Shiloh Rifle Forums

I’m at .250” compression with 73.2 gr 1.5F and a Brooks new Postell…but I’m a noob so this load may we’ll need some improvement.

I answered Kenny W too, and really appreciated his comment to me.
and...I guess I could be a little nicer too.
About having patience??? Well, that boat left the dock decades ago.
I told Kenny I listen to his comments because he knows what the heck he's doing! Ken

I HAD TO HIT IT TWICE KENNY
Ok I'll go to MY room now...Ken

JonnyV wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:30 pm I’m at .250” compression with 73.2 gr 1.5F and a Brooks new Postell…but I’m a noob so this load may we’ll need some improvement.

It will behoove you to pay more attention to what the target and your rifle tell you, than what someone posting opinion on the internet do. Not to say those opinions don't count but group size rules.

I'm an idiot!
I was compressing at .04
Then I read your comments about compressing 1.05.
I looked in my box of saved old targets...(We all keep that box), and I found this.

I had been compressing at 1.04 .

OH WELL, I'll try this again, and this time read my OWN notes.....
Ken

You can crank up the compression on some lots of Swiss and have it shoot very well. I placed second at Robert's BPTRA Creedmoor match a few years ago and had the high 1000 yard target using Swiss 1.5 in a .45-90, compressed about 0.275". This was using lot 010.213.

My .40-65 has shot a lot of clean targets at 300 yards using about 0.3" compression of lot 270.613. I don't think that lot of Swiss 1.5 had a very good reputation, but it was excellent once you compressed the heck out of it.

As Don says, test and let the rifle tell you what it wants.

Chris.

I know this has already been pointed out both directly and/or indirectly on this forum, however, a couple of basic things apparently require repetition. No offense to anyone just some things are what they are.

#1.- Each rifle is an entity unto itself.

#2.- Which load works well in one rifle does not necessarily work well in another rifle even if the rifles are otherwise the same.

#3.- What works well is dependent upon what the purpose intended is. Shooting paper at 100 yards is different from shooting paper at 600 yards
which is different from shooting paper at 1,000 yards. A load that shoots well at 100 may not shoot well at 600 and a load that shoots well at
600 may not shoot well at all at 1,000. Just the way it is.

#4.- Seldom, if ever, is there a perfect outcome and we frequently have to be satisfied with the best outcome that can be obtained.

#5.- Once the purpose is identified the application of the rifle and load to that purpose will be reflected in the results on the target. Think of the
target as a disinterested third party, a judge or umpire if you will.

#6.- Frequently, the shooter is the limiting factor to whatever level of success is deemed the most satisfactory.

#7.- The only way to determine suitability of a load in that rifle with that load is at the range shooting at a target.

That pretty much covers it Zack

Chris.

Ok I'm an idiot...
I said I compressed 1.4, It is .104
darn little decimal point. Ken

Yep, 010.213 was/is a very satisfactory lot, stocked up but unfortunately am running out mostly due to too much having fun.

Seems I recall a post by Doc Lay a while back indicating he had discovered that as one increases compression on Swiss (1.5 I seem to recall although it may have been 3F) results diminish quite a bit before hitting another sweet spot. Similar to what Gunlaker mentioned at .275" if not a bit more.

I know with several lots of 96 GOEX CTG and 97 2F I was compressing around .400" to get satisfactory results at 1,000 yards in a 45-90. BUT, while using slip fit bullets I don't recall the cartridge overall loaded length changing during transport and I did not need a cartridge seater with GOEX. In using Swiss, (3F in particular) using minimum compression the COAL would increase (apparently due to transport vibration or maybe heat) and I need to keep a cartridge seating tool handy, which could/may/probably does affect down range accuracy enough to be a problem. I tried neck sizing the case and full length sizing the case and found slip fit otherwise gave the best down range accuracy once you get to the longer ranges. Next, I am going to try using a .463" Walters Wad and leaving the charged case in the compression die until I charge the next case and take it to the compression die in hopes of ensuring that the COAL remains constant in transport. Yes, I think it does slow down the loading process but so does trickling rather than dumping powder through a drop tube, etc....

All part of balancing the load to obtain optimum results in the application to which it is applied.

Math is kind of a pet peeve of mine.

In my former life a math mistake could cost a lot of money, or maybe a life. Oil patch isn’t forgiving.

Another is bore vrs groove Diameter in conversations. A lot of folks get that wrong time and again, if I had a dime for every time someone says their rifle has a bore Diameter of .458 I would be a millionaire. They completely get groove mixed up as bore, the sad part is it’s very common.

When I say I compress Swiss to .380 inches in a 38-50 that is exactly what I mean. Same with my 45-11O comprehension of .385 if FG Goex or Olde Eynsford 1.5.

My patched to bore bullets are .446 or .445 before patching. Depends on the barrel, the 25# is a tad tighter. Bullets are .4505 or .4495 always about .0005 over actual bore of .450 or .449 Wet patched of course.


Kenny W

KW, I have often speculated. Have you ever experienced a barrel that the bore diameter was slightly less at the muzzle than just ahead of the chamber transition?

Therefore, would that reduce bullet diameter after initial bump up at the transition and again at the muzzle?

All Shilohs I own have choke at the muzzle.

It’s a after effect of the buttoning of the barrel?

One of the reasons I have never bothered with slugging the muzzle end of a barrel.

The bull barrels are definitely tighter bore then the #1 Heavy.

Kenny W

Interesting, very interesting.