In most things I've experienced in my 73 years, I try not to trivialize the momentus or complicate the obvious. The last couple of years has me measuring the leade in my rifles with the Hornady OAL tool. The only time I worry about neck tension is loading Cast bullets in 357, 41, 44, or 45 Colt. Heavy bullet pulls have helped me produce accurate loads over the years.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Neck Tension and seating depth
- Thread starter akinswi
- Start date
I’m returning to this conversation at this point because it is clear now that OP was talking about seating depth and COAL measurements in a rifle, not a handgun, which is what I had initially interpreted and addressed.
Since handloaders and particularly bench-rest shooters measure seating from the base of the case to the undefined and ever-changing point on bullets generally accepted and called the ogive, the discussion of measuring from the base to the tip of the bullet is rather incongruous to the question poised.
It would be useful if some staffers educate rather than obfuscate and become argumentative as a result in order to demonstrate the superiority of experience and knowledge. Sharing information is more important than proving you know more than anyone else.
44AMP suggested, in post #19 the following: “I think the thing you should do is load and shoot a test batch with no change but the increased neck tension and see what the actual results are”
Compare that to my post #4: “I say you should continue to seat your bullets at the same die setting you have been using, and see if there is any difference in the COL measurement.”
44, does this answer your question in post #17?: “I'm still wondering just how he measures cartridge over all length if not from the case base to the bullet tip.”
I’m not interested in having a war of words, but I think portions of this discussion needed clarification.
Since handloaders and particularly bench-rest shooters measure seating from the base of the case to the undefined and ever-changing point on bullets generally accepted and called the ogive, the discussion of measuring from the base to the tip of the bullet is rather incongruous to the question poised.
It would be useful if some staffers educate rather than obfuscate and become argumentative as a result in order to demonstrate the superiority of experience and knowledge. Sharing information is more important than proving you know more than anyone else.
44AMP suggested, in post #19 the following: “I think the thing you should do is load and shoot a test batch with no change but the increased neck tension and see what the actual results are”
Compare that to my post #4: “I say you should continue to seat your bullets at the same die setting you have been using, and see if there is any difference in the COL measurement.”
44, does this answer your question in post #17?: “I'm still wondering just how he measures cartridge over all length if not from the case base to the bullet tip.”
I’m not interested in having a war of words, but I think portions of this discussion needed clarification.
44, does this answer your question in post #17?: “I'm still wondering just how he measures cartridge over all length if not from the case base to the bullet tip.”
Yes, thank you, it does answer my question. You are not measuring the entire length of the loaded round.
Since handloaders and particularly bench-rest shooters measure seating from the base of the case to the undefined and ever-changing point on bullets generally accepted and called the ogive, the discussion of measuring from the base to the tip of the bullet is rather incongruous to the question poised.
I don't think discussion to understand how we are using terms, when there appears to be a difference between how people understand them is incongruous , I think its a valid point.
We have had definitions essentially standardized for generations, listed in the reloading glossaries and standard references including SAAMI. Look at Uncle Nick's excellent drawing and the identification of the various parts of the round and bullet.
Look what part of the bullet is defined as the ogive. It's not a single point, it is the entire curved/sloped portion of the bullet.
Uncle Nick also gives us the SAAMI definition of Cartridge OverAll Length, and they measure it from the case base to the bullet tip.
In a context such as reloading, where precise communication and uniform understanding of terminology is needed we need to be on the "same page" or misunderstandings can result.
If I call something a widgit and others call it a dingus, none of us is sure what the other is talking about, even if we think we are.
Using terminology in a non-standard manner, without sufficient context or explanation is not a good way to discuss technical matters.
"If I call something a widgit and others call it a dingus, none of us is sure what the other is talking about, even if we think we are."
You are correct in an academic sense. But I'd be willing to bet that your repeated insistence that everyone should regard the ogive as nothing more than "the entire curved/sloped portion of the bullet" is disregarded by the majority of participants on these forums. Even though that is true, it lends nothing to the practical application of bullet seating. I've not seen any posts where the participant says anything other than "I measure cartridge base to the ogive." We all know what he means and it is not necessary to point out to the neophytes on these forums that is more correct to say "I measure from the cartridge base to a specific point on the ogive."
With regard to Unclenick's presentation, I noticed, and agree, that the SAAMI definition of COAL is from the base to the tip of the bullet. But, disregarding the potential deformation of the lead tip alters the precise measurement, how does that COAL address the jump to the lands by disregarding the ogive?
You are correct in an academic sense. But I'd be willing to bet that your repeated insistence that everyone should regard the ogive as nothing more than "the entire curved/sloped portion of the bullet" is disregarded by the majority of participants on these forums. Even though that is true, it lends nothing to the practical application of bullet seating. I've not seen any posts where the participant says anything other than "I measure cartridge base to the ogive." We all know what he means and it is not necessary to point out to the neophytes on these forums that is more correct to say "I measure from the cartridge base to a specific point on the ogive."
With regard to Unclenick's presentation, I noticed, and agree, that the SAAMI definition of COAL is from the base to the tip of the bullet. But, disregarding the potential deformation of the lead tip alters the precise measurement, how does that COAL address the jump to the lands by disregarding the ogive?
"If I call something a widgit and others call it a dingus, none of us is sure what the other is talking about, even if we think we are."
You are correct in an academic sense. But I'd be willing to bet that your repeated insistence that everyone should regard the ogive as nothing more than "the entire curved/sloped portion of the bullet" is disregarded by the majority of participants on these forums. Even though that is true, it lends nothing to the practical application of bullet seating. I've not seen any posts where the participant says anything other than "I measure cartridge base to the ogive." We all know what he means and it is not necessary to point out to the neophytes on these forums that is more correct to say "I measure from the cartridge base to a specific point on the ogive."
With regard to Unclenick's presentation, I noticed, and agree, that the SAAMI definition of COAL is from the base to the tip of the bullet. But, disregarding the potential deformation of the lead tip alters the precise measurement, how does that COAL address the jump to the lands by disregarding the ogive?
Its my understanding that it doesn’t. My understanding the tip of the bullet has more to do with BC and nothing with barrel harmonics.
This is the reason why I stop using the overall measurement of the cartridge and try to measure from the base to the ogive so I know all my jumps to the lands are consistent as I can measure with calipers and a bullet comparator.
For my particular application an M1 Garand, as long as the overall length is under 3.340 it will fit the enbloc clip and feed correctly.
But with my base to ogive measurement at 2.717 the actual overall length from base to tip of the bullet will vary from 3.318 to 3.322 this is because the tips are jagged and not all the same length.
But 44amp is correct if i reduce my neck tension down , Will need too see what results are on paper.
But I did do a test where I sorted 100 bullets by Overall length “Base to Tips”,
Then by base to ogive. And sorted by the latter gave me the best results
Last edited:
We got a bit out in the weeds over terms but I think terms matter.
No one said that the bullet tip or COAL (measuring case base to the bullet tip) was a vital thing that had to be uniform for accuracy. It's not.
It is an important thing for cartridge function (fit & feeding) in the firearm. That's it. And, its not a length you have to load to, its a length you should not exceed and expect proper function in all firearms.
My issue is with saying measuring COAL (which is base to bullet tip) when you are not doing that.
Measuring from the case base to a point you select on the bullet ogive, done correctly, does give you a reliable, repeatable measurement, specific to your gun with the bullets you are using.
Choosing a point on the ogive which gives you a desired distance from the lands is fine, but the actual measurement in inches down to thousandths, is only applicable to your specific rifle and bullet, and aside from serendipitous coincidence, no one else will have that same measurement.
The principle is valid, even if the actual measurement is only useful to you, but misstating what is being done by not using terms with their accepted definitions confuses things.
No one said that the bullet tip or COAL (measuring case base to the bullet tip) was a vital thing that had to be uniform for accuracy. It's not.
It is an important thing for cartridge function (fit & feeding) in the firearm. That's it. And, its not a length you have to load to, its a length you should not exceed and expect proper function in all firearms.
My issue is with saying measuring COAL (which is base to bullet tip) when you are not doing that.
Measuring from the case base to a point you select on the bullet ogive, done correctly, does give you a reliable, repeatable measurement, specific to your gun with the bullets you are using.
Choosing a point on the ogive which gives you a desired distance from the lands is fine, but the actual measurement in inches down to thousandths, is only applicable to your specific rifle and bullet, and aside from serendipitous coincidence, no one else will have that same measurement.
The principle is valid, even if the actual measurement is only useful to you, but misstating what is being done by not using terms with their accepted definitions confuses things.
akinskwi, I draw your attention to this link for details: https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/what-is-ballistic-coefficient/
But the short story is BC is associated with weight, shape, and sectional density (which is related to shape). There is nothing said about the tip per.se., but of course, the tip also relates to shape. So a pointed (Spitzer) bullet has a higher BC than a round nose.
I have to note that in your conversation above you referred to "base to ogive" 3 times, which supports my contention in post 24.
You said "But I did do a test where I sorted 100 bullets by Overall length “Base to Tips”,
Then by base to ogive. And sorted by the latter gave me the best results."
Did you do the test with final cartridges or just the bullets being measured? I have about 300 bullets that I purchased around 1985: 130gr Remington PSP (Power Soft Point) in .270 that I could never get any sort of acceptable group. Why this struck me to do, I don't know, but I measured 100 of them from the base of the bullet to the ogive and found that measurement ranged from 0.531 to 0.588, a difference of 0.057". And in those 100, the numbers were everything in between. Obviously, if I seated them all to the same COAL, case base to ogive, they would differ which I think explains why I haven't been able to get a good group. I believe the purchase was a sale, but the product was a bunch of seconds that qualified for the sale. When I measured 5 rounds from bullets made by Nosler, Hornady, Speer, Berger, and Sierra, I found very few differences in each series. Only Hornady had a larger difference than the others, but the bullet is sold for hunting and any difference in accuracy attributable to this is probably minor.
But the short story is BC is associated with weight, shape, and sectional density (which is related to shape). There is nothing said about the tip per.se., but of course, the tip also relates to shape. So a pointed (Spitzer) bullet has a higher BC than a round nose.
I have to note that in your conversation above you referred to "base to ogive" 3 times, which supports my contention in post 24.
You said "But I did do a test where I sorted 100 bullets by Overall length “Base to Tips”,
Then by base to ogive. And sorted by the latter gave me the best results."
Did you do the test with final cartridges or just the bullets being measured? I have about 300 bullets that I purchased around 1985: 130gr Remington PSP (Power Soft Point) in .270 that I could never get any sort of acceptable group. Why this struck me to do, I don't know, but I measured 100 of them from the base of the bullet to the ogive and found that measurement ranged from 0.531 to 0.588, a difference of 0.057". And in those 100, the numbers were everything in between. Obviously, if I seated them all to the same COAL, case base to ogive, they would differ which I think explains why I haven't been able to get a good group. I believe the purchase was a sale, but the product was a bunch of seconds that qualified for the sale. When I measured 5 rounds from bullets made by Nosler, Hornady, Speer, Berger, and Sierra, I found very few differences in each series. Only Hornady had a larger difference than the others, but the bullet is sold for hunting and any difference in accuracy attributable to this is probably minor.
cdoc42,akinskwi, I draw your attention to this link for details: https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/what-is-ballistic-coefficient/
But the short story is BC is associated with weight, shape, and sectional density (which is related to shape). There is nothing said about the tip per.se., but of course, the tip also relates to shape. So a pointed (Spitzer) bullet has a higher BC than a round nose.
I have to note that in your conversation above you referred to "base to ogive" 3 times, which supports my contention in post 24.
You said "But I did do a test where I sorted 100 bullets by Overall length “Base to Tips”,
Then by base to ogive. And sorted by the latter gave me the best results."
Did you do the test with final cartridges or just the bullets being measured? I have about 300 bullets that I purchased around 1985: 130gr Remington PSP (Power Soft Point) in .270 that I could never get any sort of acceptable group. Why this struck me to do, I don't know, but I measured 100 of them from the base of the bullet to the ogive and found that measurement ranged from 0.531 to 0.588, a difference of 0.057". And in those 100, the numbers were everything in between. Obviously, if I seated them all to the same COAL, case base to ogive, they would differ which I think explains why I haven't been able to get a good group. I believe the purchase was a sale, but the product was a bunch of seconds that qualified for the sale. When I measured 5 rounds from bullets made by Nosler, Hornady, Speer, Berger, and Sierra, I found very few differences in each series. Only Hornady had a larger difference than the others, but the bullet is sold for hunting and any difference in accuracy attributable to this is probably minor.
Yes, I did shoot them and the better group size came from the bullets I sorted by base to ogive. Notice I said “Better” doesn’t mean I was shooting 1/4 MOA at 100 yards but the groups I measured were smaller. Is it worth the effort , time will tell.
It sounds like maybe you never found the right seating depth for those projectiles from 1985! If you still have them sort them by ogives and load them up IMHO
But one thing I learned is if you buy match grade bullets you really do get what you pay for most of the time you can load them right out of the box and should be fine. This a great hobby and pastime for me so I like seeing how accurate I can make something
Last edited:
Keep in mind that the best match grade bullets test under two tenths MOA at indoor ranges in spite of a couple thousandths spread in bullet length from base to tip.
I've watched a handful of 30 caliber match bullets grabbed as they come out of the last die that shapes the ogive then seated in charged cases shoot well under 2/10ths inch/MOA at 100 yards.
Proof to me bullets need not all be exactly the same length from base to tip.
I'm convinced the critical bullet measurement is diameter and it has to be at least a few ten-thousandths bigger than the barrel's groove diameter for best accuracy. Measure your stuff and see what you are dealing with.
I've watched a handful of 30 caliber match bullets grabbed as they come out of the last die that shapes the ogive then seated in charged cases shoot well under 2/10ths inch/MOA at 100 yards.
Proof to me bullets need not all be exactly the same length from base to tip.
I'm convinced the critical bullet measurement is diameter and it has to be at least a few ten-thousandths bigger than the barrel's groove diameter for best accuracy. Measure your stuff and see what you are dealing with.
Last edited: