Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?
- Thread starter Jud96
- Start date
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
I suggest that you pay less attention to people who do not shoot in the sports that demand the absolute best in accuracy, and more to people who win in those that do. If you really believe that powder charge and seating depth are not important, good luck with that. Bryan is a champion in a sport where people hold their rifles, without a rest, and that does not have the necessary resolving power to take advantage of differences in accuracy that the various benchrest disciplines do. To be clear very few possess his talent or have achieved his level of success, but there are significant differences between the shooting disciplines. As far as the engineers in Hornady are concerned, if we had some names we could confirm that they have verified their opinions under match conditions, assuming that they compete in sanctioned competition. Again, we do not know what their equipment is capable of or whether the way that they shoot it does. Many times on the internet I see evidence that posters are looking for an excuse to be less rigorous in their methods, whether it be rifle preparation, scope mounting, load development, or method of shooting. As long as these people are satisfied with the results then none of that is a problem. The rub comes when they are not, and the advice they have chosen to take is holding them back.
Last edited:
I believe this to be true. I load for XTC and shoot ten shot groups to define a pet load and multiple ten shot groups to confirm what I think is a pet load.
Leeinmichigan
Silver $$ Contributor
At this year’s IBS short range Group Nationals, I changed my load almost every other target, and by doing so I won the 3-Gun, 2-Gun, 2 Grand Aggs, and 3 yardage aggregates. In all due respect for the experts, to be on the ultimate edge of accuracy and precision you have to make load and maybe bullet seating depth changes. Additionally, I was blessed with good luck and the spirits of those that have passed before me!
Happy Holidays to all of you.
Lee
Happy Holidays to all of you.
Lee
Bill Norris
Back in the Day
In your case it may be true, BUT just because you shoot that much to confirm an accurate load does not mean everyone else should and would have to in order to find their accurate load. No two rifles and loads are alike.
linekin
Gold $$ Contributor
^^^^^^^whatever he’s doing do that!
That’s a heckuva lotta fake wood!
Nice shooting!
Alex Wheeler
Site $$ Sponsor
They wrong.
The flaw in this, for us, is 'Variation is everywhere'.
You can't calibrate with every adjustment at the same time. Instead you use a calibration procedure that includes isolating prerequisites, and then takes you through coarse adjustments 1st, then fine. If a long analog string, then grooming(repeating) may be in order, but it's still in logical order.
Now you might have arrived at your procedure with DOE. That's good stuff, but a different phase.
It was mentioned that Bryan considers 1/2gr under 'max' as assumed developed.
Hard to believe, but it might explain inconsistent results across 20sht strings..
Max itself is a local matter to be tested for, while having different meaning from different builds.
CharlieNC
Gold $$ Contributor
If you are trying to identify a group that is 05" different than another during load optimization then yes the sample sizes are horrendous. A similar problem exists if you are using chrono SD as the defining parameter. Both these are measures of variability and are subject to a lot of error, which can call for large sample sizes. Attempting to quantify the performance of each load to a minute level of statistical confidence is wasted effort, and akin to not being able to see the forrest from the trees.
BUT if you are shooting a charge ladder in order to define a harmonic node based on the point of impact on the target (Audette ladder philosophy), then you are golden; and if you are a good shot and the conditions are not terrible then one shot per charge may be suitable; two shots is a dunk. In this case the defining parameter is not one of variability, but is an average vs one of variability (ie group size), which renders the result quite reproducible to which anyone who has used this method a few times can attest. In addition the analysis process involves evaluating the data in its entirity to deciver the overall trend in order to find the node, which is already known to be sinusoidal over a proper charge range. This is seeing the forrest.
For seating depth trials the focus is typically on group size, but the effect on poi should also be considered. So we are back to using a measure of variability as the response. BUT if the interpretation is based on looking at group size vs depth again as a trend vs trying to judge an individual group as uniquely being different, then more often than not the answer is clear. This is not the same as attempting to answer "what is the expected group size over the long haul" in order to select a single best load, which does require many samples. It's about fitting a line/curve to the overall results to determine the best option.
How did Tony Boyer ever learn anyhing with his two shot charge weight x seating depth matrix tests?
BUT if you are shooting a charge ladder in order to define a harmonic node based on the point of impact on the target (Audette ladder philosophy), then you are golden; and if you are a good shot and the conditions are not terrible then one shot per charge may be suitable; two shots is a dunk. In this case the defining parameter is not one of variability, but is an average vs one of variability (ie group size), which renders the result quite reproducible to which anyone who has used this method a few times can attest. In addition the analysis process involves evaluating the data in its entirity to deciver the overall trend in order to find the node, which is already known to be sinusoidal over a proper charge range. This is seeing the forrest.
For seating depth trials the focus is typically on group size, but the effect on poi should also be considered. So we are back to using a measure of variability as the response. BUT if the interpretation is based on looking at group size vs depth again as a trend vs trying to judge an individual group as uniquely being different, then more often than not the answer is clear. This is not the same as attempting to answer "what is the expected group size over the long haul" in order to select a single best load, which does require many samples. It's about fitting a line/curve to the overall results to determine the best option.
How did Tony Boyer ever learn anyhing with his two shot charge weight x seating depth matrix tests?
so a known problem with open forums...mixed types of shooting in a single thread.....zero continuity.
listen to people that win in your discipline.
common example a steel shooter making comments on a 1000 yd br thread.
neither of those 2 sources are active benchrest shooters. hornady use to have a lr team..not sure if they still shoot.
we shoot 5/10 shot groups, 20 is a waste of bbl life and money to a br shooter.
listen to people in your type/style of shooting. ok to read other stuff but need a big filter.
learn who to listen to
listen to people that win in your discipline.
common example a steel shooter making comments on a 1000 yd br thread.
neither of those 2 sources are active benchrest shooters. hornady use to have a lr team..not sure if they still shoot.
we shoot 5/10 shot groups, 20 is a waste of bbl life and money to a br shooter.
listen to people in your type/style of shooting. ok to read other stuff but need a big filter.
learn who to listen to
I’d like to see them come to a short or long range BENCHREST match. Especially a short range match where you need to shoot a different load nearly every time you sit down out the bench. I think it would change their reality.
Many people forget the first step of defining their actual requirements. I have seen mates use up significant percentages of their barrel life chasing the "best" load when every load they tried would have been fine for their purposes. That is crazy. The other problem is you can develop a great load and then be unable to get the same components again so you sometimes have to be flexible. I'd rather be able to load a thousand 1/2 MOA loads with components I can actually buy and go shooting than not be able to load my 1/4 MOA loads due to a lack of components and sit at home dreaming of shooting.
I think 5 is enough to get good velocity data. Then I load up 50 or more at maximum COL and do my depth testing at the range with a portable press. I figure it if the first two or three shots aren't grouping and I feel good about my part then any further rounds won't tighten that group up any so there is no reason to pursue that load
Leeinmichigan
Silver $$ Contributor
Let me add one more point. As to load “development”, statistically over the course of a season of shooting matches, you are constantly evaluating your initial starting point (i.e., load and bullet seating settings) with the changes you experience in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, etc. So, to some extent, you are up there in the hundreds of rounds to arrive at what works. The differences between competitive and everything else type shooting is when you can say, “…that’s good enough”. My load development for my .358 Winchester and/or 7mm Remington Mag, is inconsequential for for my hunting needs in Michigan, but for competition I’m seldom satisfied that I can’t do better.
Last edited:
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
At what point does the number of shots in a group really begin to measure the shooter's skill, rather than tune of the load/rifle setup?
Stats have their place in load development. But in fairness, everything we do during the load development/testing process is already heavily biased toward shooting the smallest groups possible, regardless of the number of shots in each group. In other words, everything we do is aimed at generating a shot distribution that does not necessarily conform to a typical Gaussian distribution. As such, it is worth asking the question of how well do our group results actually conform to a normal distribution, and how well do statistic analyses actually apply to the number of shots necessary in a group to reach some specified confidence level? As we all know, a single errant shot, or "flier", can wreck an otherwise tight group, no matter how many shots the group contains. Thus, maximum group spread by definition is determined by only two shots, the same as with velocity ES. The larger the number of shots in the group, the greater the odds than the shooters themselves will be the underlying cause of the single errant shot that opens up the group, rather than load/rifle. As much as we might try to remove the "shooter" from the load development equation, it is not realistically possible to do so for most of us.
This is just something to consider in light of the notion that it is essential to use a much a larger sample size than would commonly be used by many shooters during the load development process (i.e. 10-20 shots versus 3-5 shots). Given the time and cost currently associated with reloading components and barrel replacement, I would suggest using whatever minimal number of shots per group that will satisfy the individual's wants. If someone wishes to use 10-20 groups during load development, it is not really going to hurt anything other than perhaps barrel life. But will doing so really help someone dial in a load that much better? If they can achieve the same goal using 3-5 round groups, so much the better. Over the years, I gravitated to using 3-shot groups during seating depth testing, especially during an initial seating depth test. Many times that is sufficient to make it obvious at which seating depth the load wants to tune in. If I have any questions regarding the initial results, I may go back and repeat the test across what I perceived to be the "optimal" seating depth window using 2x3-shot groups, just for my own peace of mind. Doing so has rarely, if ever changed my interpretation about optimal seating depth from the results of the initial 3-shot test.
Stats have their place in load development. But in fairness, everything we do during the load development/testing process is already heavily biased toward shooting the smallest groups possible, regardless of the number of shots in each group. In other words, everything we do is aimed at generating a shot distribution that does not necessarily conform to a typical Gaussian distribution. As such, it is worth asking the question of how well do our group results actually conform to a normal distribution, and how well do statistic analyses actually apply to the number of shots necessary in a group to reach some specified confidence level? As we all know, a single errant shot, or "flier", can wreck an otherwise tight group, no matter how many shots the group contains. Thus, maximum group spread by definition is determined by only two shots, the same as with velocity ES. The larger the number of shots in the group, the greater the odds than the shooters themselves will be the underlying cause of the single errant shot that opens up the group, rather than load/rifle. As much as we might try to remove the "shooter" from the load development equation, it is not realistically possible to do so for most of us.
This is just something to consider in light of the notion that it is essential to use a much a larger sample size than would commonly be used by many shooters during the load development process (i.e. 10-20 shots versus 3-5 shots). Given the time and cost currently associated with reloading components and barrel replacement, I would suggest using whatever minimal number of shots per group that will satisfy the individual's wants. If someone wishes to use 10-20 groups during load development, it is not really going to hurt anything other than perhaps barrel life. But will doing so really help someone dial in a load that much better? If they can achieve the same goal using 3-5 round groups, so much the better. Over the years, I gravitated to using 3-shot groups during seating depth testing, especially during an initial seating depth test. Many times that is sufficient to make it obvious at which seating depth the load wants to tune in. If I have any questions regarding the initial results, I may go back and repeat the test across what I perceived to be the "optimal" seating depth window using 2x3-shot groups, just for my own peace of mind. Doing so has rarely, if ever changed my interpretation about optimal seating depth from the results of the initial 3-shot test.
Last edited:
I do 3 shot groups ( every .4 th's of a grain of Powder ) to, find Pressure, first ( Miking the .200 Area on case and looking for, "Swipes" and craters ) W/ Bullet at .020 "Off" then, do 3 shot groups, again "moving", the Bullet back / forth ( Seat depth ) and Chrono Vel. After finding, an Acceptable "Hunting Load" for my Rifle
( usually at, a near Max charge ) I will then, shoot, 3, FIVE Shot, groups at, 200 Yds, on Different Days,.. wanting 1 1/2" dia. groups, Max at, 200 ( 3/4 MOA ) I'm DONE,.. Then, I Verify the BC's to, Scope "Dial" at,.. 300, 500 and 700 Yards.
I won't go with, ONE "Wallet Group" but won't do 20 or, 30 shots to, keep on Testing, either.
It's hard to "Concentrate" when shooting, a LOT of Rounds ( 5 to 7 is about, my "Limit" of, good,.. "Focus" ).
Strickly, Target / Varmint, Rifles I'll STRIVE for, the 1/4 MOA Group but , may "Settle" for, anything, sub 1/2 MOA.
Ned Ludds, FIRST Line,... is absolutely, CORRECT,.. IMO !
Last edited:
DR_2297
Silver $$ Contributor
It’s all about noise and confidence. If you want to be say, 95% confident that the population mean (say 5k rounds - life of a cut rifling barrel give is take) of the charge you settle on will be representative within X margin of error for a given standard deviation then you can do some math and calculate the sample size needed. This of course assumes continuous data that follows a normal distribution. Which our stuff doesn’t. The shooting platform (shooter) varies, barrel changes over time, as does the atmosphere and probably powder lot and bullet geometry unless you buy a huge amount of a single lot…. That is why from one outing to the next your realistically have days of big groups and days of small groups.
Find a load. Go shoot it a lot and then do the math on all of those trials with whatever sample size of each and you will end up with a population mean and standard deviation accounting for all of the variation.
I have a table somewhere I generated that tells me sample size and confidence intervals for desired margins of error and sample standard deviation. I just filed it away because it was saddening and I will never fire the # of rounds needed to be happy.
To be honest, I fire at a big target and I hold my rifle and use a sling… I am by far more error input than internal and external ballistics of my rifle. So finding a node where elevation is stable and j am not redlining and then adjusting to find smallest group (and I am not using .003 increments) and reverifying with larger sample size and ultimately at match in 20 shot strings is my general method.
You want to know what the rifle and load will do then go find a setup like the smallbore ammo test facilities… otherwise spray and pray.
Find a load. Go shoot it a lot and then do the math on all of those trials with whatever sample size of each and you will end up with a population mean and standard deviation accounting for all of the variation.
I have a table somewhere I generated that tells me sample size and confidence intervals for desired margins of error and sample standard deviation. I just filed it away because it was saddening and I will never fire the # of rounds needed to be happy.
To be honest, I fire at a big target and I hold my rifle and use a sling… I am by far more error input than internal and external ballistics of my rifle. So finding a node where elevation is stable and j am not redlining and then adjusting to find smallest group (and I am not using .003 increments) and reverifying with larger sample size and ultimately at match in 20 shot strings is my general method.
You want to know what the rifle and load will do then go find a setup like the smallbore ammo test facilities… otherwise spray and pray.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.