Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?

[AlNyhus]

As long as bullets are fling through the air, we will never reach perfection. Most of us who compete on a regular basis have shot groups, or a score target, that made us wonder….”how the heck did I do that”?
Especially when in the next relay, you do exactly the same thing only to shoot a “mid two” rather than a “mid Zero”.
What was the compelling factor that caused the bullets to take a different path than the one just before it?

I believe that even when shooting over flags in SR Benchrest, we still aren't seeing everything that's out there for conditions.

Some of the incredibly small groups and aggs. shot in both SR and LR Benchrest already surpass what pretty advanced math predicts the limits of attainable accuracy to be.

Good shootin' -Al

 

[Beiruty]

New rifle to me, fire forming 300 PRC into 300SI with 175gr SMK, no load development. Generic mild

load

 

[Beiruty]

4-shot check for new zero, 100 yards indoor. 175gr SMK, 80gr of Magnum powder. Mild generic load, CCI 34 primer.

 

[David Milisock]

Hornady has their follow-up video posted. Whether we like it or not there's quite a bit of decent information that they've put out. The more you study their methods the more it makes sense.

The first question their techniques bring to me affects the practical usefulness in terms of barrel life. A field rifle (a chucker varmint in 22 to 24 caliber) running 65,000 PSI gets about 2,000 rounds of life. So you're going to burn up 5%+ of the life of the barrel establishing a velocity/group load and then the averaged zero. That left me with about 20 years of chuck/crow shooting.

I don't bench rest but I wonder, how many bench rest shooters use in competition, practical loads in the 65,000 PSI range? Using the methods described by Hornady and being more precise, possibly using a full 10% to 20% of barrel life to establish not only the best grouping load but the best averaged zero. How long a life would a bench rest shooter get from their barrel? Certainly variations for different class would come into play, a 22, 6mm shooter would put less powder down the tube than one shooting larger calibers. However would the barrel last a season or two after burning up maybe 20% of its life establishing the best statistical load and zero? Therefore during competition not adjusting the loads on site but adjusting zero via the site. Essentially that's what the Hornady discussion is suggesting.

Their test barrels are 1.25" diameter and mounted stable with regular cleaning and cooling procedures for repeatable results. How many shooters here are using 1.25" diameter barrels?

I have an 18+ pound field rifle that sports a 30" 1.25" barrel, the cartridge was picked for the end result not as the most ballistically accurate. Not a bench rest rifle but I'd stay outside 1/2 mile.

 

[memilanuk]

I think @David Milisock hit the nail on the head in post #232... especially the last few paragraphs.

 

[Beiruty]

Hornady has their follow-up video posted. Whether we like it or not there's quite a bit of decent information that they've put out. The more you study their methods the more it makes sense.

The first question their techniques bring to me affects the practical usefulness in terms of barrel life. A field rifle (a chucker varmint in 22 to 24 caliber) running 65,000 PSI gets about 2,000 rounds of life. So you're going to burn up 5%+ of the life of the barrel establishing a velocity/group load and then the averaged zero. That left me with about 20 years of chuck/crow shooting.

I don't bench rest but I wonder, how many bench rest shooters use in competition, practical loads in the 65,000 PSI range? Using the methods described by Hornady and being more precise, possibly using a full 10% to 20% of barrel life to establish not only the best grouping load but the best averaged zero. How long a life would a bench rest shooter get from their barrel? Certainly variations for different class would come into play, a 22, 6mm shooter would put less powder down the tube than one shooting larger calibers. However would the barrel last a season or two after burning up maybe 20% of its life establishing the best statistical load and zero? Therefore during competition not adjusting the loads on site but adjusting zero via the site. Essentially that's what the Hornady discussion is suggesting.

Their test barrels are 1.25" diameter and mounted stable with regular cleaning and cooling procedures for repeatable results. How many shooters here are using 1.25" diameter barrels?

I have an 18+ pound field rifle that sports a 30" 1.25" barrel, the cartridge was picked for the end result not as the most ballistically accurate. Not a bench rest rifle but I'd stay outside 1/2 mile.

Link?

 

[CharlieNC]

I just realized there is a video on this topic, and so watched it. The discussion centered on knowing what is the long term capability of a load, ie what individual group sizes will it ( including the entire shooting system and shooter) exhibit over hundreds of shots across time, which is quite an undertaking. It mistaking applied the same all-knowing criteria to being able to know if load A is different than Load B, or any type of significance testing to do so. Or any well known experimental methods to better address these questions. With all due respect the video only proved the authors failed to finish freshman statistics, and utilized less logic than many who never embarked on that course of study.

 

[David Milisock]

I just realized there is a video on this topic, and so watched it. The discussion centered on knowing what is the long term capability of a load, ie what individual group sizes will it ( including the entire shooting system and shooter) exhibit over hundreds of shots across time, which is quite an undertaking. It mistaking applied the same all-knowing criteria to being able to know if load A is different than Load B, or any type of significance testing to do so. Or any well known experimental methods to better address these questions. With all due respect the video only proved the authors failed to finish freshman statistics, and utilized less logic than many who never embarked on that course of study.

Can you imagine running those tests on 5 different powder charges with one bullet weight verses 3 different seating depths of the same bullet weight?

 

[CharlieNC]

Can you imagine running those tests on 5 different powder charges with one bullet weight verses 3 different seating depths of the same bullet weight?

I run 5 seating depths x 5 charge weights using 9 combinations with 3 loads each = 27 loaded rounds in total (ie not 27 combinations), which involves replication, to usually find clear a clear optimum. Yes, changing two variables at a time!

 

[David Milisock]

I think @David Milisock hit the nail on the head in post #232... especially the last few paragraphs.

To expand on what I mean by an art form. Only an experienced shooter would recognize the nodes produced by seating depth but the artist recognizes this change in the rifle during a match and adjusts on the fly.

The statistician would argue that the concept is unproven but that's the stuff legends are made of.

 

[David Milisock]

I run 5 seating depths x 5 charge weights using 9 combinations with 3 loads each = 27 total loads, which involves replication, to find clear answers. Yes, changing two variables at a time!

Now run the volume of data sample sizes Hornady suggests. Wow that's a Heurculean task.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I'm not a gambling type at all but I would bet that if any of the top shooters, say Bart for example, were put to the test along with Bryan in a load development situation the top shooter's load would be more accurate than Bryan's.

That's a heck of an idea! Let's build a rifle, break it in, and give each of them say 200 rounds worth of barrel time to do load development with our supplied primers, cases, bullets and powder. ( We would have to alternate shooting for fairness).

From that, they would each produce 200 rounds of their optimal load, and we shoot the two loads against each other head to head.

Better yet, we use a caliber that neither is familiar with in a rail gun. Now, if we just had a warehouse...

We could turn that into a competitive event. Who's Tune is Better Anyway?

Please ignore the seemingly mild sarcasm. I'm truly interested in seeing that.

 

[rwj]

I run 5 seating depths x 5 charge weights using 9 combinations with 3 loads each = 27 loaded rounds in total (ie not 27 combinations), which involves replication, to usually find clear a clear optimum. Yes, changing two variables at a time!

The only way to know if variables interact is to change them simultaneously... otherwise known as designed experiments!

 

[CharlieNC]

The only way to know if variables interact is to change them simultaneously... otherwise known as designed experiments!

Yep. I haven't found such an interaction thus far but it is free to include for the evaluation.

 

[David Milisock]

I wanted to hear stupid shit like that video I’d take a target pic the the LGS. ROTFLMFAO

In terms of bench rest precision I'd refer to many of the shooters on this forum. The bench rest guys many times get really lucky, that's because all the time they work so damn hard! Funny how that works, work your ass off and you get lucky.

However in terms of varminting and hunting I think there's quite a bit of process that has viability. Using their techniques can produce varminting accuracy in 50 to 100 rounds.

 

[Bill Norris]

That's a heck of an idea! Let's build a rifle, break it in, and give each of them say 200 rounds worth of barrel time to do load development with our supplied primers, cases, bullets and powder. ( We would have to alternate shooting for fairness).

From that, they would each produce 200 rounds of their optimal load, and we shoot the two loads against each other head to head.

Better yet, we use a caliber that neither is familiar with in a rail gun. Now, if we just had a warehouse...

We could turn that into a competitive event. Who's Tune is Better Anyway?

Please ignore the seemingly mild sarcasm. I'm truly interested in seeing that.

I have a feeling that Bryan would not agree to do the test.

 

[memilanuk]

I have a feeling that Bryan would not agree to do the test.

I'd bet he'd be more open to it than most of the folks posting here...

 

[Bill Norris]

I'd bet he'd be more open to it than most of the folks posting here...

You have a point there too Bro.

 

[Phys86]

The point these two in the video are trying to get across is completely over the head of so many if not most people commenting in this thread.

It's not really applicable to benchrest because you're changing your load all the time.

This video is primarily for the hunter and PRS type competitor.

- shooting 3-5 shot groups will not tell you the true zero of the load you're shooting (load that is not changed)
- you don't shoot a 20-30 shot string. It's a total of that many at the same POA to have high confidence in the zero. If you say you only care about those first 3 shots on cold clean bore, then repeat that 10
- you have to take into account the shooter and the gun as a system, no shot exclusions unless you're 100% sure you yanked it
- having 95% confidence of your zero by shooting 30 shots to same POA will help prevent chasing your tail when verifying velocity and drops
- making minor changes in powder charge and seating depth will not make a noticeable difference to the shooter who their message is going to, at least with the powders and bullets they've tested.

 

[BoydAllen]

That's a heck of an idea! Let's build a rifle, break it in, and give each of them say 200 rounds worth of barrel time to do load development with our supplied primers, cases, bullets and powder. ( We would have to alternate shooting for fairness).

From that, they would each produce 200 rounds of their optimal load, and we shoot the two loads against each other head to head.

Better yet, we use a caliber that neither is familiar with in a rail gun. Now, if we just had a warehouse...

We could turn that into a competitive event. Who's Tune is Better Anyway?

Please ignore the seemingly mild sarcasm. I'm truly interested in seeing that.

When Bryan goes to an event I am sure his intent is to win the match. I would say the same for any of the prominent benchrest shooters. Neither would waste time with calibers, components, or rifles that are less than the best that they can lay their hands on, for serious competition. Short range group is somewhat unique in the demands it makes to do well, and also in what it allows in the way of wind flags and time to load between matches. It is the latter that gives shooters more experience in fine tuning efficiently. There is no time for elaborate procedures, they have to be quick and effective. Those who think that longer procedures that they favor ar superior should shoot a short range group event or two. They will find that people go out of their way to help beginners. Without that experience, I think that most only think that they "get it". As with most things, you really have to do it to fully understand it. Of course the same thing is true of any of the shooting sports.