OCW results, opinions please

[BlackEagle]

I am not a proponent of the OCW method, now with that said, I have seen it work and work very well when the shooter stays within the parameters of this method of load development. My personal likes and dislikes are my own and based mainly on the fact that I just don't like to shoot at a 100 yds. Also two of my F-Class rifles, with 20MOA rails and Nightforce 10x42 scopes won't go that low.

After working up a good accurate 100 yd load and having that as a foundation. Then moving out to distance is a simple thing.

OCW is meant to be shot at a 100 yds mainly to test the load, and not have to mess around with the wind. Move OCW out to 300 yds or so and the results are flawed for the basic purpose of the OCW testing. There is that wind thing complicating the test.

Roland

I think the OCW method is a pretty intelligent way to work on load developement and it has probably been around a lot longer than it has been called the OCW method. Saying it is only good for 100 yards is silly in my opnion. At 300 yards the wind is not a factor on a calm day and I think the results are more meaningful for a 308. Collecting data from shooting our own loads in our own guns is not something new and there are many different ways of collecting the data. There is not just one "right way" to do it. That's why people post topics like this one asking for opinions.

 

[Hombre0321]

At 300 yards the wind is not a factor on a calm day and I think the results are more meaningful for a 308.

The wind is always a factor, to say otherwise just shows Sir you don't know of what you speak too.

Roland

 

[treeman]

I have seen "ocw" before but didn't know what it stands for and never gave it a passing thought. but here in oklahoma calm days are few and far between. I have always used the 300 yrd ladder test and tried to shoot the test loads before the wind got up. I do beleve this "new to me" method will save on bullets, powder, primers, barrel life and time. If some one only gives this "ocw" a passing glance they may miss the common sence approach which may be able to get you where you want to be accuracy wise much quicker. so many times I've worke up loads using the ladder test and on days with different temp. the loads simply didn't shoot all that well. I will in the near future be working on load development for a 6.5x47L. I will try this method and see how it works and post my results...never too old too learn!!!

 

[BlackEagle]

At 300 yards the wind is not a factor on a calm day and I think the results are more meaningful for a 308.

The wind is always a factor, to say otherwise just shows Sir you don't know of what you speak too.

Roland

I would definately say that either you or I don't know what the heck we're talking about. I reckon we will disagree on which one.

 

[kyreloader]

If you look at the target, the scatter group is at 42.6. You can tell that because 2 of the bullet holes are at the impact point for the 42.3g charge with 1 bullet hole at the new POI for the 42.9g charge. If 42.6g is the scatter node, then 1.5% above that charge would be the OCW charge, ie.-43.2g. I think the target verifies that, with similar impact points at 43.2g and 43.5g.

I would now load some at 43.2 and shoot for groups at 300 yards or greater and see if it meets your needs.

 

[savageshooter86]

don't think that can say that is a scatter node. It is almost exactly same as the one above and below. That shot may have been pulled or wind shifted. Same with the last group just one shot very slightly off. Scatter node usually is more noticeable than these.

42.9 and 43.5 which both hit directly below the POA on the vertical line, 43.2 hits to the left of that. Run them through ONTARGET and you will see it hits further off than the other charges

 

[Desert Fox]

After working up a good accurate 100 yd load and having that as a foundation. Then moving out to distance is a simple thing.

I subscribed to this method... it always works for me. I always find my load after shooting no more than 25 rounds at 100 yards.

 

[scissorhands]

don't think that can say that is a scatter node. It is almost exactly same as the one above and below. That shot may have been pulled or wind shifted. Same with the last group just one shot very slightly off. Scatter node usually is more noticeable than these.

42.9 and 43.5 which both hit directly below the POA on the vertical line, 43.2 hits to the left of that. Run them through ONTARGET and you will see it hits further off than the other charges

I just got a new mac and ontarget doesnt want to work for me, it worked on my last mac. Anyhow, I think you are spot on with your analysis.....


Rob

 

[Billch]

scissorhands,
I'm not sure how far you want to go with your computer and software.
I'm a Mac user. I got Parallels so I could use Quickload. There is a Windows version of OnTarget that I've just started using under Parallels too as the old version doesn't work with the new OSX. It all seems to run just fine.
I'm finding the computer can be a very effective tool for load development.

B

 

[Citysmasher]

You've got one node in between 43.2 and 43.5. You should get another node around 45. That's looks like a good shotting gun.

Exactly what I see. The node is in between 43.2 and 43.5.

There is also a node right below the charge you started with... somewhere about 41.8...

The next node will be right about 45 grains.

The nodes should be about 2.2 grains apart. So if you assume the node is 43.3, you should have a node at 41.1 and 45.5... or there abouts.

 

[ar10ar15man]

ocw is a nice way to waste components.....

a ten shot single string shot at 200yds with a single point of aim will furnish enough data to work up a load from without the additional rounds.

case vol/100 is increment....about .4 or .5 in 308win..take your pick
shoot all 10or 11 or 12 or 9..you choice.
circle and observe data in these groups:
1 2
123
234
345
456
567
678
789
8910
910
you are looking for small groups with little verticle variation......
best to start from the 308 page..it has tons of data.....

ocw was developed by someone who did not understand how to do a ladder properly, had too much components or a combination of the above...in my opinion