Which influences accuracy most?
- Thread starter Pond James Pond
- Start date
Pond James Pond
New member
It is not a narrow window. It is rather a wide one seeing as it encompasses pretty much every aspect of what one can do at a reloading bench.
Meanwhile, a question was asked, so feel free to answer it in the thread.
In any case your comment was addressed to me, so all the more relevant.
If you still choose not to answer, that is on you.
The bottom line is this. People read the OP. Some respond in order to help address the OP, other respond because they want to say something. For them, the fact it does not relate to the OP is neither here nor there.
As poster to the OP, the former is helpful to me, the latter less so.
That is a general statement, not aimed at anyone in particular.
Here is a more direct statement to you and I mean no offense in saying it but it does carry a point that I hope you will consider.
The clear and succinct competent enthusiast will always be a better teacher to the novice than the convoluted expert.
You clearly know so much about reloading and I clearly have a mountain to learn.
However, you don't seem to ever directly address the issue, nor any questions. Instead there are thinly related anecdotes that skirt around what is being asked.
I can assure it is not because of any intellectual deficit on my part. I may not be Einstein, but I am by no means an stupid.
Our exchange between post #75 and this one being a case in point.
I would dearly love to learn some of what you know, but you impart that knowledge in a way that is either tangential or cryptic. That simply doesn't help.
The question is do you want to help other learn or do you only want to show how much you know?
The latter only does the latter. The former does both.
Think on it.
StripesDude
New member
Amen Pond. Other than the entertainment factor and comedic "holier than thou" attitude, there's not much useful info, is there?
schmellba99
New member
It's not a case of this going over most reloader's heads, usually it's a case of your writing style. Almost everybody here has to read your posts multiple times to try to decipher what you are trying to say - sometimes I think you are trying so hard to sound intelligent that you end up writing like the Nigerian Prince that emails me trying to partner up with me to deposit $30MM into my account so he can save it from the rebels. It is almost like you are trying to sound like a doctorate professor giving a lecture - great if we were in a lecture hall at MIT, but we are not, and normal people simply do not talk in such a manner for obvious reasons.
And, quite honestly, there are times where you are simply just rambling on about something or other that really doesn't have much (if anything) to do with the subject. I wonder if that is just your musings, or if you are trying so hard to prove that you are on a level above us serfs in the reloading world.
I'd like to see you just write a simple post that didn't include stories about some obscure thing here or there or end up being condescending towards somebody that realizes you don't have to measure every single measurable thing on your rifle down to .000001" in order to achieve an acceptable level of accuracy.
When I finally (think) I understand what you are trying to convey information wise, its usually what I view as good information or at least enough to make me think for a few seconds; I do not think you are anything but intelligent. But you are not very good at communicating simply and clearly, and honestly the condescending tone of much of your posting devalues the information that you do have to share.
Machineguntony
New member
Wow! This thread is getting contentious. Entertaining for sure!
All over the issue of accuracy. Lol.
All over the issue of accuracy. Lol.
4runnerman
New member
James after re-reading your post- If I had to go with just the 4 things you have listed-I would go with the others and say Bullet. How ever-I still standby what a lot of us( Me included) are stating- Those 4 things you list are just 4 in maybe 20 things that make a load come together. When you take all 20 plus and put them in the picture, then the bullet becomes no more important then all the rest of the steps. It's not a Ford or Chevy thing. It's more of a 4 top of the line tires on a pile of junk with no shocks. Do the tires make it drive better- Yes they do, but it is still junk 
. The bullet can't perform to it's potential when the rest of the steps are by passed.
Take the bullet( best one)- junk case,any old powder- say 4 inch groups
Best bullet,case prep,any old powder-- say 3 inch groups
Best bullet,case prep, good powder-- 2 inch group
Best bullet, case prep, best powder,right primer- 1 inch group
Now put it all together, Best bullet, All case prep, best powder, Best primer- Sub MOA groups.
So as you can see- While the bullet is important- In the long run it is no more important then the rest of reloading steps.
FYI- I find as I get older-I ramble on more and more- Sorry all
. The bullet can't perform to it's potential when the rest of the steps are by passed.Take the bullet( best one)- junk case,any old powder- say 4 inch groups
Best bullet,case prep,any old powder-- say 3 inch groups
Best bullet,case prep, good powder-- 2 inch group
Best bullet, case prep, best powder,right primer- 1 inch group
Now put it all together, Best bullet, All case prep, best powder, Best primer- Sub MOA groups.
So as you can see- While the bullet is important- In the long run it is no more important then the rest of reloading steps.
FYI- I find as I get older-I ramble on more and more- Sorry all
Last edited:
Pond James Pond
New member
Thanks for taking the time to review the post again and giving your thoughts.
I absolutely realise that there is a lot at play.
It all started out with my musings as I spent most of an evening decapping, resizing and trimming cases and the other two nights annealing them. And I simply thought "Wouldn't it be ironic if all this work made next to no difference to my loads accuracy because I have a mediocre bullet choice..."
And from there came the thought "Hey! If you could quantify units of accuracy, I wonder which aspect of reloading would carry the most."
It was never meant to be a question to end all debates, just an idle thought that I wanted TFL input on and it did generate a lot of discussion. Some on topic, some not.
The magic wand scenario I described mid way through the thread sums up the tone of the question.
I absolutely realise that there is a lot at play.
It all started out with my musings as I spent most of an evening decapping, resizing and trimming cases and the other two nights annealing them. And I simply thought "Wouldn't it be ironic if all this work made next to no difference to my loads accuracy because I have a mediocre bullet choice..."
And from there came the thought "Hey! If you could quantify units of accuracy, I wonder which aspect of reloading would carry the most."
It was never meant to be a question to end all debates, just an idle thought that I wanted TFL input on and it did generate a lot of discussion. Some on topic, some not.
The magic wand scenario I described mid way through the thread sums up the tone of the question.
4runnerman
New member
James- The fact that you are thinking about it, shows that you care-Can't ask for more.
Pond, you are definitely on the right track.
Accuracy is like a "sum of squares" math problem.
So if everything was "absolutely perfect" it would look something like Accuracy = Square root of (Atmosphere factor squared plus bullet factor squared plus powder factor squared, etc). And if everything was absolutely perfect then accuracy would be perfect, or 0 MOA (zero atmosphere variation, zero brass variation, zero powder variation, etc).
The brass is only there to hold everything together. How it holds everything together matters, such as neck tension (why crimping can increase or decrease accuracy!) internal volume, or how easily primer can light off the powder. In terms of how much that brass variation affects accuracy, it is well below powder, bullet, and primer, in my experience.
From a semi auto rifle, it is easy to get under 1.5 MOA for very large statistical group sizes (although MOST 5 shot groups will be smaller) from unprepped brass, mechanical volume powder charges, and industrial loading equipment. The Mk262 match ammo the Navy cooked up is spec'd to 2 MOA or less, and generally tests out between 1.3 and 1.5 MOA for 50 round groups, using a 77gr SMK. Handloaders who prep all their brass and make everything uniform, are generally using a better powder, a better primer, and are getting sub MOA groups even from "minimally" prepped brass (resized, decrimped, and trimmed).
By the time you get to tuning a load for a particular rifle, you've abandoned the "standard load" for lots of rifles. But you can generally make a dang good standard load. And good standard loads don't need prepped brass, but they do need good bullets. Shooting those 62 gr FMJs isn't going to give you sub MOA results in my experiences. My advice is to limit your prep work to resizing, decrimping, and trimming to length, then reload them 4 times and chuck 'em if you are feeding your semi-auto FMJ bullets. If you step up to match bullets, I'd only add annealing to the mix, and still chuck 'em after four reloads.
At this point I think it is more important for you to get more trigger time in practice than it is to try to get a military style rifle to shoot one hole groups, so I don't recommend spending time on unnecessary brass prep.
Jimro
Accuracy is like a "sum of squares" math problem.
So if everything was "absolutely perfect" it would look something like Accuracy = Square root of (Atmosphere factor squared plus bullet factor squared plus powder factor squared, etc). And if everything was absolutely perfect then accuracy would be perfect, or 0 MOA (zero atmosphere variation, zero brass variation, zero powder variation, etc).
The brass is only there to hold everything together. How it holds everything together matters, such as neck tension (why crimping can increase or decrease accuracy!) internal volume, or how easily primer can light off the powder. In terms of how much that brass variation affects accuracy, it is well below powder, bullet, and primer, in my experience.
From a semi auto rifle, it is easy to get under 1.5 MOA for very large statistical group sizes (although MOST 5 shot groups will be smaller) from unprepped brass, mechanical volume powder charges, and industrial loading equipment. The Mk262 match ammo the Navy cooked up is spec'd to 2 MOA or less, and generally tests out between 1.3 and 1.5 MOA for 50 round groups, using a 77gr SMK. Handloaders who prep all their brass and make everything uniform, are generally using a better powder, a better primer, and are getting sub MOA groups even from "minimally" prepped brass (resized, decrimped, and trimmed).
By the time you get to tuning a load for a particular rifle, you've abandoned the "standard load" for lots of rifles. But you can generally make a dang good standard load. And good standard loads don't need prepped brass, but they do need good bullets. Shooting those 62 gr FMJs isn't going to give you sub MOA results in my experiences. My advice is to limit your prep work to resizing, decrimping, and trimming to length, then reload them 4 times and chuck 'em if you are feeding your semi-auto FMJ bullets. If you step up to match bullets, I'd only add annealing to the mix, and still chuck 'em after four reloads.
At this point I think it is more important for you to get more trigger time in practice than it is to try to get a military style rifle to shoot one hole groups, so I don't recommend spending time on unnecessary brass prep.
Jimro
It depends
James,
Per Mr. Guffey's response, though it seems tangential, it actually illustrates that you are asking a question for which the answer can be different in different rifles. His long freebore 7 mm may well have been extraordinarily sensitive to bullet jump timing; how long the bullet dwells in a position where gas is bypassing it before it finds and obturates (seals off) the bore. That has a significant effect on peak pressure timing which, in turn, affects powder charge needed and barrel exit timing. So, for his gun, I'm going to guess that COL (OAL, COAL, OL, etc.) was more important than any of the other factors, and that bullet weight and geometry were maybe more important than having top quality.
In a gun with an optimal throat and tangent ogive bullets, you may find relative immunity to COL differences. In this instance bullet straightness, as influenced by overall cartridge concentricity, and affected by case neck uniformity, has the larger effect on group spread.
In a gun whose rate of twist is fast for the bullet, the symmetry of the bullet jacket wall thickness can be a more important error term than shooting the same bullet at a lower spin rate is. This is usually interpreted as "over-stabilization", but it actually means spinning faster than necessary, so that any asymmetry in jacket wall thickness or core voids cause greater eccentric wobble of the bullet in flight. This is one reason short range benchrest shooters use stubby flat base bullets. They need fewer RPM to be stable at a given Mach number, so they can use a slower rifling twist with them and get less wobble opening groups up. So the choice of rifling pitch here affects how the choice of bullet influences group size.
For that same fast twist, you can also cause core stripping (the bullet core slipping inside the jacket) due to excessive angular acceleration (aka, rotational acceleration). In that instance the powder charge is critical so as not to exceed the bullet's limited core/jacket bond strength when spinning it up. This is a problem for a light, fast bullets, but a slower heavier bullet in the gun may have no issues.
For a gun shooting very tight groups, like that benchrest gun, you find the amount the bullet is off-center when entering the throat can determine whether you get bugholes or not. For such rounds, case treatment may make more difference than bullet jump. But not always.
Case condition is probably usually at the bottom of the list, but not always. I personally had the experience of deburring flash holes cutting groups by 40% when I chose a powder that was very sensitive to ignition variables. For other powders in the same gun, it made little difference. So, do I say the case condition mattered more or the powder mattered more in that instance? Relative to one another, they were equally important, but you could get around either one by changing the case or changing the powder.
So you see what I'm getting at is just that different factors can be the dominant error term in different guns. Take one rifle and your list has one order. In another rifle it may have a different order. If forced to choose, having once had some really badly made 147 grain .308" FMJ Winchester bullets that no gun on earth could shoot under 3 moa with at 100 yards, I would say the bullet used probably has to be considered the most common dominant error governing element. But that's only because some really poor bullets exist. If they didn't, it might not be so.
James,
Per Mr. Guffey's response, though it seems tangential, it actually illustrates that you are asking a question for which the answer can be different in different rifles. His long freebore 7 mm may well have been extraordinarily sensitive to bullet jump timing; how long the bullet dwells in a position where gas is bypassing it before it finds and obturates (seals off) the bore. That has a significant effect on peak pressure timing which, in turn, affects powder charge needed and barrel exit timing. So, for his gun, I'm going to guess that COL (OAL, COAL, OL, etc.) was more important than any of the other factors, and that bullet weight and geometry were maybe more important than having top quality.
In a gun with an optimal throat and tangent ogive bullets, you may find relative immunity to COL differences. In this instance bullet straightness, as influenced by overall cartridge concentricity, and affected by case neck uniformity, has the larger effect on group spread.
In a gun whose rate of twist is fast for the bullet, the symmetry of the bullet jacket wall thickness can be a more important error term than shooting the same bullet at a lower spin rate is. This is usually interpreted as "over-stabilization", but it actually means spinning faster than necessary, so that any asymmetry in jacket wall thickness or core voids cause greater eccentric wobble of the bullet in flight. This is one reason short range benchrest shooters use stubby flat base bullets. They need fewer RPM to be stable at a given Mach number, so they can use a slower rifling twist with them and get less wobble opening groups up. So the choice of rifling pitch here affects how the choice of bullet influences group size.
For that same fast twist, you can also cause core stripping (the bullet core slipping inside the jacket) due to excessive angular acceleration (aka, rotational acceleration). In that instance the powder charge is critical so as not to exceed the bullet's limited core/jacket bond strength when spinning it up. This is a problem for a light, fast bullets, but a slower heavier bullet in the gun may have no issues.
For a gun shooting very tight groups, like that benchrest gun, you find the amount the bullet is off-center when entering the throat can determine whether you get bugholes or not. For such rounds, case treatment may make more difference than bullet jump. But not always.
Case condition is probably usually at the bottom of the list, but not always. I personally had the experience of deburring flash holes cutting groups by 40% when I chose a powder that was very sensitive to ignition variables. For other powders in the same gun, it made little difference. So, do I say the case condition mattered more or the powder mattered more in that instance? Relative to one another, they were equally important, but you could get around either one by changing the case or changing the powder.
So you see what I'm getting at is just that different factors can be the dominant error term in different guns. Take one rifle and your list has one order. In another rifle it may have a different order. If forced to choose, having once had some really badly made 147 grain .308" FMJ Winchester bullets that no gun on earth could shoot under 3 moa with at 100 yards, I would say the bullet used probably has to be considered the most common dominant error governing element. But that's only because some really poor bullets exist. If they didn't, it might not be so.
Pond James Pond
New member
Now when you explained it, it made perfect sense.
Thank you.
4runnerman
New member
Ya Ya Ya Metal. I still ( as in last post also) stay with-Don't matter how good a bullet you got if all other stages of reloading are junk-You have junk.
I should have worded it different in my first post to state- Of the 4 you have, bullet- Yes In so much a total product- The bullet is no more important then the rest.
. I still ( as in last post also) stay with-Don't matter how good a bullet you got if all other stages of reloading are junk-You have junk.I should have worded it different in my first post to state- Of the 4 you have, bullet- Yes In so much a total product- The bullet is no more important then the rest.
Pond James Pond
New member
I was thinking that, as well as KraigW and Weshoot2!
James:
One item you mentioned was annealing.
Very difficult to get right so that would be one of the factors to consider.
How much wrong annealing affect things I don't know, but getting it right is not easy though there are a lot of techniques developed to try.
the best one seemed to be the torch with air holes you could adjust the heat.
I am going to bring my pyrometer home one of these days and see what kind of torch temperature I am getting but that's not something most people have access to.
I have given it up for now as I picked up around 600 once fired cases and I can run those through at least 5 time3s before I have to worry about it, so a year or two at the rate I shoot.
Add in a bit of range brass pick up or being given and I am keeping ahead of the need.
I do know that at some point the brass gets hard enough that sans annealing seating bullets gets noticeably more difficult and that has to factor in.
One item you mentioned was annealing.
Very difficult to get right so that would be one of the factors to consider.
How much wrong annealing affect things I don't know, but getting it right is not easy though there are a lot of techniques developed to try.
the best one seemed to be the torch with air holes you could adjust the heat.
I am going to bring my pyrometer home one of these days and see what kind of torch temperature I am getting but that's not something most people have access to.
I have given it up for now as I picked up around 600 once fired cases and I can run those through at least 5 time3s before I have to worry about it, so a year or two at the rate I shoot.
Add in a bit of range brass pick up or being given and I am keeping ahead of the need.
I do know that at some point the brass gets hard enough that sans annealing seating bullets gets noticeably more difficult and that has to factor in.
Gunplummer
New member
I remember reading a report from the Frankford Arsenal that said the biggest difference in cartridge assembly that would change the point of impact was switching primers. I am a fan of the Frankford Arsenal, they had money to toss away to test all kinds of stuff. Norma was no slouch either, years back.
One of the most accurate hunting rifles I own has a horrendous looking bore. You never know.
One of the most accurate hunting rifles I own has a horrendous looking bore. You never know.
Last edited:
9MMand223only
New member
Seeing that I can shoot sub MOA with a quality barrel and bullet using any primer made for a 223, and mixed brass. That means, clearly, brass and primer are minor factors.
I would say from massive experience, that power load is the largest factor to accuracy. Overall, then barrel.
After all, berry's round nose .380 bullets shoot single holes through my CZ at some distance. And cheap hornady mass lot 55 grain FMJ BT shoots sub moa in a off the shelf colt ar.
However....if you load the wrong powder load in there...say 3 grains off for 223...the group could go from 1" to 4".
So powder load is the largest factor by a multiple of at least 2 or 3. Since cheap bullets, standard off the shelf barrels, in mixed brass can do MOA.
Put some super slow say...varget in a 50 grain bullet, see how terrible the accuracy is with the wrong load...it will be MAYBE 5 MOA.
Power without question guys.... its not even close.
I would say from massive experience, that power load is the largest factor to accuracy. Overall, then barrel.
After all, berry's round nose .380 bullets shoot single holes through my CZ at some distance. And cheap hornady mass lot 55 grain FMJ BT shoots sub moa in a off the shelf colt ar.
However....if you load the wrong powder load in there...say 3 grains off for 223...the group could go from 1" to 4".
So powder load is the largest factor by a multiple of at least 2 or 3. Since cheap bullets, standard off the shelf barrels, in mixed brass can do MOA.
Put some super slow say...varget in a 50 grain bullet, see how terrible the accuracy is with the wrong load...it will be MAYBE 5 MOA.
Power without question guys.... its not even close.
4runnerman
New member
9MM- You lost me on the Varget and 55 gn bullet. Varget is probebly the number one powder in 223's. While I do agree powder is very important as is primer.
I have said this before and will say it again- Every bullet good or bad can be made to shoot so so with the right load work up.
I have said this before and will say it again- Every bullet good or bad can be made to shoot so so with the right load work up.
9MMand223only
New member
Hello.
I used Varget for example. If you tried the wrong powder charge, using a "SLOW" powder for 223, such as Varget...in a 50 grain bullet, your accuracy is going to be horrendous.
OR
If you load a bad load using the wrong powder (A slow powder in a light bullet, or vice versa...) and lets say your doing 3 MOA at 24 grains..for example...
then some loads you have 27 grains in there, some 25, some 26, some 24.
You are going to see, at 100 yards, you are going to be off a lot, as in 5 MOA territory.
So with powder, you have 2 ways to be very inaccurate.
very wrong powder charge
OR
Any powder loading a variance of charges in the 2-3 grain area. (for example)
so not only are your bullets going to be maybe 3-5 MOA left to right..but up and down is going to be horrendous because some are flying say...400 FPS faster...(large example).
I am surprised by this thread.
There is no question, without a shadow of a doubt on this earth, if you take "human error" out of it or "earth factors such as wind" out of it.....that powder is not the largest factor in accuracy, by MULTITUDES.
And if you don't believe me...go load a 9 MM pistol with say...N105, then load it with the correct load of say...N320.
Tell me after you do that, powder is not the largest factor.
Powder guys...powder.
You can take cheap Nosler Varmigeddon X-Treme HP's in 55 grain, and you can take a knife to the end of them and cut "X's" in the tips and be totally inconsistent with the cuts, and they will still do 2-3 MOA in an off the shelf rifle. You can take bullets that weigh atrocious differences in the same batch, say 2 grains...and they will still do 2-3 MOA. You can take brass that has almost 0 neck tension because the top of the brass is already split and you can get decent headshot MOA at 100. You can mix and match magnum and non magnum primers, across 4 brands and get decent MOA.
But you cannot put a bad powder charge in, or use the wrong powder and get decent MOA, its all over the place.
I suppose if I were to play devils advocate with myself...I could argue bullet is the biggest factor..
because all I have to say is lets use a 30 grain bullet in a 1:7 twist AR15, or lets use a 80 grain bullet in a 1:14 twist. That thing will be keyholing and might have 15 MOA.
I used Varget for example. If you tried the wrong powder charge, using a "SLOW" powder for 223, such as Varget...in a 50 grain bullet, your accuracy is going to be horrendous.
OR
If you load a bad load using the wrong powder (A slow powder in a light bullet, or vice versa...) and lets say your doing 3 MOA at 24 grains..for example...
then some loads you have 27 grains in there, some 25, some 26, some 24.
You are going to see, at 100 yards, you are going to be off a lot, as in 5 MOA territory.
So with powder, you have 2 ways to be very inaccurate.
very wrong powder charge
OR
Any powder loading a variance of charges in the 2-3 grain area. (for example)
so not only are your bullets going to be maybe 3-5 MOA left to right..but up and down is going to be horrendous because some are flying say...400 FPS faster...(large example).
I am surprised by this thread.
There is no question, without a shadow of a doubt on this earth, if you take "human error" out of it or "earth factors such as wind" out of it.....that powder is not the largest factor in accuracy, by MULTITUDES.
And if you don't believe me...go load a 9 MM pistol with say...N105, then load it with the correct load of say...N320.
Tell me after you do that, powder is not the largest factor.
Powder guys...powder.
You can take cheap Nosler Varmigeddon X-Treme HP's in 55 grain, and you can take a knife to the end of them and cut "X's" in the tips and be totally inconsistent with the cuts, and they will still do 2-3 MOA in an off the shelf rifle. You can take bullets that weigh atrocious differences in the same batch, say 2 grains...and they will still do 2-3 MOA. You can take brass that has almost 0 neck tension because the top of the brass is already split and you can get decent headshot MOA at 100. You can mix and match magnum and non magnum primers, across 4 brands and get decent MOA.
But you cannot put a bad powder charge in, or use the wrong powder and get decent MOA, its all over the place.
I suppose if I were to play devils advocate with myself...I could argue bullet is the biggest factor..
because all I have to say is lets use a 30 grain bullet in a 1:7 twist AR15, or lets use a 80 grain bullet in a 1:14 twist. That thing will be keyholing and might have 15 MOA.