Yep. But, 20 years of Six Sigma makes it hard for me to ignore data…
Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?
- Thread starter Jud96
- Start date
There is a universal answer and “it’s tune your rifle to be as competitive as possible for whatever disciple you shoot“
But when questions like “Are we doing load development wrong?” Then told “Our sample sizes are too small” and “seating depth and powder loads aren’t as critical as we think.” That just doesn’t fly with the Benchrest community who are trying to squeeze the last possible .001 they can get out of a gun. The “Experts” putting out this crap are the ones that need to be specific about what type and discipline of shooting they are referring to. Because they have no clue what it takes to be competitive at the highest levels of Long or Short range Benchrest.
Bart
To be competitive, it starts with rifle build, stock, and rifle rest setup, optics, shooters wind reading ability. Then, load development.
You would not expect a Walmart 223 rifle to shoot 0.2x with just load development.
DR_2297
Silver $$ Contributor
I think the cause / effect (YX diagram) would make most ppl just totally feel dejected. If you think about all of the factors that impact things like MV, target Vel, group size, std dev, so on and so forth, it is an extensive list. Then ranking them to study what knobs to turn is an exercise of knowledge and experience and not everyone will agree.
Depends on what you’re shooting. Walmart .223 fine for a Turkey shoot.
How competitive are you?
Bart
rwj
Gold $$ Contributor
Does anyone know the context of the comments that started this thread? Regrets if cited and I failed to read/recognize…
I do not shoot benchrest since there is none in 2hrs drive from DFW,
I shoot steel targets for fun all the way to 1270 yards (max distance I have access to) using off the shelf rifles.
The only rifle I built by myself is my Savage 6.5 PRC dropped into an Oryx chassis.
My shooting rifles are on the average 0.25-0.5MOA
Folks Bart is a custom bullet maker, he could’ve agreed with the OP and told everyone who reads this thread that not only do they need to do more load development but also use his bullets if you want your rifle to shoot its best, but he didn’t he responded with what needed to be said,the truth and to me that means a lot especially to someone like me that’s fairly new to the sport that could easily be led astray to start wasting resources on doing unnecessary load development.
Thanks Bart for all you do for this sport.
Tim Singleton
Gold $$ Contributor
I remember seeing some guys at Tack Driver #1 in Team Hornady uniforms
I don’t think they were ready for what they saw
I don’t think they were ready for what they saw
When is the last time a Hornady bullet won a national event in Fclass or BR?
dcali
Bullet Maker
There's a few points where there's potential for misunderstanding/misinterpretation here.
First - anyone who says "load development doesn't work" is just wrong. I don't know else to put it. Honestly, I've never heard someone say this, but if they are, they're wrong. It's not hard to take a good rifle and find that the load that shoots best is significantly better than the one that shoots the worst.
What I will say is that there are MANY applications where the difference between a good load and a bad load is not going to change how sucessful shooter is. As Colonel Whelen put it, "only accurate rifles are interesting". If we're talking about inaccurate rifles, who cares? It's like putting high octane gas in a prius. If you like burning money, go for it.
A decent rifle with decent bullets should be able to shoot 3/4 of a minute with any reasonable load. For the vast majority of shooters, that's more than good enough. If you are shooting a factory rifle and applying benchrest loading techniques, you are wasting your time. Sometimes there's a lot of monkey see monkey do in this activity. Just because the benchrest guys or the F class national champion do it doesn't mean you should.
On "statistical significance": It's not what people think it is. There is no magical point at which results become "statistically significant". You simply get more comfortable that the truth matches up with what you think you're seeing. So let's dispense with the notion that there is some number of shots that will prove a load. There isn't. There are also subtleties to real things that make a high school textbook approach to stats inadequate.
For example, if you know that charge weight is proportional to velocity, you don't need to shoot 20 shots at each charge weight to determine that relationship to a level of confidence that meets your needs. One or two at several weights will do the job pretty well. The same thing holds for other factors that are not truly independent. A three shot group may not tell you much. But a series of them can tell you a lot. The trick is to always keep in the back of your mind that you might be lying to yourself, and to follow the evidence, not your opinion. Sometimes, it's not as clear a distinction as we'd like it to be.
It's entirely possible to waste a bunch of rounds misinterpreting their significance along the way and accomplish nothing. This happens A LOT in my experience observing newer shooters. But at the end of the day, we do not get numbers that make statisticians happy. We just don't, and we can't. The barrel will burn up before we get there. But we can get numbers that point us in the right direction with *some* level of confidence, which is all we need.
But no- we're not doing it wrong. Good, fundamental load development is a necessity when shooting high precision disciplines like F class or benchrest. You cannot win just showing up with a load just shy of max and winging it. Shooters are too good to do that these days.
First - anyone who says "load development doesn't work" is just wrong. I don't know else to put it. Honestly, I've never heard someone say this, but if they are, they're wrong. It's not hard to take a good rifle and find that the load that shoots best is significantly better than the one that shoots the worst.
What I will say is that there are MANY applications where the difference between a good load and a bad load is not going to change how sucessful shooter is. As Colonel Whelen put it, "only accurate rifles are interesting". If we're talking about inaccurate rifles, who cares? It's like putting high octane gas in a prius. If you like burning money, go for it.
A decent rifle with decent bullets should be able to shoot 3/4 of a minute with any reasonable load. For the vast majority of shooters, that's more than good enough. If you are shooting a factory rifle and applying benchrest loading techniques, you are wasting your time. Sometimes there's a lot of monkey see monkey do in this activity. Just because the benchrest guys or the F class national champion do it doesn't mean you should.
On "statistical significance": It's not what people think it is. There is no magical point at which results become "statistically significant". You simply get more comfortable that the truth matches up with what you think you're seeing. So let's dispense with the notion that there is some number of shots that will prove a load. There isn't. There are also subtleties to real things that make a high school textbook approach to stats inadequate.
For example, if you know that charge weight is proportional to velocity, you don't need to shoot 20 shots at each charge weight to determine that relationship to a level of confidence that meets your needs. One or two at several weights will do the job pretty well. The same thing holds for other factors that are not truly independent. A three shot group may not tell you much. But a series of them can tell you a lot. The trick is to always keep in the back of your mind that you might be lying to yourself, and to follow the evidence, not your opinion. Sometimes, it's not as clear a distinction as we'd like it to be.
It's entirely possible to waste a bunch of rounds misinterpreting their significance along the way and accomplish nothing. This happens A LOT in my experience observing newer shooters. But at the end of the day, we do not get numbers that make statisticians happy. We just don't, and we can't. The barrel will burn up before we get there. But we can get numbers that point us in the right direction with *some* level of confidence, which is all we need.
But no- we're not doing it wrong. Good, fundamental load development is a necessity when shooting high precision disciplines like F class or benchrest. You cannot win just showing up with a load just shy of max and winging it. Shooters are too good to do that these days.
Are you talkin bout the subtle hints of no turn chambers, bushing dies, no mandrel, if 2 ain't touching 3 won't be any better kinda information?
Some folks just can't wrap thier heads around the simplicity of it all.
But my chronograph.....
But my ES/SD.......
What about your targets?
Nothing else matters!!
I guess I'll continue to do things the hard way and practice the teachings of Sauter and not Litz, cuz nobody spends my money better'n me.
dcali
Bullet Maker
Oh, and one more thign to throw on the pyre. There are a lot of "methods" out there that are just wrong and they will cause you to waste your time and money. I don't want to derail the thead with details, but PROPER, INTELLIGENT load development is what we're after. Not some supposedly new, half thought out method some guy on youtube came up with. If a method has a name, be skeptical. that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
But the basics? Optimal combustion, ignition, charge weight, seating depth, and positive compensation? Take them to the bank. That's how it's done.
(No offense to the youtube crowd, but the expertise and knowledge varies greatly on that platform - from dangerous to outstanding).
But the basics? Optimal combustion, ignition, charge weight, seating depth, and positive compensation? Take them to the bank. That's how it's done.
(No offense to the youtube crowd, but the expertise and knowledge varies greatly on that platform - from dangerous to outstanding).
I'm with Bart 100%. What these ballistitians are touting as statistically significant is a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. Their axioms can't be applied as a one size fits all proposition in our sport. I seriouslly doubt that Litz or the proclaimed ballisticians at Hornady have ever competed in a bench rest match and I am confident that if they established accuracy loads predicated on their methodology they would not be very successful.
Not so much. They are EQUALLY important in BR. Make one mistake in any of those areas and you will drop several places in standing. Ask me how I know........
I have said this in other posts, but the problem with using the statistical method to develop loads is we don't really have any constants. Every time we pull the trigger the barrel changes.
So if we want to shoot as accurately as possible, like we do in BR, then we have to frequently recheck our tune and adjust. If we don't, groups open up.
So well before we can shoot enough shots to satisfy the statistics approach, we have to adjust our load.
So if we want to shoot as accurately as possible, like we do in BR, then we have to frequently recheck our tune and adjust. If we don't, groups open up.
So well before we can shoot enough shots to satisfy the statistics approach, we have to adjust our load.
Jud96
Site $$ Sponsor
Does Tom tune with long range ladders? That seems to be one of the go to methods for tuning for LR BR
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.