Can't really say as I haven't shot the rifle in about a year and I don't keep good records. I will say it will routinely group under an inch with 130 gr. Fusion or Winchester Ballistic Silver Tips. If memory serves, I believe I have shot a .5 ish 3 shot group with handloaded Sierra 130 gr. GKs.

I was pretty surprised with this group to say the least and don't know if I could do it again on demand. Generally, if I have a load (factory or handload) that groups under an inch, I am satisfied.

Bart, how about you forget about the speculations, opinions and Bench rest shooting techniques and post your real life experience with the Lee Factory Crimp die.

That way we can compare your Apples to our Apples. It will also give us a chance to help you figure out how to properly set up the LFCD for increased accuracy. Pictures of your results would be a big help.

Steve, I know better than to unbalance good bullets by putting an uneven groove around them. There's no way that crimp will create the same groove depth and shape all the way around. Therefore, the bullet's center of mass has shifted. That will unbalance them more than they already are. They'll jump further off the muzzle axis when they exit; and they all won't jump off axis in the same direction. To say nothing of the inconsistant and heavier release force it creates that increases muzzle velocity spread as well as making the pressure curve different for each shot.

Ever measured the release force amount and spread for crimped bullets to uncrimped ones? I have. That alone should convince folks not to crimp their bullets in place.

__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

Don't ask me, ask my guns. Bolt rifles don't need crimp, neither do ugly black rifles with proper neck tension. Leverguns and handguns seem to like crimps. Some handguns like a heavy roll crimp, others a light taper crimp, a few like variations in between. Cast bullets need a bit of a flare to aid in seating and a crimp die is often used to straighten up the case mouth but that may not technically be called a crimp since it doesn't actually reduce the case mouth ID past the nominal ID after sizing. Haven't seen the need for a Lee FCD yet but the concept interests me, just waiting for the proper situation.
The 22lr doesn't belong in this conversation. It's a heeled bullet and doesn't lend itself to reloading.

__________________
Life Member NRA, TSRA
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call Lonesome Dove
My favorite recipes start out with a handful of used wheelweights.

Grinding up match heads mixed with water to a paste, packing it in the rim of a case then letting it dry. A grain or so of black powder under a cast bullet stuck in the case. Worked fine for hunters in Siberia taking small game. One could get 2 or 3 reloads per case as long as it was indexed in the chamber so the firing pin would strike an undimpled point on the rim.

__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

Steve, I know better than to unbalance good bullets by putting an uneven groove around them. There's no way that crimp will create the same groove depth and shape all the way around. Therefore, the bullet's center of mass has shifted. That will unbalance them more than they already are. They'll jump further off the muzzle axis when they exit; and they all won't jump off axis in the same direction. To say nothing of the inconsistant and heavier release force it creates that increases muzzle velocity spread as well as making the pressure curve different for each shot.

More speculation and opinion? Afraid to try the LFCD? Excuse after excuse after excuse, but NO facts and no real data from your bench.

I actually test my loads and my theories at the bench. Sometimes my theories are correct, often times not. My real life testing disagrees with your opinions and theories. I have actually tested the LFCD and shown my results, where is your?

I don't have a cat in the fight over crimping but I would like to point out that personal experience is not always required to make an informed decision. I can learn a lot about the moon by talking to the people who went there, I don't have to do it myself.

I can guarantee that if crimping made for better accuracy, in the guns and with the loads that are used in competition, they WOULD be doing it. Those guys don't care about extra steps or a few bucks for another die. They want to win. Somebody in that game tests EVERYTHING that comes around and if it works, they do it. If they do it, others catch on and THEY do it. There's no way that the Lee FCD or any other crimp die makes THEIR ammo and guns more accurate. If it did, they WOULD be using it.

That said, those guns are a long way from our "normal" guns. We don't normally have $1,000 perfectly square actions and recoil lugs, perfectly bedded actions, $500 stocks, guns built by master gun-smiths, $600+ barrels, concentricity gauges, etc, and our entire die sets often cost 1/5th what those guys pay for a seating die.

Does a light crimp with the FCD or any other die help overcome some of the inadequacies in "normal" guns? I think maybe. Used correctly, there's evidence that it might. I say try it and find out.

In a high-end competition gun, no.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

The point is, if it made competition ammo better in competition guns, they WOULD be using it.

Guys who make money, set records, win national/international competition will try EVERYTHING.

I don't have any more to say on it because I don't really care if it works or not in this particular gun or that particular gun or for that guy or this one.

I'm just pointing out the obvious. If it worked, in competition, they'd be using it. They don't, so it doesn't. It doesn't, so they don't.

If some new bat came out (that was legal) and made huge claims, a whole bunch of the best big league hitters would try it. If it worked, they'd use it. If it didn't, they wouldn't. The same is true of any and every other sport. The "big guys" find out what works and what doesn't and they use what does.

Everybody else argues about it.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

I keep coming back to Brian's argument, and can't really find any fault with it - if you have a procedure or piece of equipment that's legal for use in competitive shooting, but no one at the highest echelon of the sport is using it, that's pretty telling.

The only counterargument I could think of would be if there's something else that the competitors are doing/using that would obviate the need for crimping, but I can't think of what that would be.

I keep coming back to Brian's argument, and can't really find any fault with it - if you have a procedure or piece of equipment that's legal for use in competitive shooting, but no one at the highest echelon of the sport is using it, that's pretty telling.

The only counterargument I could think of would be if there's something else that the competitors are doing/using that would obviate the need for crimping, but I can't think of what that would be

The proponents of the theory of increased accuracy of the lee crimp die are really following the “texas sharpshooter fallacy” http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html People see patterns where none exist and we are seeing an example of advertizing induced behavior.

The proponents of the theory of increased accuracy of the lee crimp die are really following the “texas sharpshooter fallacy” http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html People see patterns where none exist and we are seeing an example of advertizing induced behavior.

Or they just repeat what they heard or read on the internet without doing their own testing.. Real testing, not some smash the bullet all to hell as in the above photos, then claim the die doesn't work.

All it takes to see what the accuracy difference is between perfectly balanced bullets and those only very slightly unbalanced is to measure their unbalance amounts (using centrifugal force at a given rpm spin rate) then sort them into groups spaced by some arbitrary amounts. Full length size a bunch of .308 Win. cases reloading them with those groups of bullets. Then shoot them in an ordinary Win. 70 action with only its bolt and receiver face & lugs squared up for the Hart barrel then epoxy bedded in a plain wood stock. It's easy to see the difference between the perfectly balanced ones with .117 MOA accuracy and those slightly more unbalanced shooting .250 MOA. And the ones a lot out of balance would barely hold 1 MOA. This is at 600 yards where all the variables in the ammo are easily seen. At 100 yards, one would be very hard pressed to tell the difference. It's been done.

If your stuff (you + rifle + ammo) cannot discriminate to that level, any difference will be masked by much larger variables in the stuff used to test it.

__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

All it takes to see what the accuracy difference is between perfectly balanced bullets and those only very slightly unbalanced is to measure their unbalance amounts (using centrifugal force at a given rpm spin rate) then sort them into groups spaced by some arbitrary amounts. Full length size a bunch of .308 Win. cases reloading them with those groups of bullets. Then shoot them in an ordinary Win. 70 action with only its bolt and receiver face & lugs squared up for the Hart barrel then epoxy bedded in a plain wood stock. It's easy to see the difference between the perfectly balanced ones with .117 MOA accuracy and those slightly more unbalanced shooting .250 MOA. And the ones a lot out of balance would barely hold 1 MOA. This is at 600 yards where all the variables in the ammo are easily seen. At 100 yards, one would be very hard pressed to tell the difference. It's been done.

If your stuff (you + rifle + ammo) cannot discriminate to that level, any difference will be masked by much larger variables in the stuff used to test it.

Or you could load up some rounds with and some without the LFCD and head to the range. Pretty simple actually. Unless you are afraid you will find out that this die actually does what Lee and thousands of handloaders say it does, Improves accuracy.

I know, I know, wasting my time and yours. You will never run an accuracy test for yourself. You have theory and speculation, that's all you need.

Or you could load up some rounds with and some without the LFCD and head to the range. Pretty simple actually. Unless you are afraid you will find out that this die actually does what Lee and thousands of handloaders say it does, Improves accuracy.

I know, I know, wasting my time and yours. You will never run an accuracy test for yourself. You have theory and speculation, that's all you need.

Or you could drive a couple of hours and start competiting in long range or mid range matches and find out that your conclusions based on 100 yard targets are bogus.

Or you could drive a couple of hours and start competiting in long range or mid range matches and find out that your conclusions based on 100 yard targets are bogus.

I think you are afraid to test your theories in front of observers.

You could very well be right, but until I decide to do that, my simple 100 yard tests along with this simple 100 yard test will stand as positive proof the LFCD works and improves accuracy. What do you have besides smashed bullets as proof that it does not improve accuracy? Please, no more theories and opinions, just facts.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.