dcali
Bullet Maker
Isn't OCW just a branded way of saying "shoot groups and vary things"?
Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?
- Thread starter Jud96
- Start date
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
IMO the important thing when doing load development is a good foundation. How many shooters try to get the best out of their rifles without making sure that its bedding (for bolt actions) is optimal (or even know how to determine that their bedding is correct), or do testing without benefit of having anything between rifle and target with which to see what the wind is doing?
Typically they waste huge amounts of resources because they will not load at the range, and evidently finish groups that start with two shots that cannot be fixed by additional ones. If I want to try a new powder in my PPC, I can have the load finished in an hour, assuming that I am at the range with all my equipment set up. You need to fix all of the things that stand between you and getting consistent results.
Typically they waste huge amounts of resources because they will not load at the range, and evidently finish groups that start with two shots that cannot be fixed by additional ones. If I want to try a new powder in my PPC, I can have the load finished in an hour, assuming that I am at the range with all my equipment set up. You need to fix all of the things that stand between you and getting consistent results.
Coyotefurharvester
Silver $$ Contributor
When I go help at the deer rifle sight in weekend, I see why seating depth and powder charge variation probably doesn't matter. LOL.
jelenko
Gold $$ Contributor
Yes, but with a specific methodology.
My take is the value add of 'OCW' is the idea of using POI over several groups with varying charge weight to identify a 'node' with the smallest deviation from a given POI => i.e., it's the method and way of analyzing.
jelenko
Gold $$ Contributor
Yeah. No s**t!
DocBII
Gold $$ Contributor
Jud96,
If I pick a load after five shot strings and do as well with the load on 20 shot strings at matches, does that meet Litz's requirements? Or more than one string? Lots of times I'll shot 40-60 shots before even cleaning. Admittedly, I don't shoot BR.
HTH,
DocBII
CharlieNC
Gold $$ Contributor
No, it specifically states not to judge by group size but id the node by stable poi just like all derivitives of the Audette ladder. A positive feature of OCW is to shoot the three rounds per load in a round robbin manner such that barrel, shooter, environmental, etc effects are spread uniformly across all loads. Dan is a savy shooter, very observant, and I believe his take away after training and watching hundreds of shooters over the years.
moondog
Gold $$ Contributor
Conversely, I'd like to see the Benchrest crowd come shoot a field match or a PMS match. Huge targets from 300 out to 1000. Not a fair comparison. Like saying, I'd like to see the Nascar guys race 24 hours of Datona. Or Top Fuel against Nascar. While I'm in Awe of the skill of the Benchrest shooters ability, it's a different skill set.
I only wish I was good at one of em
What a thoughtful question! I do not compete, I shoot varmints but from over 50 years of loading I would say that Hornady is both right and wrong. I should explain that I guess.
They're wrong because they rarely work with the precision of a custom shooter/machinest/loader. These guys are not nonchalant about .0008" Hornady people are, and this is most likely due to assumptions that they make based on an accumulated assumed knowledge. To be more blunt it's their sense of superiority that they fail to recognize, they can't be wrong because they have the accumulated knowledge of Hornady. What the question to ask is, has Hornady duplicated the precision of the best load developers/shooters/machinest in sufficient quantity to make such a statement?
They're right because at their level of precision they have the accumulated data to prove it. Consider this, I have a rifle that shoots 1 1/16" at 300 yards, for the sake of argument .3541" 100 yard groups, one ragged hole. Originally this was an off the shelf factory rifle. What I didn't say is that this was an average group, over 50, 5 shot groups. So there is a spread, some more than .3541, some less. However the worst group Hornady considers to be insignificantly larger than the smallest. So by their definition they are correct and for my varmint shooting it's ok.
The reality is that Hornady makes some very fine ammo, the 6MM ARC Hornady Black shoots an average of 1/2" out of my AR15. Not bad for a general purpose rifle. But the real question is this, is what they say proven by winning groups being shot with factory ammo? That begs another question, would you trust your life to precision loaded ammo in a combat environment? NO WAY!
Last edited:
My 6.5 PRC
My Tikka does the same. It shot 10-shots in 1" or less, it is 30-06 too with SS lite barrel
CharlieNC
Gold $$ Contributor
I respect this method can yield good results. I worked in manufacturing companies for 50 years and depending on the company, the location, the management, etc this was the methodology used in the R&D lab; ie go turn the knobs, test, and declare victory when the desired answer was achieved.
Invariably more optimum, stable results were achieved when a statistically based experiment was conducted to cover the experimental space at one time and in an efficient manner. This does not mean a huge number of tests per experimantal run, as is being questioned by the Litz/Hornady proposition (ie the noise component), but by using wider ranges to improve the signal:noise ratio.
But this type of noise is exactly the nemisis when you turn a knob and attempt to judge if there is a difference by simply comparing A to B.
In addition this does not mean simply changing one variable at a time, in fact statistical experiments are efficient in that multiple variables are varied simultaneously, in the proper systematic manner, such that more valid results are obtained more efficiently; also learning fators such as does optimum seating depth depend on the powder charge.
This is a long attempt to say the Litz/Hornady proposition is correct if you are simply trying to compare Load A to Load B, a lot of samples may be necessary to overcome the noise; eg making a change at the range and shooting a few shots. BUT if the ranges for the experimental conditions are sufficient (ie charge, depth, etc) then this will drive the signal:noise ratio and provide a wider depth of knowledge due to a better characterization of the trends.
A statistical approach does not appeal to many and a reasonable degree of experience is necessary not to get bogged down in the methodology. But the proposition that the necessary sample sizes are too large to properly develop a load simply ignores other options which are not hindered in this manner. For example the ladder results shown in the past by Tom Mousel, ie an Audette ladder to id a node, is a powerful means to gain the signal:noise in an efficient manner and with demonstratable, reproducible results.
I would bet the Top Guys in Benchrest would do very well at PRS match once they had a little practice.Conversely, I'd like to see the Benchrest crowd come shoot a field match or a PMS match. Huge targets from 300 out to 1000. Not a fair comparison. Like saying, I'd like to see the Nascar guys race 24 hours of Datona. Or Top Fuel against Nascar. While I'm in Awe of the skill of the Benchrest shooters ability, it's a different skill set.
I only wish I was good at one of em
Here's the point, proof that load A does not always shoot as good as required, a standard that no bulk manufacturer can maintain.
Last edited:
jackieschmidt
Gold $$ Contributor
A few years ago, we had some 600 yard Fly Shoots at a range no longer being used. It was combination Group and Score.
As a Short Range Shooter, I entered it with a 17 pound 284 shooting Berger 180’s, and came in 2d in the Light Gun. The darn thing beat me to death over the approx 90 rounds fired. Never again.
That is one of the few times I have shot out past 300 yards.
Good shooters are good shooters. I made a comment in the interview that Eric Cortina had with Bart, and I sad it was rather striking how little Eric knew about Short Range Group and Score. And he is one of the best Shooters in his chosen Discipline.
The big difference is equipment. I believe that Short Range is 70% Rifle, 30% Shooter. That is why we spend so much range time getting and keeping our Combinations agging at a competitive level. We sacrifice all other aspects of internal and external ballistics in the never ending quest to compel the next bullet to take the exact same path as the one before.
In short, you will never be any better than the Rifle laying in the Bags.
Every Discipline has some “quirk” that increases the difficulty factor in winning, whether you are shooting Pie Plates with a Pistol or trying to hit the X at 1000 yards with a Heavy Benchrest Rifle. Mastering these “quirks” is usually what separates the field.
As a Short Range Shooter, I entered it with a 17 pound 284 shooting Berger 180’s, and came in 2d in the Light Gun. The darn thing beat me to death over the approx 90 rounds fired. Never again.
That is one of the few times I have shot out past 300 yards.
Good shooters are good shooters. I made a comment in the interview that Eric Cortina had with Bart, and I sad it was rather striking how little Eric knew about Short Range Group and Score. And he is one of the best Shooters in his chosen Discipline.
The big difference is equipment. I believe that Short Range is 70% Rifle, 30% Shooter. That is why we spend so much range time getting and keeping our Combinations agging at a competitive level. We sacrifice all other aspects of internal and external ballistics in the never ending quest to compel the next bullet to take the exact same path as the one before.
In short, you will never be any better than the Rifle laying in the Bags.
Every Discipline has some “quirk” that increases the difficulty factor in winning, whether you are shooting Pie Plates with a Pistol or trying to hit the X at 1000 yards with a Heavy Benchrest Rifle. Mastering these “quirks” is usually what separates the field.
Many years ago while training the Captain brought in some competitors for a few days for instructional purposes.
COMPETITION takes many forms, I suggest that one considers that proficiency in one discipline may not carry over to another. I also suggest that one loading technique may not be viable for all disciplines.
Being that I’ve crossed over and competed in Short Range Group, Mid Range Benchrest, Long Range Benchrest as well as a little score shooting, some F Class and done fairly well at all them. I’ll stand with my original statement.
Loading for Benchrest does seem to cross over very well. Now will Loading for PRS Cross over to Benchrest, probably not as well.
Bart
Depends on what kind of long range shooting, who your competitors are, and what the conditions are. If it F-Class in a windstorm at a more casual club I'll bet that is true. It also works for long range hunting.
If it's LRBR at Deep Creek in especially in good conditions, the odds are hugely against a 100 yd load being competitive at 1000.......
JEFFPPC
Gold $$ Contributor
I hesitate to say this because I don't want to offend any good people so if you are one of them, don't be, I am referencing this more towards large businesses. Big business be it guns or toilet paper are interested in one thing, profit. This means a continuing string of new "needs on our part" and content string of " their" ideas and product to fulfill"our needs". If your confused I will help you out with a statement I have made before. Here are some typical directions. Allow this to remain in contact for no more than 15 min. If the desired result has not occurred repeat process as needed. Does it say only do this once a day, once a week? Some times common sense and practical application falls on our shoulders or we can chose to just keep filling their coffers. You can make your choice or blindly accept theirs.I choose not to wear a barrel out with endless multiple 5 or 10 shot groups, I don't feel it is needed to be competitive. I lose more than I win, but I am seldom not competitive.
Last edited:
Bill Norris
Back in the Day
+ 1 ^^^^^^^^^^ What he said.
Amen - spot on - kindred spirit
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.