Correct size sizing die?

[Snakeoil]

Rifle is a 1903 Springfield. I did chamber casts this week, actually made four to ensure accuracy. The throat measured 0.312 inches and so did the groove diameter just forward of the throat. From this I am surmising that I should be sizing my bullets at 0. 312 inches. I currently am using a 0.311 sizing die. Am I correct in my assumption that I really should bump up the sizing die to 0.312? Everything I have read says sizing should be at least groove diameter or larger, never smaller.

 

[Ian]

Fill the throat is what generally gives me the best results. That doesn't mean always jam-fit the bullet in there, but often does mean a squeeze-fit once the bullet starts moving. Groove diameter is meaningless as long as it is smaller than throat entrance diameter.

 

[RicinYakima]

Try .311" but also be looking at trying .312". Remember this is not science, but an art form.

 

[fiver]

how hard your looking to push them, and your alloy choice will also dictate diameter.
the bullet design will also play in, what part of it are you using to align to the centerline of the bore.
if it's just the nose then 312 will help.
if the front band is out in the throat making contact as well, or if the whole bullet is tapered to snuggle in without hardly touching the barrel then you probably don't need that extra diameter.

 

[Brad]

Try .311" but also be looking at trying .312". Remember this is not science, but an art form.

I agree.
This is a time to try both and let the gun decide what it prefers.

 

[Snakeoil]

I am using the Saeco 315. I'm not casting them myself at this point. I'm buying them from Meisters. The forward bands measure 0.310 and the rear band measures 0.312. So, other than the PITA part of lubing without using my sizer, I can try that bullet unsized to see if things improve. My first session at the range had a significant amount of vertical stringing.

The throat is 0.400 long. So, I would have to seat the bullet longer than the magazine would permit to engage the rifling. When I measured the chamber casting, the groove diameter actually measured a tad larger than the throat at 0.3125. I probably should do another casting and pay closer attention to any tape in the throat leading up to the start of the grooves. This stuff is all new for me and sometimes my reading on the subject lags behind my efforts in the shop. This is the first time I've cast a chamber and curiosity was driving things as much as the need for info.

Last night I looked at the various bullet styles offered by NOE. They used to offer the 315, but I did not see it. A friend has one of their molds in that bullet. He recommended I try that bullet which is why I ordered 500 from Meisters. A few articles I've read and some posts here indicate that a bore rider might be a wiser choice. With 0.310 front lands on the 315 Saeco, I would estimate it at about 0.002" over the bore size if my grooves are actually 0.004". So, I don't think it fits the definition of a bore rider. But I have have no feel for this so might be wrong. Yes, I realize I need to slug the barrel and perhaps make a casting of the muzzle area. I also need to put a small hole gage in the bore. Time has been at a premium lately, unfortunately. So, I'm a little ahead of myself, perhaps.

Sizing them at 0.311 was not a disaster at our local match. Shot a 38 and the am pretty sure that the two flyers (they landed a good foot over the target.at 300 yds) were because I forgot to reset my scope. But this is a gong match with 6", 9" and 12" plates at 100, 150 and 200 yds respectively and a pig at 300. So, these are pretty big targets which removes the requirements for MOA accuracy. I really want to make this rifle shoot as good as possible. It was never rebarreled after WWII and still has its original SA 1921 marked tube.

Not looking to push these hard. Accuracy out to 500 yds is the goal. Nominal 1600 fps is where I'd like to be. I'm using gas checks, but in reading some other articles, it appears that GCs might not be required at these bullet speeds.

 

[Ian]

Vertical stringing can be a lot of things and can indicate good or bad depending on which thing is doing it. If it is due to inconsistencies in bullet pull, primer seating, completely wrong powder for the pressure, or something with the rifle itself like a bedding problem, loose action screw, weak firing pin spring, or even still the shooter's technique, then that's generally on the bad side of things. If it's due to the powder being on the verge of really starting to group (sometimes a tight vertical comes in a few percent before the "best" load weight for the system), then that's a good thing. Shoot some commercial ammo through it if you haven't already to eliminate those things not related to your cast bullets and make sure the whole system can meet your goals before you decide to start tilting at windmills.

We may need to back up a bit and review exactly what you want to do, the tools you have to work with, your loading techniques, and the various ways to get where you want to be. Accuracy out to 500 yards with cast bullets leaving the muzzle at 1600 may be more of a challenge than you think. 300 yards is a lot more realistic for that.

 

[Snakeoil]

Okay. Let me think about this. My first response is my ignorance is probably allowing me to set some boundaries or goals that might be unrealistic. As you all know, shooters like to talk and opinions are like belly buttons. The guys at the club have their opinions and without knowing how they arrived at them, it's difficult to know if they reached them thru doing the work, just got lucky, or are simply parroting something they heard and "expert" say. I prefer to know the whys behind whats and hows.

Here is the frustrating part. For every opinion saying one thing, it seems there is another saying the opposite. Lyman Book says to size to groove size or larger, but never smaller. Yet here, some have said slightly smaller is okay... maybe. I remember the latePaul Matthews came out with a new book that contradicted many mantras he preached. Paul shot with us regularly. My late friend asked Paul about the change in opinion and Paul's reply was something to the effect of, "If you want to sell more books you can't keep writing the same stuff". I think it was a little tongue and cheek, knowing Paul. But in fairness, we have all changed our minds after getting better informed, although it might have taken many years. So, someone may have a very valid opinion and simply had not yet realized it is wrong. Anyway, my point is, you get so many conflicting opinions that you really end up no further ahead than when you started.

I learn a little more each day that it is not simply one factor involved. Ian, your comments drive that point home very well. My weakness is my desire to get the rifle shooting well tends to override my need to take the time to understand what will make it shoot well.

Thanks.

 

[fiver]

300 at around 1900 fps is just a matter of figuring your drops.
I'd go with the vertical stringing being not enough powder in the case if your working at 1600 fps. especially with the big 0-6 case.

I could just tell you what I shoot in my 03, and how I work around things, but you'd probably not learn what your seeking, pus I'm some surprised what I'm dong is working as well as it does.

IMO the 315 will shoot just fine in your rifle it is a solid design you probably just need to give it a bit more oomph.

 

[Ian]

Everyone who says anything is going to be right in some way. The trick here is figuring out what is right for YOU. You don't have to make an Excel file documenting every opinion ever ventured on every aspect of handloading and write a formula to compile the greatest statistical average of those opinions to get the most likely truth about any given subject (bullet size, alloy to use, powder to use, yada yada). Even if you did, it wouldn't serve you very well. This isn't that hard if you take time to learn what you need to accomplish when making ammunition for a particular rifle and particular purpose. Try to think in terms of what's going on inside the rifle instead of estimating credentials regarding advice or trying to apply any advice you get universally. With cast bullets, each gun is in many ways a law unto itself and has a unique character. That character may change if a different person feeds it due to variances in loading methods or general approach to building a good, accurate load.

I can tell you what I'd do, and it will likely be quite different from where you end up. For now, plan on using gas checks, and plan on at least 1800 fps. Make sure if you haven't already that the rifle and remainder of the system is in fact capable of doing what you want out to 500 yards with factory ammo, then we can start examining your cast bullet loads.

 

[Snakeoil]

I'm starting to understand the trying to understand a rifle is like trying to figure out a woman. The only difference is you don't have to cuddle after.

I am also starting to realize that pretty much any question regarding improving rifle accuracy can be answered with either of 2 answers:
Maybe.
It depends.

 

[462]

Yep.

 

[Ian]

That doesn't mean don't ask the questions, though. There's a difference between vague questions like "what bullet is best for my .349 Wonderschuter" and more specific "how do I pick a long-range target bullet for this here dimensional drawing of a pound cast", or "what powders should I look at for this bullet/cartridge/purpose". We can at least point you in the right direction.

 

[462]

Yep.

Many years ago, I was in the throes of a revolver leading problem that was defying all my attempts to solve. Finally, I asked for help, received a number of helpful though albeit varying suggestions, tried the ones I hadn't already tried, then, lo, and behold, one of the suggestions was the answer.

I suspect that most of this forum's members do our best to be as self-sufficient as possible. Still, a gun related situation can pop up that requires some help. It's good to know that if/when I were in need of it, the help would be given freely and politely.

Michael

 

[fiver]

also we don't know your level of umm well how many rifles you've messed with.
we can tell you what we have done to attain a goal similar to yours and even in a similar rifle to yours.

for instance.
a while back I gave Waco a load and a bullet to get him started when he wanted to try 500 yards.
he worked with what I gave him for a while having some initial success.
then we [as in 4 of us] discussed some even higher pressure/velocity loads and he had to go from there looking at the little stuff he was seeing from his rifle.
we helped kick his ideas around some more from what he was seeing then he worked until he was satisfied with his loads with his equipment.