I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

[67rschev]

This was my first try at an OCW load up test , and after reading Newbury's page again , I don't see / understand the results . To be fair , I just received the rifle back from the smith on Friday for a rebarrel and true . I was rushed on the setup , and mounted the scope in the wrong rail slots and had very poor eye relief on the scope . I felt I never had good consistent cheeking of the rifle , which in turn showed up in my groups with a substantial amount of horizontal stringing . Should I repeat the test , or do you all see something I am missing ?

One side note that has me guessing , is when I was done I put down a couple of 5 round groups with FGMM 168s , and one more group of five with 43.5 of the load I was testing , and the FGMM did not look to string nearly as bad . You can see the results of that target . Just has me a little confused , and questioning my bullet powder combo .

 

[Tripwire]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

It's no wonder Newberry's page confused you because you didn't actually do a true OCW.....

Try 3 round groups, smaller increments of powder charge, and more groups.....just like Dan tells you to do.

Print one of his targets out and do this right......

 

[TexIndian]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

Any time you run a ladder test, OCW or otherwise, it is extremely important to eliminate any other source of variance from the equation, especially in your shooting technique. Getting in a hurry is almost a guarantee for fuzzy results. Don't ask me how I know.

 

[Huckleberry75]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

Although the notes above are correct, the 43.5 looks preetty good so far as vertical dispersion goes. Both groups are pretty muchon the same horizontal plane. You might try playing with the seating depth after you get your scope properly mounted up. Although it wasn't a proper OCW, you might have gotten lucky on this one.

 

[Will Lee]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

What OldTex & Huckleberry said.

Here is the target I use for all testing.

 

[67rschev]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

Thanks , I agree . After sleeping on it , I would say it was pretty much FAIL strait across the board . Will be more prepared next time an follow his guidelines to the tee . But I still think 5 shots is a better reflection of group patterning , more data to work with . I numbered them thinking I could revert to using just the first 3 impacts if needed .

On that 43.5 , I will revisit it with adjustments . Had no idea of headspacing on the piece , until I had some once fired casings to make a tool with . I now know that I was loading SMKs around .005 from the lands , a little to tight in my opinion . In my experiences they like .020-.030 jump .

 

[Tripwire]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

Dan Newberry has a site, you can go there and ask him questions any given day...why not just go straight to him for OCW advice?

He's a personal friend of mine and a neighbor, so I can vouch for him.....he is very easy to talk with and more than willing to help anyone out.

Practical Rifler

Here is his OCW target, doesn't cost a thing, other than a little printer ink.....

OCW Target

 

[117D-RTO]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

Nice target, thanks for sharing Tripwire.

 

[67rschev]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

Thank you for the link Tripwire . I will be repeating this test next week and if there are any questions I will post there . SH is the place I learned of OCW type of work up , and didn't realize there is a more knowledgeable place regarding OCW . Wouldn't get any better than strait from the designer of the test .

 

[flashhole]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

What distance were you shooting from? If you are not at least 200 yards (300 is much better) all you will accomplish is burning up components.

 

[67rschev]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flashhole</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What distance were you shooting from? If you are not at least 200 yards (300 is much better) all you will accomplish is burning up components. </div></div>

If this was a Audette Ladder test , I would say that you are correct . Ladder work ups , need to be shot at distance to find the definition at the nodes . Someone can correct me if I'm wrong , lord knows I butched this try , But the OCW workup is shot at 100 yards .

 

[X-fan]

Re: I Think I Fubared My First OCW Test

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 67rschev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flashhole</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What distance were you shooting from? If you are not at least 200 yards (300 is much better) all you will accomplish is burning up components. </div></div>

If this was a Audette Ladder test , I would say that you are correct . Ladder work ups , need to be shot at distance to find the definition at the nodes . Someone can correct me if I'm wrong , lord knows I butched this try , But the OCW workup is shot at 100 yards . </div></div>

Roger that.
This is not a ladder test.

With OCW we are not looking for groups size, bullet seating depth, tuning or anything of that sort.
All you are looking for is the relative location of point of impact as the load increases. You also need to watch for the scatter node. You tune after you find the OCW.
Go to Newberry's site and study the test as well as its objectives.