9 that’s good to hear. I didn’t do it on purpose until I checked the speed after the fact. My normal loads were 2950fps but very sensitive to seating depth. At 2700 it’s ok but bigger groups and slightly wider nodes than 2950. At 2510, it really doesn’t matter. I hunt mostly and I don’t shoot further than 300m, so I prefer the accuracy over speed, confidence in my store bought 783 is out of this world. Sub1/4 Moa at 100y. Love it. Would be cool if a channel could test this for us.
I've actually tested this method with my previous load development and will confirm with behalf of John that this does work. This was also before I watched John's video on it and just thought "what a coincidence". Mind you, I did this without a chronograph and developed a load within 30 rounds that shot a 0.71 MOA at 220 yards. This was not for benchrest or F-Class shooting, only hunting purposes. I tested the load 2 weeks later to confirm and it ahot right on the money.
Now this is pretty awesome to see, I’ve done extensive testing on seating depth with different manufacturers projectiles and some have wide nodes and some well have stupidly narrow nodes so this could be the case, but you know what it shows a huge picture that at least the powder node you are using for the given projectile is working extremely well which finding is half the battle. I commend you on sharing this John love your channel and what you do with it and congrats on the last day at SWN too massive achievement considering any battles but what you did was commendable 👍🏻
Sounds like a test I need to do in my load workups so I can quit obsessing over that 2-3 thou seating depth. I'm glad you showed those clamtainers! A new thing to buy and try! .... So much work ahead.... 🤔😉😀👍👍
Thanks as always John, Set some of my 6.5 C's at 30 off the lands, and got great results, sub.250 but many one wholes, what's funny is Hornady's 6.5 C's ELD-X are 65 off and shoot .50 groups, really surprised at how good boxed ammo shoots now days. Am reloading the same seeds, but with H 4350
Plot the elevation vs seating depth in Excel, it there is a trend, it will show up there. Staring too long at a cluttered target will make you imagine things that are not there. I did a very similar test, but only looked at velocity. There was a very strong linear trend to slow down as the jump increases. At long range, this velocity difference is enough to account for an elevation trend on the target.
As always thanks for such wonderful content. Question though, with all the discussion I've been hearing lately about all the things that don't matter for load development, it's becoming more and more difficult to say with any conviction what a solid development and reloading process should look like. What have you found in your experience matters?
These type of tests are awesome! Crazy seating depth and runout tests. Nobody else does tests like these. One more crazy idea. AUTOTRICKLER etc. VS. LEE POWDER THROWER at 600 yards. Based on the tests of Precision Rifle Network years ago that test might come out to be surprisingly even. A powder thrower of some sort should give you +/- 0.2 grain accuracy including a Harrel.
John nice test! What I have found just like others mentioned below, is if we are mag feeding obviously we have to stay within the mag well length and try different ones inside that measurement. What I have found in when speaking with my gunsmith that chamgers or reams my barrel. I may not be saying it correctly because I don't know how reaming a barrel is done. But he tells me about a parallel throat or freebore before the lands Vs what you may find in a factory non custom barrel that is a funnel shape before the lands. So I have found in a factory style barrel the closer you are to jam or at jam the accuracy improves over further back. But with my custom barrels with the Parallel chamber I seat 100-200 from jam and have excellent results. And this of course is using the same bullet, powder and powder capacity. Something to also mention is loading the case and seating the bullet where you have a higher case powder capacity like a lightly compress load, not crushing powder and seating the bullet in further. I have found single digit SD and less dramatic ES from this method. But if you seat the bullet futher out closer to jam. I would start seeing an increase in the ES and SD. Just my 2 cents.
Very nice. Just wondering which process comes first, finding the right load or seating depth? How do you know when to start playing with seating depth, as in how do you settle on a load?
Thanks John. I am new to reloading and have searched the internet extensively for information on load development. Being a retired engineer, I am intrigued with the latest from Hornady and Winning in the Wind on the need for more rounds to make a group (sample size) be representative of the "population" statistics/dispersion. What this says is that your test is statistically invalid; you would need a larger sample size for each seating depth and then compare the means of the groups and test for significant difference between them. I am not throwing stones here! I know you have extensive experience and success in load development and shooting. As a newbie and with the component shortages we are experiencing, I'm trying to "get it right" with as few rounds/groups as possible. What "rules of thumb" do you have that rate the controllable variables in order of importance. At this point after fixing brass (fire formed, trimmed and shoulder sized by 2k) and a good primer, my list from most to least significant goes: 1) pick bullet type and weight, 2) find powder type, 3) work up safe charge weight, 4) adjust seating depth. The last item 4 is somewhat confusing since it begs the question as to what seating depth do you use for the charge weight testing! I have seen vids and info from Nosler/Berger that show VLD bullets behave better at large jumps compared to starting at 20K off lands as many suggest. Maybe Chris Long's OBT and QuickLoad gets you to the starting powder charge and seating depth? Your view/comments would be very much appreciated! Thanks, and keep the videos coming.
I appreciate the question. This was never meant to be a seating depth test in the sense of how I'd do load development or excluding larger sample sizes. I was simply showing that deeper seating depth could potentially yield larger windows (nodes) of stability and that even across a very large range of seating depths, it still shot a very good group so seating depth could potentially matter a little less (at least for F Class) than most people give it credit for.
@@FClassJohn Thanks for the clarification John! You like Erik Cortina have a really good feel and process that works for you. I on the other hand am such a novice that I am trying to "gain experience" from professionals like you in a short amount of time (and fewer components).Do you have any comments on my questions about the significance of each of the items listed? Am I missing any of your videos on the subject?
Nice test John, I will also note that the speed stat from the SM is all of 11 SD. Knowing that the speed was slowing with the seating depth, the fact that the SD is still only 11 shows a very forgiving recipe all in all.
I was an anti AR 308 shooter until I met the crew of CMMG in a Lake Ozark Bar. I agreed to try one in 2009. well I bought a complete Lower for $249.00 and commenced to building lowers, I am taking it to the range tomorrow to test some handloads. I still don't need another but if I did it would be a Cmmg.
1 shot is spare to conclude much, typically would like to see 3 same depth to gauge any kind of consistency with barrel cooling between each set of 3. Would take longer but may show more reaI information the more shots with same depth is better for evaluating. Everyone has to draw their own size sample group that they are comfortable with. If 1 is yours, my hat is off to you. Thanks for sharing 👍.
Seating depth is important for those of us "hunters" who have to shoot at magazine length, maximum :) I usually start there and then fine tune, going in, in .005" increments... seems to me that different bullets are more or less forgiving to depth, verses rifle/ load/ powder, but I'd love to see you do a similar test!
It is significant to notice that the point of impact changed significantly as the barrel heated up and/or the shooter grew more tired. Two factors that sorts the men from the boys in F class shooting.
I was working on a 243 AI shooting 70 gr Dierras with WIN 760. I tried various loads in increments of .03 of a grain. It was almost there but wouldn't quite repeat groupings. Almost gave up and decided to seat the bullets .002 deeper. The reloading gods were with me. Instant magic.
Oh my… you have yourself a very stable load there! It took that seat depth variance, ate it for lunch, and spat out a fine group regardless of what you believe about the significance of seat depth. If I were you I would be plum pleased with this result. A 20rd group is not insignificant.
Interesting. I believe it comes more from the cartridge. I have no scientific proof but after years of testing I've noticed that on some cartridge vs others : .308win, 6NBR, 6PPC are sooo easy to tune and more important to keep the load in tune.
Like your arbor press. Silly question - what are the cartridge boxes your using ? Excellent video ! If I don’t have access to a long shooting location, limited to 100 yards - is testing like this evening meaningful ?
Bullets with hybrid profile are less sensitive to seating depth variations. If you're using hybrids here, this may be a reason you don't see signifficant changes
cool test john, I would also think the bullets ogive has a lot to do with the seating sensitivity. Some bullets i’ve fired went from 1 MOA to .25 MOA in 0.090 difference.
Thank you, this is very interesting. Do you ever seat into the lands? I have a theory that neck tension variations might make less of a difference when bullets are pushed into the lands (not enough to "jam" in Cortina-speak but enough that the force needed to start the bullet moving is signifcantly affected by engraving forces). Unfortunately I don't have the equipment to test this properly, so it's just a pie in-the-skie theory but would appreciate tour thoughts?
I've tested in the lands and it can shoot good there but the problem comes when you have to pull a round in a match. There's always a chance you'll pull a bullet if it's too far stuck in the lands. Not a chance I want to take.
@@FClassJohn thanks for the reply. I am currently seating my bullets 0.5mm (20 thou) away from the point where they jam. I have chambered and extracted about 30 rounds without measurably changing seating depth (although that was all with a clean bore).
John, do you thing that the same thing would happend with different calibers or non match guns? 6.5 Creed, 6.5 PRC and yours 7-6.5 PRC have tighter measurments standards that regular calibers, if I'm not wrong.
Interesting to see these nodes stack up and then the potential to tune the node with a tuner for a finer adjustment. Ive always started 20 thou off and backed off 5 thou at a time. Some bullets it seems to help, some not so much.
Morning John. Love this test. I have 2 questions if you dont mind me asking. You mentioned your donuts have been pushed out? How does that process work? 2ndly, what target cam system are you using?
The donuts are pushed out when you run and expander mandrel or gage pin down through the necks. As for the target system, it's the Shotmarker.com system.
I'd love to see a ladder test, three or five shots per load, done twice (ie repeated with the same load configuration). I think you'd be surprised the degree to which the shooter influences the test.
Hi John. Love the videos. Well done for SWN. An off-topic question, please: I want to re-barrel my 6.5CM (308 Bolt Face) to .284 Shehane. What barrel length and twist do you recommend? And is my plan feasible? Many thanks. Greeting from Chris, South Africa.
I'd got 30-32" finished length and an 8:5 to 9 twist if you plan on using 180-184gr bullets. It's good plan except it's tougher to find Lapua 284 brass and 180hybrids so just be patient.
I was so worried as I have a Panda 284 with a barrel having .5 inch freebore. Did some testing at 5.840 CBTO and am shooting half MoA consistently at 800 meters.
My biggest problem is finding a barrel for an ar that is accurate. Always seem to find at least.07 jump. Tried multiple powders multiple projectiles can never get under 1.15 group
I can't afford a 2k barrel that will be sub moa with everything, so doing a proper seating depth group helps tremendously. I don't get what your test shows or doesn't show other than you got a badass rifle/powder/tip combo to make that little of a difference
Great content John as always. I looks like you are cutting the Tubb ring on you bullets !Would I be correct with what I m seeing? I didn’t know if you or Eric had come to a conclusion with the ring cutter and testing ! I think you guys need to have a beginner F Class course for all of us that are sitting on the Fence !
You are correct, those are cut with the Tubb Nose Ring tool. I've been testing it for a few months and actually loaded everything for SWN with Nose Ring bullets and was happy with the results. More testing and more videos showing them off to come.
@@FClassJohn looking forward to you posting results of testing. I shoot a lot of 6 mil mid range 105 -115 grain bullets and I m curious if it will be worth it for this distance.Thanks for your reply
What I notice from the pattern is at first the shots were going int a straight line as you decreased the depth, then it got very erratic towards the end and the shots were more random.
My tuner was set to '0' which is my zero point from where I did my load workup. No other tuner settings were used. But it's possible the tuner could possibly overcome any of the group variance if used correctly.
I enjoy and benefit from observing all of these "seating" test showings on RUclips, but would really like to see a test preformed by the relation of powder burn rate, pressure increase as seating is deeper, finally in conjunction of bullet ogive. With a knowledgeable and factual formula for this to all having the intention of 2 in 1 hole would benefit a great deal. So; is there any know formula for pressure increase by seating depth, burn rate, bullet ogive out there? I'm all ears and eyes for this one. Thanks for the videos.
I’m happy that I reload knowing that my round will hit the end of a beer can at 100 yards, then hit a pie plate at 500. All knowledge gleaned from reading Lee’s 2nd edition book The mystery of “ controlled” explosion inside of a tuning fork barrel. Read his book
I enjoy your videos, this one, not so much. 😊 1 powder charge 2 primers type 3 primer seating 4 Brass trim ..Fire forming, Annealing Etc. etc. etc. etc. so on and so on. You do all of these thing as best you can. “That’s good enough. Skip the seat depth test” ??? You can say it doesn’t make a lot of difference in your rifle, but not every rifle will react the same. It could be a significant factor just like all the other steps that were taken. Just not as significant in your rifle. If a person goes through a good load development and skips the seating depth. Yep! That’s the person I want as my competition. Everyone do a seating depth test. Do the 100 steps to create a load. Correction do 101 steps.
I find jam come back off 20 thousandths, and then adjust it a few thousandths at a time till I find a good long sweet spot. Then load as long as I can while still staying in the node. By doing that I allow for a good bit of throat erosion and don't need to worry about it for a good long time. It really is that simple.
Seating depth is obvious, but what I want to know is how the new PRC designs with their much longer throats or leads affect accuracy compared to the old 7mm rem mag for example. Since the bearing surface of the bullet is much more exposed on the PRC and can be supported by the throat, does this lend itself to greater accuracy and alignment of the bullet with the bore? On the 7mm rem mag, almost no part of the bearing surface of the bullet is sticking out of the case on the 162 grain eldx for example. Its almost all ogive sticking out. As the bullet contacts the lands, does the PRC have better support on the back of the bullet therefore better alignment? Or does is it the case that is actually supporting the back of the bullet on the 7 mag, therefore adequate alignment? High BC bullets (and higher twist rates) seem to have much lower mechanical accuracy (short range) than the bullets with shorter ogives and a longer bearing surface and less nose cantilevered out into the barrel which must remain perfectly centered or your accuracy is screwed.
I'm shooting a 7 Rem Mag, with moly'd Berger 180 VLD's seated 3.430" long, at about 5 thou off the lands. There's plenty of bearing surface diameter out there with those long pills. Currently looking at the Nosler RDF 180's and the Sierra 183's to see if there's any similarity in accuracy, but they have long tips and slightly shorter bearing surfaces. ( Looking at other "seeds" in case my supply of Bergers dries-up, or becomes ridiculously overpriced.) 28" Lilja 9-twist, H-1000, @ ~ 3000 fps.
Donuts will develop at the shoulder neck junction on the inside of the case which can cause more resistance to movement on the bullet. Pretty much neck tension is about as apples to apples as he could make it.
I'm assuming what he means is he used an expander mandrel after sizing minimally with a bushing. Leaving the bottom portion of the neck next to the shoulder junction unsized and then "pushed out" with the expander mandrel with runs the entire length of the neck.
I’ve read the replies. I do use a bushing die and then expander mandrel (after AMP annealing). As expected in theory this would “push” out the donut but it doesn’t. According to the guys at AMP you need to load long to keep the bullet out of that junction. Or maybe use the idod machine which I suspect John is using.
Really interesting test. The results just look like a random distribution in a group rather than clusters of close shots at adjacent seating depths. It would need to be tried multiple times to be statistically correct of course. Will you shoot it again?
I reread your transcript and still can’t quite figure out what you were talking about when you we’re talking about a situation where you would not have to worry about throat erosion .
If you can find a wider node then you can load to the shortest end of it and let the throat erode without sacrificing accuracy until you hit the end of that seating node.
I think it would be interesting if you repeated this experiement to help prove whether any trends you might see are real or just luck of the draw. Shot 9, 10, and 11 have similar vertical dispersion as you noted, but shots 7, 8, and 12 (immediately before and after this potential node) are in the opposite corner as shot 9. With only 20 thousandths difference in seating depth between 8 and 12 that would be quite the narrow node if it actually existed. I'd be very surprised if the same test shot a second time (same charges and seating depth) gave the same potential nodes, because these results appear far more random than anything else. A couple small clusters that could be perceived as potential nodes is something that you'd see in a random dataset anyways, and if it's not a repeatable result then there's not much point in following those small random clusters.
Appreciate what you do, but one shot each isn’t even close to a legitimate sample size or even enough to ascertain what the data is. Essentially, you just blew off your spare ammo …at least you got trigger time practice.
Seldom is data in any research the most complete set any scientist or statistician would ideally like to have. But generally, some data is better than none, if only for the purpose of forming hypotheses to be tested. That is why most scientific studies are done iteratively; i.e., some preliminary data is gathered and digested, one or more further hypotheses are developed from that preliminary data, and then further studies of the refined hypotheses are conducted. John is quite explicit about what he's doing and the limitations of his data. I think he did a lot more than blow off spare ammo and get trigger time. I think he shared some potentially very important data for those of us who do not have time to do all the testing (even preliminary testing) and/or who choose not to share the results of testing they do conduct. So: thank you John!
This guys setup is not like your backyard hick ass setup. He has a front rest and thousands of hours of trigger time. One shot is all you need when you know what the fck youre doing Tony.
Disagree. He shot a 200-15X with a 92.5 thou seating spread. If you study the target, it looks to ME like he could have used ANY of those seating depths for all 20 rds and would likely have achieved the same score. (15-16 might be a weak spot and is worth a redo for confirmation ). But imho, no it isn't the end-all-be-all to seating depth but it WAS revealing and interesting food for thought. Also, #3-6 and #17-20 were all X's so.....even ran a 2nd time in reverse order (for barrel temp) doesn't seem like it would have made any difference. It was a damn good score with no two-depths the same. That's crazy.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I really enjoy all of your videos. I just wanted to say I think most of us are watching these on a smart TV with no option to comment. We can "like + Subscribe" but thats it. RUclips should realize this in their algorithm
Thank you and that's an interesting thing that I didn't realize. Either way I appreciate the support and all I can ask is keep liking the videos!!
Interesting test John, I have a problem comparing seating depth performance (accuracy) with only one round per depth. I think a minimum of 3 shots each depth so that one can see the potential precision of each group between the seating depths. Just me, and I know there are many ways to do comparisons. Thanks for sharing.
patience and hard wor surely rewards people...
Yes, I agree and do the same, a 3 shot group could reveal the most precise load yet shoot 1 inch right of POA.
Adjust scope in that case, not the ammo.
Hi John! From my recent loads I found that with lower pressures and less speed, example: I dropped my speed down 340fps running less powder and now my 140gr nosler does not care where I seat it. Long as -3000 from jam and to short as 180k from jam. It just wants to group. So I am with you on this test. Also fun fact, my ES went down to 2fps from 16fps. 2510fps av 140gr nosler RDF 6.5mmCM using s365 Solchem Powder
Funny you bring this up. I shoot PRS gas gun division using 6 ARC. 6 ARC is a great cartridge BUT is extremely tricky to load for using temp stable extruded powders. (Very easy to over pressure if trying to get higher velocity) I've found that it really likes slower velocities. That's where it groups the best. I did a ladder test with VV N550 and hornady 105gr bthp's. The thought was I'll get more velocity out of a lower charge. Turns out the velocity was way slower than I would have liked BUT the grouping throughout the test was very good. (.690" For a factory gas gun that's very acceptable) I honestly didn't know what to make of it as it wasn't what I expected.
@@oif3vetk9 that’s good to hear. I didn’t do it on purpose until I checked the speed after the fact. My normal loads were 2950fps but very sensitive to seating depth. At 2700 it’s ok but bigger groups and slightly wider nodes than 2950. At 2510, it really doesn’t matter. I hunt mostly and I don’t shoot further than 300m, so I prefer the accuracy over speed, confidence in my store bought 783 is out of this world. Sub1/4 Moa at 100y. Love it. Would be cool if a channel could test this for us.
I've actually tested this method with my previous load development and will confirm with behalf of John that this does work. This was also before I watched John's video on it and just thought "what a coincidence". Mind you, I did this without a chronograph and developed a load within 30 rounds that shot a 0.71 MOA at 220 yards. This was not for benchrest or F-Class shooting, only hunting purposes. I tested the load 2 weeks later to confirm and it ahot right on the money.
Now this is pretty awesome to see, I’ve done extensive testing on seating depth with different manufacturers projectiles and some have wide nodes and some well have stupidly narrow nodes so this could be the case, but you know what it shows a huge picture that at least the powder node you are using for the given projectile is working extremely well which finding is half the battle.
I commend you on sharing this John love your channel and what you do with it and congrats on the last day at SWN too massive achievement considering any battles but what you did was commendable 👍🏻
Thank you for the kind words and I'm glad these videos help.
This make so much sense. Thank you.
I think it's hard to make a great barrel shoot bad, especially with good bullets that it likes. Awesome demonstration!
Sounds like a test I need to do in my load workups so I can quit obsessing over that 2-3 thou seating depth. I'm glad you showed those clamtainers! A new thing to buy and try! .... So much work ahead.... 🤔😉😀👍👍
Glad to help
17,18,19,20 - thanks for the good video!!
Glad you liked it.
Thanks as always John, Set some of my 6.5 C's at 30 off the lands, and got great results, sub.250 but many one wholes, what's funny is Hornady's 6.5 C's ELD-X are 65 off and shoot .50 groups, really surprised at how good boxed ammo shoots now days. Am reloading the same seeds, but with H 4350
Glad you enjoyed the video.
Great video, can you please tell me where you got the clear plastic storage boxes that your ammunition is in, thanks in advance.
Plot the elevation vs seating depth in Excel, it there is a trend, it will show up there. Staring too long at a cluttered target will make you imagine things that are not there. I did a very similar test, but only looked at velocity. There was a very strong linear trend to slow down as the jump increases. At long range, this velocity difference is enough to account for an elevation trend on the target.
As always thanks for such wonderful content. Question though, with all the discussion I've been hearing lately about all the things that don't matter for load development, it's becoming more and more difficult to say with any conviction what a solid development and reloading process should look like. What have you found in your experience matters?
These type of tests are awesome! Crazy seating depth and runout tests. Nobody else does tests like these. One more crazy idea. AUTOTRICKLER etc. VS. LEE POWDER THROWER at 600 yards. Based on the tests of Precision Rifle Network years ago that test might come out to be surprisingly even. A powder thrower of some sort should give you +/- 0.2 grain accuracy including a Harrel.
John nice test! What I have found just like others mentioned below, is if we are mag feeding obviously we have to stay within the mag well length and try different ones inside that measurement. What I have found in when speaking with my gunsmith that chamgers or reams my barrel. I may not be saying it correctly because I don't know how reaming a barrel is done. But he tells me about a parallel throat or freebore before the lands Vs what you may find in a factory non custom barrel that is a funnel shape before the lands. So I have found in a factory style barrel the closer you are to jam or at jam the accuracy improves over further back. But with my custom barrels with the Parallel chamber I seat 100-200 from jam and have excellent results. And this of course is using the same bullet, powder and powder capacity. Something to also mention is loading the case and seating the bullet where you have a higher case powder capacity like a lightly compress load, not crushing powder and seating the bullet in further. I have found single digit SD and less dramatic ES from this method. But if you seat the bullet futher out closer to jam. I would start seeing an increase in the ES and SD. Just my 2 cents.
Very nice. Just wondering which process comes first, finding the right load or seating depth? How do you know when to start playing with seating depth, as in how do you settle on a load?
it matters for both head space AND powder compression (or even just powder free space within the cartridge)
Thanks John. I am new to reloading and have searched the internet extensively for information on load development. Being a retired engineer, I am intrigued with the latest from Hornady and Winning in the Wind on the need for more rounds to make a group (sample size) be representative of the "population" statistics/dispersion. What this says is that your test is statistically invalid; you would need a larger sample size for each seating depth and then compare the means of the groups and test for significant difference between them.
I am not throwing stones here! I know you have extensive experience and success in load development and shooting. As a newbie and with the component shortages we are experiencing, I'm trying to "get it right" with as few rounds/groups as possible. What "rules of thumb" do you have that rate the controllable variables in order of importance.
At this point after fixing brass (fire formed, trimmed and shoulder sized by 2k) and a good primer, my list from most to least significant goes: 1) pick bullet type and weight, 2) find powder type, 3) work up safe charge weight, 4) adjust seating depth. The last item 4 is somewhat confusing since it begs the question as to what seating depth do you use for the charge weight testing! I have seen vids and info from Nosler/Berger that show VLD bullets behave better at large jumps compared to starting at 20K off lands as many suggest. Maybe Chris Long's OBT and QuickLoad gets you to the starting powder charge and seating depth?
Your view/comments would be very much appreciated! Thanks, and keep the videos coming.
I appreciate the question. This was never meant to be a seating depth test in the sense of how I'd do load development or excluding larger sample sizes. I was simply showing that deeper seating depth could potentially yield larger windows (nodes) of stability and that even across a very large range of seating depths, it still shot a very good group so seating depth could potentially matter a little less (at least for F Class) than most people give it credit for.
@@FClassJohn Thanks for the clarification John! You like Erik Cortina have a really good feel and process that works for you. I on the other hand am such a novice that I am trying to "gain experience" from professionals like you in a short amount of time (and fewer components).Do you have any comments on my questions about the significance of each of the items listed? Am I missing any of your videos on the subject?
Nice test John, I will also note that the speed stat from the SM is all of 11 SD. Knowing that the speed was slowing with the seating depth, the fact that the SD is still only 11 shows a very forgiving recipe all in all.
I was an anti AR 308 shooter until I met the crew of CMMG in a Lake Ozark Bar. I agreed to try one in 2009. well I bought a complete Lower for $249.00 and commenced to building lowers, I am taking it to the range tomorrow to test some handloads. I still don't need another but if I did it would be a Cmmg.
1 shot is spare to conclude much, typically would like to see 3 same depth to gauge any kind of consistency with barrel cooling between each set of 3. Would take longer but may show more reaI information the more shots with same depth is better for evaluating. Everyone has to draw their own size sample group that they are comfortable with. If 1 is yours, my hat is off to you. Thanks for sharing 👍.
Enjoy the content! I am looking at building an f-class rig and doing my own improved cartridge. Just for fun and enjoy learning how to shoot better!
Where did you get that pod lock style lever to replace the round knob for the arbor press?
What is the make and model of the scales in the back round of your video?
What method do you use to remove the donut?
Thanks
Was hoping you’d circle back on this. Great recap!
Seating depth is important for those of us "hunters" who have to shoot at magazine length, maximum :) I usually start there and then fine tune, going in, in .005" increments... seems to me that different bullets are more or less forgiving to depth, verses rifle/ load/ powder, but I'd love to see you do a similar test!
It is significant to notice that the point of impact changed significantly as the barrel heated up and/or the shooter grew more tired. Two factors that sorts the men from the boys in F class shooting.
Thank you
I was working on a 243 AI shooting 70 gr Dierras with WIN 760. I tried various loads in increments of .03 of a grain. It was almost there but wouldn't quite repeat groupings. Almost gave up and decided to seat the bullets .002 deeper. The reloading gods were with me. Instant magic.
How much time between shots for barrel cooling or is it relevant?
Oh my… you have yourself a very stable load there!
It took that seat depth variance, ate it for lunch, and spat out a fine group regardless of what you believe about the significance of seat depth.
If I were you I would be plum pleased with this result.
A 20rd group is not insignificant.
Interesting. I believe it comes more from the cartridge. I have no scientific proof but after years of testing I've noticed that on some cartridge vs others : .308win, 6NBR, 6PPC are sooo easy to tune and more important to keep the load in tune.
if this trend follows more than 1 shot, id be interested. definitely hope you continue to do this testing.
meaning take the best node, and the worst node, and regroup them at the same range and see if it stays true.
What an eye opener! Thank you for posting, John! - Alex
Thanks for sharing. I listen to the hornady podcast kinda pretty much saying same thing. Kinda was confused as a new shooter/reloader
I would think if you settled on the number 5 length you would be in pretty good shape. Thank you for all you do and share with us.
Like your arbor press. Silly question - what are the cartridge boxes your using ? Excellent video ! If I don’t have access to a long shooting location, limited to 100 yards - is testing like this evening meaningful ?
Thats funny. I was thinkin the same thing on the cartridge boxes.
Where did you get the ammo case?
Those are called ClamTainers
Seating depth is the second most important measurement in Benchrest i wonder why it doesnt matter in F-Class?
How do you think it affects pressure with that much of a change in depth
Bullets with hybrid profile are less sensitive to seating depth variations. If you're using hybrids here, this may be a reason you don't see signifficant changes
cool test john, I would also think the bullets ogive has a lot to do with the seating sensitivity. Some bullets i’ve fired went from 1 MOA to .25 MOA in 0.090 difference.
Thank you, this is very interesting. Do you ever seat into the lands? I have a theory that neck tension variations might make less of a difference when bullets are pushed into the lands (not enough to "jam" in Cortina-speak but enough that the force needed to start the bullet moving is signifcantly affected by engraving forces).
Unfortunately I don't have the equipment to test this properly, so it's just a pie in-the-skie theory but would appreciate tour thoughts?
I've tested in the lands and it can shoot good there but the problem comes when you have to pull a round in a match. There's always a chance you'll pull a bullet if it's too far stuck in the lands. Not a chance I want to take.
@@FClassJohn thanks for the reply. I am currently seating my bullets 0.5mm (20 thou) away from the point where they jam. I have chambered and extracted about 30 rounds without measurably changing seating depth (although that was all with a clean bore).
Awesome test John! Thanks again. I see the annular ring on the bullets, did it help?
Still doing a lot of testing on the Nose Ring. More videos on that come. But so far, I've been getting good results.
Just subscribed!
Thank you!!
I did not build lowers, I built uppers. 2-300 BO, 2-556's 2-223 Wild. and I bought 2 a 22lr and a 300 Bo Bolt action.
I’ve found that the widest node to be .050-.080 from jam in multiple guns and calibers
i agree with that
Thanks for the info!
You bet!
John, do you thing that the same thing would happend with different calibers or non match guns? 6.5 Creed, 6.5 PRC and yours 7-6.5 PRC have tighter measurments standards that regular calibers, if I'm not wrong.
Interesting to see these nodes stack up and then the potential to tune the node with a tuner for a finer adjustment.
Ive always started 20 thou off and backed off 5 thou at a time. Some bullets it seems to help, some not so much.
Where do you get the plastic shell holders that you have. looks like a good thing.
clamtainer.com
Morning John. Love this test. I have 2 questions if you dont mind me asking. You mentioned your donuts have been pushed out? How does that process work? 2ndly, what target cam system are you using?
The donuts are pushed out when you run and expander mandrel or gage pin down through the necks. As for the target system, it's the Shotmarker.com system.
I'd love to see a ladder test, three or five shots per load, done twice (ie repeated with the same load configuration). I think you'd be surprised the degree to which the shooter influences the test.
I strap mine into a lead sled. Minimal human error.
Good info john
What size target do you use for practice at 1000 yards
Hi John. Love the videos. Well done for SWN. An off-topic question, please: I want to re-barrel my 6.5CM (308 Bolt Face) to .284 Shehane. What barrel length and twist do you recommend? And is my plan feasible? Many thanks. Greeting from Chris, South Africa.
I'd got 30-32" finished length and an 8:5 to 9 twist if you plan on using 180-184gr bullets. It's good plan except it's tougher to find Lapua 284 brass and 180hybrids so just be patient.
@@FClassJohn Thanks, John. I appreciate the feedback!
where do you buy those plastic round holders??
I was so worried as I have a Panda 284 with a barrel having .5 inch freebore. Did some testing at 5.840 CBTO and am shooting half MoA consistently at 800 meters.
I dunno ar 3 hundreds of lands will changing seating depth make it any better.
My biggest problem is finding a barrel for an ar that is accurate. Always seem to find at least.07 jump. Tried multiple powders multiple projectiles can never get under 1.15 group
I can't afford a 2k barrel that will be sub moa with everything, so doing a proper seating depth group helps tremendously. I don't get what your test shows or doesn't show other than you got a badass rifle/powder/tip combo to make that little of a difference
Good content for some sort of testing on a new barrel and 600 yard club matches
My seating depth requirements are that it must fit in the magazine and feed correctly. Very simple but it's not for everyone.
Great content John as always. I looks like you are cutting the Tubb ring on you bullets !Would I be correct with what I m seeing? I didn’t know if you or Eric had come to a conclusion with the ring cutter and testing ! I think you guys need to have a beginner F Class course for all of us that are sitting on the Fence !
You are correct, those are cut with the Tubb Nose Ring tool. I've been testing it for a few months and actually loaded everything for SWN with Nose Ring bullets and was happy with the results. More testing and more videos showing them off to come.
@@FClassJohn looking forward to you posting results of testing. I shoot a lot of 6 mil mid range 105 -115 grain bullets and I m curious if it will be worth it for this distance.Thanks for your reply
Any idea if your es/SD changed and how much?
At target my SD was 11.2 across all 20.
you mentioned donuts being pushed out. What is your method to accomplish this
Thank for videos u put out
Thank you and I'm glad you enjoy them.
Whats that software you used to draw the final chart with?
That’s just the shot marker software from the targeting system
Interesting.
What I notice from the pattern is at first the shots were going int a straight line as you decreased the depth, then it got very erratic towards the end and the shots were more random.
Did you use tuner, because it probably eliminates the difference that comes from the length variation. Or it would be a good testing idea.
My tuner was set to '0' which is my zero point from where I did my load workup. No other tuner settings were used. But it's possible the tuner could possibly overcome any of the group variance if used correctly.
I enjoy and benefit from observing all of these "seating" test showings on RUclips, but would really like to see a test preformed by the relation of powder burn rate, pressure increase as seating is deeper, finally in conjunction of bullet ogive. With a knowledgeable and factual formula for this to all having the intention of 2 in 1 hole would benefit a great deal. So; is there any know formula for pressure increase by seating depth, burn rate, bullet ogive out there? I'm all ears and eyes for this one. Thanks for the videos.
New hand loader, I liked the video. My question is how does seating depth effect velocity, if at all?
Doesn't really do much in this case. SD was 11.2 across all 20.
What's crazy is that 1 and 20 are an inch apart! What the heck...
John how far were you shooting? 1000 yards? and were do you get those clear ammo boxes? Thanks.
This was 600yd testing. Those ammo boxes are from clamtainer.com
@@FClassJohn Thank you. So, 600 yd and a 4 inch group? Sounds like very little to no difference to me! Thank you again.
I’d be curious about data regarding ogive style (tangent, secant, hybrid) and how it affects seating depth sensitivity/node size.
Great content. Who makes those clamshell ammo packs?
Thank you. They're clamtainer.com
Awesome. Thanks John.
Where are those plastic ammo blister packs available at?
They're called Clamtainers
@@FClassJohn LOL! Funny name but thanks the info, I’m going to pick up a couple.
I’m happy that I reload knowing that my round will hit the end of a beer can at 100 yards, then hit a pie plate at 500. All knowledge gleaned from reading Lee’s 2nd edition book The mystery of “ controlled” explosion inside of a tuning fork barrel. Read his book
What does it do to the Chamber Pressures? The deeper Bullet must of raised the pressures! Chamber Pressures is the Critical concern here!
Can you provide information on the cartridge storage packs?
Thanks 😎
claimtainer.com
Link didn’t work, sorry…
Appreciate you though 😎
@@11362mem clamtainer.com
@@FClassJohn THX
Where do you get the clear plastic ammo clamshells?
clamtainer.com
@@FClassJohn thank you
A takeaway is that 6 and 14 are closest to aim point and the same distance from the extremes. Harmonics…
I think that custom rifles have wider nodes than factory rifles. Do you remember John if this is true when you were shooting the ruger ?
I enjoy your videos, this one, not so much. 😊
1 powder charge
2 primers type
3 primer seating
4 Brass trim
..Fire forming, Annealing
Etc. etc. etc. etc. so on and so on.
You do all of these thing as best you can. “That’s good enough. Skip the seat depth test” ???
You can say it doesn’t make a lot of difference in your rifle, but not every rifle will react the same. It could be a significant factor just like all the other steps that were taken. Just not as significant in your rifle.
If a person goes through a good load development and skips the seating depth. Yep! That’s the person I want as my competition.
Everyone do a seating depth test. Do the 100 steps to create a load. Correction do 101 steps.
Would be interesting to do the exact same test again but shooting them out of order.
I find jam come back off 20 thousandths, and then adjust it a few thousandths at a time till I find a good long sweet spot. Then load as long as I can while still staying in the node. By doing that I allow for a good bit of throat erosion and don't need to worry about it for a good long time. It really is that simple.
Same
Good stuff
thats one hell of a gunsmith, whats your free-bore
Yeah he’s good. My freebore is .220
Seating depth is obvious, but what I want to know is how the new PRC designs with their much longer throats or leads affect accuracy compared to the old 7mm rem mag for example. Since the bearing surface of the bullet is much more exposed on the PRC and can be supported by the throat, does this lend itself to greater accuracy and alignment of the bullet with the bore? On the 7mm rem mag, almost no part of the bearing surface of the bullet is sticking out of the case on the 162 grain eldx for example. Its almost all ogive sticking out. As the bullet contacts the lands, does the PRC have better support on the back of the bullet therefore better alignment? Or does is it the case that is actually supporting the back of the bullet on the 7 mag, therefore adequate alignment? High BC bullets (and higher twist rates) seem to have much lower mechanical accuracy (short range) than the bullets with shorter ogives and a longer bearing surface and less nose cantilevered out into the barrel which must remain perfectly centered or your accuracy is screwed.
I'm shooting a 7 Rem Mag, with moly'd Berger 180 VLD's seated 3.430" long, at about 5 thou off the lands. There's plenty of bearing surface diameter out there with those long pills.
Currently looking at the Nosler RDF 180's and the Sierra 183's to see if there's any similarity in accuracy, but they have long tips and slightly shorter bearing surfaces. ( Looking at other "seeds" in case my supply of Bergers dries-up, or becomes ridiculously overpriced.)
28" Lilja 9-twist, H-1000, @ ~ 3000 fps.
What do you mean the donuts have been pushed out?
Thanks
Donuts will develop at the shoulder neck junction on the inside of the case which can cause more resistance to movement on the bullet. Pretty much neck tension is about as apples to apples as he could make it.
I'm assuming what he means is he used an expander mandrel after sizing minimally with a bushing. Leaving the bottom portion of the neck next to the shoulder junction unsized and then "pushed out" with the expander mandrel with runs the entire length of the neck.
I’ve read the replies. I do use a bushing die and then expander mandrel (after AMP annealing). As expected in theory this would “push” out the donut but it doesn’t. According to the guys at AMP you need to load long to keep the bullet out of that junction. Or maybe use the idod machine which I suspect John is using.
Really interesting test. The results just look like a random distribution in a group rather than clusters of close shots at adjacent seating depths. It would need to be tried multiple times to be statistically correct of course. Will you shoot it again?
exactly my thoughts. i did some testing years ago with these thoughts and it didnt pan out. maybe im just a bad shot though so i hope he tests more.
How did you push out the donuts?
Use a mandrel and then you turn them off on the outside.
@@FClassJohnhow long does it take before you have to worry about doughnuts with the 284 ?
@@br4713 with actual 284 brass I never worried about the donuts as long as I loaded above them. They’ll usually show up after 2-4 firings.
😳 Only 4 firings ??? With FL bushing dies ?
If seating depth doesn't matter for small groups in F-Class terms what does?
I reread your transcript and still can’t quite figure out what you were talking about when you we’re talking about a situation where you would not have to worry about throat erosion .
If you can find a wider node then you can load to the shortest end of it and let the throat erode without sacrificing accuracy until you hit the end of that seating node.
@@miketokar9010 No, erosion will always occur, I'm just trying to find a seating depth that stays stable for the largest amount of throat erosion.
Ok I understand what you’re saying now .
Thank you very much for your reply . I’m a new F class shooter , and have learned much from your videos
I think it would be interesting if you repeated this experiement to help prove whether any trends you might see are real or just luck of the draw.
Shot 9, 10, and 11 have similar vertical dispersion as you noted, but shots 7, 8, and 12 (immediately before and after this potential node) are in the opposite corner as shot 9. With only 20 thousandths difference in seating depth between 8 and 12 that would be quite the narrow node if it actually existed.
I'd be very surprised if the same test shot a second time (same charges and seating depth) gave the same potential nodes, because these results appear far more random than anything else. A couple small clusters that could be perceived as potential nodes is something that you'd see in a random dataset anyways, and if it's not a repeatable result then there's not much point in following those small random clusters.
Bryan litz says .015” off and beyond makes little to no difference with hybrids.
I literally just did one today. Closer to lands, horrible. As we got further away from the lands it was much better
Every barrel is different. I tested from 20 thou all the way to .005. My groups are tightest at .005.
Like and comment. Glad youtube suggested this.
Thank you
if it was me I would look at the seating depths for shots 3-6 and 17-20,,,
What’s the “doughnut”?
Appreciate what you do, but one shot each isn’t even close to a legitimate sample size or even enough to ascertain what the data is. Essentially, you just blew off your spare ammo …at least you got trigger time practice.
Seldom is data in any research the most complete set any scientist or statistician would ideally like to have. But generally, some data is better than none, if only for the purpose of forming hypotheses to be tested. That is why most scientific studies are done iteratively; i.e., some preliminary data is gathered and digested, one or more further hypotheses are developed from that preliminary data, and then further studies of the refined hypotheses are conducted. John is quite explicit about what he's doing and the limitations of his data. I think he did a lot more than blow off spare ammo and get trigger time. I think he shared some potentially very important data for those of us who do not have time to do all the testing (even preliminary testing) and/or who choose not to share the results of testing they do conduct. So: thank you John!
This guys setup is not like your backyard hick ass setup. He has a front rest and thousands of hours of trigger time. One shot is all you need when you know what the fck youre doing Tony.
no but it proved that it didn’t affect this load very much. Had it, you may have seen 3-4 moa spread.
Hornady did a great job covering this
Disagree. He shot a 200-15X with a 92.5 thou seating spread. If you study the target, it looks to ME like he could have used ANY of those seating depths for all 20 rds and would likely have achieved the same score. (15-16 might be a weak spot and is worth a redo for confirmation ).
But imho, no it isn't the end-all-be-all to seating depth but it WAS revealing and interesting food for thought. Also, #3-6 and #17-20 were all X's so.....even ran a 2nd time in reverse order (for barrel temp) doesn't seem like it would have made any difference. It was a damn good score with no two-depths the same. That's crazy.