Does Tom tune with long range ladders? That seems to be one of the go to methods for tuning for LR BR
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.
It's on YouTube,.. Your groups are to Small ( Hornady Podcast #50 ).Does anyone know the context of the comments that started this thread? Regrets if cited and I failed to read/recognize…
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.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
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.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.
My bone stock Tikka T3x will shoot 1/2 MOA and under at 300 yds with my handloadsI 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
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.
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!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"
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.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!
I really wonder how many winning long range benchrest shooters use OCW to work up their loads.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 don't know any BR shooters. OCW is what many years later Cortina reported in his long range load development at 100yd post.I really wonder how many winning long range benchrest shooters use OCW to work up their loads.
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.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.
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 angleI really wonder how many winning long range benchrest shooters use OCW to work up their loads.