Vertical Dispersion: Flat spots on the MV ladder test are meaningless

[Tarmacshooter]

Here’s mine. I’ll bet my setup induces less error than yours. Adding the slightest extra shoulder or cheek pressure or “slapping the trigger” will cause a 1 moa errant shot. Go from a 10 ring to the 9 ring. Done it more than I can count.

 

[davidjoe]

When Bryan was testing bullets, there were a lot of barrel nut / Savage action/type rifles being used. Many guys here, myself included, have used them, kept maybe one or two, and then spent more $, again and again. They are very capable of small groups.

 

[davidjoe]

Here’s mine. I’ll bet my setup induces less error than yours.

Santa brings guns? I need to move further North. By my house, it’s socks.

 

[Tarmacshooter]

Rub and tugs gift certificates help with Santa.

 

[Tarmacshooter]

When Bryan was testing bullets, there were a lot of barrel nut / Savage action/type rifles being used. Many guys here, myself included, have used them, kept maybe one or two, and then spent more $, again and again. They are very capable of small groups.

Savage target actions are pretty capable. At the end of the day they will only get you so far. The trigger selection is terrible.

But almost nobody shoots a TA in competition and is successful on a national level.

 

[Beiruty]

Here’s mine. I’ll bet my setup induces less error than yours. Adding the slightest extra shoulder or cheek pressure or “slapping the trigger” will cause a 1 moa errant shot. Go from a 10 ring to the 9 ring. Done it more than I can count.

Very beautiful rifle.

 

[Tarmacshooter]

Very beautiful rifle.

Thank you. It’s not good enough. Off to backup duty. Or my other son will shoot it. This rifle has had things documented on it here on this website.

 

[paulT]

Here is an old load development for my Steyr SSG04 300WM rifle (hunting/intro sharpshooting rifle).
You can compare load 2, 3, 4. Note, that load 2 had smaller dispersion but high MV SD. Load 4 has very small MV SD, but the dispersion grew.

I had better examples, but I have to look for them.

300 WM 225gr ELD-M H1000 load development.xlsx

1drv.ms

Took a look at your test data which shows lowest sd & es with your 46g load question did you also try tuning the 46g load by a seating depth load testing of the 46g load?

 

[tom]

If @Beiruty is saying bullets converging doesn't line up with lowest es, then I would say I wouldn't disagree at all. I've only performed powder ladders, as in bullets going through paper, as far as 2,075 yards, so my observations are limited to that and shorter. Once in a while a great grouping load will register a low es, but often not average the lowest es. Have to admit I skipped through most of the thread once it became a dog pile.

Tom

 

[davidjoe]

If @Beiruty is saying bullets converging doesn't line up with lowest es, then I would say I wouldn't disagree at all.

A number of people say this, but a 0 ES is the only logical goal. There is a real problem with accepting non-correlation as being true. For consecutive bullets shot at different velocities, if they went through the same hole, it was due to luck, meaning a flinch, bad aiming, the wind, a bullet defect, etc.

In a tunnel with a constant hold, It is simply not possible for identical bullets to hit exactly the same place if they have different velocities. They will necessarily drop, spin, and spin drift at different rates. That we don’t shoot in a tunnel, does not mean that now a certain amount of ES that is bigger than 0, becomes good for accuracy.

 

[Beiruty]

Took a look at your test data which shows lowest sd & es with your 46g load question did you also try tuning the 46g load by a seating depth load testing of the 46g load?

Load 5,6,7 are verification for load 4. Note: OCW node, meaning the impact of the bullets relative to the point of aim are still holding. SD/ED jumped a lot, and it could be caused by hunting-quality brass that I was using. No Lupua 300WM brass at that time.

When pushed out the COAL for the 2 loads last loads, 8, 9 the dispersion grew.

 

[Tarmacshooter]

I’m pretty sure you should keep digging at your reloading bench. Your consistency would improve significantly. I’m also using an inherently more accurate round.

 

[Dave Way]

If @Beiruty is saying bullets converging doesn't line up with lowest es, then I would say I wouldn't disagree at all. I've only performed powder ladders, as in bullets going through paper, as far as 2,075 yards, so my observations are limited to that and shorter. Once in a while a great grouping load will register a low es, but often not average the lowest es. Have to admit I skipped through most of the thread once it became a dog pile.

Tom

Don’t they give awards for the lowest ES’s at the matches you shoot Tom?

 

[Tom E]

That was a waste of 30 minutes I’ll never get back,
I did learn a few things I guess, no one tunes a gun at a 1000
None of us know what a ladder is , wether it has 1 shot or 2 maybe even 3.
And Dave I just spit Dr Pepper on my shirt on the lowest es match

Maintain

 

[Tarmacshooter]

That was a waste of 30 minutes I’ll never get back,
I did learn a few things I guess, no one tunes a gun at a 1000
None of us know what a ladder is , wether it has 1 shot or 2 maybe even 3.
And Dave I just spit Dr Pepper on my shirt on the lowest es match

Maintain

This is why I try and stay out of these sub forums. Most of the time it’s completely inaccurate information.

As far as not tuning at 1000. I’m sure some do. But wind, sun and mirage make it difficult. Also some may not have the luxury of having access to 1000 yards on a regular basis.

We tune at 500. That’s what we have.

 

[Tom E]

This is why I try and stay out of these sub forums. Most of the time it’s completely inaccurate information.

As far as not tuning at 1000. I’m sure some do. But wind, sun and mirage make it difficult. Also some may not have the luxury of having access to 1000 yards on a regular basis.

We tune at 500. That’s what we have.

I only get on the comp thread and 6br occasionally plus classifieds as well
Think I’ll stick to that

Done a lot of tuning at 500 as well out of the shop, but I’m am lucky that we have a 1000 yd range over the hill from the house

 

[tom]

Don’t they give awards for the lowest ES’s at the matches you shoot Tom?

It's lowest IQ Dave. It's a close race, still to be determined.

Tom

 

[Tarmacshooter]

I only get on the comp thread and 6br occasionally plus classifieds as well
Think I’ll stick to that

Done a lot of tuning at 500 as well out of the shop, but I’m am lucky that we have a 1000 yd range over the hill from the house

Sage advice.

 

[INTJ]

This thread illustrates a classic problem. There are certain personality types--often newer shooters--that try to theorize and calculate their way to small groups at long range. There are others that reject almost all theory and only count actual experience. These two personality types usually do little more than argue with each other.

I think a better way is to develop theories, collect data, and do the math; but then go shoot and realize the true test is what we see on paper. A theory that doesn't work has little validity. With that in mind.......

Its very hard to shoot enough shots to have a meaningful statistical analysis. The barrel changes with every shot fired. Conditions change with every shot fired. Each piece of brass is different, as is each bullet, primer, and kernel of powder. Not to mention the difference in how we pull the trigger each time, how the rifle recoils, etc.

So we don't have any real constants for our analysis. Unless we just decide that all rifles are 2 MOA rifles, we need a different way.

We load as consistently as we can, shoot our target as consistently as we can, track conditions, groups, other data, etc. Then we constantly refine. From that, we can make GENERALIZATIONS. We can find things that are consistent most of the time, but understand nothing is 100% when it comes to shooting.

This process describes 1000 yd BR shooting. We shoot smaller groups at 1000 yds more often than anyone else. We constantly re-tune our loads. We know a lot more about what usually works than why it works.

All that is very frustrating to those who are used to arriving at the correct answer based on pure data analysis.

 

[Tarmacshooter]

This thread illustrates a classic problem. There are certain personality types--often newer shooters--that try to theorize and calculate their way to small groups at long range. There are others that reject almost all theory and only count actual experience. These two personality types usually do little more than argue with each other.

I think a better way is to develop theories, collect data, and do the math; but then go shoot and realize the true test is what we see on paper. A theory that doesn't work has little validity. With that in mind.......

Its very hard to shoot enough shots to have a meaningful statistical analysis. The barrel changes with every shot fired. Conditions change with every shot fired. Each piece of brass is different, as is each bullet, primer, and kernel of powder. Not to mention the difference in how we pull the trigger each time, how the rifle recoils, etc.

So we don't have any real constants for our analysis. Unless we just decide that all rifles are 2 MOA rifles, we need a different way.

We load as consistently as we can, shoot our target as consistently as we can, track conditions, groups, other data, etc. Then we constantly refine. From that, we can make GENERALIZATIONS. We can find things that are consistent most of the time, but understand nothing is 100% when it comes to shooting.

This process describes 1000 yd BR shooting. We shoot smaller groups at 1000 yds more often than anyone else. We constantly re-tune our loads. We know a lot more about what usually works than why it works.

All that is very frustrating to those who are used to arriving at the correct answer based on pure data analysis.

I’m pretty sure I’ve been saying this for a few days. Maybe it’s my delivery?