Weight Sort Bullets for LR?



  • Do any of you who shoot long range (1000 - 1750 yds) sort your bullets by weight?

    I am using Berger bullets. I have been sorting them by weight, but honestly, if it's a waste of time I would be happy not to do so anymore. Anyone have any conclusive evidence for or against?



  • I've not weight sorted for some time. I've not noticed a variation that would cause me to begin again.

    I'm able to shoot quite well without it, though weight and bearing length sorting may reduce some of the shots that go .05 mil out of the norm. I can hit a lot of 1/2" dots at 100yds without sorting.



  • I sort them by bearing length and that's one of the many things that contributed to lower my SD/ES numbers.



  • @toni
    @orkan

    Thanks for the tip on sorting by bearing surface, as I had not previously heard of sorting bullets this way.

    This makes sense to me after I read up on it, and can see how this could make a difference at 800 + yards and probably would make a big difference at say 1500+ yards. I would think it would have to help, or at least couldn't hurt. Maybe it just makes me feel better and gives me confidence that my rounds are as identical as I can get them. At the very least, you can find any odd bullets that fall out of the norm and cull them.

    This weekend, I took a box of 100 count 180 gn Berger VLD's (plus a couple of extras from a previous box) and sorted them both by weight and by bearing surface. I found it to be a pretty interesting exercise.

    Results of sorting by weight were very consistent (and kind of verifies why weight sorting may not be worth as much):

    180.0 gn = 86
    179.9 gn = 15
    179.8 gn = 1

    Results of sorting by bearing surface were pretty consistent as well, but I did find 4 bullets that were out of the norm by 0.011" in bearing surface length:

    0.616" = 3
    0.615" = 78
    0.614" = 17
    0.624" = 1 ---- culled
    0.625" = 1 ---- culled
    0.626" = 2 ---- culled



  • @catamount1 said in Weight Sort Bullets for LR?:

    This makes sense to me after I read up on it, and can see how this could make a difference at 800 + yards and probably would make a big difference at say 1500+ yards. I would think it would have to help, or at least couldn't hurt. Maybe it just makes me feel better and gives me confidence that my rounds are as identical as I can get them. At the very least, you can find any odd bullets that fall out of the norm and cull them.

    This weekend, I took a box of 100 count 180 gn Berger VLD's (plus a couple of extras from a previous box) and sorted them both by weight and by bearing surface. I found it to be a pretty interesting exercise.

    Results of sorting by weight were very consistent (and kind of verifies why weight sorting may not be worth as much):

    180.0 gn = 86
    179.9 gn = 15
    179.8 gn = 1

    Results of sorting by bearing surface were pretty consistent as well, but I did find 4 bullets that were out of the norm by 0.011" in bearing surface length:

    A few months back I did a little experiment when I found quite a few of my SMK's had a bearing surface length .030 - .033 longer than others. So I too 20 of those that measured .499 - .500 and loaded them along with 20 that measured .466 - .467 and used same amount of powder, same lot of brass and primers (also seated at same depth), etc to see if there might be any significant difference just due to difference in bearing surface length. I also weighed them all and found very little variance and not much of a difference in the over all bullet length either. Though there was some correlation between the bearing surface length and their over all length and the weight. . . but not much and certainly not near the difference I saw in the bearing surface length.

    I measured each bullet after seating and they seated within +/- .001 of each other within the two groups. What surprised me was that the longer group was giving me a shorter base to ojive length and I made adjustment to be sure these measurements were within that same .001 variance.

    As it turned out, the 20 longer bearing surface length rounds gave me an average MV of 35.5 fps more than the 20 shorter ones. And as you might expect, the POI's were different.

    So, .030 - .033 difference in surface bearing length does make a significant difference. But I'm now not sure just where to draw the line. Like . . . does .011 difference have much affect??? In any case, I now measure the bearing surface lengths for all my bullets and group them in batches that fall within .003 of each other and I don't bother with over all bullet length or weight. I get very consistent seating measurements now and I believe this has helped me get my SD's down to single digits and lower my ES's some as well.

    It was a interesting and fun experiment and convinced me that measuring and segregating by bearing surface length can be a critical step in precision loading.



  • @straightshooter1 said in Weight Sort Bullets for LR?:

    A few months back I did a little experiment when I found quite a few of my SMK's had a bearing surface length .030 - .033 longer than others. So I too 20 of those that measured .499 - .500 and loaded them along with 20 that measured .466 - .467 and used same amount of powder, same lot of brass and primers (also seated at same depth), etc to see if there might be any significant difference just due to difference in bearing surface length. I also weighed them all and found very little variance and not much of a difference in the over all bullet length either. Though there was some correlation between the bearing surface length and their over all length and the weight. . . but not much and certainly not near the difference I saw in the bearing surface length.

    I measured each bullet after seating and they seated within +/- .001 of each other within the two groups. What surprised me was that the longer group was giving me a shorter base to ojive length and I made adjustment to be sure these measurements were within that same .001 variance.

    As it turned out, the 20 longer bearing surface length rounds gave me an average MV of 35.5 fps more than the 20 shorter ones. And as you might expect, the POI's were different.

    So, .030 - .033 difference in surface bearing length does make a significant difference. But I'm now not sure just where to draw the line. Like . . . does .011 difference have much affect??? In any case, I now measure the bearing surface lengths for all my bullets and group them in batches that fall within .003 of each other and I don't bother with over all bullet length or weight. I get very consistent seating measurements now and I believe this has helped me get my SD's down to single digits and lower my ES's some as well.

    It was a interesting and fun experiment and convinced me that measuring and segregating by bearing surface length can be a critical step in precision loading.

    Thanks for sharing your experience and data straightshooter1! That is very helpful.


 

Looks like your connection to Gunhive was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.