Phony baloney, or the real McCoy?

Captain*kirk said:
So this brings up another thought (and honestly, I never considered neck tension in the equation before...thanks for that logic)...perhaps rather than being used to adjust the concentricity of the bullet, it could be used for simply measuring it, and sorting the ammo into two piles; pile #1= less than .003, pile #2=greater than .003 and see if there is a measurable difference between the two?
Again, with my shooting skills I doubt I could tell the difference. But I guess it can't hurt to try.
Also, FWIW, with regard to measuring closer to the tip of the bullet, you can pretty much adjust the dial indicator as far forward as you please.
Click to expand...
It has been proposed that less than .003 is good and more is bad. JRB did a test with no noticeable difference.
 
AJC1 said:
It has been proposed that less than .003 is good and more is bad. JRB did a test with no noticeable difference.
Click to expand...
Good to know.
I'll play with it more as shooting opportunities arise and post my findings, if any, here.
Thanks all, for the food for thought.
 
I think concentricity is a valid variable in the "search for accuracy". It was first mentioned to me by a friend who hunted in Idaho and Montana. He said that he checked his rounds for concentricity and took the best. Benchrest shooters rely on it. And a number of companies including Sinclair makes their own version. Personally, I have good groups that printed with concentric bullets: one print with a 6.5 Swede at 200 yards and a 7.7 Arisaka. Concentricity should not be considered with just bullet runout. There is runout on the case neck that effects tension.
 
AJC1 said:
Isn't it more fun to shoot elr against a flat earth opponent
Click to expand...

Not to derail, but you'd be amazed how often ELR shooting seems to be referenced in different "flat earth theories". The punch line is often that the "Flerfers" contest ELR shots wouldn't be possible if the Earth were spherical, as the shooters wouldn't be able to see the target... Completely ignorant to the fact hills exist which increase visible line of sight... So I hear often that ELR shooters get referenced as evidence to support Flat Earth Theory, and the dudes roll their eyes and respond, "I don't approve this message, I shot from a hill..."

Ultimately, I don't really know how they catch the flerfer dumb, but I know I don't want to catch it, so I avoid those folks like the plague...
 
BJung said:
Benchrest shooters rely on it.
Click to expand...

Most don't, just for future reference.

AJC1 said:
JRB did a test with no noticeable difference.
Click to expand...

Adding: Every test I've ever seen has shown no noticeable difference for any amount of runout which is produced by common dies or could be chambered into a rifle without excessive force. Dozens of folks have tested this and shared their results, and the arrows point in the same direction.
 
Well, a good test would be to compare a group of perfectly concentric loads and compare the printed group of obviously non-concentric loads. Has anyone tried this?
 
If making crooked bullets I might invest in better dies and or a good press. Improving brass prep or process could be time well spent also. If you get a measuring tool you will have to do that anyway. A sturdy single stage press without any moving parts except the ram will make straight ammo. The more gysmos on it the tougher it is.

Cramming a crooked bullet into the lands thinking it will take all the runout out of poorly loaded ammo is not the answer.
 
OS/N said:
If making crooked bullets I might invest in better dies and or a good press. Improving brass prep or process could be time well spent also. If you get a measuring tool you will have to do that anyway. A sturdy single stage press without any moving parts except the ram will make straight ammo. The more gysmos on it the tougher it is.

Cramming a crooked bullet into the lands thinking it will take all the runout out of poorly loaded ammo is not the answer.
Click to expand...
TBH, I have found more 'crooked bullet' error in factory ammo than my own reloads
Yeah, the stuff going for $70.00 a box.
 
Nature Boy said:
I believe the earth is round, but the moon is flat. I’m a flat mooner.

I also believe astronauts successfully landed on the moon but only because it was flat. If it was round they would have slid off.
Click to expand...
Do flat earthers call the atmosphere the atmoflat?

Whoever's in charge of popcorn, it's time for another batch.

Back on topic, I agree with others who say the Hornady gizmo, while it touts fixing misaligned bullets, is more useful as a setup tool to adjust/repair/replace whatever in your reloading process is causing the misalignment. ymmv
 
Captain*kirk said:
TBH, I have found more 'crooked bullet' error in factory ammo than my own reloads
Yeah, the stuff going for $70.00 a box.
Click to expand...
It is definitely a metric of consistency, and any quantified measurements are better indicators than butstock feel. The problem comes when we over value numbers that are not significant to our end result.
 
BJung said:
Well, a good test would be to compare a group of perfectly concentric loads and compare the printed group of obviously non-concentric loads. Has anyone tried this?
Click to expand...

Yes, many, many folks, many, many times, over many years…

AJC1 said:
JRB did a test with no noticeable difference.
Click to expand...

Varminterror said:
Dozens of folks have tested this and shared their results, and the arrows point in the same direction.
Click to expand...
 
Nature Boy said:
I believe the earth is round, but the moon is flat. I’m a flat mooner.

I also believe astronauts successfully landed on the moon but only because it was flat. If it was round they would have slid off.
Click to expand...
I believe time is relative. The more time I spend with my relatives the slower it moves.

One of the old guys who taught me to shoot as an enthusiastic youngster told all of us in the Junior’s program that skills are relative. Just because one kid can’t hit the bullseye and another can doesn’t mean one is doing something particularly wrong or that the other is doing something particularly right. Unless you can pinpoint a particular thing one way or the other you have to assume it’s just a difference in natural ability. But if you can find that one thing then you can make one a better shot. Just be careful you don’t also make the other worse as a consequence.
 
Perception sometimes is reality! The device, or similar have been in existence seemingly forever. At first, used by benchrest and other shooters who were convinced that it would really help accuracy. Maybe, maybe not...but for most of us, good enough is good enough, and with the hunting, or "target" ammo like most of us assemble with the equipment we have, run of the mill rifles, which are better than ever, and average shooting skills, 1 1/2" at 100 yards is plenty, AND achievable with reasonable reloading practices. Do we need one? If we have one, will it be used? Questions only you can answer, and there is no "wrong" way to enjoy a hobby....except unsafely! 🙂
 
I’d be willing to bet there are 1000:1 misguided hobby plinkers and hunters which sort or try to repair ammo with these tools than there ever have been of skilled and experienced benchrest or F-class shooters which utilize the tool with any regularity. Folks convince themselves it helps, and worse, try to convince others to spend money.

I’ve never seen any data that shows that within the elastic limit of brass necks that fixing ammo concentricity with this tool does anything to affect neck tension, nor have I seen any data which shows concentricity sorting ammo produced on any non-defective die or press which suggests anyone in the world is able to shoot the difference between sorted or non-sorted ammo let alone fixed vs. sorted vs. non-sorted ammo.

“Cogito est, ergo est” is one of the greatest failings of the human race. Trust in God, all others, bring data.
 
jmorris said:
To be completely fair, everyone KNEW it was flat before that...

I keep an open mind when testing. Things you know for a "fact" can change over time. Many examples of that in life.
Click to expand...

Repeating myself from as recently as yesterday.

Varminterror said:
As I quote quite often around here - Twain once said, "It's not what you know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so."
Click to expand...
 
Captain*kirk said:
However, I recently watched a video where a guy was dissing this as smoke and mirrors gadgetry that is totally unnecessary (in his opinion) as he claims the bullets will center themselves either upon chambering
Click to expand...
This is true to a degree. The industry standard from most commercial ammo mfrs. is .002 I have found out to 200 yards with most hunting bullets the rifle will compensate for .002 or even .003 But I have also found going from .30,06 to .270 Win, concentricity with the barrel becomes very critical. It even gets worse with the newer High BC bullets like the ELD. So yes, I do nudge a few bullets once in a while. And yes, it does help.
Now my interest is mainly hunting. But for some, target shooting is the game and for them the next step will be neck tension, annealing and neck dia. trimming. For us old ones we might say "Be One With the Universe, Grasshopper" and other youngers ones say "Luke, Use the Force". That's up to you. We are all going down a dark deep hole in this sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Runout after bullet seating?
Replies
6
Views
672
texasveteod
T
Z
  • Locked
303 British Neck Runout.....AARGH!!!
Replies
6
Views
1K
Gewehr98
G
JCSC
  • Locked
Wilson Case Gauge measurement questions
Replies
18
Views
559
Blue68f100
Blue68f100
M
  • Locked
Concentricity Vs Headspace
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
MKnarr
M
Hypnogator
  • Locked
Hornady Die Problems
Replies
17
Views
4K
jjjitters
J
Back
Top