Are you less precise reloading for guns with open sights?
- Thread starter SVTOhio
- Start date
- Status
LiveLife
Member
I did use differing reloading components/practice for pistol match load vs range practice/plinking loads:SVTOhio said:
Match loads:
- Montana Gold/Winchester FMJ/JHP bullets
- Sorted brass / headstamp
- Separately resized and hand primed cases
- Primer pocket checked/cleaned
- CCI/Winchester primers
- Specific powder that metered with less than .1 gr variance
- Tighter finished round dimension QC criteria
Range practice/plinking loads:
- Cheapest plated/lead bullets
- Mixed range brass / headstamp
- Resized and press primed cases in progressive mode
- Primer pocket not checked or cleaned
- Cheapest primers
- Cheapest available powders, even with up to .2+ gr variance like Promo
- Less finished round dimension QC criteria
Sav .250
Member
With out consistency there is no constant results!
GBExpat
Member
No ... if anything, I spend too much effort trying to be too precise in all of my reloading. And, yes, I tend to be a bit anal ...
Sometimes I'll use "less premium" components (like M2 pulls in my 30-06), but my methods are the same as if I use Norma brass with Lapala bullets. I started reloading .38 Specials with a Lee Loader in 1969 (dipping Bullseye) and I used the same care and concentration then as I now use for my "premium" .308 Win. accuracy ammo.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Nope, absolutely not.
Some have scopes and many do not and I load for all of them the same, right down to trickling the powder for uniformity.
Ron
Some have scopes and many do not and I load for all of them the same, right down to trickling the powder for uniformity.
Ron
Depends, but not on sighting system. Overall the only reason not to do something is if it is a waste of time. If it affects safety it is not a waste of time.
For example:
For rifles I only throw charges. On some I throw and trickle. But, only on equipment I trust and still at least spot check weights. The only way I trust spot checking is to gradually reduce from checking every charge weight.
For example:
For rifles I only throw charges. On some I throw and trickle. But, only on equipment I trust and still at least spot check weights. The only way I trust spot checking is to gradually reduce from checking every charge weight.
30Cal
Member
Nope. Same gear is pretty much used for everything. Comes out of the powdermeasure, I check the weight every so often, and seat a bullet. I buy better bullets for the rifles I shoot in matches, but that's about it.
Arkansas Paul
Member
I do but my reasoning has nothing to do with open sights vs. scoped.
The reason is that all of my centerfire rifles are scoped. None of my handguns are scoped. I throw my powder charges about a half grain short for rifles and trickle up to the desired weight. With handguns, I set my Uniflow and start loading, checking every 10-15 rounds to make sure the weight hasn't fluctuated.
I'm not weighing each individual 9mm or .40 round. No way. Most of those I load on a Lee auto indexing turret anyway.
The reason is that all of my centerfire rifles are scoped. None of my handguns are scoped. I throw my powder charges about a half grain short for rifles and trickle up to the desired weight. With handguns, I set my Uniflow and start loading, checking every 10-15 rounds to make sure the weight hasn't fluctuated.
I'm not weighing each individual 9mm or .40 round. No way. Most of those I load on a Lee auto indexing turret anyway.
wanderinwalker
Member
For me it isn't a matter of more or less precision based on the sighting system of a rifle. It's a matter of loading to the intended use and also the accuracy potential of the components I'm working with.
Take for example .223 match loads. I run these through a Armalite National Match model with a heavy, stainless steel match barrel and 2-stage match trigger. The rifle wears an aperture rear with post front sight, pretty much in the configuration of standard issue M-16A2 sights, just with a smaller aperture and thinner post. I sort brass, check every 25th charge thrown on the measure and run good HPBT match bullets. And thrown charges of Varget are good enough to shoot to 1-MOA with that rifle.
Now my lightweight M4gery also wears post and peep sights, but has a chrome-lined Government profile barrel, standard single stage GI-type trigger. I use thrown charges of H335 and bulk 55gr FMJ bullets in this rifle. My loading procedure goes to checking every 50th charge and I don't sort and track the cases for this ammo by lots. As long as it hits a 5-MOA plate at 200-yards and cycles reliably, it's good enough for the uses I put this rifle to.
I have run heavy-bullet match ammo through said M4gery, and it will just break 2-MOA for 10-shot groups at 100. Maybe better when I finally give up and scope it. I have also run generic 55gr FMJ .223 ammo through a couple different barrels on the match rifle, enough to only expect it to be 2.5-3 MOA on a long-run average. I also played with trickling charges for 600-yard .223 ammo, once. When the points on the score card weren't any higher at the end of the day, I gladly stopped doing that.
Take for example .223 match loads. I run these through a Armalite National Match model with a heavy, stainless steel match barrel and 2-stage match trigger. The rifle wears an aperture rear with post front sight, pretty much in the configuration of standard issue M-16A2 sights, just with a smaller aperture and thinner post. I sort brass, check every 25th charge thrown on the measure and run good HPBT match bullets. And thrown charges of Varget are good enough to shoot to 1-MOA with that rifle.
Now my lightweight M4gery also wears post and peep sights, but has a chrome-lined Government profile barrel, standard single stage GI-type trigger. I use thrown charges of H335 and bulk 55gr FMJ bullets in this rifle. My loading procedure goes to checking every 50th charge and I don't sort and track the cases for this ammo by lots. As long as it hits a 5-MOA plate at 200-yards and cycles reliably, it's good enough for the uses I put this rifle to.
I have run heavy-bullet match ammo through said M4gery, and it will just break 2-MOA for 10-shot groups at 100. Maybe better when I finally give up and scope it. I have also run generic 55gr FMJ .223 ammo through a couple different barrels on the match rifle, enough to only expect it to be 2.5-3 MOA on a long-run average. I also played with trickling charges for 600-yard .223 ammo, once. When the points on the score card weren't any higher at the end of the day, I gladly stopped doing that.
wanderinwalker,
Service rifle guys have a whole other perspective on this, which I share. When standing and shooting offhand @ 200 yds necks not being turned is hardly the biggest issue.
"When the points on the score card weren't any higher at the end of the day, I gladly stopped doing that."
Load less, shoot more! Less time at the bench means more time dry firing.
Service rifle guys have a whole other perspective on this, which I share. When standing and shooting offhand @ 200 yds necks not being turned is hardly the biggest issue.
"When the points on the score card weren't any higher at the end of the day, I gladly stopped doing that."
Load less, shoot more! Less time at the bench means more time dry firing.
HEAVY METAL 1
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 418
It may be more advantageous for you to load more precisley for open sighted rifles because with scopes you can to some degree make up for any individual visual difficulties. IMO the only reason to not take your reloading techiques to your best level of workmanship is for general plinking, not serious target work or hunting. Especially with hunting there is a moral imperative to make your loads and marksmanship to the highest level you can. There are plenty of reasons to hunt with open sights such as when hunting in thick cover or perhaps with dangerous game where if your optics fail YOU will become the hunted.
wanderinwalker
Member
Absolutely, load less, shoot more! I think it also helps to remain practical in considering the use you're putting the rifle to and how you'll be shooting it. Don't get me wrong, I see no harm in chasing bug hole groups for the sake of bug hole groups. Where I see the disconnect is attempting to extract every last nth degree of accuracy from a lightweight AR or Marlin carbine, or believing a light barrel Rugingchester sporter with a synthetic stock so flimsy I can visibly twist it with my wimpy hands is "bad" because it will only deliver MOA accuracy. But this may be a topic for another thread elsewhere...
hamp sandwich
Member
I think that's a good question..
However, like some others, it's not based on the sight systems for me. As an example, I'll use 308..
I have a load that I really like for plinking. It's just a 150gr projo being loaded. Nothing special. Just standard spec ammo that I can make on my progressive. It's for fun, and is plenty accurate. I also have a couple of loads that I love for superb accuracy. I weight those out individually, and use SMK or AMax. I have one rifle that I use ball or match in, and one that knows nothing but match ammo. Both have an optic, but it doesn't determine their ammo. One is a semi auto that is decent with both types, and the other is a bolt gun that loves it's special ammo..
All that being said, y'all probably guessed that I prefer the most accurate ammo I can load... But... Simple answer to the OP, it's not the sights, but rather the type of shooting. Banging steel, I have fun with plinking ammo or match, and shooting for tight groups, match only.
However, like some others, it's not based on the sight systems for me. As an example, I'll use 308..
I have a load that I really like for plinking. It's just a 150gr projo being loaded. Nothing special. Just standard spec ammo that I can make on my progressive. It's for fun, and is plenty accurate. I also have a couple of loads that I love for superb accuracy. I weight those out individually, and use SMK or AMax. I have one rifle that I use ball or match in, and one that knows nothing but match ammo. Both have an optic, but it doesn't determine their ammo. One is a semi auto that is decent with both types, and the other is a bolt gun that loves it's special ammo..
All that being said, y'all probably guessed that I prefer the most accurate ammo I can load... But... Simple answer to the OP, it's not the sights, but rather the type of shooting. Banging steel, I have fun with plinking ammo or match, and shooting for tight groups, match only.
Officers'Wife
Member
Somehow I get the feeling this question falls in with everything from checking HyTran to making sure a fire is completely out...
In my view, hitting a target @ 100 yds would be more challenging with open sights than a with a scope. It stands to reason the extra challenge of less precise ammunition would make the act all that harder. I would rather attribute a good grouping or a clean kill to the accuracy of rifle and ammunition than to depend on dumb luck.
In my view, hitting a target @ 100 yds would be more challenging with open sights than a with a scope. It stands to reason the extra challenge of less precise ammunition would make the act all that harder. I would rather attribute a good grouping or a clean kill to the accuracy of rifle and ammunition than to depend on dumb luck.
splattergun
Member
Using a dipper is not necessarily less precise IF you know precisely what your preferred powder's dipper volume weighs, and IF you use a repeatable, very consistent dipping method. Weigh out and average 10 to 15 dipper loads. If you are using the exact same dip method every time, you should not see more than about .1 gn variable.
Scooping down into the container is not the preferred method. Instead, sink the dipper into the powder mouth up, letting the powder fall in from the mouth until slightly rounded full. Then use a card or blade to scrape level. Consistent, repeatable, precise .
You can adjust the volume of your dipper in several different ways to customize your charge to a preferred weight.
Last edited:
Not all ammo is for same purpose. I don't put the effort into my 38s as I do for 44 mag, both iron sights.
I got to believe people loading for 700-1000 yards shots, put more effort then people with iron sights that will be a few hundred, at the most.
I got to believe people loading for 700-1000 yards shots, put more effort then people with iron sights that will be a few hundred, at the most.
ROAshooter
member
no...same high standard reguardless of caliber
BSA1
member
SVTOhio,
Reloading smokeless powder demands attention to detail and precision. I have personally seen three handguns blow up and a shooter lose 1/2 of his support hand when his rifle blew up to be LESS precise when reloading smokeless powder.
Thank goodness for the topstrap on one of them as I was timing the shooter. It held the gun in one piece.
Cutting corners just isn't safe. A attitude that I don't have to be as careful and precise because this gun has iron sights strongly suggests you are not cut out to reload your own ammunition.
p.s. The rifle that blew up the shooter was using iron sights.
Reloading smokeless powder demands attention to detail and precision. I have personally seen three handguns blow up and a shooter lose 1/2 of his support hand when his rifle blew up to be LESS precise when reloading smokeless powder.
Thank goodness for the topstrap on one of them as I was timing the shooter. It held the gun in one piece.
Cutting corners just isn't safe. A attitude that I don't have to be as careful and precise because this gun has iron sights strongly suggests you are not cut out to reload your own ammunition.
p.s. The rifle that blew up the shooter was using iron sights.
I'm by no means saying I'm being unsafe with my practices. I'm simply saying that I'm using powder dippers for my shorty 243 and trickling powder to 0.1 gr on a scale for my 16x scoped 25-06.
- Status
