Reply With QuoteWith the barrel off, this one is exactly .125".Originally Posted by Ernest T
Okay, got that, how do you measure that?
With the barrel off, this one is exactly .125".
Actually, that is related to what I was talking about but the conversation was measuring FP protrusion. I may be mistaken but how I do it is measure from the end of the bolt head(1st face) to the face(2nd) at the bottom of the counter bore of the bolt head. Next you measure from face 1, to the tip of the firing pin. Subtract that number from the first dimension gives you your protrusion. The first number is usually very close to .115". //////// Now to correlate that to what Dave brought to light, case protrusion. This is not related to any issue I believe you currently have but for edification and to show the reason for all bolt heads being manufactured to a closely held tolerance, as are Prefit Barrels for Savages. Obviously if your case protrudes your breach too much it will come out bast the web and things would get exciting. If your case protrudes less than the depth of the bolt head face then the face of the bolt will end up rubbing/galling the breach of the barrel before you set headspace.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Neck sizing went out of style twenty years ago, now will use full length bushing type sizing dies and experiment with different bushing to get the neck tension/ bullet hold the rifle likes. Annealing softens/weakens brass and removes the carbon from the neck ID that once burnished becomes an excellent lube for seating bullets. If your set up likes really light neck tension then you’ll likely see good results from annealing however the opposite is also true and we long range guys have been known to use bushing .005 under a loaded round letting the target tell the truth. Working hardened strong brass is not a bad thing and personally have never split a case neck. If a guy has erratic groups and can’t get them to settle down, ask him if he’s annealing and trying to run light bullet hold/ NT and I’ll bet he says -yeah
I do use full length die (Forster) for my 6BR. Seems to work well. I guess I could mess with the expander ball to see where the sweet spot is but it shoots better than I can hold it now so not sure I would see any difference.
I still neck size only (Lee collet) for my .308 cast bullet loads. They seem to do better that way. Mostly lower pressure loads.
I have never annealed a case. Not saying you shouldn't do it, but, I have never felt the need. I've only split a few case necks....after more than 20 reloads on the cases. I also rarely deep clean my brass.
I did some further refinement work on H4350 loads today and got some good groups at near max loads of 41.2 and 41.4 gr. They weren't sub 1/2 MOA, but 3/4 and 5/8" are pretty good. Loads below 41.2 don't group well at all. The velocity, with my 22" barrel, is pretty low. The 41.2 load shoots just either side of 2600 fps and 41.4 gives me about 2630 fps. I think I'm going to try these loads with CCI 450 magnum primers and see if there's any difference. I have been unable to find H4350 in 8 lb containers so this may just be an exercise in futility like the previous loads I worked up in RL-16 and Staball 6.5.
Well, that’s realistic velocity. Even with a 26” they are only tipping 2700-2750 or so zone.….regardless of the droves of guys online stating 2900+++ with the CM, LOL! No, your velocity is decent given the 22”. Although, it completely explains why the groups go to hell below that 41.2gr powder charge. You are right at the velocity threshold which the heavier pills like.
Yeah, accuracy falls off the table just below 2600 fps. Do you think my groups might benefit from a 130 or 120 grain VLD bullet?
Ernest T
I have three 6.5 CMs all Savages, two with 26-inch barrels and one with a 24-inch barrel.
All three shoot accurately, but the 26-inch barrels shoot most accurately with bullets 140 grs and above.
The 24-inch barrel shoots most accurately with 130 grain bullets (Sierra TMKs and ELD-Ms).
I don't think that barrel length is the reason, because I have two Savage 308s, both with 24-inch barrels, and they show different bullet and powder preferences. One likes heavier bullets (175 gr) and the other likes lighter bullets (155 gr).
Each barrel will tell you what it shoots best.
IMHO, the wear on the barrel reamer or a lot of steel being used have more to do with bullet performance than barrel length.
Barrel length will determine velocity because of the time the bullet is being accelerated in the barrel, but I don't think it effects bullet or powder preferences.
Last edited by CFJunkie; 01-18-2023 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Clarified the type of bullet preferences.
Possibly… It’s good to try many different bullets, powder, etc. Just never know what your rifle may fancy best.
There is the possibility the bullets will make a difference, and maybe not. :) Keep in mind that some of the ELD bullets might be more sensitive to distance from the lands. SMK's are known for tolerating large jump to the lands than some others. The Berger 155's in my .308 weren't really 'happy' unless they were touching or slightly jammed into the lands.
I have found that most powders give a lower ES/SD at higher density loads.
Thanks, I've decided to try 130 and then 120 grain bullets, just to see how it shoots them.
I ordered Hornady 120 and 130 grain ELD-Match bullets just to see how they'd shoot in my gun. However, I am puzzled by the Hornady reloading manual entries for these bullets. Since I just bought 8 lbs of Superperformance powder, I was looking for loads using that powder and 120 130 and 140 grain bullets. The books lists loads for 140 and 120 grain bullets, but not 130 grain for Superformance. Is that because they just didn't work up a load for that bullet or, however unlikely, is there is possibly an issue using that weight bullet with Superperformance? I'm thinking its the former and that I could work up a load using the data for the 120 and 140 grain bullets to determine a starting point.
In the meantime, I've ordered a pound of Winchester 760 powder which is listed for the 130 and 140 grain bullets, but not the 120. I can understand that since it might not be suitable for the lower weight bullet. I don't understand being suitable for lighter and heavier bullets, but not the one in the middle between them. It'd be nice if there was a powder I could use for all three just for comparison.
Never been able to figure out how the mfgs decide on which loads to list.
I would just extrapolate.
This is what I came up with. The differences between the first four loads for the 140 grain bullet are much larger than the differences between the other three loads for the 140 grain bullet. The differences between the loads for the 120 grain bullets are much smaller and more consistent. The large differences between the first four loads for the 140 grain bullet throws off the first four extrapolated loads for the 130 grain bullet.
2400 2500 2600 2650 2700 2750 2800 2850 2900 2950 3000 140 38.2 39.8 41.4 42.2 43.1 43.9 44.7 130 41.2 42.4 43.5 44.3 45.1 45.9 46.6 120 44.2 44.9 45.6 46.4 47.1 47.8 48.5
I'm wondering if I shouldn't just start loads for the 130 grain bullet at the 46.6 max and back off each load .8 toward the minimum load. That results in a .8 grain higher load for the minimum, but it splits the difference between the starting loads for the 120 and 130 grain bullets.
2400 2500 2600 2650 2700 2750 2800 2850 2900 2950 3000 130 42.0 42.8 43.6 44.2 45.0 45.8 46.6
I arrived at the numbers by averaging the 140 and 120 grain loads. The first 130 grain load is the average of the first loads of 39.8 and 44.2.
Well, doing some more searching and I found Superperformance loads for a Hornady 130 gr. CX bullet. It has a coefficient of .489 which is close to the 130 gr. ELD-M ballistic coefficient of .656. The good news is I wasn't far off at the high end with my estimates.
2600 2700 2750 2800 2850 2900 2950 130 gr. Hornady CX 39.6 gr. 41.6 gr. 42.7 gr. 43.7 gr. 44.7 gr. 45.7 gr. 46.8 gr
You do know you could use that load data for your 130ELD-M. For any case you need to start a little lower and work up. If I know I want to be near max then I'll start a grain or two lower and run a series in 0.2gn increments.
Excellent advice and precisely how I'd approach it.
Sounds like a plan!
I can't remember which thread it was in, but somewhere I mentioned that I used nutserts to hold down my press and other accessories on my bench top, and someone, I believe it was either Dave or Charlie, recommended I use T track. I decided to take that advice and put a new top on my bench with two rows of T-track across the width.
I used 3/4" melamine sheet to make the top and used walnut to trim the edge. That tall box with the scale on it is made for raising my dovetail jig to a comfortable height above the bench top. I found its the exact height, when placed on end, to raise the scale to eye level. Its a lot better than bending down to view the pointer.
Closeup of the T-track. I didn't want to use the melamine square under the press, but I'd have had to put the T track right on the edge of the bench top for the handle to clear it when depressed.
Wasn’t me who recommended…, but I like it. Great job!
Wow!
I wish my bench looked that clean and uncluttered.
Very nice work.
You do nice work!
I may have posted about using T-track on my bench but not for the press. Priming, trimming, powder measure stand, etc. are all set up for t-track so I have a clean bench when they're not in use.
Thanks! Woodworking is my main hobby. Here's a look at the inside of my tool cabinet -- this is the top half..
Now that's beautiful!! I love my woodworking hand tools, but, I am not that good with them, or patient :) Had to give up quite a few of them in a move years ago. Have just the minimum left.
The track wasn't my idea either. I use Tnuts under the benchtop. I used thread inserts before and the force on the press pulled them out. But, with your extended frame mount for the press that is not going to happen. Leverage favors that kind of setup.
Your loading bench looks great too.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks