Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?

[BoydAllen]

When we use one point of aim and superimpose the tuning groups we are essentially doing a ocw style of load development just viewing from a different angle

When most of the people that I know of test charge weights, they work with a proven seating depth, that more often than not has the bullet seated into the rifling, so no, we are not doing OCW.

 

[dgeesaman]

Recently I’ve read/heard some people in the industry suggesting that seating depth and powder charge isn’t as critical as some of us think. These people include Bryan Litz and ballisticians at Hornady…… I’m just wondering how much time and components I’m wasting if I’m just chasing statistically insignificant results?

A few thoughts:
1) “statistically significant results” sounds like it’s clear and important but the boundary of what an investigator considers to be statistically significant is an academic assumption. For most benchrest shooters, being 75% certain of optimal tune is good enough because you will be making adjustments on the competition day and between relays and nobody expects to independently repeat your experiment and get the same results.
2) I believe ‘load development’ is as much about eliminating bad combinations as much or more than achieving certainty you’ve chosen the most perfect one. So even a cheap 2-shot group ladder can achieve that.
3) if you perform a powder ladder and seating ladder, then perform a fine seating ladder third, your final load will have been tested two or three times.
4) Brian and Hornady are writing for shooting disciplines like PRS where a normal comp is 80 rounds with no sighters, no cleaning, and no compensation for changing conditions. Their tune is not the same thing as a benchrest tune.
5) Statistical certainty of a moving target is a fools errand. Maybe you can do it in .308 with enough components, but for most match calibers the barrel will evolve in 100, certainly 200 rounds. Statistics wonks haven’t even completed a “statistically significant” powder charge test by this point. So on paper it has more certainty but in the real world the system is not compatible with such a concept.

 

[BoydAllen]

Isn't OCW just a branded way of saying "shoot groups and vary things"?

Here is a link to directions for doing OCW. The way that I test is significantly different in several ways. My way has worked very well, for many rifles, barrels, and calibers.

OCW reloading instructions

OCW reloading overview and instructions

www.ocwreloading.com

 

[INTJ]

I would bet the Top Guys in Benchrest would do very well at PRS match once they had a little practice.

I agree, but I also think a serious competitor in most any shooting discipline could do well in another--if they took it seriously.

After I had started shooting LRBR several years ago I decided to give Highpower a try. The HP guys gave me a hard time about being a BR shooter and were stunned when I finished mid-pack both matches that I shot. One of them asked me how could a guy that shoots off the bench could do anywhere near that will his first time out. I told him it was simple--just don't pull the trigger until the sights are aligned where you want them.

Conversely, when I started LRBR, I was at bottom of the pack for the entire first year. The difference was when I started LRBR, I had no competition shooting experience, mediocre equipment, and didn't really know how to load, shoot consistently, or develop a tune.

When I tried HP I made sure I had better quality equipment and figured out how to shoot from the various positions. So it was having a good basic approach that gave me a better start in Highpower.

I didn't stick with Highpower because it just seemed like a lot of hassle to shoot large groups at big targets, and that didn't appeal to me. So I didn't have the motivation to put in the work at developing my skill for that discipline.

PRS also looks like a big hassle to me, so it doesn't interest me either. I work with a guy who is a serious PRS competitor and he works very hard to shoot well and be competitive, so my lack of interest in shooting PRS isn't because I think it's an inferior discipline.

What appeals to me is the no compromises approach to the ultimate in accuracy and precision that are requirements of LRBR. For other guys, the thought of having to do that drives them nuts.....

BTW, the other two shooting disciplines where I have a little interest is ELR and center fire Silhouette. Neither are precision disciplines, but the idea of making offhand hits a 547 yds is appealing. I doubt I'll ever have time to pursue Silhouette. I am going to shoot a little ELR for fun, but it's not where my heart is.

 

[tom]

I am going to shoot a little ELR for fun, but it's not where my heart is.

If we ever put in the necessary effort to improve the range at Townsend, I think you'll like that game. Trying to keep a ladder on paper at 2,075 yards is a hoot BTW! But I've done okay, although a very tiny pond, in that game with insufficient data as well!

Tom

 

[INTJ]

If we ever put in the necessary effort to improve the range at Townsend, I think you'll like that game. Trying to keep a ladder on paper at 2,075 yards is a hoot BTW! But I've done okay, although a very tiny pond, in that game with insufficient data as well!

Tom

Are we having a match there next year?

 

[tom]

Are we having a match there next year?

I don't know when, but I'd like to. Fall would be best I think, but I will have to see what's available. If possible after September, but before general season starts. Fire danger should have gone away by then, but the range may be too busy?

Tom

 

[Dusty Stevens]

So, the same guy who says barrel tuners don't work, is now saying 5-shot powder/seating depth load development doesn't work? Sounds like someone is trying to drumb up attention in order to sell something.

In order to NOT sell anything to the folks that have done any tuning. Its hard to alienate 99% of your audience, pretty much tell them what they see and have done is an oasis, and not prove them wrong with actual testing

 

[Dusty Stevens]

 

[CharlieNC]

This ladder was carried out at 200yd with two shots per charge. While all of the shots were only a little over 0.6moa, the response is statistically significant within this range because the the signal(the fitted curve) over-rides the noise (the variability of the two shots at each charge weight). Total of 22 shots, not 20 per load to be "statistically valid". In other words, the test for significance for fitting curves is different and not limited by the test required to judge if group A is different from group B, which is basis for the Litz/Hornady proposal. While both methods are fruit (statistical based) there are apples vs oranges, similar but different. Those who routinely shoot ladder tests to define a node observe this and through a little experience learn the results are very reproducible, not requiring large sample sizes.

 

[Jeff Porter]

I agree, but I also think a serious competitor in most any shooting discipline could do well in another--if they took it seriously.

After I had started shooting LRBR several years ago I decided to give Highpower a try. The HP guys gave me a hard time about being a BR shooter and were stunned when I finished mid-pack both matches that I shot. One of them asked me how could a guy that shoots off the bench could do anywhere near that will his first time out. I told him it was simple--just don't pull the trigger until the sights are aligned where you want them.

Conversely, when I started LRBR, I was at bottom of the pack for the entire first year. The difference was when I started LRBR, I had no competition shooting experience, mediocre equipment, and didn't really know how to load, shoot consistently, or develop a tune.

When I tried HP I made sure I had better quality equipment and figured out how to shoot from the various positions. So it was having a good basic approach that gave me a better start in Highpower.

I didn't stick with Highpower because it just seemed like a lot of hassle to shoot large groups at big targets, and that didn't appeal to me. So I didn't have the motivation to put in the work at developing my skill for that

Different strokes … what draws me to Highpower and sling shooting Midrange and Long range prone matches is just what turned you away. I like the fact that it is more the Indian than the arrow. Load development for Service rifle and Palma .308 is already done and published all over the internet. It isn’t hard to select a 0.5 moa load and go shoot. Highpower is a shooting contest more than an arms race. It is about wind reading and learning the position stability and trigger control.

 

[JMayo]

Here is a link to directions for doing OCW. The way that I test is significantly different in several ways. My way has worked very well, for many rifles, barrels, and calibers.

OCW reloading instructions

OCW reloading overview and instructions

www.ocwreloading.com

I reckon i do it this way. To long to read all of it.

I have enough fake fire retardant wood hanging around to make me think i know what I'm doing !

 

[jackieschmidt]

Different strokes … what draws me to Highpower and sling shooting Midrange and Long range prone matches is just what turned you away. I like the fact that it is more the Indian than the arrow. Load development for Service rifle and Palma .308 is already done and published all over the internet. It isn’t hard to select a 0.5 moa load and go shoot. Highpower is a shooting contest more than an arms race. It is about wind reading and learning the position stability and trigger control.

^^^^^^^
I don’t shoot any of these, but you make a good point.
I would love to be involved in Precision Rifle. But at my age, I would look pretty foolish trying to do what the younger crowd can do.

 

[INTJ]

Different strokes … what draws me to Highpower and sling shooting Midrange and Long range prone matches is just what turned you away. I like the fact that it is more the Indian than the arrow. Load development for Service rifle and Palma .308 is already done and published all over the internet. It isn’t hard to select a 0.5 moa load and go shoot. Highpower is a shooting contest more than an arms race. It is about wind reading and learning the position stability and trigger control.

And that is the biggest misnomer about BR. Wind reading, shooting consistency, gun handling and other "Indian" skills are also critical in BR. To that we add good equipment and insane tuning. You simply can't let up in any area to shoot well in BR.

 

[JFrank]

When most of the people that I know of test charge weights, they work with a proven seating depth, that more often than not has the bullet seated into the rifling, so no, we are not doing OCW.

I would beg to differ slightly, determining the optimum charge weight is not dependent on any particular seating depth. New berry suggest .020 off the lands but he could have said .010 off or magazine length works , so from my experience with short , mid and long range ladders is jam jump or touch doesn’t matter nor does the viewing perspective, side view judging sin wave or end view judging by overlap the objective is to select a stable node.

 

[BoydAllen]

I would beg to differ slightly, determining the optimum charge weight is not dependent on any particular seating depth. New berry suggest .020 off the lands but he could have said .010 off or magazine length works , so from my experience with short , mid and long range ladders is jam jump or touch doesn’t matter nor does the viewing perspective, side view judging sin wave or end view judging by overlap the objective is to select a stable node.

The method will vary with the discipline, as will the accuracy goal and expectation. I did not mean to imply that what I do is correct and that what others do is not, but it is not OCW, which has some specific details that I have provided. The thing that I see most common is fellows taking more shots to arrive at their conclusion than I believe is strictly necessary, based on my own experience. There are two reasons that my procedure can be more efficient. I have the flexibility that loading at the range affords, and I have more information about the fine details of what the wind is doing while shooting each test. Just out of curiosity, I would like to know how many here own a set of wind flags, be they fancy or simple. Personally, I would not bother doing load work or any other range shooting without them. it would be like not bothering to check out the bedding, or putting up with a heavy trigger, or a rest setup that had problems. One of the satisfying things about hobbies is that we get to decide how we want to pursue them. As long as a method gets someone where they want to go, then for them it is absolutely correct.

 

[Leeinmichigan]

My thoughts on the OWC Method…
If you follow steps 11 and 12, this method my take some time (maybe 2-3 hours during the summer months to allow barrel cooling and cleaning). Now consider the possible changes in temperature, humidity and most importantly wind conditions (with the assumption that most of the non-competitive shooters don’t use wind flags at the range). Bullets are going to impact all over the target, none of which is caused by the load or seating depth. You have the wind, mirage and temperature/humidity changes that are not being considered. In my opinion, it’s a complete was of time to practice or develop loads without wind flags.
When I do load development for the 6ppc, I shoot 3-shot groups at 200 yards as quickly as I can (while watching the flags) to minimize the influences of wind and sight picture. Furthermore, developing loads at 100 yards just gives you what may work at 100 yards. Working at 200 yards will clearly show more possible instabilities in the load. Moving further out could be better, however you run into the greater impacts of the wind giving you false positive or negative results. Again, just my thoughts…

 

[Jager]

One of our great miscues as human beings is believing that our experiences - the unique prism through which we see the world - surely must be the one and only truth.

My own experience has been that load development isn't hard. It's eminently repeatable. And it's eminently repeatable at shot counts long, long before we get to "statistical significance."

Would love to have a beer with Mr. Litz. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say something has gone missing in this story. And that whatever he said - if he said it at all - has been misunderstood, misconstrued, or mis-communicated.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

One of our great miscues as human beings is believing that our experiences - the unique prism through which we see the world - surely must be the one and only truth.

My own experience has been that load development isn't hard. It's eminently repeatable. And it's eminently repeatable at shot counts long, long before we get to "statistical significance."

Would love to have a beer with Mr. Litz. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say something has gone missing in this story. And that whatever he said - if he said it at all - has been misunderstood, misconstrued, or mis-communicated.

It's in print....his own book. I should buy it to review the mistakes, but nah...I've seen enough of it posted. Bottom line is this, because tuners work very similarly to load development...If you believe that changing loads matters, then you pretty much have to agree that tuners work too because they are both accomplishing the same thing. That being for the bullet to exit while the bbl is at the spot that shoots best. Really nothing more to it than that. He missed the boat on this subject but his overall work has always been good...I think. At this point, I see no other reason to question his other works. This one was out of his area of expertise and poorly executed. It might add a little fuel to the debate short term but the fact is, I know very, very few people who go about using tuners properly that don't love them. There is a very key word...properly. Thing is, they are super easy once you let go of misconceptions and things like his article. The results are clear to anyone that halfway uses them right.

I'm not gonna go as far as to say he did it to sell books but can anyone tell me the subject of a different chapter? Hmmm. I'm sure there's some good stuff in the book but one chapter was marketed a bit differently is all.

 

[jelenko]

And that is the biggest misnomer about BR. Wind reading, shooting consistency, gun handling and other "Indian" skills are also critical in BR. To that we add good equipment and insane tuning. You simply can't let up in any area to shoot well in BR.

I'm am sure Jeff didn't want to imply that wind reading isn't key in BR!

That said, there is a lot more 'indian' involved when you're slung up with the rifle and shooting from a position that had to be developed to fit you and provide stability.
And, of course, off hand is almost 100% indian.