roninwsnc

Hi Folks,

I have only been reloading for about 5 years. I started out reloading 30-06 Springfield brass for my Dad's old 1903-A3. I developed a bad flinch firing Dad's deer rifle. I eventually bought a bolt action rifle cambered for .243 WIN cartridges. This rifle's recoil is about one half of my Dad's rifle. Compared to .243 cases, the 30-06 necks are longer and thicker. To my way of thinking this probably makes it easier and more consistent to seat bullets for the 30-06. For my .243 rifle, I first purchased 200 cases manufactured by Winchester and then more recently another 200 cases manufactured by Starline. The Starline brass seems to be more variable than the Winchester brass.

I usually remove the spent primers and clean my fired cases within a few days of going to the rifle range. I keep the brass separated in zip lock bags sorted by the number of times the brass has been fired and the manufacturer. Later when I was ready to re-load another batch (usually 25 cases or sometimes 50 cases), I would look though my collection of zip lock bags and select a bag contains a few more cases than I would need. When I first started re-loading .243 WIN cases, I was mostly concerned about the condition of the cases and that they passed my L. E. Wilson Case Gauge tests.

A few years later after I purchased the Starline brass, I wanted to produce more consistent re-loads. I became very anal and started sorting my brass by weight in hopes that the case weight would be a good substitute for case volume. I decided I only needed to "Neck Size" my brass since I was only re-loading my fired cases for just one rifle. Later, I started noticing the differences between thickness of the brass in the necks of the Winchester and Starline brass. I began wondering how that affected the neck tension when a bullet was seated. This was becoming a long and deep rabbit hole. I suspected the experts knew all the answers, but it had to be a problem for us mere mortals on a restricted budget to afford all the hardware needed to measure and sort brass by some quick method that would produce consistent neck tensions. Using my micrometer was very slow and more variable than I suspected. So... I purchased a few more items: Sinclair 0.241" and 0.242" mandrels to quickly measure/sort the inside diameter of my resized case necks and three of Redding's bushings (0.270", 0.271" and 0.272") to quickly measure/sort the outside diameter of my resized case necks. This works sort of... my group precision has improved a little bit (previously about 3.0 inch groups of 4 at 200 yards and now about 2.5 to 2.0 inch groups of 4 at 200 yard). Don't laugh... that's probably pretty good for a fat old man who can only afford an entry level rifle.

There must be a better way and is all this sorting even necessary? Do you have any suggestions?

Thank You,
Ron

bronko22000

Unless you're going for match grade accuracy don't waste your time and money sorting and buying all that equipment. 2"-3" groups at 200 yards is more than adequate for hunting.
When you say you neck size only, did you purchase a neck sizing die or just back out the sizing/decapping die slightly. If its the latter then you're not neck sizing you are partially sizing. Big difference.
I've loaded for the .243 for about 55 years now. This cartridge is notorious for case neck stretching. You should check your overall case length every 2-3 firings and trim as necessary. Upon firing the brass flows forward. Also watch for brightness at the web of the case. A sign of thinning brass and a possible case separation. True neck sizing can reduce this a little.

Big Uncle

I have obsessed with neck tension, concentricity, etc. and have come to the conclusion that unless you are a serious benchrest competitor that is shooting specialized rifles with target chambers and trying to squeeze out another thousandth of an inch you are probably wasting time and energy. There seems to be a fine line between being practical and chasing perfection. We probably all have visited the rabbit hole at one time or another.

Nomercy448

bronko22000

NoMercy...pardon my ignorance but shooting the same lot of brass loaded from the same die be fairly consistent. And wouldn't improving this tension consistency be increased by the use of a simple tool like a Lee crimping die?
I know I've used the Lee crimp die for my '06 and 7-08 loadings and saw a very noticeable difference in group size reduction.

RichardMillans

Interesting

Nomercy448

I've thought at length the last two days about this thread, and I've typed a reply here 4 times now - ultimately ending up with a lengthy explication of why the process described by the OP just doesn't hold water, and I've ended up with ridiculous walls of text which I fear will miss the mark as important points could be glazed over when piled collectively together.

I hope no part of this comes off as insulting or condescending, but I know when I type for brevity, it almost assuredly takes on that tone. I'm empathetic enough to acknowledge that shortcoming, but I'm sociopathic enough to continue to speak/type as I naturally would. This is going to be long, but I assure you, it could be much longer to explain these principles.

I'm happy to recreate the (very wordy) responses I penned in my first drafts of this response if there is interest from the OP or others, but the punchlines are as follows...

I'm a professional technologist. I spent the first half of my career as an engineer, developing technologies, products, and production processes, and now I'm the guy who guides engineers to develop reliable and responsible processes and products. I came to this career path because it's who I am and how I see the world. So I can't help but look at EVERYTHING I do through the same lens. I'm not saying anyone should be conducting high level statistical analytics on their reloading data, but without question, there are fundamental principles of Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma methodologies which would help this OP understand the error in their processes.

First and foremost, when developing any process, you have to define your "problem" to be solved. "Fix the problem, Fix the process." The "problem" we're trying to solve in reloading rifle ammunition for precision is group size. Specifically, a "fix" is something which measurably and reliably reduces group size. You have to define the problem to define the process, and many, many guys get caught up in trying to fix the wrong problem.

In that light - sorting by weight is a fool's errand. Been there, done that. I've done the data analysis myself, and read the same work done by others at high levels of statistical validity. The OP has said it above - the collective "we" of precision reloaders know that increased consistency in case VOLUME has been proven to have a measurable reduction in group size. However, readily available data has proven case WEIGHT is not a corollary for case VOLUME, such you might actually be INCREASING your inconsistency in case volume between your cases because you are sorting by weight. Just stop. Period. It's a long debunked process, and you're not doing yourself any favors by continuing to do it.

Equally, weight sorting cases does nothing to "fix the process." You misidentify the "problem" by thinking inconsistent case weight is a problem, but you do nothing to actually FIX the problem by culling the cases. You are, however, increasing waste, and increasing the cost of your finished product batch. The effort you spend in weight sorting cases would be better spent by VOLUME sorting cases, and the money you lose in culled cases would have been better spent by purchasing better quality brass from the beginning which had lower variance in case VOLUME. So again, weight sorting cases is a fools errand. Just stop.

Hand sorting cases with a mandrel pin and a neck bushing is another misguided process step. Again, I'm certain you feel as though you're significantly reducing variability in your cases, which HAS to be good for group size, right? Not really. Again, you're reducing the value of your brass by adding ANOTHER waste generation step - you could have bought better quality brass from the beginning, or done ONE simple step ONE time to actually FIX THE PROBLEM and reduce variance, instead of simply using quality control methods to reduce variance and create waste. You could also spend the same time (less, in my experience), by simply sizing and expanding with those same tools, actually promoting consistency among the batch, instead of creating waste.

The mantra I teach to young engineers to describe this is, "spend money where money gets made." Which in this case, the first "money" is your labor time, and the second "money" is the reduction in waste. If you neck turn ONE TIME, then bushing size and mandrel expand all subsequent firings, you would have 100% yield in that sorting step, and have the same level of time invested (likely less) to create a greater value product. Your sorting step might arbitrarily create culls at every firing, whereas it really doesn't add any value to your brass.

In the same stroke, @bronco22000's question to me is apt - he observed that when he crimps with a Lee collet crimp die at the end of his process, his group sizes shrink - which if the world were an onion only one layer deep, sure looks like it is a "fix" to our "problem" (reminding here - our problem we're trying to fix is excessive group size).

However...

From where I sit, and knowing what I know from reloading precision rifle ammunition and principles of production process troubleshooting, the fact the Lee Collet Crimp die reduced group size is an indicator of a broken process step somewhere prior to crimping. The function of the collet die is simple - it's NOT creating neck tension, it's just deforming the bullet slightly to create a physical barrier which must be bent out of the way to allow the bullet shank below to exit. So, why does it reduce group size? It can really be only one of a few things, or combination therewithin - it could be improving concentricity, which would mean there's something out of spec in the rest of the process, either runout in the press ram, eccentricity in the sizing die, or eccentricity in the rifle chamber. Since it happened over multiple calibers for Bronco, it can't be an out of spec sizing die or out of spec rifle chamber. MIGHT be slop in the press ram. BUT... it also might be improved consistency in primary ignition due to increased resistance to the bullet moving. This could be an indicator of a few things - insufficient neck tension, which would mean the necks were too thin, the expanding spindle too large, the brass too hard, or the sizer neck too large, OR, inappropriate charge weight or powder choice. My money would be on the latter. By adding a bit of "back pressure" to the primary ignition, you're creating a more consistent pressure ramp at the front end of the curve. Again - to fly the same, the bullet needs to exit the barrel at the same relative harmonic position. If your powder charge isn't in the node, it will be extremely sensitive to variability in bullet weight, bullet diameter, neck tension, powder composition variation, charge weight variability, case volume variability, primer brissance variability, etc. By "boosting" the primary ignition, he's likely improving the consistency of the secondary combustion pressure curve from one shot to the next.

So on MY bench - if I saw that result on target, I wouldn't be adding a crimping step, I'd be going back to my gear and to my process to troubleshoot. I'll "fix the part where the part gets broken." If I have eccentric necks due to an obloid expander, I'll replace the expander. If it's because of a sloppy press ram, I replace the press. If it's because my powder charge isn't in the node (most likely), then I fix my charge weight target or powder selection. When it cycles back, the crimping step should have little to no improvement, and by all rights, SHOULD actually create a problem, because "every step we take is a mistake we make," a recognition of the inherent error induced by every production step. The fact it reduced group size would tell me I did SOMETHING wrong before that to increase my group size - and my experience would say to look at my powder charges.

Hopefully that's clear, and again, hopefully it doesn't come off more boorishly than I intended. I'm happy to elaborate further on any of these aspects, but the forum capped me on my character count on the first two drafts, so I scrapped it and started over to help keep a focus on the critical points.

But for the OP - ditch the hand sorting with the bushings, ditch the weight sorting. Look up Newberry OCW, Satterlee Velocity, and Audette Ladder tests, ask some questions about appropriate bullet jumps for your desired bullets, neck turn if you need to, and shoot smaller groups than you're shooting today.

bronko22000

THAT was an awesome post NoMercy. Not to the extent you apparently have, but I've spent much of my career also working on reviewing processes and trying to improve them. (Sort of a "do it right the first time")
And you may be on to something with my loads. I tinker with powders, primers, bullets and charge weights a lot. Especially when I get a new rifle. But I'm careful to change only one variable at a time. Otherwise I'm just shooting in the dark - figuratively!
I think you may have stumbled onto a problem I didn't even know I had. My press is an ancient "C" type Pacific Deluxe. I got it for Christmas when I was 12 years old. (55 years ago). That thing has likely cranked out hundreds of thousands of rounds from 9mm up to 300 WM and .45-70.
I still load some very accurate ammo but I plan on getting into this long range shooting. Maybe its time I loosen my purse strings and get me a new press.
One thing additional that I've heard and forgot about until I read this is concentricity. I read one time (now this could be the author's opinion) that when you seat your bullet into the case, you should lower your ram and rotate the case 180* and reseat. This apparently is supposed to better align the bullet to the case/chamber???
Personally I think its hogwash. A more critical factor would be the bolt face to chamber interface (i.e.: tuning a bolt action)

Nomercy448

Big Uncle

I am an old benchrest guy that has tried every tick in the book at on time or another. The short version of my opinion is: I only crimp for pistols, 22 Hornet, and cartridges that have significant recoil (375 and up). Hornets have very thin brass and the big boys tend to seat bullets deeper in the case for cartridges that are in the magazine during firing. C type presses are good for fast loading, O and H presses are better for accuracy. Concentricity is a rabbit hole that is best avoided, but proper presses and dies take care of any real problems so no worries. Tight target chambers behave differently than those on "normal" rifles. Most guys shooting ladder tests because they read all about them on the internet are wasting their time and powder. Guys that wear their hair in man buns are goofy.