Are We Doing Load Development Wrong?

[chkunz]

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 have read the original post over several times and do not understand how this thread became so focused on OCW and tuners. I responded based on my experience as a highpower shooter (aka XTC). We shoot at a big target and most of the load development has already been done; we have several good bullets and powders that make it easy to get X ring accuracy. Many times our load development becomes a comparison between two loads that are both shooting very well and with small variances it takes more data than 3 five shot groups to pick the winner with a high confidence level. So relative to my discipline and experience the comment by Bryan Litz as referenced by the OP seemed appropriate.

I do not shoot benchrest or F Class and have no experience with OCW or tuners. I am not being critical of anyone or their response. Best wishes to all.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

It'd be pretty boring if threads never drift off. No need in explaining how it happens on any subject but it does. Otherwise, someone asks a question, they get a single answer and 65000 members go to bed. You can look it up. It stayed on point, sort of, for a long time and a long time again after tuners were brought up, about 90 posts and the word tuner was never mentioned again... Not sure from there. Lol! Frankly, if the op hasn't got an answer in 11 pages he probably wasn't going to get one. There may be exceptions but very few. There's more going on behind the scenes of this subject. I had no idea until someone else clued me in. So, you'll need to decide if it was ever bound for success or not. With the terms Litz, OCW, tuners and statistical significance in the thread, hell, it did pretty good, IMO. Sorry it went off course.

I'll start over with this reply to the op...

IMO, of course tuning makes a difference, whether by powder charge or otherwise. Statistics are for those kinds of people I guess.

 

[AlNyhus]

Al, I shock many when I say I don’t do ladders.
when dealing with the chamberings we use in Benchrest, either Group or Score, I know what to expect out of a Rifle. Since I always load at the range, I can change any one item on the spot and emmediatly see the results. Since I always Shoot over flags, I have a reasonable idea how the conditions are affecting the bullets path.

I Truly believe that why most shooters never get a combination really working is because they do not load at the range. That is one thing Short Range Benchrest instilled in my train of thought 30 years ago.

In my opinion, the target tells you everything. I can look at my groups and tell if a Rifle is in a competitive tune. That means during “load development”, I have to account for every bullet on the target.

I have always said that t any Benchrest Match, 2/3 of the rifles on the line at any moment are not working. Shooters will say…”I must have missed this, or that” when the reality is it doesn’t make much difference. If the Rifle isn’t working, that’s what you get.

Couldn't agree more. -Al

 

[AlNyhus]

Figure out who is the most successful at the kind of shooting you are starting out to do, and copy what they do to the smallest detail. Once you are shooting as well as they do, then and only then think about making small changes.

Boyd, I'd substitute 'understand' for 'copy'. -Al

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Boyd, I'd substitute 'understand' for 'copy'. -Al

Now, I'd agree with it. But I grew up in a family of teachers, so I think that I knew what he was saying before, too.

 

[Ccrider]

Now, I'd agree with it. But I grew up in a family of teachers, so I think that I knew what he was saying before, too.

Like you, teachers all around. They all feel like there is a big difference between copying and understanding. Copying not tolerated.

Interesting thread. Clearly, the br crowd was not Litz’s intended target. Also pretty safe bet that he does not have a clue about how to use a tuner in the br setting. Of course, when I am looking for answers to br questions, he would never be in my list of top 100 sources to refer to.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Like you, teachers all around. They all feel like there is a big difference between copying and understanding. Copying not tolerated.

Interesting thread. Clearly, the br crowd was not Litz’s intended target. Also pretty safe bet that he does not have a clue about how to use a tuner in the br setting. Of course, when I am looking for answers to br questions, he would never be in my list of top 100 sources to refer to.

Right but I'm gonna let them talk about whatever the op wanted here. I'll post about it again when I finish reading the clustertest and I'll post then. No offense intended toward you!
People that really know anything about tuners know more than some, because they've seen it with their own eyes...and that they don't blindly follow the leader, if they want to be the leader. I share what I've learned and get berated for it by people with little or no experience with tuners. Just kinda done with that at the moment. I've stayed the course since 2013 and only changed when I learned something new. I followed people at first. That's what led me wrong. I always, always advocate your own testing over what you read or hear. I'm just a lowly BR for score shooter but I test everything I do or don't do, against what I read or hear. The list of things that DON'T matter, FAR exceed the ones that do. Most of those things that don't matter or are wrong come from people looking somewhere else for their information and regurgitating it online. That's not me baby.

Ya'll carry on now.

 

[Bronsin]

I wonder if they really try using any ideas they hear about or just continue with a never ending flow of questions but never actually try and test .

Those people piss me off to no end. I used to be involved in another hobby, and continually had this guy asking me for advice. One time I caught him less than a few minutes later asking someone else that very same question. At that point I was like look MF'er, if you're not going to take my advice then stop wasting my time asking me questions. He was the type that was stumped when he couldn't throw any more money at it.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Now, I'd agree with it. But I grew up in a family of teachers, so I think that I knew what he was saying before, too.

This goes along with what I try to instill in every young man I have trained at our shop.

”While it is important to know how to do things, it is just as important, or perhaps even more so, to know WHY you do things”.

 

[Ringostar]

This goes along with what I try to instill in every young man I have trained at our shop.

”While it is important to know how to do things, it is just as important, or perhaps even more so, to know WHY you do things”.

I’m not referring to loading ammo here, but this is something that I learned from my dad when I was young. He would watch people doing things wrong, but not step in to correct them. I’m wasn’t sure why? Then after they realized that what they were doing wasn’t going to work, he would step in and show how it needed to be done. He then said, “If you hold someone’s hand from the start, they‘re not going to understand why it’s done a certain way. If you allow them to try it wrong first, they learn and remember.”

 

[JFrank]

Those people piss me off to no end. I used to be involved in another hobby, and continually had this guy asking me for advice. One time I caught him less than a few minutes later asking someone else that very same question. At that point I was like look MF'er, if you're not going to take my advice then stop wasting my time asking me questions. He was the type that was stumped when he couldn't throw any more money at it.

That would not upset me, I ( we tend to ) collect information from many sources and not totally rely on any one point of view. Sure we might have a buddy that we confide in but I know I like to hear as many opinions as I can.

 

[BoydAllen]

On my comment about copying what successful shooters do to the finest detail, this comes from my experience helping shooters learn how to improve their results. In my experience the male of the species is terrible about following directions, and think that they understand what they really do not and are therefore qualified to modify instructions without once doing it the way that was explained to them. If they get the desired results then fine, but it usually does not turn out that way. After failing, doing it differently than they were told, they are likely to conclude that what they were told does not work. It is absolutely true that I have had better luck getting women to follow exact directions (relating to learning how to shoot) than most men. The funny thing is that people actually would think that having years of experience doing something badly, qualifies them to judge the correctness of procedures that have been proven to work. Most of the time, if left to their own devices they will go back to their previous methods and results, even though they have seen better results doing it differently.

 

[AlNyhus]

A story about 'load devlopment': I'm on the BOD of a private range, the Dakota Benchrest Shooters range. Since it's a members-only range, most everyone has good gear, solid rifles and shoots in a very safe manner. In short, it's a wonderful place to test and practice.

Last Summer, I had my HV 30BR out for some practice at 200 yds. Winds were 15-ish from 5 to 7 o'clock which at our range (we face South East) can give you significant 'on target' vertical. The flags would push from 5 to 7 o'clock and snap back really quickly. But the mirage was perfect for these conditions and would always move before the flags did. Per my normal practice routine, I shot two 5 shot groups across the full condition (no holding for conditions...same POA). This gives me a sense of how much total condition is out there. Both 5 shot 'test groups' showed from 5/8-3/4" of 'on target' vertical....just a bit less that I thought it should be. But both groups showed the same appearance across the full condition so I was happy with the trend. Then it was off to the races and I shot two NBRSA 200 yd. Score targets.

I'd finished up, the barrel had solvent soaking and I was sizing cases when the only other shooter there asked if it was ok to go get his targets at 200. We walked down together...he was a very nice young-ish guy and was shooting some sort of chassis stock and obviously working with hand loads, not factory ammo. He had his LabRadar chrono all set up, his phone all synched to it...the full meal deal. Might have even had a coffee maker plugged in.

I grabbed my targets and he was over there making notes on his...bullet holes everywhere. By each hole, he put a number.

Back at the benches, I was packing up my gear, trying to keep stuff from blowing off the bench. He came over with his targets and showed me his notes about where the "...nodes had flattened out" and why some of the increasing charge weights showed lower impact points due to "...barrel harmonics and OBT. You know....Optimal Barrel Time?"

I showed him my two full condition test groups and commented that before he came to too many conclusions, he should consider that there was fully 3/4" of condition out there, even with a perfectly executed shot. I'll spare the details but we had a really good discussion about this. A few weeks later, I saw him out there again. He'd made up a few flags and was shooting at 100 to get the feel of them. I asked him how he was doing with them and he said: "These things just pizz me off. They pizz me off because they remind me how much money I wasted before using the damn things!"

 

[BoydAllen]

A story about 'load devlopment': I'm on the BOD of a private range, the Dakota Benchrest Shooters range. Since it's a members-only range, most everyone has good gear, solid rifles and shoots in a very safe manner. In short, it's a wonderful place to test and practice.

Last Summer, I had my HV 30BR out for some practice at 200 yds. Winds were 15-ish from 5 to 7 o'clock which at our range (we face South East) can give you significant 'on target' vertical. The flags would push from 5 to 7 o'clock and snap back really quickly. But the mirage was perfect for these conditions and would always move before the flags did. Per my normal practice routine, I shot two 5 shot groups across the full condition (no holding for conditions...same POA). This gives me a sense of how much total condition is out there. Both 5 shot 'test groups' showed from 5/8-3/4" of 'on target' vertical....just a bit less that I thought it should be. But both groups showed the same appearance across the full condition so I was happy with the trend. Then it was off to the races and I shot two NBRSA 200 yd. Score targets.

I'd finished up, the barrel had solvent soaking and I was sizing cases when the only other shooter there asked if it was ok to go get his targets at 200. We walked down together...he was a very nice young-ish guy and was shooting some sort of chassis stock and obviously working with hand loads, not factory ammo. He had his LabRadar chrono all set up, his phone all synched to it...the full meal deal. Might have even had a coffee maker plugged in.

I grabbed my targets and he was over there making notes on his...bullet holes everywhere. By each hole, he put a number.

Back at the benches, I was packing up my gear, trying to keep stuff from blowing off the bench. He came over with his targets and showed me his notes about where the "...nodes had flattened out" and why some of the increasing charge weights showed lower impact points due to "...barrel harmonics and OBT. You know....Optimal Barrel Time?"

I showed him my two full condition test groups and commented that before he came to too many conclusions, he should consider that there was fully 3/4" of condition out there, even with a perfectly executed shot. I'll spare the details but we had a really good discussion about this. A few weeks later, I saw him out there again. He'd made up a few flags and was shooting at 100 to get the feel of them. I asked him how he was doing with them and he said: "These things just pizz me off. They pizz me off because they remind me how much money I wasted before using the damn things!"

Big smile.

 

[dcali]

I'm one of the hard headed ones who needs to find out the hard way just how "innovative" I am. It's expensive and less fruitful than following around behind someone who knows what they're doing, asking questions, and doing the same thing. Until you know the whys, you probably shouldn't be messing with the hows. No, I do not follow my own advice. It's more fun that way

 

[rwj]

I'm one of the hard headed ones who needs to find out the hard way just how "innovative" I am. It's expensive and less fruitful than following around behind someone who knows what they're doing, asking questions, and doing the same thing. Until you know the whys, you probably shouldn't be messing with the hows. No, I do not follow my own advice. It's more fun that way

Sometimes the path to improvement requires trying unconventional techniques. The key is to learn from the failures that will likely be encountered. Doing the same thing as everyone else and expecting a better outcome is one definition of insanity!

 

[jelenko]

Hmm. In this video, Bryan talks about load development for long range shooting.
He seems to recognize developing the load using powder charge ladders and seating depth test.

He does recommend to focus on practicing vs further load development after the load provides consistent 1/2 MOA groups. His point is that there is relatively little gained in hitting a 1 MOA target at 1000 yards by spending effort on getting less than 1/2 MOA load vs practicing with the same 1/2 MOA load.

 

[JFrank]

Sometimes the path to improvement requires trying unconventional techniques. The key is to learn from the failures that will likely be encountered. Doing the same thing as everyone else and expecting a better outcome is one definition of insanity!

Im not sure if it’s insanity ( maybe questionable) lol but I do know that if your not the lead dog the view never changes.

 

[RegionRat]

But, isn't a 1/2 MOA group just a 1/4 MOA group with enough samples?!?

Sorry, couldn't help myself... wife must have put more Bailey's in this coffee...... LOL

 

[Idaho-Lefty]

Sometimes, I'd rather be "Lucky", than,.. Good,..
I took 13 rounds of, 6 XC 107 gr, MK, Sierra's out, last Week, in 23*, 3-4 MPH Winds from, behind ( AKA, an awesome Day to shoot, in the Winter,.. in Idaho ! ).
The First 7 rds at, .035 "Off" the lands ( Where, I "thought" would be, a "Good Place" for Jump ) shot, a descent ( 1/2 MOA ) group. I had also loaded, 6 rds, "Close" to Lands for Chit's and Giggles, as I had read on Here ( Accurate Shooter ) that, some SAID that, the 107's performed "well" at, .010 " Off",..
Wow,.. One hole, 5 shots, in the Low 2's and one "stubborn" boolit about, a 3/8th's inch higher than, the .218 Ctr to Ctr, One Hole, 5 shot group !
Gonna Pursue,.. that, One Hole,.. LUCKY, Group !