Load Testing

[chkunz]

Many of you do some load testing from the bench to evaluate your loads. I have looked at some of the equipment that the bench rest folks use and it is impressive. Then there is the bench rest shooting technique for getting the best results from the equipment. Many of you that do load development testing are not experienced bench rest shooters so I am wondering what equipment and bench technique you use for your load development testing.

 

[JarheadAZ]

OK; I'm not a Benchrest shooter, but I do shoot my development loads from a bench and rest. Again, not being an 'all stops out' precision shooter, those rests are mundane Caldwell products; but they do serve well enough to minimize operator-induced deflection.

I consider load development to be my own key accuracy element, (Edited to add especially since I shoot factory-stock rifles in nearly all instances. It's important, but not a 'hock the house and invest everything in accuracy' element.

Greg

 

[George Foster]

I do all my load testing from the bench and use a Caldwell front rest with a forend stop and Protektor and a heavy base Protektor rear bag. I like to get as much accuracy as possible out of my sporter rifles.

 

[chkunz]

OK; I'm not a Benchrest shooter, but I do shoot my development loads from a bench and rest. Again, not being an 'all stops out' precision shooter, those rests are mundane Caldwell products; but they do serve well enough to minimize operator-induced deflection.

I consider load development to be my own key accuracy element. It's important, but not 'hock the house and invest everything in accuracy' element.

Greg

Thanks for the response. Caldwell looks like they have a good line and their price is below the serious benchrest high end stuff. I am interested in what is good enough to support some serious load development and it would be good to know that Caldwell is good enough.

 

[chkunz]

I do all my load testing from the bench and use a Caldwell front rest with a forend stop and Protektor and a heavy base Protektor rear bag. I like to get as much accuracy as possible out of my sporter rifles.

Thanks for your response. It sounds like you and JarheadNY are getting good service from Caldwell. I am going to take a closer look at Caldwell. Thanks again.

 

[R.Morehouse]

A quality solid rest ( not a stick shift ) and rear bag..... and every shot through a chrono....always. Great beam scale and over the top brass prep. Reloading bench practices are super important....If your ammo isn't as perfect as you can make it your results on the paper will be flawed......Like anything else " garbage in...garbage out "....

 

[noload]

I actually do my load testing on the ground, prone, Just like I was in an F Class match. I find the ground to be more solid that most typical shooting benches. Just the slightest movement of a bench will skue your thoughts of a group. If is not a concrete bench I would probably not use it. And that Caldwell rest would not be the weakest link in your set up. I found if you use a wobbly wood bench, sit behind it, without the weight of your body touching it.

 

[bsumoba]

all my testing is done the way I shoot, f-class prone.

 

[Mozella]

I think the biggest mistake I see people making when they load test, is target evaluation. They spend endless hours building a gun, prepping brass, weighing powder, testing seating depths, etc. etc. etc. but spend only a moment evaluating their targets.

I regularly see folks at the range eyeballing a series of 5 shot groups and making a decision about which shows the best performance in just a few minutes.

I prefer to take my targets home and put them on a scanner after which I mark and measure the bullet holes using On Target software. I take the results and combine them with the chrono data in an Excel spread sheet where I can study all the variables. Not only can I measure the bullet position very very accurately, the software calculates Mean Radius (Average to Center) which some people think is as important as Center-to-Center group size but which is quite tedious to calculate by hand.

Over time, I can gather a good deal of data and study the important performance parameters like group size, group height, and Mean Radius vs powder type, powder charge weight, primer type, bullet coating, SD, and so-on.

Just the other day I was shooting my 6mm BR Norma with both 95gr and 107gr Sierra MKs. I drove home thinking the 95's significantly under-performed the 107's, but after actually measuring the results, the 95's actually did better by a small margin. In other words, my eyeball evaluation was wrong.

Bottom line: If you're trying to figure what's going on with your hand loads, target evaluation is one of the most important steps, but one which often receives short shrift.

 

[johara1]

I don't see one the most important equipment in load testing mentioned . Wind flags……. without them testing is worthless, siting at a bench or the ground doesn't matter but no flags ……. no answers…….. you can not see a 1mph. change at 1000, at full value that is a big deal, with flags . Now what do you see without them?……… jim

 

[JarheadAZ]

FWIW, a friend of mine does periodic business trips to China. While visiting a foundry, he found Caldwell bench rest components being produced.

Now before anyone starts belittling Caldwell for being China-made, I have an observation to share.

I am old enough to recall much ado being made about Japan-made products.

But that changed over time as the Japanese manufacturers gained insight into their production processes. Nowadays, Japan-made products are much more highly appreciated.

I suspect that a much similar progression has been occurring within the Chinese production environment. I think the day is not long off when many China-made products will garner much more sincere respect.

I certainly have honest respect for the environment that produced my two Mueller 8-32x44 scopes, and have not had any serious quality issues with the many Caldwell products I employ.

While I agree that "garbage in, garbage out" has a serious relation to rifle accuracy, I would still suggest that such a sentiment has practical limits. For example, the presence of a more roomy SAAMI spec'd chamber could render issues like neck turning and concentricity to a lower position on my list of handloading priorities.

I can respect a diligent effort to have one's ammo be 'all it can be', but practicality may dictate that some of such effort may be superfluous when it comes right down to what the target indicates.

When in doubt, I try to assess which extraordinary (i.e., beyond the absolute minimally required ones) efforts can have true applicability to the task at hand.

Greg

 

[memilanuk]

I think the biggest mistake I see people making when they load test, is target evaluation. They spend endless hours building a gun, prepping brass, weighing powder, testing seating depths, etc. etc. etc. but spend only a moment evaluating their targets.

I regularly see folks at the range eyeballing a series of 5 shot groups and making a decision about which shows the best performance in just a few minutes.

^ what he said

I know components cost real money, and competitive barrel life is most definitely finite... but it seems like we as folks who handload for competitive shooting sports have almost an obsession with finding the best load in the absolute fewest shots possible. People literally brag about it. And while I realize that we pay cashy dollars for those bullets and barrels with the intent of using them in matches, not practice or load development, I wonder how often our efforts to short-track load development ends up short-circuiting our competitive efforts down the road?

You only have to get burned once, by a super small 'miracle' group that later seems near impossible to reproduce, to end up wasting far more on entry fees, travel / lodging expenses, etc. than you would have spent on making a few more trips back to the range to run replicates of those promising loads just to make *sure* that what you saw on paper was really real.

Remember fliers work both ways

 

[SHootSTraight22]

Many of you do some load testing from the bench to evaluate your loads. I have looked at some of the equipment that the bench rest folks use and it is impressive. Then there is the bench rest shooting technique for getting the best results from the equipment. Many of you that do load development testing are not experienced bench rest shooters so I am wondering what equipment and bench technique you use for your load development testing.

I do load development just like I shoot in the field.. The only difference their could be is I make sure that each trigger squeeze is perfect and that my gun is recoiling in a straight back manner or the same each time... The only time I've ever had inconsistant groups is when my bipod was loose and when the gun was slightly uneven and was recoiling or pushing back inconsistantly...

 

[chkunz]

A quality solid rest ( not a stick shift ) and rear bag..... and every shot through a chrono....always. Great beam scale and over the top brass prep. Reloading bench practices are super important....If your ammo isn't as perfect as you can make it your results on the paper will be flawed......Like anything else " garbage in...garbage out "....

Thanks for the response. I am looking for some specifics on what equipment folks are using and what bench technique they use. Any of of this type of info would be helpful. Thanks.

 

[chkunz]

I actually do my load testing on the ground, prone, Just like I was in an F Class match. I find the ground to be more solid that most typical shooting benches. Just the slightest movement of a bench will skue your thoughts of a group. If is not a concrete bench I would probably not use it. And that Caldwell rest would not be the weakest link in your set up. I found if you use a wobbly wood bench, sit behind it, without the weight of your body touching it.

That sounds like a great way to do it since you are an F Class shooter you already have the equipment and shooting out of your match position probably has other benefits as well. Since I am not an F Class shooter I do not have the equipment or the technique that you have but you bring up a good point, I can learn from F Class folks as well as bench rest folks. What equipment do you use for F Class?

 

[chkunz]

all my testing is done the way I shoot, f-class prone.

What type of rest and technique do you use?

 

[chkunz]

I think the biggest mistake I see people making when they load test, is target evaluation. They spend endless hours building a gun, prepping brass, weighing powder, testing seating depths, etc. etc. etc. but spend only a moment evaluating their targets.

I regularly see folks at the range eyeballing a series of 5 shot groups and making a decision about which shows the best performance in just a few minutes.

I prefer to take my targets home and put them on a scanner after which I mark and measure the bullet holes using On Target software. I take the results and combine them with the chrono data in an Excel spread sheet where I can study all the variables. Not only can I measure the bullet position very very accurately, the software calculates Mean Radius (Average to Center) which some people think is as important as Center-to-Center group size but which is quite tedious to calculate by hand.

Over time, I can gather a good deal of data and study the important performance parameters like group size, group height, and Mean Radius vs powder type, powder charge weight, primer type, bullet coating, SD, and so-on.

Just the other day I was shooting my 6mm BR Norma with both 95gr and 107gr Sierra MKs. I drove home thinking the 95's significantly under-performed the 107's, but after actually measuring the results, the 95's actually did better by a small margin. In other words, my eyeball evaluation was wrong.

Bottom line: If you're trying to figure what's going on with your hand loads, target evaluation is one of the most important steps, but one which often receives short shrift.

Thanks for the response and I do understand your points completely and I am aware of what is required to make a statistically meaningful judgment on data. I also use mean radius to evaluate groups. Most folks use extreme spread which only evaluates the two worse shots where with mean radius every shot counts. The math is really easy once you try it , only takes a little more effort . The benefits are worth the effort to use mean radius.

 

[chkunz]

I don't see one the most important equipment in load testing mentioned . Wind flags……. without them testing is worthless, siting at a bench or the ground doesn't matter but no flags ……. no answers…….. you can not see a 1mph. change at 1000, at full value that is a big deal, with flags . Now what do you see without them?……… jim

I understand the value of reading the wind and I have some experience with small bore prone shooting. My approach to load development has been to minimize the effect of the wind on the data by only testing on favorable days. This does not eliminate the effect of wind on group size completely but it does keep it to a manageable level Fortunately I am now retired and live close enough to a good range where I can pick favorable days for testing. But you have me thinking that I probably should add some wind flags to the process, I may learn something with that. I understand mirage, is that good enough for load testing at 100 yards.

 

[chkunz]

FWIW, a friend of mine does periodic business trips to China. While visiting a foundry, he found Caldwell bench rest components being produced.

Now before anyone starts belittling Caldwell for being China-made, I have an observation to share.

I am old enough to recall much ado being made about Japan-made products.

But that changed over time as the Japanese manufacturers gained insight into their production processes. Nowadays, Japan-made products are much more highly appreciated.

I suspect that a much similar progression has been occurring within the Chinese production environment. I think the day is not long off when many China-made products will garner much more sincere respect.

I certainly have honest respect for the environment that produced my two Mueller 8-32x44 scopes, and have not had any serious quality issues with the many Caldwell products I employ.

While I agree that "garbage in, garbage out" has a serious relation to rifle accuracy, I would still suggest that such a sentiment has practical limits. For example, the presence of a more roomy SAAMI spec'd chamber could render issues like neck turning and concentricity to a lower position on my list of handloading priorities.

I can respect a diligent effort to have one's ammo be 'all it can be', but practicality may dictate that some of such effort may be superfluous when it comes right down to what the target indicates.

When in doubt, I try to assess which extraordinary (i.e., beyond the absolute minimally required ones) efforts can have true applicability to the task at hand.

Greg

Thanks for the response, all good points. I shoot XTC and conventional prone at mid range (600 yards) and long range (1000 yards). So I get a big target and only need X ring ammo for that application. You F Class folks have a much more challenging target.

 

[chkunz]

I think the biggest mistake I see people making when they load test, is target evaluation. They spend endless hours building a gun, prepping brass, weighing powder, testing seating depths, etc. etc. etc. but spend only a moment evaluating their targets.

I regularly see folks at the range eyeballing a series of 5 shot groups and making a decision about which shows the best performance in just a few minutes.

^ what he said

I know components cost real money, and competitive barrel life is most definitely finite... but it seems like we as folks who handload for competitive shooting sports have almost an obsession with finding the best load in the absolute fewest shots possible. People literally brag about it. And while I realize that we pay cashy dollars for those bullets and barrels with the intent of using them in matches, not practice or load development, I wonder how often our efforts to short-track load development ends up short-circuiting our competitive efforts down the road?

You only have to get burned once, by a super small 'miracle' group that later seems near impossible to reproduce, to end up wasting far more on entry fees, travel / lodging expenses, etc. than you would have spent on making a few more trips back to the range to run replicates of those promising loads just to make *sure* that what you saw on paper was really real.

Remember fliers work both ways

Do you do load development off the bench? If so what can you share about equipment and technique?