Post by: Clark33 on January 21, 2017, 05:56:15 PM
Just seems a bit odd that I can't get near 0.020" off the lands.
Thanks
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 21, 2017, 06:03:15 PM
I would stick with mag overall length and start development from there.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on January 21, 2017, 06:07:37 PM
You don't always have to be right on or very close to the lands for great accuracy.
Post by: Eric M on January 21, 2017, 06:07:56 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 21, 2017, 06:09:36 PM
I would load 5 for max mag length and 5 at .020 off your lands. Load the ones that don't fit in the magazine in your chamber one at a time. Shoot for groups at 100 and see how much difference it makes. I think you're stuck with max mag length for hunting but it might be nice to see if the rifle is capable of better.
I like this and would like to see the results.
Post by: Hilltop123 on January 21, 2017, 07:20:53 PM
Post by: buckfvr on January 21, 2017, 07:26:10 PM
Forget coal until you have measured to the lands and made a dummy .020 off the lands.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 21, 2017, 07:36:08 PM
I think you need to measure to the ogive with a comparitor , then seat a bullet .020 off the lands, then measure coal. You should find that you can seat the bullet much closer to the lands as the way you are measuring isnt indicative of how close to the lands you can be mostly by bullet design, rather than coal.
Forget coal until you have measured to the lands and made a dummy .020 off the lands.
I'm assuming the OP is using a Stoney Pt gauge or seating using a sized and trimmed case.
Post by: buckfvr on January 21, 2017, 07:45:18 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on January 21, 2017, 07:50:50 PM
Id assume so also except for he is going by coal instead of ogive measurements........which is what is correctly used for determining off the lands measures.Seems like he has already figured out his max length to the lands and is concerned with how and if it fits in a mag. Bto won't tell you if you are mag length.
Post by: Ridge Hunter on January 21, 2017, 07:53:54 PM
Post by: buckfvr on January 21, 2017, 08:00:13 PM
Ive yet to see a magazine that wont accept more length than max manual coal.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on January 21, 2017, 08:09:09 PM
He is comparing coal of factory ammo to load manual max coal, which can be exceeded and often is with vld type bullet design. He needs to use a modified case and one of his bullets with hornadys tool and comparator body to measure to the lands, back it off .020, then see if it fits his mag.....measure to the ogive of the bullet, not oal.
Ive yet to see a magazine that wont accept more length than max manual coal.
Re-read OP.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 21, 2017, 08:19:36 PM
Ive yet to see a magazine that wont accept more length than max manual coal.
Remington defense 308 and 300 mags (AI pattern) have this issue along with SR25's and every 700p that I've owned.
Post by: Clark33 on January 21, 2017, 10:08:46 PM
The rifle is a custom build with krieger barrel and model 70 action.
Measured the COAL using the Frankford Armory gauge and also a sized brass with a 140 accu loaded long, chambered the dummy round, gave the same average of 3.015"
Post by: CaNINE on January 22, 2017, 08:43:04 AM
Here's a recent example from one of my experiences. I wanted to try the new hornady 162 ELD-X in my Kimber Montana 280AI. The mag would only accomodate rounds loaded to a COAL that was 0.050 less than MAX. No worries. I loaded some at 0.055 to give a little margin, some at 0.070 and 0.100 just for kicks. As I fired these off through the chrono my groups improved and ES reduced with each increment in jump. I settled on the 0.100 seating depth which gave nearly half MOA accuracy and single digit ES. So seat those 140ABs at several depths and see what happens. You might be pleasantly suprised.
Post by: Clark33 on January 22, 2017, 09:00:57 AM