New barrel break-in & zeroing w/ hand loads

[WinnieTheBoom]

Just curious how some of you more seasoned guys do it. I've always used minimum charge weights seated .010" off the lands to zero my new rifles, break in new barrels, or sight in scopes. It serves as a baseline, more or less a "factory hand load" if that makes sense. This method has given me pretty good results as I'm able to get a 'pretty good idea of zero,' and then make the fine adjustments once I do my OCW tests and settle on a load, but it does take a good bit of time and a lot of rounds.

Just wondering if any of you more experienced shooters have a better or more efficient way of doing things.

[LongRange]

to zero i set the rifle on the bipod with a rear bag...put a target out at 100yds with a bright colored 2" square on white paper remove the bolt look through the barrel and get it on the bright square then look through the scope and adjust until the cross is on the square...that will get me on paper and then i adjust from there to get close and then start load development...i dont make any other scope adjustments until i find a load then zero at 100yds and shoot out to distance.

i dont believe in the barrel break in...i shoot 1 round and clean for 3 rounds then shoot a 10 shot group let the barrel cool in an upright position then clean and im done...but im only looking to see how the barrel fouls.

[WinnieTheBoom]

Agreed, I'm talking about the actual rounds that you shoot though. Starting in a new rifle let's say, what are the first loads that you work up and shoot to get on that target? Minimum charge weights? Factory ammo?

[LongRange]

gotcha...i load up an OCW test with 21 rounds at the lowest charge i plan to shoot...5 to get on target...13 to check for copper...2 extra just in case and then the 1 to start the OCW...i always start with bullets at .025 off the lands.

[WinnieTheBoom]

OK so I'm not that far off. I think I ended up with 19 minimum charge rounds for getting on target, checking for copper, and initial zero. Then 31 rounds for the OCW (including foulers) and final zero. So 50 rounds total is all it should take. I might try seating the bullets a little deeper to start off with and see what that gets me, but I guess I'm on par with load development and 'break-in.'

[yobuck]

How one person does something to achieve the level of success he wants isnt necessarily the best method for everybody.
Dale Earnhart dosent use the same race car, or the same method of driving on every race track.
Yet its all racing, and all the cars look the same right down to the decals plastered all over them. But thats where the similarities stop.

[WinnieTheBoom]

And I get that, I'm just curious if there's a 'best practice' if you will. Having an operations background, I'm all about efficiency. I realize that mileage is going to vary for everyone, but there will always be some level of similarity and a generally agreed upon "good" way of doing certain things.

Guess I'm of the belief that it's silly to go barking up a tree that doesn't have any squirrels.

[LongRange]

you have a great starting point then just adjust as needed.

[yobuck]

Id suggest you pick a place to get started and go shoot. If its squirrels your looking for you will find squirrels.
If its precision bench rest shooting, you will find that also. Ask the right people and the road can be shortened.
Ask everybody and you might never get there.
Look at me, untill yesterday i didnt even know what OCW meant.
Today i know all about it.

[darkker]

1) And I get that, I'm just curious if there's a 'best practice' if you will.
2) it's silly to go barking up a tree that doesn't have any squirrels.

1) "Best" is an individuals description, for their preference of method. I don't do OCW's, just load and test. I don't mind shooting a lot of rounds, keeps me out of the house and off the internet!
2) I'm totally stealing this line.

[WinnieTheBoom]

1) "Best" is an individuals description, for their preference of method. I don't do OCW's, just load and test. I don't mind shooting a lot of rounds, keeps me out of the house and off the internet!
2) I'm totally stealing this line.

1) Agreed, but surely there is a consensus starting point. Start at point A, end at point B, though the route you decide to take is going to be different for everyone. I'm more or less looking for a general direction (i.e. North or South rather than take I-95) if that makes sense.
2) You're welcome to.
3) Who knew shooters could be such good philosophizers (intended).

[LongRange]

theres several ways to get to point B...none are wrong but some are shorter.

[darkker]

Well here is my method.... Better get a fresh cup of coffee...:rolleyes:

First, if I was using Extruded powders, I wouldn't be loading by grains, only in CC's. Extruded powder has it's burning rate controlled by geometry, so if you want ultimate consistency you need to load by volume.
Tying-in to this is where I see too many people getting hung-up on some arbitrary load in grains. As the fantastic article in the newest Norma manual details extensively, even from a sealed container; moisture content can vary surprisingly. Even small changes will radically change your burning rate. Since no one since the very old A-Squared manual lists lot numbers on components tested, AND most powder companies won't list nominal variations of their products(BR, BD, etc) unless you grab a Pressure Trace, the only way to actually know your burning rates is by velocity.

Next is the notion of accuracy. With a very few exceptions, I find that all of my rifles have at least 3 different "nodes" that they shoot very well at; rarely are they near the top. For a few of my rifles, I use the 1-grain calc factor, and purposely load much lighter than published data. For Coyotes and chucks, there isn't a need(my mind) to burn 50 grains of powder in my 25-06. For that intended purpose there isn't a concern of Drop, or windage.

So to try and tie this rambling together, specific charge amounts aside; watch for the velocities to know "where you are" in regards to the data, with your specific powder. My Generalized theory is fire 3 rounds or so at various levels, simply to get an idea for where my powder sits compared to any data. From Pressure Trace data with the rifles I shoot, my generalization is that most books loads typically run a pressure window of 40,000 - 60,000 psi. So I will split that window over whatever the load range is, based off of my specific lots attributes. 5-Shot groups for each different load, and see which shoots better for me.

There are some exceptions based upon a powders specific properties, such as with my Creedmoor and Superformance. That powder burns incredibly progressively, but will shift some as the pressure rises. I've posted them here many times, but for simplicity sake: Think of "Classical" powders having a burning curve very much like a heart monitor blip. Very quick rise and fall. Superformance's curve looks like a picture of a butte.
So in the Creedmoor, what I found is that loading around the 50,000psi mark only leaves me around 75fps slower than a full 62,000psi load. Typically I shoot the CC's or SMK's to that distance. Those bullets will very safely cross the trans-sonic range, point forward. So if I miss, it isn't the load. So I don't concern myself with a minor amount of extra "up" needed for those distances, without running faster. Save the wear and tear on the cases; and take a lessened amount of "boom" when the cork pops out of the barrel, so to speak.

[LoneWolf]

Last barrel I spun on the night before a match. I loaded up some ammo with a charged slightly lower than I used for the previous barrel that would get me near the velocity I wanted. I zeroed it groups looked good, so I chrono'd it put the data in my ballistics app and took 3rd in the match. Ran a bore snake through it when I got home bumped the charge up .2 grains and re-chrono'd /zero'd the next trip. Been killing matches with it ever since.

[WinnieTheBoom]

Thanks for the comments, gents. I think I've got a good starting point. Will update with progress.