Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?

[D Coots]

Who's this Bart guy? Where did he get all his knowledge?

 

[BoydAllen]

You know there are people on the internet that have actually made videos in which they tell people that the right way to adjust a FL die is to turn it down until it touches the shell holder, lower the ram and then turn it down another eighth to quarter turn. I see some of that going on here. The trouble is that some people cannot tell good advice from bad. I will say it again. Copy the guys that win matches. It is really that simple. We are very lucky that some of them would take the time to post in this thread, given all the silly posts that are in it. It has been a long time since I read a thread that contained so much bad advice. Check out instruction #5 in this video, and note the source.

Step by Step Reloading | RCBS

Learn how to reload your firearm-step by step.

www.rcbs.com

Amazing! Can any of you explain incipient separation?

 

[INTJ]

Does Tom tune with long range ladders? That seems to be one of the go to methods for tuning for LR BR

Yes. The long range ladder about the quickest and most accurate way to find a good load at 1000 yds.

 

[BoydAllen]

Rhetorical question, from a top quality rifle, if a load groups poorly at 100 is there any point in testing it at 600 or 1,000? Spare me the part about shooting smaller MOA at long than short range. I have never seen any convincing evidence of that.

 

[INTJ]

Rhetorical question, from a top quality rifle, if a load groups poorly at 100 is there any point in testing it at 600 or 1,000? Spare me the part about shooting smaller MOA at long than short range. I have never seen any convincing evidence of that.

I would think not.

All I am able to do is find the high and low node at close range for my 1000 yd BR rifles. I use the targets at 385 yds for my 30 cal and 300 yds for my 6. These groups at 300 and 385 are 3-shot groups and are usually .3 to .6" at the nodes. I then test around those nodes at 1000 yds, then shoot the match.

 

[Idaho-Lefty]

Does anyone know the context of the comments that started this thread? Regrets if cited and I failed to read/recognize…

It's on YouTube,.. Your groups are to Small ( Hornady Podcast #50 ).
They say you need to shoot, 20 or 30 shots into, a group, AFTER Developing a Load, to make SURE that, your Ammo is, really shooting,.."Good"

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Q. Are we doing load development wrong?
A. Not for winning matches.

 

[Webster]

Recently I’ve read/heard some people in the industry suggesting that seating depth and powder charge isn’t as critical as some of us think. These people include Bryan Litz and ballisticians at Hornady. They’re suggesting we shoot too small of sample sizes to get a realistic idea of what each load/seating depth actually does. They’re saying to shoot 10-20+ shots per load/seating depth and doing that will show that the different loads don’t really produce much different results. They’re suggesting that there’s already too much dispersion using the same load for there to be a statistically significant change when moving powder or seating depth a small amount and only shooting 3-5 shot groups. I can see what they’re saying, but I find it hard to believe a BR shooter could pick any load with little to no load development and be competitive. I also find it hard to believe that winning and record setting shooters are doing 20 shots per different charge weight or seating depth when doing load development. I have never shot more than 5 shots per load when doing a seating depth test or charge weight test. I’m just wondering how much time and components I’m wasting if I’m just chasing statistically insignificant results? What are your guys thoughts on this? I thought this forum is about the best place to discuss this. Thank you

I don't have the info at hand. I think it was in Tony Boyers book he said he could tell if a barrel would shoot and have a good load with 30 shots. I assume he has all his barrels cambered with the same reamer, uses one type powder, same primer and the same bullet for each match. In any case you can trust his opinion. Being one of the best shooters ever sure helps. Recently read where Tony slightly changed how he shoots groups to evaluate. Having an average rifle and not to great personal skills doesn't help the evaluation process.

 

[X Count]

To get good results you need to have a carefully structured testing method. Each step in that method needs to overlap the previous step in a way that allows you to validate the previous results.

They are rite. You probably need samples of 20 plus shots to get hard data but if you have the ability to read trends and a well structured testing method you can get away with a lot less shots. Most of the time people that love data don't have the empathy to see trends

 

[DiRTY DOG]

So, the same guy who says barrel tuners don't work, is now saying 5-shot powder/seating depth load development doesn't work? Sounds like someone is trying to drumb up attention in order to sell something.

 

[Bill Norris]

So, the same guy who says barrel tuners don't work, is now saying 5-shot powder/seating depth load development doesn't work? Sounds like someone is trying to drumb up attention in order to sell something.

Yep my thoughts exactly. This dude has classes that he charges to attend. From what Ive seen lately he would have to pay me to attend those.

 

[rebs]

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

My bone stock Tikka T3x will shoot 1/2 MOA and under at 300 yds with my handloads

 

[CharlieNC]

Rhetorical question, from a top quality rifle, if a load groups poorly at 100 is there any point in testing it at 600 or 1,000? Spare me the part about shooting smaller MOA at long than short range. I have never seen any convincing evidence of that.

My friend Dan "OCW" Newberry hosts long range shooters from all over the country around 200 days a year. He says they occasionally observe this, often enough to declare it a fact.

 

[rwj]

It's on YouTube,.. Your groups are to Small ( Hornady Podcast #50 ).
They say you need to shoot, 20 or 30 shots into, a group, AFTER Developing a Load, to make SURE that, your Ammo is, really shooting,.."Good"

Statistics is one way of analyzing data and can provide valuable insight. But it’s not an “end all, be all” approach. I’ll always trust the intuition of those that have a demonstrated intimate knowledge of a process over statistics. Perhaps someday statistics will tell me why!

 

[dcali]

Statistics is one way of analyzing data and can provide valuable insight. But it’s not an “end all, be all” approach. I’ll always trust the intuition of those that have a demonstrated intimate knowledge of a process over statistics. Perhaps someday statistics will tell me why!

This is the pitfall that a lot of mathy/engineer types fall into. They know the math. It's second nature, and it works within the assumptions that created it. But when their eyes are telling them something that the math cannot properly explain, they just instantly fall back on "small sample size is too small, must be bullshit or a fluke". Sometimes, it's just a bit more complicated than the particular math they had in their head can handle, and it's the math that needs adjusting. That doesn't make the standard statistical math everyone knows wrong. But it is sometimes incomplete.

Ironically, not knowing the math prevents this problem. But not knowing the math also leads people to see patterns where it's really just random noise. The second is a far more common problem - the engineers are *usually* right. Usually.

 

[K22]

When it comes to load development the first question that comes to mind is which discipline are loading for and what are the precision requirements for that discipline. For me, this is the guiding principle for load development to conserve time, cost, and mental anguish.

One can make this endeavor as complicated as their wallet and patience can tolerate. Or one can keep it simple and not get caught up in all the internet babble and theories. You don't have to do "a ghost dance" or engage in "mystical incantations" to develop a serviceable load, the process is well established and not complicated.

The exception is for those who enjoy experimentation and testing. I had a friend (RIP) that loved to do this. All he did was shoot off the bench shooting sub 1/4 moa groups and tweaking loads in search of that elusive one-hole group. That was his version of this sport and that's fine - different strokes for different folks.

For practical shooters, the sooner you can get a serviceable load and get on the firing line the better shooter you will become. I strongly believe that the most significant factor in good shooting is the shooter. I've seen it my entire 50-year shooting career. Yes, you want effective equipment and loads, but you must be willing to spend the time and effort in your chosen discipline to develop your shooting skills to become an effective marksman.

 

[BoydAllen]

My friend Dan "OCW" Newberry hosts long range shooters from all over the country around 200 days a year. He says they occasionally observe this, often enough to declare it a fact.

I really wonder how many winning long range benchrest shooters use OCW to work up their loads.

 

[CharlieNC]

I really wonder how many winning long range benchrest shooters use OCW to work up their loads.

I don't know any BR shooters. OCW is what many years later Cortina reported in his long range load development at 100yd post.

 

[dcali]

So, the same guy who says barrel tuners don't work, is now saying 5-shot powder/seating depth load development doesn't work? Sounds like someone is trying to drumb up attention in order to sell something.

I'll defend Bryan here. If you listen closely to what he says, he's not saying barrels don't vibrate, or that tuners don't do anything, or that load development doesn't do anything. He's saying that the effects are not as dramatic as everyone seems to think, and they aren't very important.

And in certain contexts, he's right. His focus is on ELR with huge rifles at stupid distances shooting at relatively large targets. The challenge he is attempting to tackle is almost entirely ballistic in nature. The details of fine tuning a rifle really aren't very impactful when you're shooting 3000 yards in the wind at huge targets you can barely see. It's even less important in positional disciplines like PRS or XTC, because there's a 99.9% chance you suck too hard to see the difference. It basically doesn't matter at all for hunting. So in that sense, he's right. Fix the biggest problem in the way of your success, and usually, for most disciplines, that's something other than load development.

For example, here's some dandy load development advice from a very accomplished high power shooter:

Konrad's Highpower Rifle Site

BUT, and this is where people get worked up...

That's not AT ALL the case in high precision games like F class or benchrest. The small difference between a poor load (that most hunters would say is amazing) vs a great load is enough to take you from the bottom of the heap to the top.

Several years back I got 3rd place at a F TR state match with a 578/600 or something like that. It was a fairly windy day, but today I think I'd have been WAY down the rankings with that score. The bar is MUCH higher now. Guys are shooting 598-600 with a .308 fairly regularly at the bigger matches. You can't do that without good load development. You NEED that small edge to compete. We get so used to that self evident truth that we think of those small edges are big. And they are - in our world. In Bryan's they're not. He could use clearer language, but I don't think he's quite killing sacred cows yet.

 

[JFrank]

I really wonder how many winning long range benchrest shooters use OCW to work up their loads.

When we use one point of aim and superimpose the tuning groups we are essentially doing a ocw style of load development just viewing from a different angle