Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?

[dcali]

I disagree, as a range master for over a decade I'll explain my reasoning.

From experience a shooter come to the range and zeros their rifle. The end result is nice about a 3/4" cold bore group.

One prints 3/8" off center axis at 2 o'clock, one prints 1/4" off axis directly at 3 o'clock and the last one prints 5/16" off axis at 9 o'clock. Cold bore.

The next time the 3/4" groups prints differently. It's still a 3/4" group but the first one now hits 5/8" off axis at 7 o'clock, the second hits 1/16" low at 6 o'clock the last one at 8 o'clock 13/16" off axis. Cold bore.

Repeat this 10 times with Cold bore groups and the center of the combined groups will appear.

That’s true but the difference doesn’t matter ballistically. A cold bore usually sorts itself out in a couple shots and after that, a couple more will confirm your zero well enough.

 

[Darwin]

Since when did “well enough” cut the mustard around here?

 

[David Milisock]

That’s true but the difference doesn’t matter ballistically. A cold bore usually sorts itself out in a couple shots and after that, a couple more will confirm your zero well enough.

If your talking a hunting rifle in my opinion the last thing you want is the cold bore to sort itself out. The process Hornady tested sorts out the zeromto the cold bore.

I've actually done this for decades with sporterized military rifles. Shoot multiple 3 shot cold bore groups all to the center axis aim point. Superimpose them and find the center, in general the combined groups will be 2 to 3 times the size of a single group, the center of those groups will not be the center axis of your target. Adjust your sight to bring the proven center of impact to the axis of the target and you'll improve your chances of a 1 shot hit.

 

[David Milisock]

Since when did “well enough” cut the mustard around here?

The reality is this, barring damage to the rifle or sighting system you can get by with one major sight in session. You can load all you can with the same lot powder and bullets and shoot for years. Just shoot a few to check against you composite graph. My sister in law, me and several others have done so for decades.

 

[Jager]

Okay, Bryan's book arrived in the mail yesterday. And I've watched both of the Hornady Podcast episodes that, together with Bryan's book, were apparently what prompted the question posed by the OP - are we doing load development wrong?

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1025651255?pid=287017

I have to confess I had never watched the Hornady Podcast before. At just over an hour for each episode, it's not a trivial investment in time. But Seth, Miles, and Jayden are all obviously thoughtful, intelligent, and articulate gentlemen. They present themselves exceptionally well. I enjoyed their discussions enough that I subscribed to their channel.

I'm a fan of Bryan Litz. He usually brings a rigorous, thoughtful, facts-oriented focus to his shooting-sports research. This is the fourth book of his I've purchased.

When I opened this latest effort by him and saw that Chapter 6: Ladder Testing for Powder Charge I thought "okay, here's where all the hullabaloo came from."

But having now watched both of those podcasts, and read portions of the book, it's clear to me that there's more than a little bit of "horses for courses," as the old saying goes. It's not that they're wrong, as far as it goes.

But although "benchrest" is mentioned in passing a few times, it seems clear to me that although they thought they were covering the field, the truth is none of them appear to actually have any direct experience with the most accurate rifles out there.

At the end of the second podcast, Seth turns to Miles and asks him to explain his load development methodology. And, indeed, it's kind of a stunner to hear Miles so cavalierly dismiss charge weight and seating depth. I suppose if you've never deliberately run your bullet into the lands, because barrel after barrel and rifle after rifle has told you that that's where they shoot best... it's just not a thing you're going to think is important.

But it's when Miles talks about ".75 MOA, maybe .8" as his yardstick when developing a load that you know that what he's doing, and what he's looking for, is a world away from what a benchrest competitor is seeking.

Bryan's chapter on ladder testing was also a disappointment. Not because it was wrong - it wasn't. But because it focused solely on charge weight testing to determine if the muzzle velocity "flat spots" that frequently occur across a ladder are repeatable (spoiler: they're not).

As someone who has never believed in that thesis, it wasn't the kind of test I found interesting or insightful. But if you're one of those who look to your chronograph to tell you where you're good loads are, instead of the target downrange... I suppose that might qualify as big news.

The larger point raised by both Litz and the Hornady team about sample sizes and dispersion and how shooting larger groups inevitably leads to greater dispersion... until that time that you've put enough shots downrange that you have a normal distribution... is not something I disagree with, either.

But if Bryan and Seth and Miles and Jayden were to attend a SR Score Benchrest match they'd observe the winner touching that tiny little X twenty-some times, out of 25 record shots. Even with conditions. And the two or three shots that missed... missed by a hair.

Close behind that winner would be several other competitors, just an X or two down.

And if Bryan and Seth and Miles and Jayden choose to go to several matches, in different places, they'll continue to see those same top shooters atop the leaderboard.

It's not luck.

But you know what? You take those 25-shots for record at each match and you add 'em together - same relative POA, save only adjusting for conditions - and you've got your normal distribution.

The bottom line for me is that when we're talking about the best, most accurate rifles in the world, we're talking about a world where nuance matters. A world where the tiny change in barrel harmonics that a tuner provides, or that a seating depth change effects, can absolutely be seen on the target.

It doesn't surprise me that someone who has never experienced that world, might think those don't matter.

 

[BoydAllen]

Nailed it.

 

[Darwin]

The reality is this, barring damage to the rifle or sighting system you can get by with one major sight in session. You can load all you can with the same lot powder and bullets and shoot for years. Just shoot a few to check against you composite graph. My sister in law, me and several others have done so for decades.

True enough but I was considering something like a 1200 yard first stage with no sighters.

 

[Idaho-Lefty]

The reality is this, barring damage to the rifle or sighting system you can get by with one major sight in session. You can load all you can with the same lot powder and bullets and shoot for years. Just shoot a few to check against you composite graph. My sister in law, me and several others have done so for decades.

SADLY,. "Get By" isn't in, My Vocabulary,..
It would be, much Cheaper for me,.. IF,.. IT was ,.. LOL !
But, YES,. I used to DO it "that way", too, when younger and I Hunted with, a .338 Win Mag !
Shot a couple of, Check Zero shots, every Year and THAT, was,.. "Good Enough",.. PER my Shoulder

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

And that, my friends, qualifies as a statistically significant test!

Not so much those two groups but yes, the entire test was 20 groups of 5 for 100 rounds, all under very similar conditions. IIRC, the biggest group in the test was a very respectable .254 and the entire 100 round test agg'd a .173 or .175. Can't remember which. I posted it on here way back then, with more pics and details but it's been a while. I don't post it much because it was damn near unbelievable, even to me. I wish I could do that in a real match a few times.

 

[David Milisock]

Okay, Bryan's book arrived in the mail yesterday. And I've watched both of the Hornady Podcast episodes that, together with Bryan's book, were apparently what prompted the question posed by the OP - are we doing load development wrong?

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1025651255?pid=287017

View attachment 1396782


View attachment 1396783
I have to confess I had never watched the Hornady Podcast before. At just over an hour for each episode, it's not a trivial investment in time. But Seth, Miles, and Jayden are all obviously thoughtful, intelligent, and articulate gentlemen. They present themselves exceptionally well. I enjoyed their discussions enough that I subscribed to their channel.

I'm a fan of Bryan Litz. He usually brings a rigorous, thoughtful, facts-oriented focus to his shooting-sports research. This is the fourth book of his I've purchased.

When I opened this latest effort by him and saw that Chapter 6: Ladder Testing for Powder Charge I thought "okay, here's where all the hullabaloo came from."

But having now watched both of those podcasts, and read portions of the book, it's clear to me that there's more than a little bit of "horses for courses," as the old saying goes. It's not that they're wrong, as far as it goes.

But although "benchrest" is mentioned in passing a few times, it seems clear to me that although they thought they were covering the field, the truth is none of them appear to actually have any direct experience with the most accurate rifles out there.

At the end of the second podcast, Seth turns to Miles and asks him to explain his load development methodology. And, indeed, it's kind of a stunner to hear Miles so cavalierly dismiss charge weight and seating depth. I suppose if you've never deliberately run your bullet into the lands, because barrel after barrel and rifle after rifle has told you that that's where they shoot best... it's just not a thing you're going to think is important.

But it's when Miles talks about ".75 MOA, maybe .8" as his yardstick when developing a load that you know that what he's doing, and what he's looking for, is a world away from what a benchrest competitor is seeking.

Bryan's chapter on ladder testing was also a disappointment. Not because it was wrong - it wasn't. But because it focused solely on charge weight testing to determine if the muzzle velocity "flat spots" that frequently occur across a ladder are repeatable (spoiler: they're not).

As someone who has never believed in that thesis, it wasn't the kind of test I found interesting or insightful. But if you're one of those who look to your chronograph to tell you where you're good loads are, instead of the target downrange... I suppose that might qualify as big news.

The larger point raised by both Litz and the Hornady team about sample sizes and dispersion and how shooting larger groups inevitably leads to greater dispersion... until that time that you've put enough shots downrange that you have a normal distribution... is not something I disagree with, either.

But if Bryan and Seth and Miles and Jayden were to attend a SR Score Benchrest match they'd observe the winner touching that tiny little X twenty-some times, out of 25 record shots. Even with conditions. And the two or three shots that missed... missed by a hair.

Close behind that winner would be several other competitors, just an X or two down.

And if Bryan and Seth and Miles and Jayden choose to go to several matches, in different places, they'll continue to see those same top shooters atop the leaderboard.

It's not luck.

But you know what? You take those 25-shots for record at each match and you add 'em together - same relative POA, save only adjusting for conditions - and you've got your normal distribution.

The bottom line for me is that when we're talking about the best, most accurate rifles in the world, we're talking about a world where nuance matters. A world where the tiny change in barrel harmonics that a tuner provides, or that a seating depth change effects, can absolutely be seen on the target.

It doesn't surprise me that someone who has never experienced that world, might think those don't matter.

I think there's the point, different requirements for different levels of precision. At the top end bench rest precision it's a blend of technology and art.

 

[David Milisock]

SADLY,. "Get By" isn't in, My Vocabulary,..
It would be, much Cheaper for me,.. IF,.. IT was ,.. LOL !
But, YES,. I used to DO it "that way", too, when younger and I Hunted with, a .338 Win Mag !
Shot a couple of, Check Zero shots, every Year and THAT, was,.. "Good Enough",.. PER my Shoulder

Actually it works really well, I have 2 varmint rifles, that average 1 1/16" at 300 yards. I worked the loads as I described and after setting in the safe for months I can clean the bore take a couple fouling shots and take chucks out to 600 yards.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I think there's the point, different requirements for different levels of precision. At the top end bench rest precision it's a blend of technology and art.

Maybe so. I'm just not a fan of the term art in this context. I think it's more of an acquired ability, some God given and some just plain hard work. The technology part is the same for us all, basically.
With my hunting rifles, once I get them to shoot under 1/2 moa, I usually stop and call it good, because it is quite good there and plenty good enough for the purpose. Very rarely if ever, will I be faced with a hunting situation where I will benefit by the gun shooting better than that. Benchrest is totally a different case, with different accuracy requirements, altogether. Yes, cold bore and a tune that is reliable throughout wider condition changes are of more importance in a hunting rifle, for sure. Hunting isn't a competition, where others are trying their best to do better than I or other competitors. Every little bit matters there, IMHO, even if it's just confidence.

 

[David Milisock]

Maybe so. I'm just not a fan of the term art in this context. I think it's more of an acquired ability, some God given and some just plain hard work. The technology part is the same for us all, basically.
With my hunting rifles, once I get them to shoot under 1/2 moa, I usually stop and call it good, because it is quite good there and plenty good enough for the purpose. Very rarely if ever, will I be faced with a hunting situation where I will benefit by the gun shooting better than that. Benchrest is totally a different case, with different accuracy requirements, altogether. Yes, cold bore and a tune that is reliable throughout wider condition changes are of more importance in a hunting rifle, for sure. Hunting isn't a competition, where others are trying their best to do better than I or other competitors. Every little bit matters there, IMHO, even if it's just confidence.

May gift is a better choice but in reality not everyone has it so it elevates itself to art.

 

[Phys86]

First, there were three of them, in the podcast, not two, so anything else you might have to say is now suspect with me, as your counting skills may be somewhat lacking.

Second, thanks so much for your vote of confidence on the intelligence of "so many if not most" of the readership here at Accurate Shooter. In your defense, you did not state that any Neanderthals were included in that list and I for one appreciate that, as I may or may not have been accused of such a title on occasion. It's gotta be lonely at the top, eh?

Third, how do YOU know who the video was intended for? Are you an insider? Are you actually The Third Man (see "First", above)? Perhaps you have some sort of e-telepathy that allows you insight across the youtube platform. If so, that is a marketable skill right there and you should take immediate advantage of it. Perhaps you already are and it's just way over my head. Either way, had I known of this skill before watching the podcast, I could have saved myself the time, as I am neither much of a hunter or a PRS competitor (those poor, misguided souls).

OK, enough of this. My apologies if this sounded a bit trite. Perhaps more coffee is needed.

Happy New Year, sir. Hopefully it will improve over last year. On a positive note, I will say that I haven't shot a bad group so far this year..........

My intent was not to insult anyone here. Much of the comments made it obvious they didn't even watch the video.
The "two" is referring to the Hornady ballisticians and the third person is the podcast host.

Have a good new year!

 

[Idaho-Lefty]

Actually it works really well, I have 2 varmint rifles, that average 1 1/16" at 300 yards. I worked the loads as I described and after setting in the safe for months I can clean the bore take a couple fouling shots and take chucks out to 600 yards.

Yup,.. AGREE !
After, serious Load, "work up", plus shooting, a few group's ( for Me that's, 3 or 4, 5 shot, groups ) then B C "Verification" and "Cold Bore" testing, all the way Out to YOUR desired Max Range, you start to, KNOW, your Rifles, "capability" then, go shoot, Varmints or, Hunt Big Game.
Clean Rifle, 2 -3 Fouling Shots,.. Go shoot stuff !
My son, told Me that, I NEEDED to watch, the Video ( He LOVES, Statistic's ) I like, Accurate Rifles !

 

[RegionRat]

Gentlemen I find the videos provided by Hornady interesting and I hope we can remain gentlemen while we discuss them. I believe these videos provide insight and I know when me and my loading associates get together we (may) have one too many, smoke some cigars and discuss them while we solve the problem of peace in the Middle Eastl

Well said!

(I hear Scotch, but it has to be an adult (at least 18 years old)...)
I was asked to give up the cigars, except on very special occasions...

Happy New Year!

 

[Richard Jones]

I was asked to give up the cigars, except on very special occasions...

Life is a special occasion, but I hear you , same here at my AO..........

 

[RegionRat]

But although "benchrest" is mentioned in passing a few times, it seems clear to me that although they thought they were covering the field, the truth is none of them appear to actually have any direct experience with the most accurate rifles out there.

But it's when Miles talks about ".75 MOA, maybe .8" as his yardstick when developing a load that you know that what he's doing, and what he's looking for, is a world away from what a benchrest competitor is seeking.

I agree, their talks and Brian's books are not about BR shooting. To be fair, they have said so.

44:50 This (Hornady’s podcast advice in this context) applies to "plate matches".

• This does not apply to F-Class
• This does not apply to BR
• This does not apply to ELR
• They would reevaluate their methods past plate matches and practical long range shooting.

They gave their description of what "plate match" shooting means, and their description of "practical long range shooting" means.

 

[TC260]

If your talking a hunting rifle in my opinion the last thing you want is the cold bore to sort itself out. The process Hornady tested sorts out the zeromto the cold bore.

I've actually done this for decades with sporterized military rifles. Shoot multiple 3 shot cold bore groups all to the center axis aim point. Superimpose them and find the center, in general the combined groups will be 2 to 3 times the size of a single group, the center of those groups will not be the center axis of your target. Adjust your sight to bring the proven center of impact to the axis of the target and you'll improve your chances of a 1 shot hit.

On the forum we can all agree or disagree about different things but I appreciate the fact that you tested it. As much as everyone shoots around here, what's an extra 20 or 30 rounds down range to see what happens? If it's an improvement, fantastic. If it isn't, oh well, doesn't hurt to try it.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

On the forum we can all agree or disagree about different things but I appreciate the fact that you tested it. As much as everyone shoots around here, what's an extra 20 or 30 rounds down range to see what happens? If it's an improvement, fantastic. If it isn't, oh well, doesn't hurt to try it.

Testing is the way to determine most things shooting related. Internet forums only take you so far.