Very happy so far, “10 round” load development results.

[Sraw]

I just completed the initial step first attempt of the “10 round load development” with Hornady 140 gr HPBTs and H4350 loaded .020 off the lands.

I zeroed the rifle (savage stealth) at 100 during the velocity testing and I am impressed to say the least. The low shot outside of the group was pre final scope adjustment. That group is over a 3 grain spread, not .3, THREE whole grains... with a chrono hanging on the barrel.

Based on this I’m planning on loading 10 at 41.5 and 42.5. 5 to confirm spread and 5 to test grouping.

I’m also considering re shooting a couple at 41.8 because if that was a loading mistake that could be a very wide node for me.

Let me know what you think of my plan or if you have any recommendations.

 

[memilanuk]

Load up two more iterations of the same test, and run them on different days/sessions. See if the 'nodes' appear in the same spots...

 

[Lefty Trigger]

I agree with milanuk, try the test again since a few on here could be a little odd? 41.8 could be odd or so could 42.0, what length barrel?

 

[jepp2]

Since I'm an OCW guy, I would have less confidence on single velocities. But I realize you don't learn anything when you are talking, so I will be lurking to see how it works out for you.

 

[CharlieNC]

For any given charge the ES for velocity can easily be in the 10-20 fps range, meaning the result for the individual shot toy recorded is not very representative of that charge. I see no features on your graph to suggest any but the lowest charges offer any better uniformity. Since you showed a target, if you shot those in a manner for identification you would have likely seen a couple of nodes. And isn't the target the primary interest? We see these types of velocity trials often, but no collaborating target evidence.

 

[fredo]

Good initial test!
Agree to shoot same test again, to confirm results...

And, while yer at it, see if ya can find a spot with more distance, and shoot it @ 300yds, or more. Then, you'll be gettin' more data 'bang for your buck'...

Take note of where each step impacts on target, then see if the vertical dispersion correlates with your velocity 'flat spots'. If so, you'll know ya got a keeper on your hands! If not, trust the target...

Have fun & be safe!

 

[Boatschool02]

This is a good start.
Caveat: I am not a statistical pro and it's been 15 years since I took a class on regression analysis.
-
Even if your loading process could produce 10 FPS spreads at each charge, you could randomly create divergent blips & dips on any single shot repetition of this test. I've ran the same test firing three shots at each data point several times and came to the same conclusion. From 41 grains to 43 grains you have approximately 120 FPS gain, which equates to 12 FPS per 0.2 charge increase.
-
More importantly, what distance do you plan to shoot at?
I've chrono'd & logged every single round I've shot for the past two years.
I initially bought into the "velocity plateau" theory, for lack of a better one, but have since come to see that what really matters is where the bullets impact on the paper at your desired range. I guess you could call this an "on target plateau." If you were to shoot a horizontal OBT test at 300 yards or more, you would see the vertical ** IN and IN BETWEEN ** groups tune in just like an hour glass. For me, inside 300 yards, I often see groups shifting DOWN, even when the charge weight is going UP. I attribute it to the sine wave theories that you'll hear other more experienced shooters talk about at 100 yards. IMHO, if you're not seeing something like this effect, then you know that you're loading or gun handling are not reliable enough to attribute value to the groups that your attempting to interpret. Just going from 3 to 4 shot groups will really open your eyes in this respect.
If you load anywhere other than the relative convergence zone, you will have vertical in your groups that no amount of tuning will overcome, without a tuner. I'm just a hobbyist, but I would encourage you to think of a "node" as one of these flat points on the target at a specified distance that correlates to a certain velocity range instead of a charge region that shows relative insensitivity to added powder.
-
I second the points made above. Keep testing and comparing your results vs theory. Please keep posting on your progress. It would be really cool to see where your eventual load lines up on this initial charge vs velocity graph.

Luke

 

[normmatzen]

You said, "With a chrono hanging on the barrel." If you meant you were using a MagnetoSpeed
(as I do), I would double check your results with
the chrono removed as the weight of the Bayo will totally de-tune the cantilever resonance of the barrel. Either check your load with out the chrono or re-do the closest 4 or so loads (now that you know their velocity) without the chrono.
I use my chrono to tune my barrel's longitudinal resonance but leave the chrono off for the cantilever tune. Yes, I use a tuner on my LR bench rest guns.

 

[Sraw]

You said, "With a chrono hanging on the barrel." If you meant you were using a MagnetoSpeed
(as I do), I would double check your results with
the chrono removed as the weight of the Bayo will totally de-tune the cantilever resonance of the barrel. Either check your load with out the chrono or re-do the closest 4 or so loads (now that you know their velocity) without the chrono.
I use my chrono to tune my barrel's longitudinal resonance but leave the chrono off for the cantilever tune. Yes, I use a tuner on my LR bench rest guns.

My plan is to shoot 5 of each load that shows potential with the chrono to confirm es and sd. Then shoot 5 of each for group without the chrono. Depending on the results maybe adjust .1 gr in either direction or play with seating depth a little.

 

[dcali]

I hate to rain on a parade, but what you’re looking at is white noise laid on top of the fact that more powder makes for more velocity, which you already knew.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

I hate to rain on a parade, but what you’re looking at is white noise laid on top of the fact that more powder makes for more velocity, which you already knew.

I was thinking the same thing- if my chrono said i had less velocity with more powder and had a sawtooth chart like that id get rid of that brand and try another one with more data points to put in there. But, im not a chronograph competitor so what do i know? I do know it looks way better on target than that chrono shows- 3gr spread with pretty much 10 in the same hole is a good shooter no matter what the data says

 

[memilanuk]

I think what he's trying is the method described here:

And more generally here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=satterlee+load+development+method

I think it's more of a short cut for experienced reloaders that are familiar with a given cartridge and know pretty much where they should end up. More of a verification of an existing 'pet' load in a new barrel/gun than full-on load tuning. Some people swear by it; others swear at it...

Personally I've seen enough variability in chronograph readings from one day to the next, with the *same* load, to have my doubts...

 

[Sraw]

I hate to rain on a parade, but what you’re looking at is white noise laid on top of the fact that more powder makes for more velocity, which you already knew.

As you can see by the already collected data, that is not necessarily true.

 

[Sraw]

I think what he's trying is the method described here:

And more generally here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=satterlee+load+development+method

I think it's more of a short cut for experienced reloaders that are familiar with a given cartridge and know pretty much where they should end up. More of a verification of an existing 'pet' load in a new barrel/gun than full-on load tuning. Some people swear by it; others swear at it...

Personally I've seen enough variability in chronograph readings from one day to the next, with the *same* load, to have my doubts...

You are correct.

 

[Sraw]

I was thinking the same thing- if my chrono said i had less velocity with more powder and had a sawtooth chart like that id get rid of that brand and try another one with more data points to put in there. But, im not a chronograph competitor so what do i know? I do know it looks way better on target than that chrono shows- 3gr spread with pretty much 10 in the same hole is a good shooter no matter what the data says

Give it a try. From what I’ve read these results are pretty consistent with everyone else.

The point is to find the velocity node, load in the middle of it, then end up with a very consistent and repeatable long range load.

 

[muleman69]

I showed that video to my rifle one day"
It still shot the same..
I'm a what's on paper guy

I'm with you, paper says a lot

 

[CharlieNC]

Give it a try. From what I’ve read these results are pretty consistent with everyone else.

The point is to find the velocity node, load in the middle of it, then end up with a very consistent and repeatable long range load.

I have never seen a comparison showing both velocity and point of impact on the target vs charge weight , providing real evidence that this approach yields comparable results. In fact I quit setting up to measure velocity when shooting a ladder because velocity did not identify the node. On the other hand, shooting 10 shots per charge might show where the velocity variability is less but one chrono reading is fraught with so much error that it is a roll of the dice. While an interesting concept, I have never observed any evidence nor seen any reported to substantiate. Doing this to select a charge, and then shooting a "good" group, does not begin to prove that selection process was better. Sorry but I have evaluated and proven to myself that this is not a reliable substitute for the target.

 

[Sraw]

I have never seen a comparison showing both velocity and point of impact on the target vs charge weight , providing real evidence that this approach yields comparable results. In fact I quit setting up to measure velocity when shooting a ladder because velocity did not identify the node. On the other hand, shooting 10 shots per charge might show where the velocity variability is less but one chrono reading is fraught with so much error that it is a roll of the dice. While an interesting concept, I have never observed any evidence nor seen any reported to substantiate. Doing this to select a charge, and then shooting a "good" group, does not begin to prove that selection process was better. Sorry but I have evaluated and proven to myself that this is not a reliable substitute for the target.

This is my first time using this method. I have no idea what the end results will be. I just was very happy with my new rifle and it’s group over three grains of charge weights. I’ll post the results of those two suspected notes when I make it to the range.

I just thought it was interesting. OCW testing on a new rifle with a new caliber can get pretty expensive pretty quick. Especially if you factor in a couple different match bullets, a couple different hunting bullets, and maybe a varmint bullet. That and three powders You could easily spend a couple hundred dollars finding three loads that work the best in your rifle.

I like load development so worst case scenario this was an enjoyable time at the range. No matter what I’m going to learn something at the end of this.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Your test results look great except for one little thing.

Am I the only one that noticed @Sraw actually used 12 rounds for a "10-round" load development?



With regard to Damon's white noise comment, the way to know for sure is to repeat the test a couple times and see whether the resulting curve looks the same, especially with regard to velocity versus charge weight in the "flat spot" from 42.2 to 42.6 gr. Betcha' it won't. Even 5-shot average velocities fired successively with the same load under almost identical conditions will routinely vary by approximately +/- SD, or from 5 to 10 fps, depending on the cartridge, powder, reloader, etc. It is highly likely that any flat spot observed in a velocity curve prepared using single shot velocity values is merely fortuitous and not repeatable. Fortunately, it only takes 10 rounds (I'm sorry 12 rounds ), to determine whether the curve is reproducible. Regardless of what you get out of this approach, I would say it will not be wasted effort. You're learning as you go and might also end up where you want to be with the load itself. My suggestion would be to pay very close attention to how reproducible charge weight/velocity values are from session to session, or even within the same session. Having a good working statistical knowledge as it relates to various reloading phenomena can be extremely useful.

 

[Sraw]

Your test results look great except for one little thing.

Am I the only one that noticed @Sraw actually used 12 rounds for a "10-round" load development?



With regard to Damon's white noise comment, the way to know for sure is to repeat the test a couple times and see whether the resulting curve looks the same, especially with regard to velocity versus charge weight in the "flat spot" from 42.2 to 42.6 gr. Betcha' it won't. Even 5-shot average velocities fired successively with the same load under almost identical conditions will routinely vary by approximately +/- SD, or from 5 to 10 fps, depending on the cartridge, powder, reloader, etc. It is highly likely that any flat spot observed in a velocity curve prepared using single shot velocity values is merely fortuitous and not repeatable. Fortunately, it only takes 10 rounds (I'm sorry 12 rounds ), to determine whether the curve is reproducible. Regardless of what you get out of this approach, I would say it will not be wasted effort. You're learning as you go and might also end up where you want to be with the load itself. My suggestion would be to pay very close attention to how reproducible charge weight/velocity values are from session to session, or even within the same session. Having a good working statistical knowledge as it relates to various reloading phenomena can be extremely useful.

If we’re being honest here... it was actually 16 because I wanted to start in a known safe zone and see where I found pressure signs. Well I did t find any pressure signs but only loaded to 43.

The reason the graph shows only 12 is because that’s the max my graphing app allows... the first three were 40.0-2562, 40.2-2594, 40.4-2643, and 40.6-2653