new to rifle reloading need advice
05-22-2015, 05:59 PM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
This guy reminds me of the member that was talking about off handing 2 or 3 shots and was good to go hunting if he could hit a pie plate, LOL! He just couldn't understand where all of us were coming from when we were saying we wouldn't own a rifle that couldn't shoot MOA or better. Now this guy in one sentence is talking about shooting the atrium and the next sentence is saying he's good to go with a rifle that is lucky to shoot 3" groups. Yikes!!! 
05-22-2015, 06:16 PM
#22
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
Off hand I accept the pie plate. But that would be AFTER I bench rest the rifle to make sure of it's accuracy and consistency. I figure at 100 yards if I can keep 5 in a pie plate off hand then that's plenty good enough. Now sitting or prone, cut that pie plate in at least half.
05-22-2015, 07:50 PM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,186
I think I remember that guy. To finepoint, I am a hunter first and foremost. I might be a fine tuned freak sometimes but I am not making rocket science out of every variable of my shooting technique. I am not a master shot but I am way past a novice shooter.
I prefer to keep things simple. My shooting is done in a roughed up farmers field behind my house with a decent rifle/scope and a $30 bipod. I rarely drive to the shooting range 1 hour from my house to use my Caldwell rest on a solid table to get the best groups possible to test every concoction I just reloaded.
That said I found the 1 3/8" groups at 100 yards with factory ammo to be good enough for my skill level and the conditions I shot under. That will also gauge my reload accuracy. When I can load a round that will give me 1/2" groups I will be thrilled. My second attempt got me to 7/8" groups. I read through all the post and I got money on seating depth.
I prefer to keep things simple. My shooting is done in a roughed up farmers field behind my house with a decent rifle/scope and a $30 bipod. I rarely drive to the shooting range 1 hour from my house to use my Caldwell rest on a solid table to get the best groups possible to test every concoction I just reloaded.
That said I found the 1 3/8" groups at 100 yards with factory ammo to be good enough for my skill level and the conditions I shot under. That will also gauge my reload accuracy. When I can load a round that will give me 1/2" groups I will be thrilled. My second attempt got me to 7/8" groups. I read through all the post and I got money on seating depth.
05-22-2015, 08:25 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
Seating depth is one of the most important things. Some rifles like a jump set while others are lazy beasts and will tolerate no jumping at all. 7/8" from a basic hunting rifle is very acceptable. Anything MOA and under is great for hunting. There are many perfectionists on here (Me being one of the worst probably) and do our best to squeeze out every bit of performance we can from our equipment. That way when we screw up and miss a deer or whatever, we have absolutely no-one to blame but ourselves.
05-23-2015, 07:12 AM
#25
Spike
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 29
Glad I could get some thoughtful conversation going!
The purpose of picking a point of specific internal anatomy is the "aim small, miss small" principle. If you choose a 150 lb deer and draws a 3" circle around the back wall of the right atrium, you will encompass all the major structures of the chest while avoiding the major (edible) muscle groups. The critter will most likely drop within 3-5 seconds. This is what I'd call a humane kill with a low margin for error.
Younger shooters may not know that, prior to about 1980, a sporting rifle and factory ammo capable of sub-MOA precision was a never-realized dream. Before that (the introduction of hammer-forged barrels and computer-controlled machining) 1 1/2 to 2" groups were considered quire accurate and most off-the-rack lever guns didn't break 2 1/2. But people kept within reasonable ranges and did quite well. Even the vaunted house of Holland and Holland was happy with 3" groups for their bolt rifles. A Type 99 Arisaka made in 1943 that shoots 3MOA is considered a tack-driver (most do 5-6MOA - battle rifles shoot at very large tacks) and will put all its bullets in the target area at 100 yds. That's all I expect it to do, just like I don't expect my old '53 Chev to go 150MPH. If I were to target a critter at longer range, I'd simply pick a different, more precise rifle or pass on the shot. Either way, my integrity is intact and that is what ethics is all about.
"Finepoint" is an example of two of my favorite things: paradox and irony. Actually I picked it because I needed a user ID quickly and that was what was written of the pen I was holding at the time. I grew up under a family tree festooned with engineers and obsessive attention to detail, but have spent my career working in the endlessly sloppy world of biology and human behavior, so I can see both perspectives. (Call it Camp Perry meets Kalashnikov) I tend to obsess over tools (guns/loads) but i also remember that they are used by humans, not cyborgs. Mostly I do a lot of testing because I am keenly aware of how much we humans love to fudge the data or test parameters to meet our own self-deceptions. It has much more to do with ego than physics.
The purpose of picking a point of specific internal anatomy is the "aim small, miss small" principle. If you choose a 150 lb deer and draws a 3" circle around the back wall of the right atrium, you will encompass all the major structures of the chest while avoiding the major (edible) muscle groups. The critter will most likely drop within 3-5 seconds. This is what I'd call a humane kill with a low margin for error.
Younger shooters may not know that, prior to about 1980, a sporting rifle and factory ammo capable of sub-MOA precision was a never-realized dream. Before that (the introduction of hammer-forged barrels and computer-controlled machining) 1 1/2 to 2" groups were considered quire accurate and most off-the-rack lever guns didn't break 2 1/2. But people kept within reasonable ranges and did quite well. Even the vaunted house of Holland and Holland was happy with 3" groups for their bolt rifles. A Type 99 Arisaka made in 1943 that shoots 3MOA is considered a tack-driver (most do 5-6MOA - battle rifles shoot at very large tacks) and will put all its bullets in the target area at 100 yds. That's all I expect it to do, just like I don't expect my old '53 Chev to go 150MPH. If I were to target a critter at longer range, I'd simply pick a different, more precise rifle or pass on the shot. Either way, my integrity is intact and that is what ethics is all about.
"Finepoint" is an example of two of my favorite things: paradox and irony. Actually I picked it because I needed a user ID quickly and that was what was written of the pen I was holding at the time. I grew up under a family tree festooned with engineers and obsessive attention to detail, but have spent my career working in the endlessly sloppy world of biology and human behavior, so I can see both perspectives. (Call it Camp Perry meets Kalashnikov) I tend to obsess over tools (guns/loads) but i also remember that they are used by humans, not cyborgs. Mostly I do a lot of testing because I am keenly aware of how much we humans love to fudge the data or test parameters to meet our own self-deceptions. It has much more to do with ego than physics.
05-23-2015, 07:33 AM
#26
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
Finepoint: "I grew up under a family tree festooned with engineers and obsessive attention to detail, but have spent my career working in the endlessly sloppy world of biology and human behavior, so I can see both perspectives."
Is that your way of saying you're a psychiatrist or possibly a psychologist?
Is that your way of saying you're a psychiatrist or possibly a psychologist?
Last edited by Topgun 3006; 05-23-2015 at 07:36 AM.
05-23-2015, 07:46 AM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
Glad I could get some thoughtful conversation going!
The purpose of picking a point of specific internal anatomy is the "aim small, miss small" principle. If you choose a 150 lb deer and draws a 3" circle around the back wall of the right atrium, you will encompass all the major structures of the chest while avoiding the major (edible) muscle groups. The critter will most likely drop within 3-5 seconds. This is what I'd call a humane kill with a low margin for error.
Younger shooters may not know that, prior to about 1980, a sporting rifle and factory ammo capable of sub-MOA precision was a never-realized dream. Before that (the introduction of hammer-forged barrels and computer-controlled machining) 1 1/2 to 2" groups were considered quire accurate and most off-the-rack lever guns didn't break 2 1/2. But people kept within reasonable ranges and did quite well. Even the vaunted house of Holland and Holland was happy with 3" groups for their bolt rifles. A Type 99 Arisaka made in 1943 that shoots 3MOA is considered a tack-driver (most do 5-6MOA - battle rifles shoot at very large tacks) and will put all its bullets in the target area at 100 yds. That's all I expect it to do, just like I don't expect my old '53 Chev to go 150MPH. If I were to target a critter at longer range, I'd simply pick a different, more precise rifle or pass on the shot. Either way, my integrity is intact and that is what ethics is all about.
"Finepoint" is an example of two of my favorite things: paradox and irony. Actually I picked it because I needed a user ID quickly and that was what was written of the pen I was holding at the time. I grew up under a family tree festooned with engineers and obsessive attention to detail, but have spent my career working in the endlessly sloppy world of biology and human behavior, so I can see both perspectives. (Call it Camp Perry meets Kalashnikov) I tend to obsess over tools (guns/loads) but i also remember that they are used by humans, not cyborgs. Mostly I do a lot of testing because I am keenly aware of how much we humans love to fudge the data or test parameters to meet our own self-deceptions. It has much more to do with ego than physics.
The purpose of picking a point of specific internal anatomy is the "aim small, miss small" principle. If you choose a 150 lb deer and draws a 3" circle around the back wall of the right atrium, you will encompass all the major structures of the chest while avoiding the major (edible) muscle groups. The critter will most likely drop within 3-5 seconds. This is what I'd call a humane kill with a low margin for error.
Younger shooters may not know that, prior to about 1980, a sporting rifle and factory ammo capable of sub-MOA precision was a never-realized dream. Before that (the introduction of hammer-forged barrels and computer-controlled machining) 1 1/2 to 2" groups were considered quire accurate and most off-the-rack lever guns didn't break 2 1/2. But people kept within reasonable ranges and did quite well. Even the vaunted house of Holland and Holland was happy with 3" groups for their bolt rifles. A Type 99 Arisaka made in 1943 that shoots 3MOA is considered a tack-driver (most do 5-6MOA - battle rifles shoot at very large tacks) and will put all its bullets in the target area at 100 yds. That's all I expect it to do, just like I don't expect my old '53 Chev to go 150MPH. If I were to target a critter at longer range, I'd simply pick a different, more precise rifle or pass on the shot. Either way, my integrity is intact and that is what ethics is all about.
"Finepoint" is an example of two of my favorite things: paradox and irony. Actually I picked it because I needed a user ID quickly and that was what was written of the pen I was holding at the time. I grew up under a family tree festooned with engineers and obsessive attention to detail, but have spent my career working in the endlessly sloppy world of biology and human behavior, so I can see both perspectives. (Call it Camp Perry meets Kalashnikov) I tend to obsess over tools (guns/loads) but i also remember that they are used by humans, not cyborgs. Mostly I do a lot of testing because I am keenly aware of how much we humans love to fudge the data or test parameters to meet our own self-deceptions. It has much more to do with ego than physics.
Many top rifle makers made rifles more than capable of MOA before 1980. The problem wasn't so much with the rifles as it was the ammunition quality and consistency. Re-loading was nowhere near as big as it is today so all that data from pre-1980 was highly misrepresented as being the rifle manufacturer and not the true problem which was Ammo consistency. Like Nomercy up there, I have more firearms than most sane men in this country and MANY of them are old war horses. I little love at the re-loading bench makes most all of them tack driving machines. Not ALL but most. Some are like you said, without hope unless I ruin the value of them and re-barrel or true up the action or something because they were actual war rifles and shot out.
05-23-2015, 08:41 AM
#28
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
super hunt54---Glad you made that post straightening him out on the incorrect "pre 1980" baloney he posted, as I was going to and didn't have the time earlier today to do so! I also have some older Winchesters and Sakos in my safes and all were and still are under MOA shooters!
05-23-2015, 10:09 AM
#29
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
I also forgot to mention something else. Since you brought up the poor accuracy of H&H, Let me remind you of the Lee Enfield No4 Mk1 (T) which by far was one of the BEST sniper rifles of WWII. It's not well known that H&H would do an accuracy test on the "Rack" models and pick out the best ones THEN modify them to an even GREATER accuracy. Off the rack No4 MK1's were no slouches at all, I own a couple and after a little work on the bolts they were marvelous shooters but I have a friend who owns one of the H&H modified NO4's and that thing will hammer nails at 200 yards. It dang well should considering what he paid for the thing! But the point is, I've owned a couple of pre WWII .375 H&H's (they were my Dads) and can tell you point blank that you are FAR from correct in your analogy towards H&H accepting 3 inch grouping. I'd bet old man Harris Holland is rolling in his grave after seeing you write that!
05-29-2015, 09:36 AM
#30
Spike
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 29
The point is not what the rifles are capable of under current ideal circumstances, but rather what the shooter's expectations are. Today we snub our noses at any rifle that will not do 1 MOA or better and cars that won't run 200,000 miles without a major repair. In 1958, we were happy with 2-3 MOA rifles and cars that got 100,000 miles. Perhaps were were not so good shots back then, but, on the whole were probably better hunters. I'm well aware of the ammo low expectations for ammo back then and how many old rifles with carefully tweaked handloads will shoot far better than was conceivable when they were made. And I'm familiar with the hand-crafted Sniper SMLE's. What I'm trying to do is bridge gap between the proverbial minute-of-pie plate with the 700 yd deer. Both have their points and both have their limitations.
It reminds me of a weapons system that I worked on decades ago. It was capable of repeatedly placing a projectile within 25 meters of its target post at a distance of over 1000km.This is decades before laser targeting or GPS. These anecdotal stories were confirmed by my uncle, who worked on the system design, I found out years later. I don't know how that works out in MOA, but I'll bet it's not much. I appreciate that kind of precision. But when one considers that the Army was having me put a 145 kiloton nuclear warhead on it, I had to ask the pie plate question. The dissonance of the whole thing still makes me laugh. The older I get, the more I laugh.
It reminds me of a weapons system that I worked on decades ago. It was capable of repeatedly placing a projectile within 25 meters of its target post at a distance of over 1000km.This is decades before laser targeting or GPS. These anecdotal stories were confirmed by my uncle, who worked on the system design, I found out years later. I don't know how that works out in MOA, but I'll bet it's not much. I appreciate that kind of precision. But when one considers that the Army was having me put a 145 kiloton nuclear warhead on it, I had to ask the pie plate question. The dissonance of the whole thing still makes me laugh. The older I get, the more I laugh.