YosemiteSam357
New member
I've been working up loads for a .243, recently started using an OAL gauge and comparator, and made my latest batch of loads to all be .010" off the lands. Upon shooting I was surprised to see much larger groups than I'd been getting previously. I then shot some leftovers from older loads, which were seated as far back as .10" off the lands, and got much better results with the same bullet weights and powder charges. In fact, some of the most accurate loads I've developed have been using 55gr bullets which have absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near the lands due to the short bullet length. This surprised the heck out of me. It seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom, or at least everything I've read about the subject, which indicates that having the bullets as close to the lands as possible will provide the best accuracy.
Yes, I know "every rifle is different", but this really surprises me. I mean, .10" off the lands? Is it possible that something else is going on here, or is it really not that uncommon?
Any advice or commiseration will be appreciated.
-- Sam
P.S. Why is it that it seems very few people shoot the .243? It has a great trajectory, weight, accuracy potential, etc, but it seems no one talks about it much online. Is it just that it's not the latest whiz-bang trendy round to be foisted on us by the manufacturers, and not a military round?
Yes, I know "every rifle is different", but this really surprises me. I mean, .10" off the lands? Is it possible that something else is going on here, or is it really not that uncommon?
Any advice or commiseration will be appreciated.
-- Sam
P.S. Why is it that it seems very few people shoot the .243? It has a great trajectory, weight, accuracy potential, etc, but it seems no one talks about it much online. Is it just that it's not the latest whiz-bang trendy round to be foisted on us by the manufacturers, and not a military round?