Seeking Experienced Reloaders for Structured Load Development Logic Validation

[Varminterror]

@bjkiefer - I'll shoot you a PM. I'd be willing to play with this in TestFlight. I'm an engineer shooting PRS and ELR, and have been through the Audette/Satterlee velocity curve as a development method for more than 25yrs.

The defining aspect in this pursuit, to me, is differentiating between whether the App functionally works as it promises, or whether the method works to deliver performance downrange. The thread here seems focused on describing that the latter is unlikely, but there doesn't seem to be any review of whether the former remains possible.

 

[bjkiefer]

It seems like you've already boxed in your approach with biases.
Your benchrest perspectives (group delusions & reliance on pre-conditions) will hurt your chances of success for this.

I appreciate the feedback. I actually share some of the same concerns about relying on small groups alone — that’s one of the reasons I built the system the way I did.

PrecisionLoad doesn’t choose loads based purely on group size. It combines chronograph stability, velocity node detection, and group geometry across multiple phases of testing. Groups are only one part of the diagnostic picture.

The goal of the system is to reduce the influence of “lucky groups” by using structured tests and cross-validation between velocity data and target results. In other words, it tries to use evidence from multiple sources instead of relying on a single indicator.

 

[neckturner]

Structured LD workflow (coarse → fine → verification phases)

• Shoot structured ladders

I'm doing a ladder test this weekend. When you say ladder, do you mean like Satterlee, or something with more statistical validity?

 

[neckturner]

reduce the influence of “lucky groups”

Perfect.

 

[bjkiefer]

I'm doing a ladder test this weekend. When you say ladder, do you mean like Satterlee, or something with more statistical validity?

Good question. The initial ladder is mainly to identify potential velocity nodes, but it’s only the first step in the process. you can structure any of the test with the amount of shots you want per group in the amount of groups you want in total. Usually when I’m doing my first ladder test, I do five shots for powder charge with .02 increments per charge.. not only will it take in consideration the Chrono data but also if you put the targets in the holes where the shots marked it will take out of consideration before it gives you the best load, and also the chart to prove it

After that I run multi-shot groups around the candidate charges and compare both velocity stability and target geometry before choosing a final load. The goal is to avoid drawing conclusions from single shots or lucky

 

[bjkiefer]

Good question. The initial ladder is mainly to identify potential velocity nodes, but it’s only the first step in the process. you can structure any of the test with the amount of shots you want per group in the amount of groups you want in total. Usually when I’m doing my first ladder test, I do five shots for powder charge with .02 increments per charge.. not only will it take in consideration the Chrono data but also if you put the targets in the holes where the shots marked it will take out of consideration before it gives you the best load, and also the chart to prove it

After that I run multi-shot groups around the candidate charges and compare both velocity stability and target geometry before choosing a final load. The goal is to avoid drawing conclusions from single shots or lucky