Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I'm am sure Jeff didn't want to imply that wind reading isn't key in BR!

That said, there is a lot more 'indian' involved when you're slung up with the rifle and shooting from a position that had to be developed to fit you and provide stability.
And, of course, off hand is almost 100% indian.

Certainly a different set up rules, for sure. Ultimately, I think it's all relative, though.

 

[dcali]

One of our great miscues as human beings is believing that our experiences - the unique prism through which we see the world - surely must be the one and only truth.

My own experience has been that load development isn't hard. It's eminently repeatable. And it's eminently repeatable at shot counts long, long before we get to "statistical significance."

Would love to have a beer with Mr. Litz. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say something has gone missing in this story. And that whatever he said - if he said it at all - has been misunderstood, misconstrued, or mis-communicated.

You’re right. His words are being misunderstood a bit. What he’s arguing is the magnitude of some of these effects is not worth worrying about, not that they do not exist. If memory serves, the conclusion of the tuner chapter is simply “our testing could not validate the marketing claims of tuner manufacturers”. Given what some tuners promise, that’s an entirely reasonable conclusion.

 

[dcali]

It's in print....his own book. I should buy it to review the mistakes, but nah...I've seen enough of it posted. Bottom line is this, because tuners work very similarly to load development...If you believe that changing loads matters, then you pretty much have to agree that tuners work too because they are both accomplishing the same thing. That being for the bullet to exit while the bbl is at the spot that shoots best. Really nothing more to it than that. He missed the boat on this subject but his overall work has always been good...I think. At this point, I see no other reason to question his other works. This one was out of his area of expertise and poorly executed. It might add a little fuel to the debate short term but the fact is, I know very, very few people who go about using tuners properly that don't love them. There is a very key word...properly. Thing is, they are super easy once you let go of misconceptions and things like his article. The results are clear to anyone that halfway uses them right.

I'm not gonna go as far as to say he did it to sell books but can anyone tell me the subject of a different chapter? Hmmm. I'm sure there's some good stuff in the book but one chapter was marketed a bit differently is all.

The book is actually pretty good. There’s is a chapter on barrel life that is worth the cost alone. It’s nothing we don’t sort of intuitively know, but it’s really nice to see it presented as hard data.

There’s also a chapter that does away with the myth that velocity “flat spots” exist. I’ve been saying this for years and nobody listens. Maybe they will now. That could save a lot of guys a lot of ammo. If they listen.

 

[INTJ]

I'm am sure Jeff didn't want to imply that wind reading isn't key in BR!

That said, there is a lot more 'indian' involved when you're slung up with the rifle and shooting from a position that had to be developed to fit you and provide stability.
And, of course, off hand is almost 100% indian.

Its not just wind reading......

In Highpower, you wear a shooting jacket which provides a big boost to stability. You learn how to tuck in your elbow to give more support to the rifle. When you shoot prone with a sling you configure the sling in a way that makes it VERY stable. Take away the sling and coat, and the Indian isn't as good.

In BR, how you squeeze the trigger, grip the rifle, and let it recoil into your shoulder; all affect group and score. Sure, inconsistency there may only make a 1" difference at 1000 yds, that 1"
in BR is like going from the 10 ring to the 9 ring in HP.

So with either discipline, the Indian is always the most important part. It's that way in any shooting discipline.

I think the most authentic shooter skill driven discipline is probably hunting with an iron-sighted muzzle loader......

 

[Bill Norris]

gunsandgunsmithing said​

I know very, very few people who go about using tuners properly that don't love them. There is a very key word...properly. Thing is, they are super easy once you let go of misconceptions and things like his article. The results are clear to anyone that halfway uses them right.

And there is the simplicity of tuner usage. Purchase the tuner of choice. Use it, duplicate that, and study the results on YOUR TARGET. Your target is your proof.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

gunsandgunsmithing said​

I know very, very few people who go about using tuners properly that don't love them. There is a very key word...properly. Thing is, they are super easy once you let go of misconceptions and things like his article. The results are clear to anyone that halfway uses them right.

And there is the simplicity of tuner usage. Purchase the tuner of choice. Use it, duplicate that, and study the results on YOUR TARGET. Your target is your proof.

Very much so, and I don't think I ever over state what tuners do. In fact, I often need to correct people that expect too much and believe a tuner will improve upon perfect tune or your smallest groups. That's just not what they do. The simplest way to put it is that tuners do what changing loads can do. I really don't know anyone that would tell you that changing loads doesn't work nor is repeatable. Of course it is/does. Tuners aren't the only way to tune. They are one way. I find it much easier to do with a tool at the end of the bbl rather than in the reload room. And, I find that more people will test that way as opposed to going back and forth to the range testing different loads in different conditions and such.
And to clarify that, I think std load work is still the only way to find the best combination of components and establish a base tune. Yes, many times I've found a known set of components and load parameters that can be very hard to ever beat, just by adjusting the tuner but there was work put into that, even if it was on a totally different barrel/gun. And ultimately, the tuner can only give whatever potential that load has..in that gun.

Lets move on. Yes, I get carried away talking tuners. Next.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

It's in print....his own book. I should buy it to review the mistakes, but nah...I've seen enough of it posted. Bottom line is this, because tuners work very similarly to load development...If you believe that changing loads matters, then you pretty much have to agree that tuners work too because they are both accomplishing the same thing. That being for the bullet to exit while the bbl is at the spot that shoots best. Really nothing more to it than that. He missed the boat on this subject but his overall work has always been good...I think. At this point, I see no other reason to question his other works. This one was out of his area of expertise and poorly executed. It might add a little fuel to the debate short term but the fact is, I know very, very few people who go about using tuners properly that don't love them. There is a very key word...properly. Thing is, they are super easy once you let go of misconceptions and things like his article. The results are clear to anyone that halfway uses them right.

I'm not gonna go as far as to say he did it to sell books but can anyone tell me the subject of a different chapter? Hmmm. I'm sure there's some good stuff in the book but one chapter was marketed a bit differently is all.

But it kinda backfired. Lots of folks have all the books and respected the work up til now. Its hard to sell a book to a guy thats ever shot telling him changing loads is a waste of time- heres a bunch of stats proving it

 

[Bill Norris]

But it kinda backfired. Lots of folks have all the books and respected the work up til now. Its hard to sell a book to a guy thats ever shot telling him changing loads is a waste of time- heres a bunch of stats proving it

Yea, I'll bet charging for a class now may be more difficult. He'd have to pay me to sit in his class.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Yea, I'll bet charging for a class now may be more difficult. He'd have to pay me to sit in his class.

Well...it does make me question things that I never would've questioned before from him. This was so shoddily done, how can anyone not question other writings and how he comes to conclusions that he's published and are trusted, by many? It's just disappointing, like respected vendors copying or selling products that are blatant copies of someone else's work. Once called out, it's no longer a mistake.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

The book is actually pretty good. There’s is a chapter on barrel life that is worth the cost alone. It’s nothing we don’t sort of intuitively know, but it’s really nice to see it presented as hard data.

There’s also a chapter that does away with the myth that velocity “flat spots” exist. I’ve been saying this for years and nobody listens. Maybe they will now. That could save a lot of guys a lot of ammo. If they listen.

Damon, I won't claim it to be something I've tested exclusively for and I'm far from being an expert in this area but I've seen many times where powder charges seem to have "plateaus", where the charge is increased but the velocity did not. I've also seen those effects on target. It's an area that should be tested more due to the many people that have seen it with regularity. Perhaps he covers it more thoroughly in his book than with tuners. You can probably guess this, but I'd rather not send any money to anyone that publishes a book with a chapter dedicated to attempting to diminish the value of years of work I've done with tuners...directly or not. Sorry, but not really.

I've not done serious testing regarding powder velocity plateaus and am only going by what I've seen that could be anecdotal, so I won't do the same here. I'm only gonna say that several have plotted speed/charge charts that seem to disagree with that. I've read studies before on the why's and what fors that probably pre-date Bryan period. So it's not a new thing at all. Whether it's predictable, true or circumstantial, etc, I won't claim to know that.

 

[Bill Norris]

The book is actually pretty good. There’s is a chapter on barrel life that is worth the cost alone. It’s nothing we don’t sort of intuitively know, but it’s really nice to see it presented as hard data.

There’s also a chapter that does away with the myth that velocity “flat spots” exist. I’ve been saying this for years and nobody listens. Maybe they will now. That could save a lot of guys a lot of ammo. If they listen.

O K, so if "flat spots" don't exist could you explain why and how we get three different charges in a row that will hang really close to the same velocity over and over with several different rifles and loads ?

 

[dgeesaman]

O K, so if "flat spots" don't exist could you explain why and how we get three different charges in a row that will hang really close to the same velocity over and over with several different rifles and loads ?

Three in a row is one high, one average, and one low in sequence. Brian’s testing showed that with repeated passes through the charge ladder, these flat spots disappeared as the shot counts increased.

David

 

[Bill Norris]

Three in a row is one high, one average, and one low in sequence. Brian’s testing showed that with repeated passes through the charge ladder, these flat spots disappeared as the shot counts increased.

David

I would want to see this within my own testing before I accept it.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Three in a row is one high, one average, and one low in sequence. Brian’s testing showed that with repeated passes through the charge ladder, these flat spots disappeared as the shot counts increased.

David

I'm still a Farrah Fawsett man. She looked good 3 times in a row, over and over again.

Seriously though, that single statement leaves unanswered questions, like how long did the test go and what were conditions that might affect powder burn characteristics? Maybe all that was covered too. I don't know, but you have to compare apples to apples. Again, maybe he did and I don't claim to know either way...ummm, statistically speaking.

 

[DiRTY DOG]

If memory serves, the conclusion of the tuner chapter is simply “our testing could not validate the marketing claims of tuner manufacturers”.

Another conclusion that he stated REPEATEDLY in the tuner podcast, was that in EVERY case, they found that the WORST initial tuner setting, after a volume of rounds fired, ended up being the BEST setting. According to his own data, tuners DO work, just opposite of your first impression.

Step 1: Perform an initial 3-shot tuner test just like EC says, (for example).
Step 2: Pick the WORST setting.
Step 3: You're done! Statistics will show that after a volume of shots are fired, the WORST setting always turns out to be the BEST setting. Easy!

He stated this conclusion repeatedly, with every rifle he tested. It happened to him every time. His data, not mine.

 

[Bill Norris]

Another conclusion that he stated REPEATEDLY in the tuner podcast, was that in EVERY case, they found that the WORST initial tuner setting, after a volume of rounds fired, ended up being the BEST setting. According to his own data, tuners DO work.

Step 1: Perform an initial 3-shot tuner test just like EC says, for example.
Step 2: Pick the WORST setting.
Step 3: You're done! Statistics will show, after a volume of shots are fired, the WORST setting always turns out to be the BEST setting.

He stated this conclusion repeatedly with I think all 4 rifles he tested. It happened to him every time.

Well, there you go. He has proved that tuners work. Wonder why he said they don't ? Oh, I see now statistics came into play.

 

[dcali]

If you plot multiple shots at every charge weight, you will not see spots where velocity flattens out with increasing charge weight. More powder = more energy = more velocity.

It’s only the variance that makes it look that way. I’ve done this several times, and Bryan does it in his book. People confuse a flat spot in vertical with a flat spot in velocity. The first exists, the second doesn’t.

 

[Bill Norris]

If you plot multiple shots at every charge weight, you will not see spots where velocity flattens out with increasing charge weight. More powder = more energy = more velocity.

It’s only the variance that makes it look that way. I’ve done this several times, and Bryan does it in his book. People confuse a flat spot in vertical with a flat spot in velocity. The first exists, the second doesn’t.

I understand exactly what you are saying but it makes no sense at all. Sometimes you see the flat spot in velocity but the flat spot may not be visible on the target.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I understand exactly what you are saying but it makes no sense at all. Sometimes you see the flat spot in velocity but the flat spot may not be visible on the target.

You may have heard the term "positive compensation". It describes a situation in which bullets leaving the bore within a certain velocity range don't necessarily print higher/lower on the target face. Slightly faster bullets will leave the bore slightly earlier in the harmonic cycle when the muzzle is early in the upswing. Slightly slower bullets will leave a tick later in the harmonic cycle when the muzzle is closer to the top of its upswing. As a result, the slightly slower bullets leave the bore with a greater launch angle, such that they still print at the same height on target as the slightly faster bullets that exit the bore with a lesser launch angle. My understanding is that positive compensation is thought to work over a velocity range of somewhere in the neighborhood of perhaps 20-30 fps.

 

[tom]

If you plot multiple shots at every charge weight, you will not see spots where velocity flattens out with increasing charge weight. More powder = more energy = more velocity.

It’s only the variance that makes it look that way. I’ve done this several times, and Bryan does it in his book. People confuse a flat spot in vertical with a flat spot in velocity. The first exists, the second doesn’t.

I agree with this in general. It's not like we don't see an example of flattening velocity while testing now and again. But what repeats is the range of charge going into the same group at the distance we're tuning for.

As for the whole rest of it, I can't see how anyone can look at a sine wave target, or a ladder test at distance and somehow conclude powder charge doesn't matter. That's pretty much full blooded!

Tom