First group with h4350 pushing a 140 grain eld

[stand125]

When I started reloading 6.5 Creedmoor I settled on IMR 4451 due to the lack of h4350 available. I found a great load at 41.8 grains under 140 grain hollow point boat tail. They averaged right about a 1.5 in at 200 yd. Now that IMR 4451 is discontinued I found some h4350 and decided to load up 10 rounds with 41 grains of h4350 pushing a 140 grain eld with a overall length of 2.81. brass was 4X fired Star line small rifle primer brass. Brass was not shot out of the rifle I shot today so I'm hoping to bring the groups in even better now that the brass has been fire formed. Group measures 1.1 in. The other group with H4350 grouped right about the same with 4 at 3/4 inch and last shot about 3/4 inch out . What peeves me is that I totally felt me push the flyer out from the other four.

[kcstott]

When I started reloading 6.5 Creedmoor I settled on IMR 4451 due to the lack of h4350 available. I found a great load at 41.8 grains under 140 grain hollow point boat tail. They averaged right about a 1.5 in at 200 yd. Now that IMR 4451 is discontinued I found some h4350 and decided to load up 10 rounds with 41 grains of h4350 pushing a 140 grain eld with a overall length of 2.81. brass was 4X fired Star line small rifle primer brass. Brass was not shot out of the rifle I shot today so I'm hoping to bring the groups in even better now that the brass has been fire formed. Group measures 1.1 in. The other group with H4350 grouped right about the same with 4 at 3/4 inch and last shot about 3/4 inch out . What peeves me is that I totally felt me push the flyer out from the other four.

You need a smaller target, an actual offset target. that will help your grouping.

Once you get that, then you can really go down the rabbit hole

[the_tunaman]

H4350 (and IMR4350) is my favorite powder for my .260, 6.5x55 Swedes, and 7.5x55 Swiss’ - they all shoot really well with my loads.

[BrassCase]

R15 to R17 are also good choices. R17 if you want to get higher fps with heavier bullets.

[ar15barrels]

You need a smaller target, an actual offset target. that will help your grouping.

Or just a diamond shaped target so all 4 stadia lines of the reticle can us used to aim instead of just trying to slice up a circle into equal sections.



You can aim far more precisely on a diamond because if your reticle lines are not properly aligned, the points where the diamond outline disappears behind the reticle will not be even.

[kcstott]

Or just a diamond shaped target so all 4 stadia lines of the reticle can us used to aim instead of just trying to slice up a circle into equal sections.



You can aim far more precisely on a diamond because if your reticle lines are not properly aligned, the points where the diamond outline disappears behind the reticle will not be even.

that's only true if both the target and reticle are in perfect alignment.
I prefer the certified Bench Rest target with the huge square above the bulls eye, Or shotmarker's load development target. In any event yes don't destroy your point of aim with bullet holes.

[ar15barrels]

that's only true if both the target and reticle are in perfect alignment.

Wouldn't "the target and reticle are in perfect alignment" be the very definition of precision aiming?
Put the reticle into the exact same alignment on the target for every shot.
The whole point of the diamond it to make that more possible.

It would not matter if the target was leaning 5 degrees either way.
You put the 4 crosshairs on the 4 points of the diamond every time and let your bullets land in the diamond.
5 degrees of cant will not matter at shortrange if your aim is consistent.

If you are someone who would get bent out of shape about cant at shortrange, bring a level downrange before you stick the target up at 100 or 200yds.

[kcstott]

Wouldn't "the target and reticle are in perfect alignment" be the very definition of precision aiming?
Put the reticle into the exact same alignment on the target for every shot.
The whole point of the diamond it to make that more possible.

It would not matter if the target was leaning 5 degrees either way.
You put the 4 crosshairs on the 4 points of the diamond every time and let your bullets land in the diamond.
5 degrees of cant will not matter at shortrange if your aim is consistent.

If you are someone who would get bent out of shape about cant at shortrange, bring a level downrange before you stick the target up at 100 or 200yds.

I'm not going to put my SEB out of level to accommodated a cockeyed target.
You go right ahead and use what ever work for you. I like my bench rest targets, they work for me, my daughter doesn't seem to care much either.

[ar15barrels]

I'm not going to put my SEB out of level to accommodated a cockeyed target.

Then don't set your targets cockeyed.

Most people that I suggest diamond shaped targets to see a significant improvement in their groups because they are able to aim more consistently.

[kcstott]

Then don't set your targets cockeyed.

Most people that I suggest diamond shaped targets to see a significant improvement in their groups because they are able to aim more consistently.

I've never shot a diamond target and think that it would be more difficult to align four points then two. As to the cocked eyed target, well it's easier said then done. I don't shoot on public ranges and don't have manufactured target frames. So it's all eyeball level, and if it's off I'm not concerned. At 60X it's pretty easy to put the cross hairs in the same spot.

Bench rest target is mine, target with calipers is my daughters. Both were tuner testing, prone 100 meters, on seb rest and bags. 6xc, 115g DTAC's 2987 fps
I align my cross hairs on the bottom and left edge of large square.
the shot marker target is just a T shaped set of lines with a 3/8" circle.

[ar15barrels]

I've never shot a diamond target and think that it would be more difficult to align four points then two.

You should try it once before you completely ignore it as a trash idea.

It is more precise than aligning to two edges of the square because it removes line and reticle thickness issues.
You can read far better resolution in your aim due to the angled lines which are NOT behind the reticle but instead popping out of the sides of the reticle line.
You can probably aim to better than 0.010" repeatability on a diamond.

When you lay your crosshairs on the corner of the box, you are limited in how accurate you can repeat the position as you can't see HOW MUCH of the box is behind the reticle.
You can only see if there is air space or if some box pops out the other side of the reticle or if no box is showing outside of the reticle at the same time as there is no air space.

You could purposely turn your square box target a few degrees to create the same line width effect with your reticle.
You would center the reticle on the edges of the box such that you have equal amounts of box out of the reticle on one side and air space on the other.
Do that on both axis and you have a much more readable absolute aiming point.

[kcstott]

You should try it once before you completely ignore it as a trash idea.

It is more precise than aligning to two edges of the square because it removes line and reticle thickness issues.
You can read far better resolution in your aim due to the angled lines which are NOT behind the reticle but instead popping out of the sides of the reticle line.
You can probably aim to better than 0.010" repeatability on a diamond.

When you lay your crosshairs on the corner of the box, you are limited in how accurate you can repeat the position as you can't see HOW MUCH of the box is behind the reticle.
You can only see if there is air space or if some box pops out the other side of the reticle or if no box is showing outside of the reticle at the same time as there is no air space.

You could purposely turn your square box target a few degrees to create the same line width effect with your reticle.
You would center the reticle on the edges of the box such that you have equal amounts of box out of the reticle on one side and air space on the other.
Do that on both axis and you have a much more readable absolute aiming point.

This assumes the reticle is thick. My F class guns have 1/16th moa wide cross hairs. I don't use scopes with thick reticles for precision shooting.
This sounds like a great solution for the PRS guys. but that's me nor what I do for competition. I don't think it's a trash system. I just don't see any value in it.

[ar15barrels]

This assumes the reticle is thick. My F class guns have 1/16th moa wide cross hairs. I don't use scopes with thick reticles for precision shooting.
This sounds like a great solution for the PRS guys. but that's me nor what I do for competition. I don't think it's a trash system. I just don't see any value in it.

So your aiming system is limited to 1/16moa aiming accuracy them.
You could potentially reduce your group sizes by 1/16moa just by aiming more precisely if you did nothing else.

[kcstott]

So your aiming system is limited to 1/16moa aiming accuracy them.
You could potentially reduce your group sizes by 1/16moa just by aiming more precisely if you did nothing else.

Now you're just trolling. You go ahead and do what works for you. I'll stick with what works for me. I'm not concerned with 1/16th MOA at 100 yards nor am I overly concerned with group size after load workup. All that goes out the window at 1000 yards. I've shot in 1/2 moa mirage with 5 moa of wind on the gun with 1-2 moa pick ups and let offs. 1/16 moa potential reduction in group size is not going to matter when your point of aim is an undulating bowl of black jello with shrinking and expanding ellipse's as scoring rings.

[bcrich]

You guys should hug �� & shoot next to each other at the range .