How fussy do I have to be about trimming brass? I'm not sure what to do.

[deadshot2]

I think this thread morphed from a AR reloading type question to Precision Rifle reloading.

What? You don't think people shooting AR's are interested in accuracy

 

[millwrt52]

Basically, the techniques being discussed go into the realm of weighing individual brass, measuring bullet length and weight and etc., are used in precision LONG RANGE. I believe within 500 yds they can be lost in the noise. I have a 20" Kreiger barreled ar that is capable of 10 rnds into the 5's @ 100 yds, but my loads at the extreme consists of using new LC brass, a match type primer, a match bullet and powder weights within +/- .1 gr and that's it.

Edited to add; I know of no one who uses a bullet w/cannelure and then crimps to achieve match loads. For an ar using such bullets, I would be happy to get .75-1 moa for 10 rnd groups. Especially with a carbine. Not saying it can't be done, but not the norm.

 

[deadshot2]

Basically, the techniques being discussed go into the realm of weighing individual brass, measuring bullet length and weight and etc., are used in precision LONG RANGE. I believe within 500 yds they can be lost in the noise. I have a 20" Kreiger barreled ar that is capable of 10 rnds into the 5's @ 100 yds, but my loads at the extreme consists of using new LC brass, a match type primer, a match bullet and powder weights within +/- .1 gr and that's it.

Yet I sit next to dozens of shooters that only shoot out to 300 yards and do just as you described in your first sentence. Many of them are record holding Bench Rest Shooters that do all this and more. When you look at their practice targets you'd swear that they are just shooting one round into the target and then the rest into the berm.

I don't compete with them but I sure do learn from them.

If shooting 1/2" groups at 100 yards is good enough then of course one doesn't need to do much. If one wants to see how good they and their rifle can do then attention to every detail does pay off. The original question however was "How fussy do I have to be about trimming brass". Answer, not much after the first case processing session.

I recognize we're probably talking two different "guns" here, your gas gun vs my bolt gun. You would be happy with .75 - 1 MOA and I'm trying to improve on a personal best of .18 MOA @ 100 yards with a "Factory" Remington 5-R Milspec. I guess it's a holdover from my old Hot Rod and Racing days. Take something "factory" and then see how much I could wring out of it. I will say that shooting and handloading IS cheaper than Hot Rods but nob by much.

 

[millwrt52]

Well, if you are going to compete, then of course you are going to do whatever you think is best including buying a box of voo doo chicken bones. Even if some things don't bring any appreciable benefit except to ease your mindset. But the op did say ar, and did say crimp. If you or anyone you know that competes (other than run and gun events) to a high degree with such ammo then I retract everything I've said.
To date, my personal best at 100 yds with the .308 was .184" for 5 rnds.

 

[deadshot2]

To date, my personal best at 100 yds with the .308 was .184" for 5 rnds.

With a factory stock action and barrel?

 

[millwrt52]

That was with an untouched Rem 700 action, Timney trigger and a prefit, short chambered, Shilen 10 twist 26" cr-mo barrel. I just wish I could do 1's and 2's on demand.

 

[Spitpatch]

By and large I find information that is more valuable to me on firearm websites from persons who avoid speaking of how small their group sizes are.

 

[millwrt52]

Similar to penis envy? I got cha.

 

[Spitpatch]

Perhaps (but since I don't engage in either of such discussions to any great degree, I cannot as easily speak for the validity of the metaphor).

 

[deadshot2]

By and large I find information that is more valuable to me on firearm websites from persons who avoid speaking of how small their group sizes are.

For some, hitting a garbage can lid at 100 yards is sufficient

 

[Spitpatch]

Absolutely right.



And, at this juncture, I think I failed to make my point clear, so I will restate it: It is not that I disagree with or disparage those who make a habit of talking about their group sizes (or that I suffer from a variety of envy stated to be experienced by others).

My point is that I more often find more credible information coming from those more reserved and modest about their results.

The man in the picture is not me: He is my closest friend (and has been for 40 years). Hitting a garbage can lid at 100 yards is indeed sufficient with his weapon of preference. And he would be the last to talk about it, and he is the first I listen to for credible information about that equipment.

 

[deadshot2]

And, at this juncture, I think I failed to make my point clear,

I would also point out that you are overlooking the OP's question which was basically "how fussy" they should be on a particular operation.

There are apparently those that feel the exchange of any information that also includes personal results is merely "boasting". If that's your feeling, so be it. FWIW, "group size" is pretty much a universal standard for ammunition accuracy and consistency, thus it is often discussed by those wanting to make better ammo or rifles.

I share my results only for the benefit of those who are interested.

As for the bow hunter and his Musk Ox, it's a damn good thing he did kill it. Ask my Son what they do when they merely get pissed off. He was hung upside down by one when he got "hooked" just a little off center of "where the sun don't shine". A complete "through and through" with the tip of the horn in his "cheek". At the time it was his job to "raise" them at the UA Fairbanks research facility.

 

[FarmerTed1971]

Absolutely right.

Hunting TaunTaun?

 

[Spitpatch]

I would also point out that you are overlooking the OP's question which was basically "how fussy" they should be on a particular operation.

I beg to differ. I was very precise about "how fussy" I am (as example). I overlooked nothing regarding the question, and I appreciate that neither did you. The OP has at least now two ranges of "fusssiness" to choose from, since neither of us overlooked his question. We did a good job for him.

There are apparently those that feel the exchange of any information that also includes personal results is merely "boasting". If that's your feeling, so be it. FWIW, "group size" is pretty much a universal standard for ammunition accuracy and consistency, thus it is often discussed by those wanting to make better ammo or rifles.

I made no assessments (positive or negative) about reporting of personal results, labeling it "boasting" or otherwise. I regret that my avoidance of assigning motivation or "feelings" to others is not shared. Statements explaining the importance of group size are likewise not necessary here ( I also cannot expect everyone to join me in avoidance of condescension).

I fully recognize that there exists a number of persons who might be interested in your results as expressed in group size. To boil down my initial point once more (and maybe you'll agree with it now, stripped bare), the most graphic example I can present is this: When I see the threadbare, worn-out phrase, " My rifle will do half-inch groups all day", instantly all else presented by the purveyor of that statement becomes suspect. On the other hand, a described process of handloading and technique development where a progression of improved group size is illustrated as evidence of favorable experimentation is absorbed readily and with credibility.

I hope now my position is clear, and that we have more to agree about than to disagree about.

As to the musk ox, the first arrow (with lighter limbs on the takedown bow) actually BOUNCED OFF the thick cashmere hair! Herd runs off a short distance, then reassumes circular defense mode. Hunter performs a quick "presto-chango" to stouter limbs and makes the kill.

 

[deadshot2]

As to the musk ox, the first arrow (with lighter limbs on the takedown bow) actually BOUNCED OFF the thick cashmere hair! Herd runs off a short distance, then reassumes circular defense mode. Hunter performs a quick "presto-chango" to stouter limbs and makes the kill.

I'm sure you meant to type "Qiviut" rather than Cashmere. Qiviut (pronounced "kiv-ee-ute") is even softer than Cashmere which comes from goats. The softest wool known and won't shrink under any temperature. If you can afford one, an undershirt made of Qiviut is better than any man made clothing for arctic wear. I saw scarf's for sale while working in Alaska that would cost one most of a week's paycheck. Something this soft from an animal with the temperament of a cross between my ex mother in law and a pit bull.

 

[Spitpatch]

I knew there was a better word (that I'd heard), but fell short of your vocabulary. You give me too much credit, assigning it to a typing error. Thanks. I went with something others could recognize, which was lazy but handy on my part (which I knew was not technically correct).

I am assigning myself usage of Qiviut in sentences throughout my day. Tough punishment. Tonight when I tell my girlfriend, "Wow, that's just as soft as Qiviut.", I'll probably get busted in the mouth.

 

[deadshot2]

I am assigning myself usage of Qiviut in sentences throughout my day. Tough punishment. Tonight when I tell my girlfriend, "Wow, that's just as soft as Qiviut.", I'll probably get busted in the mouth.

Depends on what you're calling soft, a piece of her clothing, or a part of her anatomy. Good luck and just be ready to duck quick