How to choose between multiple loads

[rsmithsr50]

just how big is the steel ? and how many shots to get on target, how many hots once you are there

I know 700 is a long way for 60gr, but I was regularly hitting steel at 700 with 55gr a few months ago, and 60gr is the heaviest I seem to be able to stabilise. Not sure I could shoot good groups anything over 300 but it’s capable of repeatable steel hits on greater distance in low wind

 

[Rdlningcltchdmpr]

I’m curious as to your resources to support that it’s a low charge
I’m looking for a burn chart I had saved but iirc Varget and vv140 were very close ,

Vihtavuory - Google it you will see vihtavuory say 26.8. Max. I rounds it off to 27 because many of my best loads are right around max. Sometimes just under, sometimes right at max , sometimes just a tad over max.

 

[Fotheringill]

OP-

"... The problem is, they’re all incredibly good groups!...."

You found the Holy Grail !!!!

Are you sure conditions were exactly the same when you were shooting? Wind can play a really big part in groups.

 

[JFrank]

Vihtavuory - Google it you will see vihtavuory say 26.8. Max. I rounds it off to 27 because many of my best loads are right around max. Sometimes just under, sometimes right at max , sometimes just a tad over max.

Searching brought up a Hodgdon burn rate chart posted on accurate shooter Aug 2018 has VV 140 and Varget near identical.
maybe something has changed since then, without personal knowledge of VV140 I can only go on what I read or hear , I had intended on purchasing some for a trial although it’s a bit scarce at the moment locally.
Anyway thx for the information
J

 

[Rdlningcltchdmpr]

Searching brought up a Hodgdon burn rate chart posted on accurate shooter Aug 2018 has VV 140 and Varget near identical.
maybe something has changed since then, without personal knowledge of VV140 I can only go on what I read or hear , I had intended on purchasing some for a trial although it’s a bit scarce at the moment locally.
Anyway thx for the information
J

I'm curious as to why someone would not believe load data provided by the powder manufacturer as far as max load information is concerned ? I do realize burn rates are almost identical to varget and varget has a lower max powder charge according to hogdon. But i think even if powders have similar burn rates they can and do have different max loads. There is old advice that states - do not use burn rates for load development ! I think this is applicable to these two powder's. Please Let me know if I'm not seeing it right ? Thanks.

 

[JFrank]

Not to be perceived as argumentative but where did say I did not believe max load data??
You said I was 10 % under at 24.2
You said 26.8 was max.
I was curious about the burn chart differences.
With regards to max loads there are many people who run a modest ( 28.5 ish) load in 6 BR that do quite well so you may want to rethink your position.
J

 

[Medic505]

I'm curious as to why someone would not believe load data provided by the powder manufacturer as far as max load information is concerned ? I do realize burn rates are almost identical to varget and varget has a lower max powder charge according to hogdon. But i think even if powders have similar burn rates they can and do have different max loads. There is old advice that states - do not use burn rates for load development ! I think this is applicable to these two powder's. Please Let me know if I'm not seeing it right ? Thanks.

I'm curious about your fixation with max loads. There is old advice around here that states - start low and work up. Is passing GO and not collecting accuracy along the way is the new norm? Jumping to the top of the chart just because it says you can in a book? Giving advice that loads a "tad" over max are OK? I guess I missed the memo.

 

[Rdlningcltchdmpr]

I'm curious about your fixation with max loads. There is old advice around here that states - start low and work up. Is passing GO and not collecting accuracy along the way is the new norm? Jumping to the top of the chart just because it says you can in a book? Giving advice that loads a "tad" over max are OK? I guess I missed the memo.

It's experience, first hand . i say it over and over how 97% of my most accurate loads are right at or about max ! I see guys at the range wasting their components and barrel life and never getting great accuracy ! It's an over abundance of fraidycat to load up to top accuracy. So i would not lead someone into danger, i try to help them get accuracy. Lower loads ,96% of the time will not do it. I see it over and over. I have loaded vihtavuory powder's up to and a tiny bit over max in all the popular cartridges and never hit pressure signs- hard bolt lift- excessive flattening primer - ect. So i would not consider loading to max dangerous at all, and i did advise 4@25.5 , 4@26, 4@26.5, 4@ 27 that is a safe way of testing on the way to top load. If you hit pressure then stop and back off, correct ? My obsession is accuracy, and if lower loads provided that i would do that, but it doesn't. Only reporting the facts.

 

[Ned Ludd]

BB - In response to your initial question, the idea of an Optimal Charge Weight (OCW) test is to find two (or more) successive charge weight increments where the center-points of the groups maintain the same point of impact (POI) on the target. In other words, you're looking for a charge weight "window" over which the barrel harmonics are such that the POI remains relatively constant as charge weight/velocity change. You might call it the "sweet spot" where altering charge weight and velocity have minimal effect on where the bullet hits the target. So one important criteria for selecting a charge weight is that the POIs of the two to three successive groups' [center-points] aren't moving around on the target. IF you see a target with two successive groups that look right, the OCW will likely lie about halfway in between the two. If there are three groups in a row where the center-points maintain constant POI, the OCW will likely be closest to the middle charge weight of the three.

During the initial charge weight optimization stage of an OCW test, group size/shape has less to do with the selection process than POI. The reason for this is that you will tune in the group size/shape in the next step with seating depth. Nonetheless, you can certainly use group size/shape in addition to POI as a secondary indicator. For example, both your groups at 24.8 are stacked vertically, and the groups at 25.0 are stacked horizontally. Both are hitting the target in very close to the same POI, suggesting a potential charge weight window with the middle at 24.9. A reasonable hypothesis is that a charge weight halfway between them might stack the bullets into a single hole, in addition to maintaining the same POI on the target (i.e. with little vertical or horizontal stringing). That is certainly a testable hypothesis.

Once you have selected a charge weight for further testing, move on to seating depth testing in order to fine tune the groups. I typically start testing from ~.003" off the lands to around .027" or .030" off the lands initially, in .003" increments. I have yet to find a .224" bullet that wouldn't tune in somewhere within that region. Nonetheless, if you don't find a seating depth you like within that range, you could always go back and seat them into the lands, or farther off the lands.

I took the liberty of making a few estimates and running your load parameters through the reloading program, QuickLoad. I had to guess at the barrel length (I used 24"), the COAL you used (I used 2.260 COAL), and the case volume (I used 30.0 gr). Below are the QL outputs. Based on barrel time, the 24.4 gr load may be an in-between node, as it seems to give relatively good precision and uniform group shape, but is perhaps not as tight as you'd really like it to be. The 24.9 gr load falls spot on the barrel time predicted for OBT Node 4, a node I have had very good results with in the .223 Rem using heavy bullets. QL predicted your MAX pressure load to be 26.1 gr for the .223 Rem cartridge (right at 55,000 psi predicted pressure). You could certainly go a bit higher than that if you wanted to, but I can tell you from past experience that brass life will almost certainly be poor if you do, so why risk it? Moreover, it is questionable based on the fill ratio whether you can even get much more than 26.1 gr to fit in the case, and you won't be able to hit the next faster OBT Node even if you can.

Regardless, the key takeaways from the QL data are that 24.9 gr, and possibly 24.4 gr are worth further testing, i.e. tuning with seating depth. I will re-iterate that there are many caveats to using QuickLoad, such as the "guesstimates" I had to make regarding barrel length, case volume, etc. As such, it has its limitations. Nonetheless, I have found that once QL has been "calibrated" for a given rifle setup (i.e. the burn rate (Ba) in the program for a specific powder has been adjusted so that both predicted and measured velocity match exactly), the outputs are quite good. Keep going, you're making some good progress! I think you're being overly optimistic with regard to shooting 700 yd with a relatively light, flat-base 0.224" bullet, but you can figure out what your setup is capable of in terms of longer range once you get a solid load tuned for it. You need a tuned load to do that, so you're doing the right things up front.

 

[Rdlningcltchdmpr]

BB - In response to your initial question, the idea of an Optimal Charge Weight (OCW) test is to find two (or more) successive charge weight increments where the center-points of the groups maintain the same point of impact (POI) on the target. In other words, you're looking for a charge weight "window" over which the barrel harmonics are such that the POI remains relatively constant as charge weight/velocity change. You might call it the "sweet spot" where altering charge weight and velocity have minimal effect on where the bullet hits the target. So one important criteria for selecting a charge weight is that the POIs of the two to three successive groups' [center-points] aren't moving around on the target. IF you see a target with two successive groups that look right, the OCW will likely lie about halfway in between the two. If there are three groups in a row where the center-points maintain constant POI, the OCW will likely be closest to the middle charge weight of the three.

During the initial charge weight optimization stage of an OCW test, group size/shape has less to do with the selection process than POI. The reason for this is that you will tune in the group size/shape in the next step with seating depth. Nonetheless, you can certainly use group size/shape in addition to POI as a secondary indicator. For example, both your groups at 24.8 are stacked vertically, and the groups at 25.0 are stacked horizontally. Both are hitting the target in very close to the same POI, suggesting a potential charge weight window with the middle at 24.9. A reasonable hypothesis is that a charge weight halfway between them might stack the bullets into a single hole, in addition to maintaining the same POI on the target (i.e. with little vertical or horizontal stringing). That is certainly a testable hypothesis.

Once you have selected a charge weight for further testing, move on to seating depth testing in order to fine tune the groups. I typically start testing from ~.003" off the lands to around .027" or .030" off the lands initially, in .003" increments. I have yet to find a .224" bullet that wouldn't tune in somewhere within that region. Nonetheless, if you don't find a seating depth you like within that range, you could always go back and seat them into the lands, or farther off the lands.

I took the liberty of making a few estimates and running your load parameters through the reloading program, QuickLoad. I had to guess at the barrel length (I used 24"), the COAL you used (I used 2.260 COAL), and the case volume (I used 30.0 gr). Below are the QL outputs. Based on barrel time, the 24.4 gr load may be an in-between node, as it seems to give relatively good precision and uniform group shape, but is perhaps not as tight as you'd really like it to be. The 24.9 gr load falls spot on the barrel time predicted for OBT Node 4, a node I have had very good results with in the .223 Rem using heavy bullets. QL predicted your MAX pressure load to be 26.1 gr for the .223 Rem cartridge (right at 55,000 psi predicted pressure). You could certainly go a bit higher than that if you wanted to, but I can tell you from past experience that brass life will almost certainly be poor if you do. Moreover, it is questionable based on the fill ratio whether you can even get much more than 26.1 gr to fit in the case, and you won't be able to hit the next faster OBT Node even if you can.

Regardless, the key takeaways from the QL data are that 24.9 gr, and possibly 24.4 gr are worth further testing, i.e. tuning with seating depth. I will re-iterate that there are many caveats to using QuickLoad, such as the "guesstimates" I had to make regarding barrel length, case volume, etc. As such, it has its limitations. Nonetheless, I have found that once QL has been "calibrated" for a given rifle setup (i.e. the burn rate (Ba) in the program for a specific powder has been adjusted so that both predicted and measured velocity match exactly), the outputs are quite good. Keep going, you're making some good progress! I think you're being overly optimistic with regard to shooting 700 yd with a relatively light, flat-base 0.224" bullet, but you can figure out what your setup is capable of in terms of longer range once you get a solid load tuned for it. You need a tuned load to do that, so you're doing the right things up front.

View attachment 1151844


View attachment 1151845

Tell us more !

 

[Ned Ludd]

Tell us more !

OK - since you asked so nicely. I've won four State F-TR Championships shooting a .223 with 90 VLDs, three at 600 yd, one at 1000 yd. It wasn't luck. As evidence of that, a couple weeks ago I validated a reduced fire-forming load in virgin brass that I worked up for one of my .223s; 14 shots at 334 yd in twitchy wind conditions (picture below). The entire group came in at just over 0.5 MOA, but the first shot was out of the group to the left. Without it, the 13-shot group came in at under 0.4 MOA. Even with the 1st shot, it would have been scored a 140-12X. That load routinely shoots one ragged hole at 100 yd and was worked up using the same method I outlined above. It wasn't luck either, I know what I'm doing when it comes to tuning a .223 Rem.

So tell us, what exactly have you accomplished? You like to argue and berate other members here, but why should anyone listen to your advice? It may be that you have knowledge worth listening to, but you'd probably have better results getting your message across in a less belligerent fashion.

 

[Rdlningcltchdmpr]

OK - since you asked so nicely. I've won four State F-TR Championships shooting a .223 with 90 VLDs, three at 600 yd, one at 1000 yd. It wasn't luck. As evidence of that, a couple weeks ago I validated a reduced fire-forming load in virgin brass that I worked up for one of my .223s; 14 shots at 334 yd in twitchy wind conditions (picture below). The entire group came in at just over 0.5 MOA, but the first shot was out of the group to the left. Without it, the 13-shot group came in at under 0.4 MOA. Even with the 1st shot, it would have been scored a 140-12X. That load routinely shoots one ragged hole at 100 yd and was worked up using the same method I outlined above. It wasn't luck either, I know what I'm doing when it comes to tuning a .223 Rem.

So tell us, what exactly have you accomplished? You like to argue and berate other members here, but why should anyone listen to your advice? It may be that you have knowledge worth listening to, but you'd probably have better results getting your message across in a less belligerent fashion.



View attachment 1151875

10-4 thanks for your honesty. I do come off too strong and i need to check myself more. Congrats for your great shooting. I don't compete in contest , just shoot for fun and bragging . i do get tiny groups with every gun i load for and i really like to help others. Sorry for being obnoxious , thanks again for pointing it out. Dan

 

[JFrank]

This thread certainly got more interesting.

 

[Rdlningcltchdmpr]

Searching brought up a Hodgdon burn rate chart posted on accurate shooter Aug 2018 has VV 140 and Varget near identical.
maybe something has changed since then, without personal knowledge of VV140 I can only go on what I read or hear , I had intended on purchasing some for a trial although it’s a bit scarce at the moment locally.
Anyway thx for the information
J

I was loading 223 this morning and looked at hogdon varget data, it shows 60 vmax at 27 grain max load. So it appears near identical to vihtavuory recommendation for n140 max. I am actually loading the 69 scenar for my Krieger/AR. 26 grains is the max for varget but i can only get 25 in the cases with seating depth. That is even crushing kernel's. I will post pictures if i get good groups, if not I'll pretend i never went shooting !

 

[JFrank]

I was loading 223 this morning and looked at hogdon varget data, it shows 60 vmax at 27 grain max load. So it appears near identical to vihtavuory recommendation for n140 max. I am actually loading the 69 scenar for my Krieger/AR. 26 grains is the max for varget but i can only get 25 in the cases with seating depth. That is even crushing kernel's. I will post pictures if i get good groups, if not I'll pretend i never went shooting !

Are you using a drop tube ?

 

[BritishBuffoon]

BB - In response to your initial question, the idea of an Optimal Charge Weight (OCW) test is to find two (or more) successive charge weight increments where the center-points of the groups maintain the same point of impact (POI) on the target. In other words, you're looking for a charge weight "window" over which the barrel harmonics are such that the POI remains relatively constant as charge weight/velocity change. You might call it the "sweet spot" where altering charge weight and velocity have minimal effect on where the bullet hits the target. So one important criteria for selecting a charge weight is that the POIs of the two to three successive groups' [center-points] aren't moving around on the target. IF you see a target with two successive groups that look right, the OCW will likely lie about halfway in between the two. If there are three groups in a row where the center-points maintain constant POI, the OCW will likely be closest to the middle charge weight of the three.

During the initial charge weight optimization stage of an OCW test, group size/shape has less to do with the selection process than POI. The reason for this is that you will tune in the group size/shape in the next step with seating depth. Nonetheless, you can certainly use group size/shape in addition to POI as a secondary indicator. For example, both your groups at 24.8 are stacked vertically, and the groups at 25.0 are stacked horizontally. Both are hitting the target in very close to the same POI, suggesting a potential charge weight window with the middle at 24.9. A reasonable hypothesis is that a charge weight halfway between them might stack the bullets into a single hole, in addition to maintaining the same POI on the target (i.e. with little vertical or horizontal stringing). That is certainly a testable hypothesis.

Once you have selected a charge weight for further testing, move on to seating depth testing in order to fine tune the groups. I typically start testing from ~.003" off the lands to around .027" or .030" off the lands initially, in .003" increments. I have yet to find a .224" bullet that wouldn't tune in somewhere within that region. Nonetheless, if you don't find a seating depth you like within that range, you could always go back and seat them into the lands, or farther off the lands.

I took the liberty of making a few estimates and running your load parameters through the reloading program, QuickLoad. I had to guess at the barrel length (I used 24"), the COAL you used (I used 2.260 COAL), and the case volume (I used 30.0 gr). Below are the QL outputs. Based on barrel time, the 24.4 gr load may be an in-between node, as it seems to give relatively good precision and uniform group shape, but is perhaps not as tight as you'd really like it to be. The 24.9 gr load falls spot on the barrel time predicted for OBT Node 4, a node I have had very good results with in the .223 Rem using heavy bullets. QL predicted your MAX pressure load to be 26.1 gr for the .223 Rem cartridge (right at 55,000 psi predicted pressure). You could certainly go a bit higher than that if you wanted to, but I can tell you from past experience that brass life will almost certainly be poor if you do, so why risk it? Moreover, it is questionable based on the fill ratio whether you can even get much more than 26.1 gr to fit in the case, and you won't be able to hit the next faster OBT Node even if you can.

Regardless, the key takeaways from the QL data are that 24.9 gr, and possibly 24.4 gr are worth further testing, i.e. tuning with seating depth. I will re-iterate that there are many caveats to using QuickLoad, such as the "guesstimates" I had to make regarding barrel length, case volume, etc. As such, it has its limitations. Nonetheless, I have found that once QL has been "calibrated" for a given rifle setup (i.e. the burn rate (Ba) in the program for a specific powder has been adjusted so that both predicted and measured velocity match exactly), the outputs are quite good. Keep going, you're making some good progress! I think you're being overly optimistic with regard to shooting 700 yd with a relatively light, flat-base 0.224" bullet, but you can figure out what your setup is capable of in terms of longer range once you get a solid load tuned for it. You need a tuned load to do that, so you're doing the right things up front.

View attachment 1151844


View attachment 1151845

Wow what a fantastic answer! Thank you for taking the time, that was very informative.
I have never used Quickload but I will certainly look into it.
I will consider POI as you state above in future when considering groups.
I’m definitely being optimistic hitting 700 yards with this setup! But I like a challenge and I managed it with cheap PPU 55gr factory ammo in the same rifle a few months ago in fairly strong wind. I was astounded. I got about 70% of shots on a large steel plate without any data before hand. However it could not be considered a group.
I’m hoping for at least 500 yards on steel with this new load.
Thanks again!

 

[BritishBuffoon]

just how big is the steel ? and how many shots to get on target, how many hots once you are there

Not sure how big the steel was. Less than 1m across (I know that’s big).
I got about 70% rounds on but took at least 5 to get anywhere near it because I had no data, I was walked in by a very experienced spotter.

 

[BritishBuffoon]

OP-

"... The problem is, they’re all incredibly good groups!...."

You found the Holy Grail !!!!

Are you sure conditions were exactly the same when you were shooting? Wind can play a really big part in groups.

Haha! Maybe I have!
Yes the conditions were very similar, a very still day.

 

[BritishBuffoon]

Thank you all very much for taking the time to help me out.
I anticipated a wide variety of opinions, but that’s exactly why I came here! I have learned a lot.
My next steps are:
- slowly increase the load above 25.0 up to 25.8/26.0 and see what happens, being very careful and wary of any excess pressure signs,
- push some of the loads out to 200yards and see if that highlights one load as better or more accurate or more consistent than the others,
- shoot groups of 5 (instead of 3) of some favourites,
Several people have suggested that 24.9 could be the best for a variety of interesting reasons. I will test this load more as well.
I am going to try all of your suggestions while trying not to blow myself up.
Cheers!

 

[Rdlningcltchdmpr]

Are you using a drop tube ?

No drop tube , i just tap the case with a screwdriver to settle the powder before taking the funnel away.