.308 Ammo

[Bountied]

If you're looking at mounting a picatinny base and then rings, I would recommend rings direct to your receiver. I use the Talley rings on my Bergara and have found them to be fantastic. They have 20 MOA options as well. It's also a lot nicer on your wallet.

That's one route to take and definitely cheaper. I had Talley rings on my Howa 1500 but they weren't 20moa. That was when I ran out of elevation. A 20moa pic base and regular rings is an option. The Nightforce 1 piece is nice too.

make sure to measure the height of the base or rings along with your objective sizes. I prefer my scope to be a low to the bore as possible.

 

[trickg]

My next question for you who are far more knowledgable than I, is if I go with a Steiner 4.4-16 scope, does it make sense to get a 20 MOA base, or go with a 0 MOA?
Looking at the Nightforce Base (1 piece)

I think that if you're looking to go distances out to 1000+ yards, the more magnification you have, and the more MOA of adjustment you have, the better off you'll be. I'd go with a 24x or 25x scope.

 

[Bountied]

Do you wear skinny jeans or exclusively drink local IPA's? Either of those will qualify you too.

No skinny jeans and I switch beers around by my mood and activity. I can go from Coors light to craft beers interchangeably.

I'm only a fan of the RAR beers right now, these new craft beers that try to market their beer by saying they're hazy, like that's a good thing? I used to brew and if you can't get your beers clear you're doing something wrong. Most of these new breweries don't even have a micro department or quality control. It's the wild west of quality and 90% of the time they suck.

 

[Bountied]

I think that if you're looking to go distances out to 1000+ yards, the more magnification you have, and the more MOA of adjustment you have, the better off you'll be. I'd go with a 24x or 25x scope.

But, but, guys can go 1000yds with a fixed 10X made out of a carboard tube. Sure, but I'll take 25X and back it down to 20X and like that much better.

 

[Squaregrouper]

No skinny jeans and I switch beers around by my mood and activity. I can go from Coors light to craft beers interchangeably.

I'm only a fan of the RAR beers right now, these new craft beers that try to market their beer by saying they're hazy, like that's a good thing? I used to brew and if you can't get your beers clear you're doing something wrong. Most of these new breweries don't even have a micro department or quality control. It's the wild west of quality and 90% of the time they suck.

You should consider a .260 Remington. Clearly 6.5MB isn't the right caliber for you.

 

[Bountied]

You should consider a .260 Remington. Clearly 6.5MB isn't the right caliber for you.

Something to ponder.

 

[Doco Overboard]

But....

What does concern me though, and I cringe when I hear it even though it's technically absolutely correct, is that readers may be inclined to dismiss published maximum charge weights. "They're lawyered." They're test barrel specific. Well, yes to lawyered in some instances perhaps. Absolutely yes to barrel specific. That one is a given. Yet for many and most, most may have no better tool than the manual so many are inclined to want to dismiss.

Especially when temperature is concerned. This is a good thread but I'm not sure where it was disclosed but maybe once or only very little if at all.

 

[Uncle Duke]

Especially when temperature is concerned. This is a good thread but I'm not sure where it was disclosed but maybe once or only very little if at all.

Yes. Temp is a big one, with the older and more susceptible powder formulations especially. Then maybe changes to brass. Or primers. Or a different bullet configuration. Or a variety of other factors, especially when in combination. Any one of which may, or may not, matter appreciably if introduced singly. But when working right at the edge.....tread carefully.

I just think it's oftentimes too easy to get blase with what might matter and what doesn't, when one doesn't necessarily have the tools to know or oftentimes even to guess correctly. And in any case, to know for sure, just how far out on the limb one can/should climb.

 

[P-12 Norm]

If you're looking at mounting a picatinny base and then rings, I would recommend rings direct to your receiver. I use the Talley rings on my Bergara and have found them to be fantastic. They have 20 MOA options as well. It's also a lot nicer on your wallet.

Yeah, mounting individual rings requires aligning the mounts so you don't damage the scope tube.
I helped Steve do that when I was at Realco on a couple rifles. I do not have the equipment to do that.

 

[Russ D]

I have the same gun and the 168 fgmm’s average a little under 1 moa. I hand load mostly but keep 200 or so rounds of this on hand in case of emergency and keep my rifle zeroed for it. I also use it as a loaner when friends come to the range and tell them what ammo to bring to ring steel out to distance.

 

[Russ D]

I have loooked for an SPS with a 20" barrel threaded for years. When this one popped up on Gunbroker at a reasonable price, and a local MD guy no less, I jumped. He bought it a few years back. Never shot it, decided to sell it because it had sat unshot. Has a black over-molded stock. Now I Have to select a good scope and decide if I want to go with a Magpul Hunter stock and mag well, or just go cheap and put the Howa Magwell and mag on it.

Spend a little more on the stock and get a KRG Bravo or an MDT XRS.

 

[Virgil Co.C]

If your not reloading , buy a few different boxes , weight , brand , etc...... hit the range . Know what your max distance you want . No replacement for practice . Rifle may like some better than others . Costly and time consuming. Not going to happen in a day . So many variables . But again no replacement for practice . Don’t feel there is on bullet that is just going to perform, maybe so .( well acceptable to application ) Most top end factory cartridges are pretty damn good. Practice , know your dope , take notes . I like shooting cold , 3 shots max. Then move on tomorrow is another day.I feel shooting round after round , with heat building up , your true result can get distorted. Guess all in application , meters , etc...... So many variables. JMO

 

[trickg]

But, but, guys can go 1000yds with a fixed 10X made out of a carboard tube. Sure, but I'll take 25X and back it down to 20X and like that much better.

I tend to dial up to max on whatever it is I'm using, depending of course on how stable I can be.

I had a great time last weekend shooting Tannerite out of state. Dialed up to 25x on my Arken EP5, I literally didn't miss. At the distance we had the Tannerite (about 200 yards was all the terrain allowed for) and dialed up to 25x supported, it was just a matter of putting the crosshair in a place allowing for what I knew my trajectory to be (very little wind to contend with) then setting it off. I could have done it at 20x. I did it with my son's AR with a 4x LPVO at the same distance, but I LIKE having it magnified as much as possible.

 

[E.Shell]

Howdy Uncle Duke,

I think you'll find cleanest ignition and most consistent results at the upper node of your OCW, which is often at or just below max pressure (for your rifle. not what any loading manual calls 'max').

2) Shoot each of these rounds through a chronograph while watching for excessive pressure and plotting velocities. Stop when you start seeing case head expansion/ejector marks.
=============


Ed, comment on this for me please.


I don't dispute the validity of your statement regarding "rifle specific" pressure. Your contention is no doubt correct.

But....

What does concern me though, and I cringe when I hear it even though it's technically absolutely correct, is that readers may be inclined to dismiss published maximum charge weights. "They're lawyered." They're test barrel specific. Well, yes to lawyered in some instances perhaps. Absolutely yes to barrel specific. That one is a given. Yet for many and most, most may have no better tool than the manual so many are inclined to want to dismiss.

First off, I would strongly agree that should one not have full understanding of the situation, one must defer to caution.

This caution would indeed include following the published data. Ignoring warnings in the handloading manual is like ignoring warnings for any other potentially danger activity or device. Working too closely to maximum and possibly exceeding published maximum loads can indeed be dangerous and warrants both caution and understanding.

That said, there is absolutely no reason to assume your rifle will withstand the published maximum loads. Even loads under book max can be dangerous in YOUR rifle.

This is VERY well-known and much discussed. Instructions are ALWAYS given to 'start low, carefully work your way up'. To follow these instructions at all demands exactly the same skill set (interpreting pressure signs) I'm talking about above, NO difference.

Yes, even exactly following the manual can be dangerous, should one's rifle not be able to safely accept their published maximum load. What then?

Conversely, there is also absolutely no reason to assume that this same published maximum load is actually going to be maximum for your rifle. For all the same reasons, and is evaluated using the same skill set.

For these reasons, safe handloading of any kind REQUIRES the handloader to interpret these pressure signs, so saying a handloader might not understand is lame. They MUST understand, and if they don't they probably should not be reloading at all, let alone for specialized performance.

Every manual I know of has sections on evaluating pressures in metallic cartridges that requires understanding for safety of the shooter and those around him/her. This due diligence is no different than learning the rules of the road or the rules of firearms safety prior to undertaking driving or shooting activities.

I would remind readers we are looking for an optimum charge weight, which most often occurs at near-maximum (for your rifle) pressures as I had stated. Just like race car engines, compression ratios and octane - there is a sweet spot most drivers do not need nor achieve.

We are NOT overloading to try to make 'Major' with a 9x19. Safety is still of utmost performance, as is brass life. If we need higher velocity, we'll just get a bigger cartridge case - no shortage there. We are NOT trying to push velocity limits inherent to the cartridge case capacity.

I say that for several reasons. One, because the chronograph tool isn't a part of most shooter's equipment. So that measurement option (sadly) doesn't exist for many and most.

The chronograph...

First, when talking about OCW and the chronograph, we are entering into the specialized field of long range precision, where handloading becomes somewhat more demanding. The results we seek are unique and not needed for any other aspect of handloading. Here, we are using the chronograph to quantify performance in terms of stability, meaning that the OCW point will be where both round-to-round variation is minimized, AND variation from increment-to-increment is also minimized.

To clarify, velocity variation is a pure killer for long range precision. With a randomly selected load somewhere below book max, we will get vertical stringing related to velocity variations. Slower bullets hit lower. This vertical stringing will easily exceed the 5" X-ring we use at 1,000 yards. To be competitive, we MUST find a point of stability, where velocities are both consistent and stable.

Because we will find the sweet spot where charge weight can vary slightly without affecting velocity, we find a point of tolerance for variation. Now, we control the charge weight for minimum variation and when something else varies slightly (case capacity, bullet diameter, primer brisance), the system can tolerate that variation and remain stable.

Then...chronographs have become much more affordable in the last decade and any serious handloader would likely benefit by having one. If nothing else, we can stop kidding ourselves about how fast our bullets are going, like we do when we correlate charge weight with velocity shown in the manual.

That said, a chronograph does little to tell you what pressures are safe with your combination in your rifle and cannot be considered necessary or even helpful for safety alone.

But more importantly, I think it safe to say that most shooters (and perhaps even most reloaders) genuinely struggle with being able to accurately distinguish and read pressure signs.

See above. If the handloader cannot identify pressure indications, clearly they should not be reloading, or at least not above the starting loads given.

And there exists no way for the casual reloader to accurately quantify pressure with lab accuracy, even assuming they knew and could positively identify how much is too much. So while certainly not a "be all and end all", not dismissing that manual is in most instances the best tool that most are going to have to try to keep themselves out of trouble.

As average handloaders, we cannot hope for lab accuracy. All we can do is to stay far enough below dangerous pressures to remain safe and not excessively work or damage our brass.

If one can recognize a cratered primer, but not flattening or bolt face impressions, then the cratered primer is the pressure limit for them. It may not be the lab accuracy result, but it is their safe limit.

I would not say to completely dismiss the manual, but as I point out above, that magic 'maximum' number can quite easily go either way when removed from the manual's set of circumstances and applied to OUR set of circumstances.

As you know and anyone who will exercise due diligence and RTFM will know, that maximum number ONLY represents what was maximum with their set of components in their test gun.

There is no guarantee that book max is safe in your gun, nor, by the same token, any guarantee that is is unsafe.

I understand that you make the point that inexperienced handloaders should not disregard the published data manual. That is a VERY good point and I agree that doing so can indeed be dangerous if one does not fully understand the science of it.

Yes, ejector and similar case marks to be sure. A neon sign there. Curious also though, if you're using micrometer case head measurements as a pressure indicator, what case head measurement variation (versus a factory baseline?) would you say becomes cause for concern?

Primer appearance can be affected by beveled primer pockets, beveled firing pin bores, excessively large firing pin bores, bolt face finish and headspace. Relying solely on primer appearance can provide a clue, but not a story. Because the brass case is our gasket and weak link, this becomes our focus of attention and brass indications provide a 'hard stop'.

Analyzing chamber pressure via case head measurement is a go/no go situation.

Zero case head expansion is acceptable. More than zero is too much.

It is accepted that as little as a 0.0001" increase in case head diameter indicates permanent case deformation and is evidence that the brass is going beyond its limit of elasticity.

Because of the very small nature of this measurement, variations in case head diameter can exceed our limit for safety and obscure results. This measurement must be done to the same piece of brass - a 'before' and an 'after' is needed.

Ejector marks also show us that we are exceeding the brass's limit of elasticity, meaning we cannot continue at those pressures without at least killing our brass and potentially creating a dangerous shooting situation.

The thinner case body expands before the solid head is affected, so even prior to experiencing case head expansion, we know we are at our limit of elasticity when we notice sticky extraction. The normal mechanism is for the case body to spring back slightly after pressure subsides, and if we pound it with enough pressure, we permanently form it to the chamber and it cannot spring back.

Again, I do respect and appreciate your efforts to help inexperienced handloaders stay out of trouble.

 

[Uncle Duke]

Howdy Uncle Duke,

First off, I would strongly agree that should one not have full understanding of the situation, one must defer to caution.

This caution would indeed include following the published data. Ignoring warnings in the handloading manual is like ignoring warnings for any other potentially danger activity or device. Working too closely to maximum and possibly exceeding published maximum loads can indeed be dangerous and warrants both caution and understanding.

That said, there is absolutely no reason to assume your rifle will withstand the published maximum loads. Even loads under book max can be dangerous in YOUR rifle.

This is VERY well-known and much discussed. Instructions are ALWAYS given to 'start low, carefully work your way up'. To follow these instructions at all demands exactly the same skill set (interpreting pressure signs) I'm talking about above, NO difference.

Yes, even exactly following the manual can be dangerous, should one's rifle not be able to safely accept their published maximum load. What then?

Conversely, there is also absolutely no reason to assume that this same published maximum load is actually going to be maximum for your rifle. For all the same reasons, and is evaluated using the same skill set.

For these reasons, safe handloading of any kind REQUIRES the handloader to interpret these pressure signs, so saying a handloader might not understand is lame. They MUST understand, and if they don't they probably should not be reloading at all, let alone for specialized performance.

Every manual I know of has sections on evaluating pressures in metallic cartridges that requires understanding for safety of the shooter and those around him/her. This due diligence is no different than learning the rules of the road or the rules of firearms safety prior to undertaking driving or shooting activities.

I would remind readers we are looking for an optimum charge weight, which most often occurs at near-maximum (for your rifle) pressures as I had stated. Just like race car engines, compression ratios and octane - there is a sweet spot most drivers do not need nor achieve.

We are NOT overloading to try to make 'Major' with a 9x19. Safety is still of utmost performance, as is brass life. If we need higher velocity, we'll just get a bigger cartridge case - no shortage there. We are NOT trying to push velocity limits inherent to the cartridge case capacity.

The chronograph...

First, when talking about OCW and the chronograph, we are entering into the specialized field of long range precision, where handloading becomes somewhat more demanding. The results we seek are unique and not needed for any other aspect of handloading. Here, we are using the chronograph to quantify performance in terms of stability, meaning that the OCW point will be where both round-to-round variation is minimized, AND variation from increment-to-increment is also minimized.

To clarify, velocity variation is a pure killer for long range precision. With a randomly selected load somewhere below book max, we will get vertical stringing related to velocity variations. Slower bullets hit lower. This vertical stringing will easily exceed the 5" X-ring we use at 1,000 yards. To be competitive, we MUST find a point of stability, where velocities are both consistent and stable.

Because we will find the sweet spot where charge weight can vary slightly without affecting velocity, we find a point of tolerance for variation. Now, we control the charge weight for minimum variation and when something else varies slightly (case capacity, bullet diameter, primer brisance), the system can tolerate that variation and remain stable.

Then...chronographs have become much more affordable in the last decade and any serious handloader would likely benefit by having one. If nothing else, we can stop kidding ourselves about how fast our bullets are going, like we do when we correlate charge weight with velocity shown in the manual.

That said, a chronograph does little to tell you what pressures are safe with your combination in your rifle and cannot be considered necessary or even helpful for safety alone.

See above. If the handloader cannot identify pressure indications, clearly they should not be reloading, or at least not above the starting loads given.

As average handloaders, we cannot hope for lab accuracy. All we can do is to stay far enough below dangerous pressures to remain safe and not excessively work or damage our brass.

If one can recognize a cratered primer, but not flattening or bolt face impressions, then the cratered primer is the pressure limit for them. It may not be the lab accuracy result, but it is their safe limit.

I would not say to completely dismiss the manual, but as I point out above, that magic 'maximum' number can quite easily go either way when removed from the manual's set of circumstances and applied to OUR set of circumstances.

As you know and anyone who will exercise due diligence and RTFM will know, that maximum number ONLY represents what was maximum with their set of components in their test gun.

There is no guarantee that book max is safe in your gun, nor, by the same token, any guarantee that is is unsafe.

I understand that you make the point that inexperienced handloaders should not disregard the published data manual. That is a VERY good point and I agree that doing so can indeed be dangerous if one does not fully understand the science of it.

Primer appearance can be affected by beveled primer pockets, beveled firing pin bores, excessively large firing pin bores, bolt face finish and headspace. Relying solely on primer appearance can provide a clue, but not a story. Because the brass case is our gasket and weak link, this becomes our focus of attention and brass indications provide a 'hard stop'.

Analyzing chamber pressure via case head measurement is a go/no go situation.

Zero case head expansion is acceptable. More than zero is too much.

It is accepted that as little as a 0.0001" increase in case head diameter indicates permanent case deformation and is evidence that the brass is going beyond its limit of elasticity.

Because of the very small nature of this measurement, variations in case head diameter can exceed our limit for safety and obscure results. This measurement must be done to the same piece of brass - a 'before' and an 'after' is needed.

Ejector marks also show us that we are exceeding the brass's limit of elasticity, meaning we cannot continue at those pressures without at least killing our brass and potentially creating a dangerous shooting situation.

The thinner case body expands before the solid head is affected, so even prior to experiencing case head expansion, we know we are at our limit of elasticity when we notice sticky extraction. The normal mechanism is for the case body to spring back slightly after pressure subsides, and if we pound it with enough pressure, we permanently form it to the chamber and it cannot spring back.

Again, I do respect and appreciate your efforts to help inexperienced handloaders stay out of trouble.

Great info for myself and for all of us to consider Mr. Shell. Thanks!

 

[E.Shell]

Especially when temperature is concerned. This is a good thread but I'm not sure where it was disclosed but maybe once or only very little if at all.

Yes. Temp is a big one, with the older and more susceptible powder formulations especially.

Both good points, and exactly why we abandoned the IMR powders for long range.

IMR 4895, for example, gave excellent results at 75F and great precision, but when I took that load to the WV mountains in October and shot it at 40F, my bullets went almost 2 FEET low at 1,050 yards.

When you get swings like that, not only can it be hard to predict impact changes, but it is also impossible to stay in the OCW zone. Were we running hunting loads a grain or so below max at 200-300 yards, such differences make no difference.

Then maybe changes to brass. Or primers. Or a different bullet configuration. Or a variety of other factors, especially when in combination. Any one of which may, or may not, matter appreciably if introduced singly. But when working right at the edge.....tread carefully.

These changes can be quite significant, but steps to minimize this are taken by buying in bulk. It is just not possible to buy 1 pound of powder at a time and chase the OCW each time you open one.

A friend likes RE-15 for his .308 match loads. I like Varget. Both deliver very similar results, but the RE-15 is much more consistent lot-to-lot, meaning his load development is often quicker and easier as he just needs to verify the next lot still runs the same. Varget does/did have a reputation for differing lots being different enough to require a half-grain more or less to stay in the OCW.

This lot-to-lot variation doesn't matter to me because I get it 8 or 16 pounds at a time. It takes a LONG time to go through that and potentially encounter a new lot. My friend buys a pound or two at a time (160-320 rounds) at his local shop and every time he goes, they are into a new lot and you can easily see how much waste there would be working up new loads time after time, or how dangerous if not.

When loading for precision of any sort, especially long range precision, one production lot of brass should ideally be used for all development and shooting of a particular load, or at the very least, share headstamp and original loadings (like "LC 92" M118LR). Primers should be bought by the thousand, bullets at least 500 at a time.

 

[trickg]

There's a lot of talk about over-pressure when it comes to rifle loading, and I'm certainly not advocating throwing caution to the wind, but I think that with any decent rifle, they tend to be over-built to withstand pressures far and above what we tend to think of as "over-pressure."

This was an interesting thread where a guy wanted to test the old conventional wisdom that small ring mauser actions were weak and prone to blowing up, and it was remarkable just what lengths the guy had to go to in order to get them to blow up. He did, but it was usually only after grossly overloading with the wrong propellants.

In one case he wanted to test the theory about the idea of a bolt coming back through the shooter's head, and even after grinding off locking lugs, there wasn't much movement. It's been a while since I've read it so I've forgotten the details, but I do recall that it was an interesting read at the time.

Channeling P. O., Mauser blow up project

This is something Ive wanted to do for many years; blow up a couple of 93 and 96 Mauser's to see which fails first and how they fail. By first I mean which one swallows X and survives, the other doesnt. I've been collecting junk for years, usually to get parts. Before anyone has a cow about...

castboolits.gunloads.com

 

[E.Shell]

In modern rifles, the weak link is the brass gasket.

The brass case can take a lot of abuse, but once it goes, it can be like water over an earthen dam. Ruptures carry hot gas and melted metal fragments into and onto places they do not belong.

 

[Sundazes]

6.5 Man Bun.

Tough group! LMAO every time I hear that!

You should see the pictures...