Boyer Test

[DaWhit]

Looking for feedback from those who use this method to find a load.

Shot charges of 28.5-29-29.5. Seating depth from .006-.015 into the lands. Barts 68gr Avenger, 6 PPC, N133, 100yds.

Conditions weren’t great, mirage probably influenced the groups more than anything, did use flags, and only shot 2 shots on a couple groups.
Leaning towards .009 into the lands from touch and working the charge weight but like to hear from the experienced, first time I have ever tried this method.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Fast14riot]

Been a while since I've read his book, but looking at this as a matrix and reading it like other group testing methods, +9 and 29.5 seems to be your widest node with room either side for seating depth.

 

[jimmymac]

Good job on the target. I've done this exact thing on many targets. 29.5 is showing some real promise at both +9 and +12 so I'd go above and below that powder charge and play. My hunch is that you will also find something between 28.5 and 29.0 if you mess around in there. Other than one target on the second row from the top, the 28.5 powder charge is not showing much vertical at all, which is promising. Looks like wind to me. Most guys don't want to shoot the low node, but it can be good. I also would not discount +15 into the lands even though the bottom left target looks bad. That is nice and flat so it could have been a missed condition that pushed that bullet out. I say that because the two targets above it are not showing much vertical either.

With a PPC, you are going to find more than one powder charge that will shoot good. You may also find more than one seating depth that will perform. Next time you test this out, I'd suggest trying smaller powder increments on the order of 2 tenths or 3 tenths at the most. At half grain increments in a small capacity PPC case, you could be jumping right over a good powder charge.

 

[Tim Singleton]

I like +006
it is the best across all three loads tested, not much horizontal (least wind sensitive).
The vertical can be tuned out with a little more powder

carry the same test on up to
29.6, 30 and 30.4
what year of 133 do you have?

 

[DaWhit]

I like +006
it is the best across all three loads tested, not much horizontal (least wind sensitive).
The vertical can be tuned out with a little more powder

carry the same test on up to
29.6, 30 and 30.4
what year of 133 do you have?

Brand new 8# jug 8/2/24.

 

[Tim Singleton]

Brand new 8# jug 8/2/24.

That's good stuff
try the 29.6, 30 and 30.4

 

[jimmymac]

To Tim’s point, here is a classic example of tuning out the vertical with powder. All 5 groups were shot with the same seating depth. From low on the left to high on the right, you can see the vertical disappear.

 

[Tim Singleton]

To Tim’s point, here is a classic example of tuning out the vertical with powder. All 5 groups were shot with the same seating depth. From low on the left to high on the right, you can see the vertical disappear.

Awesome!
Good example

 

[Ruger15151]

To Tim’s point, here is a classic example of tuning out the vertical with powder. All 5 groups were shot with the same seating depth. From low on the left to high on the right, you can see the vertical disappear.

Does this work at long range as well?

 

[JEFFPPC]

This brings you back to......test one thing at a time. Pick a seating depth, say .015 in, and do powder charge. Then take that and go in and out to find seating depth. Then go a tenth or 2 either way rechecking powder. I shot many ppc barrel at a square mark which is where I usually start. Shot so good after doing powder amount, bugholes, and left it there. I want to use the barrel up at matches not shooting 100 or more groups hunting a load. Good advice here from Jimmymac and Tim. I do the same thing for long range which to me is 1000.

 

[ShtrRdy]

Two years ago when I got into short range benchrest I did Tony Boyers method just like you are doing. It help me find a robust load, but it wasn't a one hole group producer. I used it the following season and did quite well at the local matches.

More recently I've been thinking i would like my equipment to be able to shoot mid 1's or better assuming I do my part. I haven't been able to figure out how to get there. Maybe getting consistent 1's depends on the barrel?

 

[INShooter]

Maybe getting consistent 1's depends on the barrel?

Yes, but a very good batch of bullets is also a must. Consistent .1's are tough.

 

[JEFFPPC]

A decent barrel should keep you in the 1s. I would call that an honest barrel. Are you sorting bullets. Do you always shoot with flags and pay attention to them. How are your bench manners. Have you had a good shooter watch you during a match for advice on what your doing? Do you weight very charge to .1 or less? I am not a crony guy. But I discovered playing with my new Garmin I was not shooting enough foulers depending on how or to what level I was cleaning the rifle. Lots of details to make be a habit to be competitive . Its not all about the gun although I think many belive that. A good group/ load needs to be repeatble not a one time thing.

 

[CharlieNC]

Tony's test is a 2^4 =16 cells, it is a common statistical factorial design evaluating four levels for two levels. Yes statistics work! I utilize a hybrid design to evaluate five levels using 9 cells, and with 3 shots each to find clear answers. But Hornady still doesn't understand it doesn't require hundreds of shots!

 

[ShtrRdy]

I think Tony's method relies on knowing approximately what load will work.

 

[JEFFPPC]

Tony's test is a 2^4 =16 cells, it is a common statistical factorial design evaluating four levels for two levels. Yes statistics work! I utilize a hybrid design to evaluate five levels using 9 cells, and with 3 shots each to find clear answers. But Hornady still doesn't understand it doesn't require hundreds of shots!

They are in the bullet selling business.

 

[CharlieNC]

They are in the bullet selling business.

They continue to say foolish things. Their last YouTube I watched discussed load optimization using charge weight and seating depth did not improve accuracy, since then I have avoided watching any more of their nonsense.

 

[JEFFPPC]

They continue to say foolish things. Their last YouTube I watched discussed load optimization using charge weight and seating depth did not improve accuracy, since then I have avoided watching any more of their nonsense.

I don't watch any shooting videos with the exception being when Bart puts something up.

 

[Bill Norris]

They continue to say foolish things. Their last YouTube I watched discussed load optimization using charge weight and seating depth did not improve accuracy, since then I have avoided watching any more of their nonsense.

Actually nothing I've seen on any of the Hornady podcast struck me as them being truthful. Only another marketing strategy.

 

[CharlieNC]

Actually nothing I've seen on any of the Hornady podcast stuck me as them being truthful. Only another marketing strategy.

Bill, their methodologies which have led to inconclusive results makes one question how they can evaluate bullet designs. Of just roll the dice?