First results with new 12 FV .223

[thaifighter]

I appreciate the info, I will play with the COAL and see if I can improve on what we're seeing. I agree that the FV's were a HUGE value. I am still kicking myself for cancelling an order for a .308 due to it being out of stock and not wanting to wait.

I'll look into the TMK. I am also looking at the 60gr Partition to get my wife prepped for next year's deer season. She's been shooting a Howa in 6.5, but she loves the 12 so much, she's asked me to get a load setup for it.

[charlie b]

......I am now a firm believer that if I didn't eliminate most of my 'shooter induced variations' and 'reloader induced variations' I would have never been able to measure the improvement I gained from 'barrel reflection time' tuning. My induced variations would have simply masked any improvements that were occurring.
I still have lapses, as looking at my data clearly documents, but the lapses are relatively rare and once I notice them, I can quickly go back to basics and recover.

Yep, I am in this category, ie, I still need more work to improve groups. My personal ability at the present is around .5MOA. I am working on that.

Curious, with your current shooting ability have you compared a 'book standard' load to one of your tuned loads? Maybe factory Federal Gold Medal Match ammo (or Black Hills)?

[CFJunkie]

With the 12 FV .223, I have shot factory 69 SMKs and even figured out an approximate exit time based on the claimed muzzle velocity.
I shot 5 groups
to an average of 0.431 with 69 gr SMK bullets in Federal Premium Gold Medal Match factory ammo with an average O.A.L. of 2.245 with what I suspect is an exit time of from 1.157 to 1.165 msec.

That exit time would be 0.023 to 0.031 msec. off the reflection time for the 12 FV putting the reflection slightly more than 20% down the barrel from the chamber.

My average with equivalent powder with 69 SMK bullets is 0.298 for 20 groups at an exit time of 1.133 to 1.134 msec. (which is right at the chamber on the 10th reflection) with most of the loads shot with a 2.280 to 2.290 O.A.L.
That is a pretty small statistical sample of groups with the factory and a very good statistical sample for the hand loads.


The average group size difference between the FPGMM and my hand loads is 0.153 or 33.9% smaller than the factory group average.
That percentage is just about the same percentage that I found with my 12 LRP 6.5mm Creedmoor with Hornady 140 gr ELD-M and my hand loads with the same bullets.


Based upon my experience, an exit time of 0.023 to 0.031 msec. off the chamber exit time is worth about 0.015 to 0.025 in group size average. If my estimate of the factory exit time is off by 0.030 more, the difference could be up in the 0.060 range. But that is only 1/3rd of the difference in average between the hand loads and factory average.
I suspect the remainder of the difference can be attributed to the shorter bullet jump of 0.040 for the factory round.
There might be a bit of a difference due to my reloading technique versus a production reloading machine, but there is no way to tell what that might be.
For all of my rifles, even the ones that I don't tune for exit time, my hand loads shoot better than factory universally.
I think some of that is caused by the factory practice of using O.A.L.s that is about 0.005 shot of SAMMI recommended O.A.L. so their rounds will fit just about any chamber made in that caliber.
I generally measure all my chambers and find loads that work best for that chamber length.

[charlie b]

Thanks for that info. It is not as bad as I thought it might be.

I can also do a bit better with hand loading, but, my shooting ability (or lack thereof) masks it to some extent.

[CFJunkie]

charlie b,

i had also to first accept that my shooting ability was a limitation. Then I could decide to work to eliminate the 'shooter induced variations'. It took me over a year of focused effort to discover what portions of my set up provided consistent accuracy and then develop the 'reads' that would tell me that I was being consistent in my set up.
I started with my two .308s I managed to improve my accuracy by over 30% over that time and once I got consistent, my accuracy has been improving at a slower rate over the years since then.
Then I added a Les Baer .223, three 6.5mm Creedmoors including the latest 12 FV, and the latest 12 FV .223.
When I got the Les Baer, I started to tune for exit time and gained a bit more accuracy from that.
All of those were rifles have been pretty accurate at the outset but even then the accuracy with all of those rifles has improved as I used them.

I still have instances when I seem to lose touch with the set up approach but fortunately I can see when the odd shot falls out of the ragged holes I try to shoot.
I usually am able to correct the error and get back to tight groups pretty quickly.
When I was still in the process of learning to be consistent, it took longer. Lately, correction is usually one shot away.

I shoot about 5,200 rounds a year so I have had plenty of opportunity to experiment and to measure my results to document my improvement.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have the time to devote to such an effort.
Fortunately, I have measured every group I have shot and documented it in detail since 2008, so I also didn't have to learn to keep the records I needed to figure out if I was improving.
Without those records, I doubt I could even answer the question you asked in post #42.

[charlie b]

It was a bit hard for me to admit to myself that the problem was me. Many years ago I could just go out and shoot and the bullets went where I wanted (I am 66 now). But, I also considered MOA to be perfectly fine. Then I stopped shooting rifles for a few decades. Now I have the time and resources to shoot more, at longer ranges, and I expect more from me and my equipment. The hardest part is to fix errors in form that I have had for many years. I do have to say it has been fun.

At first I was not keeping many records. Then, as I realized my errors in shooting, I started keeping them. Technology has helped as I take pictures of every target these days along with reloading and setup notes.

Thanks again for posting your results. Very helpful to us hackers out here.

[charlie b]

Thanks to a bit of experimenting today I have managed to shrink my .308 groups down to .75 MOA on a fairly consistent basis. Now I can work on it a little more and see where I am still screwing up. I had been using a Harris bipod and it just was not working for me. Went to a bench rest and rear bag and am now working on position repeatability. I finally got a series of groups that were fairly consistent instead of a good group followed by two bad groups. And, no, I don't want to spend the money on a Sinclair bipod :)

So, this just confirms that it is me and not the rifle/load. I have a lot of work to do :)

PS thanks again for posting all the good info. I will stop thread hijacking now. :)

Sent from my SM-P580 using Tapatalk

[CFJunkie]

Sounds like you are on the right track.
I'm happy to have helped you a little bit.

Sounds like you made a big improvement in one range session. Keep up the good work.

[charlie b]

I tried the lighter load for the 77gn (22.5 Varget) at book OAL (2.26") and it seems to be a little better than my 23.5gn load. I also did some with a 2.28" OAL (0.020 from the lands) and 23.5gn Varget. The lighter load and longer load were both about equal and a bit better than the shorter, hotter load. Part of the problem is still me. Watching the crosshairs I am good for about .25" of group size (at 100yd), so if the rifle shoots .25 then group size will be .5. The nice thing is that all of the groups were less than .5 except for one flyer. One group was a ragged hole (approx .3") I was shooting at 100yd today cause it was a little breezy.

Next I will try 22.5, 23.0 and 23.5 loads at the longer OAL to see if one is better than my original 23.5gn load.

PS I am also going to try adjusting my bench setup to help get rid of the .25 self induced error. :)

[charlie b]

Went to the range today to shoot a bunch with the 77gn SMK's at a length of 2.28" (0.02" off the lands).

Tried the 22.5gn and 23.5gn Varget loads along with some IMR4166 I just got.

Group of the day was a 0.2" group (22.5gn Varget). But, the other two groups were 0.7 and 0.6

The 23.5 Varget groups were 0.4 and 0.5 The 4166 loads were 0.4 and 0.6

I still think I am causing 0.2" of the dispersion. Also jerked a couple shots today, which kinda bugged me.

So, thanks for the data on the 4166 powder as I think it will be a good alternative to the Varget for me.

[CFJunkie]

Getting groups from 0.75 to 0.4 in just a few sessions is quite an accomplishment. That's about a 46% improvement and you still think you have more to improve.

Good work, charlie b.
I've have really good results with IMR4166 with the .223 with the heavier bullets and with my .308s.

We all have relapses - for me, most of which are caused by a loss of concentration or getting to confident that I have it all under control.
As soon as I think I have it under control, I get a reminder to get my head back in the game and get to work.

[charlie b]

Getting groups from 0.75 to 0.4 in just a few sessions is quite an accomplishment. That's about a 46% improvement and you still think you have more to improve.

Good work, charlie b.
I've have really good results with IMR4166 with the .223 with the heavier bullets and with my .308s.

We all have relapses - for me, most of which are caused by a loss of concentration or getting to confident that I have it all under control.
As soon as I think I have it under control, I get a reminder to get my head back in the game and get to work.

Thanks, yes I am happy with the results. I still jerk a round more often than I care to think about, especially when it ruins a really nice group.

Relapses. Yep, more often than I'd like, which is how I have improved. I have slowed down a LOT to make sure I am set before pulling the trigger. That and the follow through that I learned years ago, but, forgot about until recently. Concentrate and relax. Easy to say isn't it :)

When I was younger this stuff was all 'easy' for me. Just settle in, sight the rifle and pull the trigger and I'd hit where I wanted. Now days I have to work at it :)

[CFJunkie]

Based upon my data, I am shooting more accurately than I ever have and I turned 75 last month.
I have to be more attentive but I think my concentration on set-up technique and in maintaining good trigger control has been the big difference.
It doesn't have to be easy and it doesn't have to be automatic, but to please me, it has to be accurate.
As long as I can maintain my concentration, I'm hoping I will still maintain my relatively good results.

[charlie b]

Since I am ONLY 66 there is hope for me yet! LOL

[CFJunkie]

charlie b,

Forgive my presuming that I can actually help you with your set up, but I mean well.
You already have said you have concentrated on trigger control and on follow through so you have two of the key issues in your 'accuracy improvement sights'.

Two things, that you also probably already know, that are good indicators of 'shooter induced variations' for me that are associated with set up positioning that still caused me problems with 'shooter induced variations' even after I thought I had my trigger control consistent:

1) Eye position relative to the rear scope objective:
I have found, using a rolled tape ridge to get my eye position consistent, that as little as 1/8 inch of difference in eye relief can move the POI 1/4 inch up, if too close, or down, if too far.
To ensure I am in the same position for each shot, I now set-up a bit back so I just see a black ring around the edge of the scope image, and then move ever so slightly forward until it just goes away.
That gives me confidence that I am in exactly the same eye relief position for every shot.
I also use the black ring to assure me that I am in the center of the optic plane (when the ring is equally spaced around the image) so I know that when I move forward I will probably still be on the optic plane.

2) Rifle butt position in your shoulder notch:
Getting the butt too far toward your shoulder bone out of the natural notch between your neck and the shoulder bone causes recoil to move your shoulder back and move the reticle to the shoulder side of the target after the shot.
If I was in the correct position in the notch of my shoulder, the reticle is on the plane of the POA when the rifle moves back after recoil. The reticle may be slightly higher but it is on the vertical plane of my original POA. That's when I know I was set up correctly.
For me, a right handed shooter, if I had the rifle butt on my shoulder bone, the reticle is to the right by as much as 1 1/2 inches after the rifle returns from recoil, sometimes more, and the bullet POI is slightly too the right by as much as 1/4 to 1/2 inch.
Even though the bullet was out of the barrel in about 1.1 to 1.3 msec. depending on the load, it doesn't take much movement at the barrel tip to move the POI 1/2 inch at 100 yards.

After I get the first two set ups to where I think they are consistent, here is another drill that I use to make sure I am really on my aim point after I have done all of my other set up checks.

3) My Blink Test:
I get the reticle on my POA after all of my set up checks, relax and breathe out, and close my scope eye.
I wait about 2 seconds without moving and open my eye.
If the reticle is still on the POA I know I am on my 'natural point of aim' with my body relaxed and that I am not muscling the rifle.
If the reticle is still on the POA, I squeeze the trigger and usually get a good result.
If the reticle is slightly off the POA (and it still amazes me how often it is off the POA especially if I have adjusted my body to load a mag, for instance), I adjust my lower body, NOT THE RIFLE, in the direction to get the reticle back on the POA, and redo the blink test.
I don't shoot until the reticle remains on the POA after closing and opening my eye.

It is easy to assume you are on your 'natural point of aim' but if you are muscling the rifle, even a bit, you often will pull the reticle off your POA when you pull the trigger and the bullet will be where the reticle was when you opened your eye.

After I have gotten good results for a string of shots, I often get overconfident and don't perform 'the blink test'.
I usually find out pretty quickly that I should have continued to use it.

I hope I haven't offended you by telling you what you already know.

[charlie b]

No offense taken and nice to see some of these details in 'print' for others.

Nice to know we do the same kinds of things. :) I guess I learned a lot of this stuff when I was younger from military shooters. I just got lazy with a lot of things over the years and an unlearning some acquired bad habits. But, most of it, like you mention, has to do with getting set up properly before the shot and not squeezing off a round when not in a good setup. Patience. Not one of the virtues I am blessed with so I have to make an effort to slow down and work everything out. Makes a difference when you get down to the 1/2MOA levels.

[RegionRat]

I took some coaching on Service Rifle from Jim Owens some years back.

He put us though some lessons in prone that amounted to your “close your eyes” to check NPOA.

He then had me literally shoot with my eyes closed to prove his point. I ran a 97 on the slow fire prone from sling with my eyes closed! He signed my target and I still have it. He was (is) an excellent coach.

The advice you gave on the subtleties of accurate shooting were on the money. I have really enjoyed reading your posts.

[charlie b]

Just watched a video of a training course run by a former SF type. He set up with his rifle, took a couple shots, turned his head to look at the class and took a few more shots, all in a fist size group. Reminded me of this drill.

My problem is usually my brain gets in the way of the shot :) Instead of just letting it happen I start to think about it too much, then I rush it. I am learning to back off when I notice it happening so that's kind of a good thing :)

I also broke down and bought some Lapua brass. The last of my Winchester stuff was not holding a primer anymore. Also opened up my third brick of primers for this rifle, so well over 2000rnds through it.

[hardnosestreetcop]

Love my .223 12FV....they are such great shooting guns. Great job!


thaifighter,

Seems like you're loading those 69 grain SMKs really short unless that was a typo in your COAL data.
I have had best results at from 2.280 to 2.300 with the 69 SMKs.
I recommend that you also try some 69 TMKs loaded out at 2.340 to 2.350. The TMKs shoot even better than the SMKs and seem to be even more consistent.

You might even try some 77 SMK and TMKs as well. I didn't think they would be accurate in a 1:0 twist but boy was I wrong.
They shot better than the bullet weights that a 1:9 is supposed to shoot accurately.
I guess I learned a lesson.

Good to see you're getting great results from your 12 FV .223 as well.
The 12 FV series is a tremendous bargain and I know 3 people at our range who have had great results with their 12 FVs as well, so it seems like the norm.
Cabela's specified just the right stuff for Savage to put in their 'built for them' package.

CFJunkie you are so correct the 12 FV .223 are a tremendous bargain, mine is stock from the factory and it’s a tack driver. Thank you for posting all your test data. Putting your data on my to do list.

[wyosam]

I can believe how accurate my recently acquired 12fv 223 is. I was expecting good, but the first group down the tube (shots 3-7, first 2 got it near zero) were about 0.6 moa. I was blown away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk