• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?

Jud96

Jud96

Site $$ Sponsor
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 believe the statistically minded lie to themselves, and anyone who would listen to them.
When I calibrate electronics, I don't have to obsess over each value or setpoint. I calibrate, and validate, and move on. This has worked on 40s era electronics(before transistors or PCBs) to present.

If their calibration won't hold, it could mean that something is changing.
That something, is likely a reloading plan that causes change.
In electronic analogy, that would be changing resister or capacitor values between calibration checks.
Or, it could also mean they're chasing their tail with a bad calibration plan.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect to those guys, and to be fair to them, I doubt that they are addressing benchrest or F class disciplines with those comments. When the 1k grand agg keeps shrinking, and 1” groups are being shot with more regularity, I would say that what we are doing is working.

EDIT: I would also say that they should prove it to us. I'd love to see the Hornady guys or Bryan Litz come to every match in a season of BR at their nearest club (or F-Class), bring the best equipment they have, and load the ammo their way. I won't say they need to set records or win anything, but the point would be made if they ended in the top 10 across a whole season's aggregate scoring.
 
Last edited:
I said it in another post. If you want to do things with statistics, there is a formula on how many samples you need according to how many variables you have to be significant. I only care where my first and second shot hit, My 5 round croups work for that,
Everybody who tells you what has worked for decades is not enough, they have something to sell. I sure aint buying, I did load development with OCW, Satterlee, Various types of modified ladder, they all work
 
Well, it's like has already been said above "follow the money" My take is simple. As long as what I'm doing will allow me to shoot three 10-shot groups with an agg. @ 1/4 inch for the 30 shots I will continue to do as I have in the past to work up my loads. Bryan Litz and all the bullet manfs. can say whatever they want but they can take the statistics or whatever they claim is truth and better than what I do and stick it where the sun don't shine to be very nice.
 
I do quite will with my 2 shot load development groups. It took my friend about 5 years to talk me into trying it. But what does he know, he has a statistics degree plus an engineering degree and spent 30 years with s big industrial firm. It's how I have been doing it now for the last 5 or 6 years.
 
As some who works with statistics, I’m shocked at all the hate (lol). I think the issue with OCW and ladder testing with 3 (or even less) shot groups is that often the true variation in the group is not seen with the few shots used and wrong inferences are made - a load is selected or rejected based on random variation… this does not mean that load development can’t be done with few shots, especially with known combinations of components… or if results are repeated (which is more shots)…. However, think of statistical analysis as signal to noise ratio… if there is a lot of noise it will take more data to make meaningful inferences… similarly, if the differences are minor, it will take more data.
 
The video I saw Brian said he finds the max charge, backs off 1/2 grain and wins F Class matches with it. In the video, IIRC, he mentions that any well put together rifle should shoot < 1 MOA with any load. Clearly the criteria of < 1 MOA is too loose for some disciplines.

Because my accuracy needs are a little looser than F Class, I'm intrigued. On my next new barrel I'm going to try that approach with a powder I haven't used before.

I am a little concerned about how my 'max load' would calibrate with others; or, maybe it doesn't matter.

FWIW, several of my loads are ~ 1/2 grain below what would be in the range I'd call 'max'.
But, for me, there's "I'm uncomfortable with the way the primer looks" to "There's no question that's too much cratering" which can be several tenths [in 223] apart.
But, then, should I use the OD of the case as my guide to max?
 
JEFFPPC said:
I do quite will with my 2 shot load development groups. It took my friend about 5 years to talk me into trying it. But what does he know, he has a statistics degree plus an engineering degree and spent 30 years with s big industrial firm. It's how I have been doing it now for the last 5 or 6 years.
Click to expand...
Can you explain your method? I have my own 2 shot method I’ve been using for charge weight and seating depth. I just look for patterns where 2-3 loads have the same point of impact and I like to see the bullet holes touching or no more than .125-.250” apart depending on the rifle, cartridge, goals, etc.
 
cdgaydos said:
As some who works with statistics, I’m shocked at all the hate (lol). I think the issue with OCW and ladder testing with 3 (or even less) shot groups is that often the true variation in the group is not seen with the few shots used and wrong inferences are made - a load is selected or rejected based on random variation… this does not mean that load development can’t be done with few shots, especially with known combinations of components… or if results are repeated (which is more shots)…. However, think of statistical analysis as signal to noise ratio… if there is a lot of noise it will take more data to make meaningful inferences… similarly, if the differences are minor, it will take more data.
Click to expand...
This is kind of what I was thinking and what makes sense to me when they’re talking about this stuff. Again, I’m not saying anybody is right or wrong. I do small sample size testing and have never done these big sample size tests. I can understand though where the random dispersion and variations can skew our interpretations.
 
Bill Norris said:
I'm not a gambling type at all but I would bet that if any of the top shooters, say Bart for example, were put to the test along with Bryan in a load development situation the top shooter's load would be more accurate than Bryan's.
Click to expand...
This is what I’m thinking as well. I think there’s definitely room to gain in load development but I believe that’s why there’s so many proven combinations that are just the easy button because those loads have been vetted and tested thoroughly. Most loads people are winning with have proven themselves over and over and over. I’m personally always tinkering and trying new cartridges for fun. I really enjoy experimenting and trying out new stuff. So for me, I want a load development method that will give me good results and not waste a ton of components. It’s hard sometimes though when working with a new cartridge and I’m unfamiliar with what the “go to” powders are and what not.
 
Jud96 said:
This is what I’m thinking as well. I think there’s definitely room to gain in load development but I believe that’s why there’s so many proven combinations that are just the easy button because those loads have been vetted and tested thoroughly. Most loads people are winning with have proven themselves over and over and over. I’m personally always tinkering and trying new cartridges for fun. I really enjoy experimenting and trying out new stuff. So for me, I want a load development method that will give me good results and not waste a ton of components. It’s hard sometimes though when working with a new cartridge and I’m unfamiliar with what the “go to” powders are and what not.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and I would take it another step and say the top shooter's load was developed without shooting 20 or more shot strings to get there as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
165,518
Messages
2,197,791
Members
78,961
Latest member
Nicklm

Share This Page

Back
Top