Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: New to Rifle Reloading Question

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    123

    Default New to Rifle Reloading Question

    Recently started reloading for my Rem. 700 30'06. I've been playing with powders to try to find a load that the gun likes. I have found I get some decent groups (about 1" @ 50 yds) with IMR 4064 using both Accubond 165 gn with 49.5 gn and with TSX 168 gn with 45 gn. The question I have is the point of impact is considerably different. The Accubond 165 is centered and about 2.5" low while the TSX 168 is about 2.3" left and about 3.5" hi. Does this sound normal? Any input would be helpful. Thanks.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Eureka MT
    Posts
    3,048

    Default

    It's not unusual for different bullets or powder charges to have different points of impact although that's a lot of difference at 50yds. You may have some bedding issues that need dealt with.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Between two lakes in Alaska
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Sounds normal enough for me. I 'm not surprised different bullets at different pressures cause all kinds of different results coming down your barrel and on its way to the target. I've (and I think many many reloaders) tried to get different weight bullets to hit pretty close to the same POI from the same rifle. It can be a challenge. Then again some rifles don't seem to care much who made the bullet so long as they're pretty close, as in Nosler 168 match bullets and SMK 168 bullets...a little different but close enough to be usable. In your case, the bullets are very different as is your powder load.

    Edit: Heck, some days my groups are so large I wouldn't even notice the difference you're getting.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Thanks. I also had about the same results as far as POI with Accubond loaded at 47.5 gn and TSX @ 47 gn. The groups were pretty close to the same size.

  5. #5
    Member OKElkHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Not unusual. I got similar results with 165 grain hornady GMXs and 165 grain hornady interlocks. The GMXs shot about 1 1/2 inch left of the interlocks, but the groups were about the same.
    “Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." ~Calvin Coolidge~

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halibut Chaser View Post
    Recently started reloading for my Rem. 700 30'06. I've been playing with powders to try to find a load that the gun likes. I have found I get some decent groups (about 1" @ 50 yds) with IMR 4064 using both Accubond 165 gn with 49.5 gn and with TSX 168 gn with 45 gn. The question I have is the point of impact is considerably different. The Accubond 165 is centered and about 2.5" low while the TSX 168 is about 2.3" left and about 3.5" hi. Does this sound normal? Any input would be helpful. Thanks.
    One bullet is jacketed with a lead core, and the other is a monometal bullet.

    Beeg difference in bullets, might account for a beeg diff in trajectory, and POI.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  7. #7
    Member alaskabliss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    I see differences like that in both my 06's. They both absolutly love the 168 gr TSX. The biggest difference is they both like different powders. One loves Varget and the other H4350. I always shoot groups at 100 yards when testing to make the math easier on my brain.
    Ignorance is not Bliss, it's insanity

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Thanks again for the input. I was shooting at 50 yards only because I was trying six different loads and didn't want to be changing targets that much. But now that I have the results its time pick a load and get it sighted in.

  9. #9
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halibut Chaser View Post
    But now that I have the results its time pick a load and get it sighted in.
    You might look up the "Ladder" method for when it comes to sighting in new loads....
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,022

    Default

    With charge weights differing by 4.5grains and dissimilar bullet construction and materials, I would expect very different results, comparatively. The OAL seating depth is likely different as well, at least where the ogive is concerned, length of the ogive, friction in the barrel, a polymer tip vs. a hollow point, etc. IMO it is a waste of time to compare one bullet to the other when different charges are pushing them.

    Develop a load for one, then devolp a load for the other bullet, look at them independently, then pursue the most promising combination. If none prove promising, start anew with a different powder or bullet, etc.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Arizona Baby!
    Posts
    485

    Default

    I don't have the time to look at the specs of both bullets but I'll make an educated guess the OAL and bearing surface is distinctly different between the two.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Yes the OAL and BC are different. Accubonds OAL 3.323 BC .475 TSX OAL 3.275 BC .404. Guess that may be coming into play with this also.

  13. #13

    Default

    I've come to learn that I spent lots of years making it more complicated than it really needs to be. There are so many good bullets out there anymore that I just pick the one that I think would be best for my particular intent for that rifle and buy it and then play with a few different powders to make that bullet behave to my liking. I like Interbonds in 308/30-06 class rifles and it never took much playing to make them fly true enough for my purpose.

    I used to buy 10 different bullets and 10 different powders and fiddle farted around and in the end any of the bullets would have worked if I had just worked up a load for that bullet.

  14. #14
    Member Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    3,334

    Default

    Like EKC says if your just wanting a solid shooting hunting load keep it simple as you work it up... If you like to tinker there is no end to the misery you can put yourself through! Good Luck....
    When asked what state I live in I say "The State of Confusion", better known as IL....

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Sounds like good advice. So far I have only used the TSX 168 and Accubond 165 and Accubond 180 for bullets. I have played with IMR 4064, IMR 4350, and a couple others. So I have been trying to not complicate things too much.

  16. #16
    Member alaskabliss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halibut Chaser View Post
    Sounds like good advice. So far I have only used the TSX 168 and Accubond 165 and Accubond 180 for bullets. I have played with IMR 4064, IMR 4350, and a couple others. So I have been trying to not complicate things too much.
    You have great bullet choices and poweders to match. Start with one bullet and powder and see what ya get. I have also complicated my loading to the pont I pull what little hair I have out! This spring I told myself to stick with the basics. I already have a great load for each rifle I have, no need to spend money to make another. I will tinker a bit to see if I can get more velocity or tiny bit smaller groups, thats it.

    My biggest tip with this: Keep very organized and record everything. Bullet, weight, powder and charge weight, primer, case mfg, case length and then performance at the range. With all that data you can recreate a good load, with out, its a crap shoot.
    Ignorance is not Bliss, it's insanity

  17. #17

    Default

    My biggest tip with this: Keep very organized and record everything. Bullet, weight, powder and charge weight, primer, case mfg, case length and then performance at the range. With all that data you can recreate a good load, with out, its a crap shoot.[/QUOTE]

    That's a bit of way good advice there! I didn't record anything to start with but do now. I started loading with a Lee loader for my dad's 222 in 1974. The kit came with load data for the 222 and I think there were but 2 loads. One with IMR 4198 and one with a Norma powder. Next it was another Lee loader for 7MM MAG. I still have my first reloading manual that I got way back in the fall of 1981, It's the second edition manual from Hornady. It's the one that came out right after Hornady's top people were killed in a plane crash and it has a tribute to each of them in the front. I have so many notes in that old manual that it is marked up like a preachers Bible!

    i actually had my Rock Chucker press 4 years before I had my first manual. I loaded for a 243 and a 270 and used IMR 4831 for both. I just filled the case full and stuffed in a bullet.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Ya I have been trying to keep track of everything. At this point I have not started a log for everything but still have all the data and targets so I can put it all together for future use. Thanks for the advice. I have been messing around with reloading shot shells since the 60's when I had an old Herters loaded. But haven't done any of that since plastic cases and steel shot came in. I started handgun stuff from about the 70's with Lee hand loader but just never got around to rifle loads.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •