yards to do load development

[6Creed73]

I'm glad you posted this. I'll let Dave respond but will say that much depends on what you're after in regard to precision and what's needed in your discipline. If you're happy tuning for solid .5 moa groups, then shooting as close to dead calm is not likely to give you much grief and sure beats shooting in big wind. But if you're after groups in the zeros and teens, what appears to be dead calm can drive you nuts with unexplained shots. Like I said in another thread, it may well be thermals and some can be tune related. You won't often see that with a .5 moa rifle/load. Not a thing wrong with that rifle and load if it meets your goals for your discipline. As you can see though, wind can be shot and shot well. It almost always tells you something that you don't often get from dead calm. I posted this just a few minutes ago. It's a good tool and a way to read why shots go where they do or should. Check it out if you haven't seen them already.

Wind rose

I post about group shapes on here a fair bit and how I use them to read tune as well as conditions. Many on here are already familiar with these but I haven't seen it posted in quite a while. They are a useful tool. I hear a lot of talk about full value and half value, etc. The reality is that...

forum.accurateshooter.com

Yeah, like I said, you BR guys are a different breed. I'm not going to kill myself trying to shoot zeros and teens because I don't need that in PRS. Under .5 moa and I'm a happy camper, .25 and I'm ecstatic.

I always find the differences between disciplines interesting.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

But also look at my previous post here. Even with those tiny groups, there is info that can be inferred from the groups both having some up and right diagonal. The link shows that.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Yeah, like I said, you BR guys are a different breed. I'm not going to kill myself trying to shoot zeros and teens because I don't need that in PRS. Under .5 moa and I'm a happy camper, .25 and I'm ecstatic.

I always find the differences between disciplines interesting.

Totally understand and yes, we're a different breed but there's good info in the head of someone like Dave, that can help us all.

 

[NZ_Fclass]

Always start at 100. If you are not shooting bugholes there... then out to 3-500. Look for verticals. Always shoot over flags.

 

[Evan]

I shoot 1k benchrest. I have found an interesting trend: the further I shoot for load development, the smaller my groups get. Seems like I get the best results at 1000yds when I perform my load development at that distance. Odd….

 

[D Coots]

First, damn...nice groups. You BR guys are a different breed.

As for the wind, I'm curious when you say weird things happen with no wind, are you referring to shooting in a boil? If so, I agree with you. Which is why I usually do load development early in the morning or in the evening and typically don't encounter any weirdness.

My problem with developing a load with wind is it usually doesn't cooperate. If I am shooting with wind, I prefer a steady crosswind...not sure anyone would disagree with that. But how often is that the case? Hardly ever for me, at least at my local range. Typically, I get a tail wind, or diagonal right to left from the rear. I can't stand shooting with a tail wind when doing load development...talk about doing weird things.

Like Mike says in post 60...weird shots can happen in a calm.

To 6Creed73, nope not talking about a boil. That's why I mentioned eariler about knowing your range. My range the last 4.5 years is honest in all ways. The place I left sucked. I'd go home after work and if it was calm a couple of the tails sometimes looked like someone was pulling them out to the 8 o'clock position. Stiff. No use shooting...a waste of time. I've been to matches where the mirage just crawls around or a berm causes unexplained shots. Different things work for different people. My traveling buddy Dean hits his range as soon as it opens when it is dead calm. Works for him...his record speaks for itself.

As far as a chrono mine hasn't been out of the box for several years. If I change powders I'll chrono that. I'm good with my 2006 for a few more years. Again, to each their own.

My target is my chrono....

Good luck.

 

[D Coots]

But also look at my previous post here. Even with those tiny groups, there is info that can be inferred from the groups both having some up and right diagonal. The link shows that.

A thou on the seating depth most likely because the wind was l-r which should have moved the bullet down. The target has most all the answers.

 

[6Creed73]

But also look at my previous post here. Even with those tiny groups, there is info that can be inferred from the groups both having some up and right diagonal. The link shows that.

I can shoot tiny groups like that. But it's 1 shot groups

 

[jackieschmidt]

It is common for larger caliber rifles to shoot better at long range than they do at 100 yards. The phenomenon is called epicyclic swerve and it's pretty well documented. The bullets are actually orbiting the centerline of their path so to speak, and that motion settles down as you get further down range. I have not heard of this being a big factor in rifles smaller than 30 caliber so with the 223 I would think 100 yards is fine. But if your intended use for the load is shooting at 300 yards then that's where I'd develop my loads. You can have a great load at 100 yards with high SDs and you'll get a bunch of vertical dispersion further down range.

Are you talking about better MOA or actual group size.

As for testing in the wind, I try to duplicate match conditions every time I am at the range. That goes for my bench equipment, flags, loading gear, everything I do at a match.

I feel like I can read flags well enough to know exactly where a bullet should be. If it Isn’t, the tune is probably off.

 

[6Creed73]

Are you talking about better MOA or actual group size.

As for testing in the wind, I try to duplicate match conditions every time I am at the range. That goes for my bench equipment, flags, loading gear, everything I do at a match.

I feel like I can read flags well enough to know exactly where a bullet should be. If it Isn’t, the tune is probably off.

We've established that everyone likes doing things a little differently, which is great and one of the things that make this hobby so fun...there is never a lack of opportunities to learn different things.

I just can't get behind duplicating match conditions. First of all, it's very difficult to duplicate environmental conditions. Second, the systems engineer in me wants to establish an environment with the least amount of variables possible.

I'm confident that I can read conditions and adjust accordingly in a match, but I don't want any ambivalence while developing a load. I don't want to be somewhat confident that I adjusted properly for wind...I want to be fairly certain that the tune did something that was not affected by me or environment and therefore I can adjust the load accordingly.

When I leave the range, I want there to be no doubt that the rifle and the load did their part and if I miss at a match or during practice, I'm pretty sure it was me.

Don't get me wrong though, I do want to try to duplicate match conditions, or at least what I think match conditions will be (which can be pretty difficult), but during practice, not during load development. Practice and load development are two completely different things, imo. I'm of the mindset that if the load did what I expected it to do in good conditions, then I'll be able to read match conditions and adjust.

You can think about it in the opposite too. What if you develop a load in what you think match conditions would be, but you get to the match and it's nothing but calm. It doesn't mean your load won't perform in the contrasting environment, it just means you need to do your part now.

As a reminder, I know next to nothing about BR, everything I say comes from experience in PRS and developing loads for that discipline.

I love the discussion though. People not in this hobby have the idea that we are just apes behind a rifle, we just pull the trigger and it goes boom, lol...this is a thinking man's sport.

 

[Evan]

We've established that everyone likes doing things a little differently, which is great and one of the things that make this hobby so fun...there is never a lack of opportunities to learn different things.

I just can't get behind duplicating match conditions. First of all, it's very difficult to duplicate environmental conditions. Second, the systems engineer in me wants to establish an environment with the least amount of variables possible.

I'm confident that I can read conditions and adjust accordingly in a match, but I don't want any ambivalence while developing a load. I don't want to be somewhat confident that I adjusted properly for wind...I want to be fairly certain that the tune did something that was not affected by me or environment and therefore I can adjust the load accordingly.

When I leave the range, I want there to be no doubt that the rifle and the load did their part and if I miss at a match or during practice, I'm pretty sure it was me.

Don't get me wrong though, I do want to try to duplicate match conditions, or at least what I think match conditions will be (which can be pretty difficult), but during practice, not during load development. Practice and load development are two completely different things, imo. I'm of the mindset that if the load did what I expected it to do in good conditions, then I'll be able to read match conditions and adjust.

You can think about it in the opposite too. What if you develop a load in what you think match conditions would be, but you get to the match and it's nothing but calm. It doesn't mean your load won't perform in the contrasting environment, it just means you need to do your part now.

As a reminder, I know next to nothing about BR, everything I say comes from experience in PRS and developing loads for that discipline.

I love the discussion though. People not in this hobby have the idea that we are just apes behind a rifle, we just pull the trigger and it goes boom, lol...this is a thinking man's sport.

I think it’s important to realize that you cannot separate or isolate variables in this system. They have complex interactions with each other. The supposed safety blanket of no/minimal wind and “only 100 yards” is effectively lying to yourself. The groups at 100 are smaller, but all the same gun handling and wind calls matter equally, you just measure the mistakes in thousandths instead of whole inches.

 

[6Creed73]

I think it’s important to realize that you cannot separate or isolate variables in this system. They have complex interactions with each other. The supposed safety blanket of no/minimal wind and “only 100 yards” is effectively lying to yourself. The groups at 100 are smaller, but all the same gun handling and wind calls matter equally, you just measure the mistakes in thousandths instead of whole inches.

I don't see it as a security blanket though. It's just a somewhat controllable environment to develop the load.

It's my belief that it's not the loads job to defeat the wind, that's my job. The loads job is to be consistent and predictable. Being consistent and predictable is what allows me to do my part.

I think it's also important to note that people most likely aren't just developing a load at 100 yards, then going straight to a match. I practice with that load at distance. And I typically try to shoot a mock match. So I'm not just walking away from the 100 yard range and expecting it will be perfect at distance...I prove it out.

 

[Evan]

I don't see it as a security blanket though. It's just a somewhat controllable environment to develop the load.

It's my belief that it's not the loads job to defeat the wind, that's my job. The loads job is to be consistent and predictable. Being consistent and predictable is what allows me to do my part.

I think it's also important to note that people most likely aren't just developing a load at 100 yards, then going straight to a match. I practice with that load at distance. And I typically try to shoot a mock match. So I'm not just walking away from the 100 yard range and expecting it will be perfect at distance...I prove it out.

How do you prove it out though? Is it just a “hits steel, good enough” or is it an extension of load development on paper where you measure and adjust?

 

[Evan]

Im not trying to be aggressive or be derogatory about shooting steel. Maybe a better way to phrase it is how do you proceed when the shooting system stops hitting the target at a given distance? Can you affect positive change to the shooting system at that distance through load changes or has the system become too chaotic?

I have found that I can affect change through load development at far greater distances than I would have thought some 20 years ago when I started down this path. The changing variables are not greater than my ability to see the changes I am making to the system and the increased distance in fact helps resolve which variables are in play by spreading the groups out.

 

[6Creed73]

Im not trying to be aggressive or be derogatory about shooting steel. Maybe a better way to phrase it is how do you proceed when the shooting system stops hitting the target at a given distance? Can you affect positive change to the shooting system at that distance through load changes or has the system become too chaotic?

I have found that I can affect change through load development at far greater distances than I would have thought some 20 years ago when I started down this path. The changing variables are not greater than my ability to see the changes I am making to the system and the increased distance in fact helps resolve which variables are in play by spreading the groups out.

Yes, I shoot at steel unless I'm developing a load. I understand there is a big difference between shooting tiny groups at 1000 yards vs shooting at a steel plate.

How I prove it is with consistency. The load doesn't know the difference between a plate at 100 yards and a plate at 1000 yards. I just need the load to be consistent and I need to know the velocity within a very small margin of variation. I have mad respect for @D Coots for performing at his level without using a chrono. I'd be lost without mine. I value the chrono data as much, if not more, than group size.

To answer your question about what I do if the system stops hitting the target...In my experience, a load that I've proven won't just suddenly stop doing what expect it it do. However, if I'm taking my load I just developed at 100 yards to go prove it out at distance...If it doesn't do what I expect it to, I'll make adjustments. But after years of doing this, I've found that the data I get during load development at 100 yards translates well for my discipline.

 

[Varminterror]

For consideration in this discussion - a couple targets from a session several years ago now: both of these loads shot ~1/2moa at 100, but the results at 875yrds changed considerably. Target to our left is 6 creed, 3 shots, dialed up 0.2mrad, sent the rest. Target to our right is 6.5 Grendel, obviously a lot of vertical revealed itself, and I was lucky to keep all 15 on the plate. I forget windspeed, wanna say ~15mph R-L. 66% IPSC’s.

 

[JFrank]

We've established that everyone likes doing things a little differently, which is great and one of the things that make this hobby so fun...there is never a lack of opportunities to learn different things.

I just can't get behind duplicating match conditions. First of all, it's very difficult to duplicate environmental conditions. Second, the systems engineer in me wants to establish an environment with the least amount of variables possible.

I'm confident that I can read conditions and adjust accordingly in a match, but I don't want any ambivalence while developing a load. I don't want to be somewhat confident that I adjusted properly for wind...I want to be fairly certain that the tune did something that was not affected by me or environment and therefore I can adjust the load accordingly.

When I leave the range, I want there to be no doubt that the rifle and the load did their part and if I miss at a match or during practice, I'm pretty sure it was me.

Don't get me wrong though, I do want to try to duplicate match conditions, or at least what I think match conditions will be (which can be pretty difficult), but during practice, not during load development. Practice and load development are two completely different things, imo. I'm of the mindset that if the load did what I expected it to do in good conditions, then I'll be able to read match conditions and adjust.

You can think about it in the opposite too. What if you develop a load in what you think match conditions would be, but you get to the match and it's nothing but calm. It doesn't mean your load won't perform in the contrasting environment, it just means you need to do your part now.

As a reminder, I know next to nothing about BR, everything I say comes from experience in PRS and developing loads for that discipline.

I love the discussion though. People not in this hobby have the idea that we are just apes behind a rifle, we just pull the trigger and it goes boom, lol...this is a thinking man's sport.

I do load work while observing wind flags and noting conditions so when I get an odd shot I can reframe from jumping off a bridge or worse’ tearing my load apart looking for problems. You are correct in my opinion and FWTW, this is a thinking man’s sport and as an example, a while back I was starting a new barrel and new batch of turned brass using my previous neck bushing size,( .262 ) during bullet seating I noticed slightly less force required so thinking to myself I better check bushing size on paper.. anyway..fast forward to on paper barrel break in at 300 yards my rounds were really tight, again I’m thinking this might be alright but still I better check. So moving to 500 yards I shot a couple of bushing ladders and what appeared fine at 300 looked like crap at 500.
Something’s just show up better when tuning with increased distance.

 

[6Creed73]

I do load work while observing wind flags and noting conditions so when I get an odd shot I can reframe from jumping off a bridge or worse’ tearing my load apart looking for problems. You are correct in my opinion and FWTW, this is a thinking man’s sport and as an example, a while back I was starting a new barrel and new batch of turned brass using my previous neck bushing size,( .262 ) during bullet seating I noticed slightly less force required so thinking to myself I better check bushing size on paper.. anyway..fast forward to on paper barrel break in at 300 yards my rounds were really tight, again I’m thinking this might be alright but still I better check. So moving to 500 yards I shot a couple of bushing ladders and what appeared fine at 300 looked like crap at 500.
Something’s just show up better when tuning with increased distance.

100% agree that more things show up at further distances. That's why I test everything at distance after the initial load development at 100 yards. I guess that can be considered extended load development, but most of the time, it's just proving the data I aquired at 100 yards. It's not very often that I need to change something.

With that said, load development for a BR shooter probably brings different requirements. If I can consistently hit a 2moa steel target, I'm good. But that does not fly for BR shooting.