Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?

[gunsandgunsmithing]

As I read it... basically full revolutions. That's how he/they started off doing their tests - shoot a series of groups, do a full rev, shoot some more groups, do another rev, etc. Wasn't until later when that obviously didn't work that they contacted one or more tuner manufacturer, asked for guidance, and followed those directions i.e. test every 'n' increments on the tuner. Didn't seem to make much difference in their end results, but that's a different matter.

Full revolutions at a time was certainly getting started on the wrong foot and is very telling.
Bottom line is someone has to quantify the value of each increment before you can establish functional adjustments of each tuner and not assume the same for all of them or even the same on each gun.
This gets to my point, that random adjustments will yield random results. This satisfies me that the test was flawed from the start. But is not limited to this single but crucial reason.

edited out a comment that was in my reply because I mis-read the or more part of the quoted text above.

 

[Bill Norris]

Turning the the tuner a full revolution per test group not only is the wrong foot it also shows how little he actually knows about the tuner. With no knowledge of such how could one expect to test any product and convince an audience of seasoned shooters that the test would hold credibility. Again his smarts are ???

 

[memilanuk]

Full revolutions at a time was certainly getting started on the wrong foot and is very telling.
As for moving them all per one maker's guidance, again, wrong foot, but better. Bottom line is someone has to quantify the value of each increment before you can establish functional adjustments of each tuner and not assume the same for all of them or even the same on each gun.
This gets to my point, that random adjustments will yield random results. This satisfies me that the test was flawed from the start. But is not limited to this single but crucial reason.

You might want to go back and re-read what I said. Never claimed that they adjusted them all per *one* maker's directions. Better yet, actually read the chapter yourself. I know you have your reasons why not, but really, if you're going to argue/debate over it ad nauseum... it's a little ridiculous.

I will admit that when I read that chapter, I was going "WTF?!? Why would you do that? Everyone *knows* that the patterns tend to repeat every revolution - so why would you do that?!?"

Except they didn't repeat. Not even a little bit.

Not saying I agree with what or why he did it that way, but in and of itself, that little nugget was very interesting to me.

I'd always taken it on faith, based on what I was told, and never actually looked into it myself. I'm sure others have - and I'd be more interested in hearing what their experiences were regards to *that*, than listening to more pissing and moaning about the testing methods.

 

[Jager]

I think we agree. I didn't mean to imply that changing loads isn't critical..just the opposite. Read my post again and hopefully it becomes more clear that what I'm saying is that tuners change tune much the same as changing the load also changes tune. Because they both affect the timing of bullet exit with muzzle position, it's difficult to believe one works but the other doesnt. Again, I think we agree.

There was a snippet or so posted on here in one of the previous threads regarding his book and the chapter on tuners. Someone posted pics of the page(s) on this forum but I don't recall who it was.

Oh, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page. As far as I'm concerned, tuners aren't, and never were, a question. Given their ubiquity in Benchrest, and their effective use by too many shooters who know exactly, precisely what they're doing... the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that Bryan's test of them was lacking.

This thread started by suggesting Litz had come to similar conclusions regarding powder charge and seating depth. And that's what I was questioning. I have yet to see any direct quote(s) by him. I'm reserving judgment on those particular chestnuts until I do.

In the meantime, it's patently obvious to even the most novice handloader that changing the powder charge absolutely changes things. Even in not-very-accurate rifles. Because it's the bedrock upon which internal ballistics rests.

Which leads me to conclude, until my copy of Bryan's book arrives and I can see for myself, that whatever was said... the context surely was left out.

This thread started with "I read/heard." Not exactly the best way to kick off a discussion about such a provocative, inflammatory conclusion.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

You might want to go back and re-read what I said. Never claimed that they adjusted them all per *one* maker's directions. Better yet, actually read the chapter yourself. I know you have your reasons why not, but really, if you're going to argue/debate over it ad nauseum... it's a little ridiculous.

I will admit that when I read that chapter, I was going "WTF?!? Why would you do that? Everyone *knows* that the patterns tend to repeat every revolution - so why would you do that?!?"

Except they didn't repeat. Not even a little bit.

Not saying I agree with what or why he did it that way, but in and of itself, that little nugget was very interesting to me.

I'd always taken it on faith, based on what I was told, and never actually looked into it myself. I'm sure others have - and I'd be more interested in hearing what their experiences were regards to *that*, than listening to more pissing and moaning about the testing methods.

Look. You're off the rails. I did misread your post and I stand corrected for it but you got up on the wrong side of the bed and are barking loud up the wrong tree this morning. My mis-reading of your post was clearly just that and wasn't to piss you off but your reply to me was.
I wasn't arguing with you and it's not ad nauseum if people still put much faith in his methodology for the test as a whole. Clearly, people put a lot of faith in him, as do I, but not on this subject.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I'll ask again. Can anyone explain the "sweep method" to me that Litz references in his book? I'll do my best to read more carefully.


edit.. I'm reading it as I can. Yes, his sweep "method" is indeed full turns. When I hear people say they start in full turn increments or any increment really, the question then is simply "why did you start with that...why not 5 turns at a time or why not one single mark increments. Knowing the answer to THAT ...or not.. is what's so telling.

If someone can't answer that question, I don't think they are qualified to write a book or a chapter of a book on the subject. It's really THE key to using a tuner, any tuner. Him contacting the mfg(s) of the tuner(s) was certainly a step in the right direction though. It may be there somewhere but thus far in my reading of the chapter, I've only seen one maker's instructions mentioned, fwiw.
I've tested .0005" (half thou) tuner adjustments for this reason. Yes, even that little can make a difference. I hear the same thing from customers fairly often. It's about quantifying the value on target of each increment and each adjustment that tells the story. Not all tuners are exactly the same in this regard and can be slightly different between guns. If I can see a half thou of tuner travel on target with my tuner, well how much is two marks worth on theirs? Which is where Litz left off, thus far in my reading. Some wish I'd post videos and instructions on using tuners online, but they can be considerably different and there is no blanket answer as to how far to move all tuners. Somebody has to do that leg work. I have on mine but not on every make and model of tuner out there.

 

[AlNyhus]

Honestly, the vast majority are just fooling themselves doing what they really believe is 'load development'.

Good shootin' -Al

 

[JFrank]

Honestly, the vast majority are just fooling themselves doing what they really believe is 'load development'.

Good shootin' -Al

Well they just need to shoot a bigger sample size…

 

[JEFFPPC]

A smart guy forms a relationship to the shooters who are always in the money for advice, and listen to them. Those not so smart read this and that, talk to everyone at a match, and when they find someone who agrees with their own flawed ideas, decides to listen to that guy. I wonder if they really try using any ideas they hear about or just continue with a never ending flow of questions but never actually try and test . I believe there can be more than one way to arrive at an answer but until YOU develope a PROCESS that works for YOU, the tail chasing will contine. Common sense tells me if I have a ballistics question I look in one of Bryans books I own. If I have a question on tuning my rifle I start looking at Barts videos and posts or I talk to one of the guys I know I have a hard time beating. Not to beat a dead horse.......but FLAGS. My tip of the day....If your using your tuner to make your load.....you just might need to refine your tuning process.

 

[dcali]

Full revolutions at a time was certainly getting started on the wrong foot and is very telling.
As for moving them all per one maker's guidance, again, wrong foot, but better. Bottom line is someone has to quantify the value of each increment before you can establish functional adjustments of each tuner and not assume the same for all of them or even the same on each gun.
This gets to my point, that random adjustments will yield random results. This satisfies me that the test was flawed from the start. But is not limited to this single but crucial reason.

It's worth a read. While I don't think it really tests all the right things (another huge topic entirely), this chapter in the book basically shows that tuners do something, but that thing is finicky, and not very significant on the rifles he tested in the way that he tested. That's a far cry from people claiming he says tuners don't work. My take from his data was that tuners can be improved, not that they don't work.

 

[dcali]

Honestly, the vast majority are just fooling themselves doing what they really believe is 'load development'.

Good shootin' -Al

There's more truth to this than I think we like to believe.

 

[dcali]

I'm going to add come constructive thoughts here, rather than complaining about Bryan's writing (for the record, I think Bryan is a very good teacher and a very good engineer, even when I don't agree with him. 99.9% of the time, I agree with him).

So this is my current method FOR MIDRANGE F CLASS AT 600 YARDS. <- note the context.

It sounds more complicated than it is. But it doesn't take a massive amount of ammunition, and what it does take can be significantly reduced if you're already familiar with your setup and bullets. But this is how I proceed with a new rifle. If anyone has ideas on how to improve it, let me know. I've added a bit of commentary here and there.

------

First, make sure the barrel has a few rounds on it - 75-100. They tend to change when they're new, so it's not worth getting too serious early on. Second, shoot 5-10 rounds before any load development session. Don't start with a clean gun.

The first step is to pick a primer and powder. Honestly, the easiest way is to ask what everyone else is using. QuickLOAD can be helpful for the powder as well. Look for high velocity and complete combustion at max pressure as a starting point if you can't find a reference from another shooter.

Next, I shoot a ladder at 600 yards. I load up about 25 rounds in varying charge weight from max load to about 3 grains under max. (This is for my .223, you might need a wider range, depending on caliber). The exact charge weights don't matter, but try to get them more or less evenly spaced, and record it for each bullet. I literally write it on the bullet with a fine tip sharpie so I cant accidentally mix them up when drop the whole ammo box and spill them on the garage floor...

At the range, I set up my shotmarker and chronograph. The shot marker will record the impact point of every shot and the chronograph records the muzzle velocity. Do not try to use the shot marker's velocity. Write it all down along side each bullet's charge.

I take those numbers and I plot charge weight vs velocity in a spreadsheet and put a linear trend line through it. That will tell me with a good bit of confidence what any given charge weight will give me in terms of velocity. We'll need this in a bit. (Note: this is what Bryan calls a "ladder" in his book. I don't like that terminology, and most people don't use it).

Then I take the same numbers and plot velocity vs vertical impact point (the shot marker will tell you how many millimeters above or below center the shot hit. You can do this with paper and colored sharpies, but it's a huge pain. The shotmaker makes it easy. Do not plot charge weight vs vertical impact - the velocity data is better. This is a common mistake shooters make. It's theoretically the same thing, but in reality it's not. The bullet doesn't care how much powder is behind it. It cares how fast it's going. (THIS is what most people call a ladder. I think "stair step" is better, but it is what it is).

What you should see is a vaguely stair step shape (velocity is your x axis). I look at the highest velocity step (that doesn't have pressure issues) and pick the velocity right in the middle of it. (You want to target a velocity where the vertical is not sensitive to velocity.)

Now that I have my target velocity for my load, I go back to the first chart and look at what charge weight I should be using.

Then I move to the 100 yard range on a DEAD CALM day. That's important. It's a waste of time to do this part in the wind. Get one or two daisy wheel benchrest style flags. (one is probably enough for this, but more isn't going to hurt). You can shoot groups that would win just about any benchrest match if you're allowed to pick the time, day, and timing of every shot - things you can't do at a match. That's what we want - as near perfect conditions as you can get.

Then I do seating depth tests. Starting about .005 into the lands, I back off in .003" increments. Or if you're not interested in potentially jamming, start about .005 off the lands. Each increment gets a 4 shot group (Any size would work, but 4 is a good balance for me). Usually, I hit a good spot around 15-20 thousandths off (and sometimes into the lands). If I'm feeling nerdy, I measure each group with calipers twice - once vertically and once horizontally. I plot the average of those two vs the seating depth. Usually, with a good rifle, this step will show a minimum group size at a certain depth. Sometimes it matters a lot, sometimes not. I wish I understood how this works, but I've never heard a compelling argument. Just lots of hand waving.

Then, if I want to be sure I won't mess up the next match, I'll shoot 20 or so at range to make sure I didn't wind up with a false positive. Sometimes I don't do this. If all of the above goes as it should, you won't get a false positive.

Note: Taking the average of those the vertical and horizontal group size) is a quick trick to get slightly more information (and therefore statistical confidence) out of your groups without a lot of extra work. It's not necessary, but why not. It's easy.

---

So it's really not THAT complicated conceptually. You need to find the charge weight that minimizes vertical at the target, and then the seating depth that tightens up the groups the most. If you stick to well trodden powders, that should do the trick. The whole process takes about 75-100 rounds. Fewer if you know roughly where you need to be looking. Notice that nothing in this process requires any "interpretation". Just follow the numbers.

On the statistical validity - it's not good. It is good enough. The reason you can do this with small numbers of shots (one per charge weight for velocity and vertical!) is that there is a well known physical relationship that we are tracking. It's not just some random distribution. We know that charge vs velocity is very close to linear. We know that you will see a stair step pattern, and we know how much vertical the best groups will have, roughly. I have more confidence in powder charge numbers than I do seating depth. That's because we understand very well what powder charge does - we know the preexisting physical behavior we are looking for. We don't understand seating depth as well, if at all. If we did, we could probably figure that out more quickly too.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

It's worth a read. While I don't think it really tests all the right things (another huge topic entirely), this chapter in the book basically shows that tuners do something, but that thing is finicky, and not very significant on the rifles he tested in the way that he tested. That's a far cry from people claiming he says tuners don't work. My take from his data was that tuners can be improved, not that they don't work.

I'll be reading and digesting it more over the next couple of days. Some things are apparent that are flaws, imo, in how it was done. Guns that are shooting in the .4's leave a lot of uncertainty in more areas than just the tuner or how it was used, for example. Why would they only shoot that poorly, frankly? Was it tune, equipment, conditions? I'm sure I'll find some answers as I go through it. It's been a foregone conclusion for a long time that tuners won't improve upon an already well tuned rifle, so if the rifles and/or setup were only capable of shooting 4s, then a tuner won't fix that. I'm just saying that I'd use the best equipment and base tune possible to start.

 

[dcali]

I'll be reading and digesting it more over the next couple of days. Some things are apparent that are flaws, imo, in how it was done. Guns that are shooting in the .4's leave a lot of uncertainty in more areas than just the tuner or how it was used, for example. Why would they only shoot that poorly, frankly? Was it tune, equipment, conditions? I'm sure I'll find some answers as I go through it. It's been a foregone conclusion for a long time that tuners won't improve upon an already well tuned rifle, so if the rifles and/or setup were only capable of shooting 4s, then a tuner won't fix that. I'm just saying that I'd use the best equipment and base tune possible to start.

I think that's the most disappointing part- there was no testing done with a benchrest shooter with a good benchrest setup.

On the flip side, there are a lot of shooters who think that if they throw a tuner on their AR that it will shoot better. I think the data he presents shows the difficulty and deceptive complexity of tuners. In other words, it was the start of the investigation, not the end. That's something. And to the extent that tuner makers have said "just throw it on there, it will help any rifle", they deserve to be called out on this.

I recall when I bought mine from you and had a surprisingly easy time getting excellent results, you told me, basically "I don't like to tell guys that because it's usually going to be a bit more work". I think that's a good assessment. I also think we can make much better tuners, and Bryan's work shows where to start looking for improvement if you think about the problems he's seeing and how you might address them.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Damon, you're undoubtedly a smart guy. Something that gets overlooked is phase time. It's what tuning all boils down to, tuner or not. A tuner allows us to change phase time while frequency is essentially a constant...or is only a tiny factor in it.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I think that's the most disappointing part- there was no testing done with a benchrest shooter with a good benchrest setup.

On the flip side, there are a lot of shooters who think that if they throw a tuner on their AR that it will shoot better. I think the data he presents shows the difficulty and deceptive complexity of tuners. In other words, it was the start of the investigation, not the end. That's something. And to the extent that tuner makers have said "just throw it on there, it will help any rifle", they deserve to be called out on this.

I recall when I bought mine from you and had a surprisingly easy time getting excellent results, you told me, basically "I don't like to tell guys that because it's usually going to be a bit more work". I think that's a good assessment. I also think we can make much better tuners, and Bryan's work shows where to start looking for improvement if you think about the problems he's seeing and how you might address them.

I agree.
I think where you quoted me from our convo was probably related to throwing a known good load at a gun and tuning the rifle to it. Yes, I've done it more than a few times and that tune be hard to ever beat. But, I still advocate doing normal load work up first because the tuner is only capable of getting the potential from your load/gun/condition. To use a fairly practical analogy would be to say...alright, my gun is shooting high 1's or low 2's with x powder charge and bullet combination but maybe its a little better with a different bullet. Trying that other bullet is how I'd know if the gun has more potential or not. Or...I could say well, high 1's ain't bad and leave things alone. But I'm leaving something on the table that the tuner won't fix, ime, the bbl likes both bullets but it likes this other one even better. That's the one I want my customer to find rather than being satisfied with the easy route and never knowing if it might be better.

Now lets carry that same logic over to a gun shooting in the 4's

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Damon, to a point, I do agree with Litz about more weight. The frequency can be and will be a little lower with a heavier tuner, of course. I've tested up to a pound. I've preached for a long time that a little more weight is a good thing if you can stand it and still make weight without the gun becoming nose heavy and ill handling. Those things matter more than the small benefit of more weight. I think he was seeing that but the rest of the test skews the value of it disproportionately. IME, more weight is worth little...but something, yes. Much of what more weight achieves can be more than equaled with a little less bbl stiffness.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Honestly, the vast majority are just fooling themselves doing what they really believe is 'load development'.

Good shootin' -Al

Al, I shock many when I say I don’t do ladders.
when dealing with the chamberings we use in Benchrest, either Group or Score, I know what to expect out of a Rifle. Since I always load at the range, I can change any one item on the spot and emmediatly see the results. Since I always Shoot over flags, I have a reasonable idea how the conditions are affecting the bullets path.

I Truly believe that why most shooters never get a combination really working is because they do not load at the range. That is one thing Short Range Benchrest instilled in my train of thought 30 years ago.

In my opinion, the target tells you everything. I can look at my groups and tell if a Rifle is in a competitive tune. That means during “load development”, I have to account for every bullet on the target.

I have always said that t any Benchrest Match, 2/3 of the rifles on the line at any moment are not working. Shooters will say…”I must have missed this, or that” when the reality is it doesn’t make much difference. If the Rifle isn’t working, that’s what you get.

Granted, having control over everything helps. Making your own bullets, doing your own barrels, assembling your own Rifles helps keep everything on a constant. Since I am, (in reality), not that good of a shooter, I have to depend on my Rifle to help me out as much as possible.

As for tuners, people have to remember that up untill some of us started playing with them, they were not legal in NBRSA or IBS Registered Competition. We pushed the organizations to legalize them, and finally they came up with a rule change. Since then, there has been tremendous strides made.

But they are not a cure all. The game is still about bullets, barrels, and tuning. A tuner can not make a Mediocre combination into a winner.

It just helps keeping a winning combination in a winning mood.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I'll ask again. Can anyone explain the "sweep method" to me that Litz references in his book? I'll do my best to read more carefully.


edit.. I'm reading it as I can. Yes, his sweep "method" is indeed full turns. When I hear people say they start in full turn increments or any increment really, the question then is simply "why did you start with that...why not 5 turns at a time or why not one single mark increments. Knowing the answer to THAT ...or not.. is what's so telling.

If someone can't answer that question, I don't think they are qualified to write a book or a chapter of a book on the subject. It's really THE key to using a tuner, any tuner. Him contacting the mfg(s) of the tuner(s) was certainly a step in the right direction though. It may be there somewhere but thus far in my reading of the chapter, I've only seen one maker's instructions mentioned, fwiw.
I've tested .0005" (half thou) tuner adjustments for this reason. Yes, even that little can make a difference. I hear the same thing from customers fairly often. It's about quantifying the value on target of each increment and each adjustment that tells the story. Not all tuners are exactly the same in this regard and can be slightly different between guns. If I can see a half thou of tuner travel on target with my tuner, well how much is two marks worth on theirs? Which is where Litz left off, thus far in my reading. Some wish I'd post videos and instructions on using tuners online, but they can be considerably different and there is no blanket answer as to how far to move all tuners. Somebody has to do that leg work. I have on mine but not on every make and model of tuner out there.

I started to just do a simple edit on my post quoted above but it turned into a post. Lol! I'll do a copy and paste here...

I'll ask again. Can anyone explain the "sweep method" to me that Litz references in his book? I'll do my best to read more carefully.


edit.. I'm reading it as I can.(the chapter) Yes, his sweep "method" is indeed full turns. When I hear people say they start in full turn increments or any increment really, the question then is simply "why did you start with that...why not 5 turns at a time or why not one single mark increments. Knowing the answer to THAT ...or not.. is what's so telling.

If someone can't answer that question, I don't think they are qualified to write a book or a chapter of a book on the subject. It's really THE key to using a tuner, any tuner. Him contacting the mfg(s) of the tuner(s) was certainly a step in the right direction though. It may be there somewhere but thus far in my reading of the chapter, I've only seen one maker's instructions mentioned, fwiw.
I've tested .0005" (half thou) tuner adjustments for this reason. Yes, even that little can make a difference. I hear the same thing from customers fairly often. It's about quantifying the value on target of each increment and each adjustment that tells the story. Not all tuners are exactly the same in this regard and can be slightly different between guns. If I can see a half thou of tuner travel on target with my tuner, well how much is two marks worth on theirs? Which is where Litz left off, thus far in my reading. Some wish I'd post videos and instructions on using tuners online, but they can be considerably different and there is no blanket answer as to how far to move all tuners. Somebody has to do that leg work. I have on mine but not on every make and model of tuner out there.

 

[BoydAllen]

Recently, I did some research pursuant to buying a tuner for a LV PPC. I looked around at what short range group shooters were doing well with, contacted one, found out what he uses, called the manufacturer, who is a top shooter, and asked him how he sets up a tuner, and took notes, and asked questions. After receiving the tuner, a friend who has really good rifles of that type, shoots well, does a lot of testing, and does his own smithing, bought it from me, which was really good. I could easily replace it, and did, and I would get to see exactly how well it worked when installed and set up as the manufacturer said he does. The results were that groups have fewer unexplained shots, and tuning nodes are wider. He is very happy; his rifles are shooting better than ever and they were shooting well BT (before tuner). Because of the nature of short range group benchrest, the shooters that I have chosen to imitate use the Buckys set once and adjust charges thereafter approach. The results of the shooters that do it that way speak for themselves. I am seriously on the side of "if it works, it is by definition correct". If I had a chance to talk to Bryan Litz before he embarked on his tuner experiments, my recommendation would have been to find the shooters who are using them with the greatest success, and learn how they do that, to the finest detail, and try those methods before doing anything different. It is the same advice I give to anyone who is starting out. Figure out who is the most successful at the kind of shooting you are starting out to do, and copy what they do to the smallest detail. Once you are shooting as well as they do, then and only then think about making small changes.