Page 1 of 1
Load development success
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:17 pm
by jabberwo
The only problem with finding a load your wad gun likes this much at 50yds,
- Nosler 185gr JHP, Remington re-used brass, CCI primer, 4.7gr BullsEye.
- 4.7gr BE at 50yds.JPG (51.19 KiB) Viewed 3026 times
is that now I know all the 8s, and less, are on me!
Shooting off a rest using my red dot.
Re: Load development success
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 6:58 am
by Rover
Hey, Bickar! You wanna handle this one? I'll shut up.
Re: Load development success
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:59 am
by David Levene
I know nothing about .45 calibre but, just out of interest, is this considered to be good grouping?
Re: Load development success
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:20 am
by Misny
David Levene wrote:I know nothing about .45 calibre but, just out of interest, is this considered to be good grouping?
Considering it was hand held off a bench, using a red dot scope (no magnification) it is a decent group. I've fired the same load from the Ransom rest, from different accurized pistols, and 2" or less is generally what one can expect. I've seen one-hole groups at 50 yards (under an inch) with this load from the machine rest. A ten shot 3 1/2" group at 50 yards will keep them all in the 10 ring.
Re: Load development success
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:41 am
by David Levene
Misny wrote:David Levene wrote:I know nothing about .45 calibre but, just out of interest, is this considered to be good grouping?
Considering it was hand held off a bench, using a red dot scope (no magnification) it is a decent group.
Thanks
Re: Load development success
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:02 pm
by jabberwo
I was certainly happy with it. A grain less or more and the group is 50% bigger. And I called the high shot. With my astigmatism, the red dot is more of a figure eight and sometimes I center the wrong part in the black. 1.69" w/o that outlier. :-)
Re: Load development success
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 2:16 pm
by john bickar
Rover wrote:Hey, Bickar! You wanna handle this one? I'll shut up.
Is there an expiration date on this offer?
Re: Load development success
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:52 pm
by Rover
I'll be quiet as long as you keep "handling" it. Also,
http://static.globalnoticias.pt/storage ... =big&pos=0
BTW Jabberwo, presciption glasses (fixing your astigmatism) will magically make your red dot round.
Re: Load development success
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:13 am
by dronning
David Levene wrote:I know nothing about .45 calibre but, just out of interest, is this considered to be good grouping?
When gunsmiths test 45acp barrels for accuracy they can get sub 1" accuracy @ 50yds, but it's rare for the .45acp. A well built 1911 can produce 50 yd sub 1.25" 10 shot groups from a machine rest, but they are pricey. Most bullseye shooters would be ecstatic with a sub 2" gun.
- Dave
Re: Load development success
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:36 am
by john bickar
Re: Load development success
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:51 am
by john bickar
David Levene wrote:Misny wrote:David Levene wrote:I know nothing about .45 calibre but, just out of interest, is this considered to be good grouping?
Considering it was hand held off a bench, using a red dot scope (no magnification) it is a decent group.
Thanks
For reference, the NRA conventional pistol target has a 1.695" X-ring and a 3.36" 10-ring (pretty close to one ring larger than the free pistol target, if that makes sense).
So a .45 that shoots a "2-inch group" is an X-ring gun, due to our baffling convention of measuring group size center-to-center while scoring based on inside edge.
Most bullseye shooters can't call their shots within 1 inch at 50 yards, so a 2" gun is fine, but typically High Masters are shooting .45s that are sub-1.5" at 50.
Re: Load development success
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:00 am
by rmca
john bickar wrote:
(pretty close to one ring larger than the free pistol target, if that makes sense).
Loosely translated, close to the nine ring, rigth? :)
john bickar wrote:
Most bullseye shooters can't call their shots within 1 inch at 50 yards, so a 2" gun is fine, but typically High Masters are shooting .45s that are sub-1.5" at 50.
What kind of accuracy should one expect at 25yds from those guns? Half the 50yd group or less than that?
Re: Load development success
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:48 am
by john bickar
rmca wrote:john bickar wrote:
(pretty close to one ring larger than the free pistol target, if that makes sense).
Loosely translated, close to the nine ring, rigth? :)
Yeah, free pistol 9-ring=100mm=3.93".
rmca wrote:john bickar wrote:
Most bullseye shooters can't call their shots within 1 inch at 50 yards, so a 2" gun is fine, but typically High Masters are shooting .45s that are sub-1.5" at 50.
What kind of accuracy should one expect at 25yds from those guns? Half the 50yd group or less than that?
Almost always better than half the size of the 50yard group. Weird things happen to pistol groups between 25 and 50 yards. I don't know anyone that bothers to Random Rest at 25 yards, though; I certainly don't.
And jabberwo, I didn't mean to imply that yours was a bad group. I'd shoot that gun/load combo.
Re: Load development success
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 8:39 pm
by Sa-tevo
john bickar wrote:
Almost always better than half the size of the 50yard group. Weird things happen to pistol groups between 25 and 50 yards. I don't know anyone that bothers to Random Rest at 25 yards, though; I certainly don't.
It gets frustrating that a lot of US magazines and firearms forums will get all excited about 25 yard Ransom Rest groups. You think you're starting to read something informative and it's all participation ribbons.
I really miss Gil Hebard's testing methods and humor. He would test several serial numbers of the same pistol.
Re: Load development success
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:25 pm
by dronning
Most 45's should be able to hold the X ring at 25yards - even if you are shooting lubed rocks!
- Dave
Re: Load development success
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:48 am
by KevinGD
FYI on the astigmatism, I find a tiny aperture turns the hourglass red dot into a circle again. And, I can see the front sight, too. A lot cheaper than a new prescription.
Kevin