new to rifle reloading need advice
 

Hello everyone I finally gotten into reloading rifle cartridges after a few years of straight wall pistol reloading. The degree of quality I plan on using on rifle ammo will be much greater than the effort I gave on pistol ammo.

The pictures I attached where complimemts of a 7mm-08 Savage 16FSS 22"inch barrel. Shoots were taken at 100 yards in field conditions through a chronograph and into the target. I used Hornady 139 grain American Whitetail ammo as a reference to factory loadings and Hornady 139 grain BTSP bullets with a starting load and a max load. Powder used was IMR 4064.

The max load shot similar to the factory load in accuracy and velocity. The starting load shot great but was 100 fps slower.

My question simply is tinkering with the max loads seating depth and dropping the charge a several .001s going to ever be worth my time or should I stick to the starting load go from there? I am leaning on the later but some insight on the subject would be appreciated.

my experience with 7mm/08's, IMR 4350/fed. 210 primers shines, the load you have is begging for a seating depth adjustment.
RR

Seating depth adjustment is a great tool in a reloaders tool box. Some rifles, actually most rifles, can be a bit picky about how far you set that bullet from the lands. Some like a good bit of distance, others like it right up on it. I've had more than a few bolts that just a simple thousandths set out cleaned up a group from 1.2 MOA to a cloverleaf. A grain here, a thousandths there can make a world of difference to a picky rifle.

So how far off the lands were those loads?

just load up some batches of ten or so per batch and make each one a couple thou shorter that the ones before or vise versa making them longer depending where you started and just shoot the batches just be as consistent from one batch to the other as possible.

A good set of calipers can be a re-loaders closest ally! 2 things a re-loader should never skimp on, scales and calipers! Scales for 2 reasons, one being a goof in weight can have some nasty results, the other is consistency. Calipers for consistency.

I like starting loads or one step up in powder. 2 reasons being that they most of the time shoot groups tighter and second,my brass last longer!

Thank all of you. I appreciate the advice. I will find out the OAL to the lands for this particular rifle and compare it to my reloads. Then I will have some measurements to work with for a seating depth adjustment.

Another thing is I find this rifle to get hot rather quickly and cause vertical stringing depending on cool down time. My first string shots always hit 12 o'clock of the bullseye very consistently with a cold rifle or 5 minute wait, now and every other time I shoot it. The 2 minute wait between shots always yield a higher impact. Firing back to back and it will keep walking up. I will keep this into consideration when I post pics of my next shooting session.

I load batches of 6, one is ran through the chrony, the other 5 are shot for group, just a flyer doesn't bother me much, but the "group within the group" syndrome tells me I can make it better.
RR

After buying the Hornady OAL measure, a bullet comparator and a concentricity tool. I found out I wasn't off by much compared to using my old methods but I was still off regardless. I haven't seen a huge differences in groups on the first day but it's not that easy to shoot better than 1/2" MOA groups unless I'm shooting better for the particular day. Reloading for precise one hole groups is getting expensive. It seems your loads need some seating depth tweaking as said before. I think my next step in this process is having dies built for the guns and loads I am shooting. I've done everything else I can think of.

I think there may be a problem here in determining what is a genuinely statistically valid result. Three-shot groups are OK for determining a rough hunting zero, but for group size you need to fire at least eight three shot groups (each from a cold barrel)and average the result. Similarly, to determine velocity, you need to fire a minimum of eight shots through your chronograph and average the results. Note that eight data points are needed to be assured that the number you get is not random at a 95% confidence level. Needless to say, ten would be better, getting to a 98% confidence level.
The difference in trajectory caused by a 100FPS change is less than the random variation caused by a 1" increase in group size. Trajectory is predictable and can be compensated for; randomness can't.

Impossible to run that type of generality for statistical validity without examining the dataset itself. 10 shots out of a load with 90fps ES might not be within a 95-98% confidence interval even with 10 shots, alternatively, a load producing 10fps ES might be valid after 4 shots.

I personally have found that the 5 shot group has a lot more to do with the shooter than the rig. The odds of throwing a flyer out of a 3 shot group is relatively low, whereas it often seems that the odds of throwing a flyer in a 5shot group is almost certainty. Shoot 10 shot groups and I haven't seen the same likelihood of 2 flyers (if 1/5 is a flyer, then 2/10 should be, right? But that's just not the case). Then we have to ask the question - why are we shooting groups? Hunters don't shoot groups at deer, we throw one bullet after one target. So accuracy really is all that matters, precision is just a side effect of repeatable accuracy. (Of course, precision being the repeatability of a result, i.e. small groups, and accuracy being the ability to achieve the desired result - i.e. hit the target. Precision, in our case, is about the rifle and shooter, accuracy is simply about the POA vs. calibration of sights).

Given the right day, the right shooter, and the right rig, "groups" don't even need to be fired at the same target to produce supreme precision and accuracy (certain competitive shooting sports run this way - one shot per target).

I too reload 7mm-08, my absolute best load is 47.5gr of Big Game and a 140gr SGK. I am pushing an impressive 2950fps out of a 22" barrel and 3/4" groups all day, give it a try. Normaly 3/4" groups would not impress me much but considering this gun shot 5" groups with everything else I'll take those 3/4" groups any day. Start a couple grains lower because this is a max load, no pressure signs as long as I am using Rem brass but Win brass gives me a slightly flattened primer. The only other power I have had any luck with is H380, works great in all bullet weights just not as fast with 140s as the Ramshot Big Game, shot exceptionally well with 120gr using compressed loads.

It was my understanding that the original post was interested in improving the precision of the load/rifle combination, not improving the shooter. The latter can be done with an air rifle in the basement. To test the load and rifle, one needs to eliminate the shooter as much as possible,hence the bench, sandbags, etc. I regard this as a valid sport all by itself.
Hunting adds a whole different set of variables, but an accurate rifle certainly helps to make a humane kill. While some may be comfortable with any hit in "the vitals" (whatever that is), I am ethically uncomfortable with it. If I can't be confident that my bullet will land within 3 inches of my target organ (usually the back wall of the right atrium) in that particular set of range. wind, lighting, shooting position, etc, I will pass on the shot. Knowing the random variation of the load/ rifle under ideal conditions that confidence. For example, my Type 99 Arisaka (re-chambered to 31-08) can group reliably just inside three inches (A number determined by careful testing and analysis because we humans are notoriously prone to self-deception.) That means I will take shots out to 100 yds under ideal lighting. My Mauser 98 in 30-06 will do 1 1/4 inches and is useful to 300 yds.

man your making it complicated, what the hell is the atrium? can I hunt not knowing what it is, like hold on the big part of them?
RR

The right and Left Atrium are the top 2 chambers of the heart RR. The lower 2 are the ventricles.

Finepoint, if you accept 1 1/4" groups then your ID tag is very deceptive. Even my Muzzle loaders are all within 1" 5 shot groups. I accept nothing less. That 99 Arisaka of yours would be wrapped around a tree if it was mine if I couldn't get it better than just inside a 3" group. Most all factory rifles nowadays are very capable of MOA performance. If you can't tune a load to get it there then you have a problem with that rifle.

and to think I been deer hunting since 1970 and didn't know that! even managed to kill a couple, some out there a purty fur piece!
RR

my thoughts, if 3" at 100 is the best a rifle will do, it would be found driven barrel first into the ground at the corner of the garden with a gate hangin off of it. If I took my best rifle to be effective at 300 yards I'd darn sure be buying another rifle.
How can you have confidance in stuff like that?
what kind of groups are needed to take this one?

and its not that far, but it was the first shot taken at game with that rifle other than 1 groundhog
RR

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!!! :confused0024:

RR, that there looks like one of them little ole Florida dogs, I mean deer :happy0001: wut you shooting them liluns fer? I know they grow them a little bigger in WV!

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.

The guy I'm talking about couldn't understand why we were zeroing from the bench and trying to shoot under MOA when all he had to do to save ammo and go hunting was shoot 2 or 3 times to make sure he could hit a pie plate.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Horse pucky there Finepoint. I just happen to own 3 pre 1964 Marlins that each and every one will drive UNDER 1" at 100 yards all day! It was actually AFTER 1980 that Marlin as well as Winchester Levers began to truly suck wind. Between 1965 and 1979 they were okay in general but nowhere near the quality that you got pre-64. That's why pre-64 Marlins and Wins are such prized rifles.

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.

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!

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!

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.

Yeah I have to agree on the issue of accuracy in old guns, some old rifles are every bit as accurate as off the shelf rifles today. A friend of mine has a 1979 Browning BBR and it is Sub-MOA easly, first handload I tried for it came in under 3/4" @100yd, it is as accurate as any of my modern rifles except for my freakish Tikka T3. Another good example of some VERY old rifles that are super accurate are the old 96 Mausers, over 100 years old as as long as your bore is not shot out they will hang with modern rifles.

In 58 I was just starting to get serious about shooting and I can tell you that neither my Dad, my Gramps, my Great Gramps, nor I would have accepted a 2-3 MOA rifle. For hunting or anything else but a wall hanger or door stop. Or RR's suggestion of a gate post. We all bought quality rifles and re-loaded our own ammo.

You are correct in the fact that computer aided design and operations has helped the quality of shooting. But incorrect in the reason. It helped in AMMO production being 100 times more consistent. Better quality weight, better quality sizing of the powder for consistent burn rate, everything. And it could still use a LOT more refinement of consistency. Which is why I STILL roll my own. As far as the rifles go, they aided in lowering production costs which allows for nicer rifles that can be afforded by the masses. Hell even the cheap Savage models are pretty darn good shooters right out of the box. But the quality, in my opinion, isn't any better at all. Just cheaper to make nowadays.

Older rifles were more of a "hit or miss" proposition than most of the more modern models. Some did shoot very well but finding a really good shooter was not always easy. The best thing about the older models was the fit, finish, and the quality of the wood. My first big game rifle was a fabled "pre-64" M70. It was a beautiful (to me) hunting rifle but it certainly was not a "all day MOA" rifle. I was involved in competitive benchrest shooting so I did have some idea of how to develop loads.

Everyone seems to have a favorite three shot group that they shot once and cut out for display but the occasional good group does not really mean that the rifle is a good consistent shooter.

Uncle, the very first really nice bolt action rifle my dad got me was that very same rifle in .30-06. Said I had "graduated" from that little .30/30 and needed a "real rifle" his words not mine. I still favor my lever guns at times. Had (still has cuzz I still own it to this very day) some of the prettiest wood furniture you could lay eyes on. Pops fiddled around with it a bit, working the stock and re-bedding it to float the barrel. Shot really well before that. Shot freakishly well after that. The old girl will still put them in the 10 ring when needed. I guess we got one of the good ones.

Count me in as one that got a good pre 64 Model 70 passed to me some time ago by my Dad. It will consistently put them all under MOA with 150 grain Hornady Interlocks and it's my go to rifle when I head for Wyoming every Fall for deer and/or elk. All it's ever had done to it was the trigger worked down to about 2-2 1/2# to bring the groups down to what I mentioned.