So, hornady is saving us components by telling us load development needs larger samples....
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
One-Day Range Load Development
- Thread starter zerosystem310
- Start date
They're not saying the same thing. Hornady's take is annihlistic. "Load development is pointless". Different message. You're just trying to paint with a brush mile wide.
Not at all, the organizations I have listed have just taken a scientific approach to load development and found that 99% of it is a waste of time.
Is that 99% also scientifically quantified? Or did you just apply a gross hyperbole yourself?
The problem with people like you parroting what you think you read or heard is that no one agrees what qualifies as "load development". Working up a powder ladder to see where velocity and pressures are? Is that load development? Seating depth ladder? Is that load development? Or are you only referring to OCW, round robins, and POI tests? Or is seating depth ladder okay as long as you don't think you're tuning accuracy and shooting 300rd sample sizes?
I'm pretty sure the AB team still performs their own version of LD and there's nuance to the types of LD their referring to.
Yes by many, sounds like I am not going to change your mind, and that is ok.
Load development is pretty simple, developing the most accurate load for a rifle/barrel combination that meets velocity needs. You can do all of the tests you want, but unless they are done with a large enough sample size (with as many variables as can be eliminated as possible) you are wasting time and components.
There has to be a practical aspect to it though. It's fine for some statistician to make a mathematically sound argument about sample sizes but some of what you're saying is also impractical. It's like renewable wind energy. You can pontificate all day long but if there's no practical way forward it's just as useless as following some of the reloading myths out there. I'm picking on you because there's a trend of people doing exactly what you're doing. They jump on and basically heckle. No useful takeaway. Just: YOuresAMPleSiZEisntBIGenOUGH! Like stfu. No one is going to shoot 30rd groups x 10. These podcasts armed "you people" with enough information to be negative but not enough to be productive.
Gross oversimplification completely lacking detail or specificity = nothing burger
Agrred with above. I dont think thats the take away at all. The take away according to one of guys at hornady who posts here. Was do course adjustments first then refine if needed. People can harp on sample size and ignore probability to their own detriment. People will call a method of LD ineffective without defining what it's was supposed to produce, or what it failed to produce.
I feel like I post this over and over. Hornady said you probably can't shoot the diffrence. Not that there isn't one.
I feel like I post this over and over. Hornady said you probably can't shoot the diffrence. Not that there isn't one.
Go back to grade school and work on your comprehension skills
You can probably just not do load development at all. Look around and find a popular load that lots of people use. Load 'em there and go.
Using someone else's load data isn't proof that load development is unnecessary since you're using that persons development.
And the conversation I'm having on another thread shows how short sided that is.
Post in thread '.375 Raptor Recipe' https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/375-raptor-recipe.7044749/post-11859507
My first outing with that rifle at 100 yards was shooting 400gr solids into a 14" group. My second outing I got to a 1.7" group at 100 with 400gr subs. I had to tweak neck tension, shoulder setback, and seating depth. People that think load development doesn't exist, only random plots of MPI over large data sets viewed in short 5rd glimpses are thinking in the context of 6 Dashers, BR, Creedmoors, etc. That shit goes out the window when you leave the realm of easy cartridges and get into the wierd stuff. You will absolutely see drastic changes based on charge weights, neck tension, and seating depth. That aren't just misleading 5rd strings of a larger 30rd data set you're choosing not to shoot and see.
Trust me, I get it. When I lot tested Lapua Center X for my RimX I bought about 7 different lots and shot one entire 50rd box at 100yds. 5 x 10rd groups. I evaluated the entire box and the lot that I chose to buy was the lot that had the best ES and the fewest dropped impacts at 6 o'clock out of the group. For all intent and purpose a 50rd group eval. I just broke it into 5 x 10 because shooter fatigue from one 50rd string is really unpleasant. I was recently testing a custom barrel I had a really good gunsmith fit for my 2011. We shot it out of a ransom rest. Tested several different ammos. The best was Atlanta Arms 115gr Elite. It's what the AMU uses to test their guns. I ended shooting and chronographing the entire box. But in 5 and 10rd groups. The first 30rds looked really good with SDs around 10. Not the best SDs, my loads are usually around 5 - 8. On the back half of the box, I got ES's of 90 and flyers. I could have taken the first couple of 5 and 10rd groups and cheered at how good the barrel shot and that 115gr Elite was. The entire box told the true story.
It's not that the people who are disagreeing with the core of your premise and just don't understand..it's that they might be considering other scenarios outside of your experience.
Jack Neary at Capstone might be willing to counter your ignorance with some hard facts. Oh wait, he has done so multiple times. Heard of YouTube ? Bother to wonder why so many people see you as a C- marketing puke ? And you presume to “speak for organizations”.
Link? Please do share. I’ve yet to see any legitimate data that supports OCW, ladder testing etc.
If that data exists my mind could certainly be changed.
Since you demonstrate zero intellectual curiosity, no I’ll not bother. If you have a hair on your ass, perhaps you might study Creighton Audette. You mention “data” to the extent that some might suggest you are not a human shill, but instead, an AI shill. Yet your data-base is so damn limited.
Poor Litz “proved” tuners don’t work, without any knowledge of how they are properly used. A joke masquerading as “tha Science”. So much for your appeal to authority.
That's basically what I was saying. There's definitely a possibility to influence group size with the load. But obviously OP doesn't care about having the tiniest group just one that will shoot decently well. I'd guess he can get to where he needs to be by stealing someone else's load.
The conclusion to that experiment was more along the lines of "In our testing tuner setting had no meaningful affect on group size"
Also let's not turn this into a tuner thread
I think there's two tangential schools of thought that have to be modified if you're going to believe 99% of load development isn't beneficial and a person must use samples of greater than 30rds.
1. If this is the case, then all factory ammo should shoot the same. And we know that's not true. Even make and models using the same bullets produce different accuracy and different POI.
2. If you believe a person needs to shoot minimum 30rd groups to honestly evaluate accuracy how many rounds do you fire into a group to zero? Do you apply this idea to precision but not accuracy? Raise your hand if you fire 30 round zero groups.
1. If this is the case, then all factory ammo should shoot the same. And we know that's not true. Even make and models using the same bullets produce different accuracy and different POI.
2. If you believe a person needs to shoot minimum 30rd groups to honestly evaluate accuracy how many rounds do you fire into a group to zero? Do you apply this idea to precision but not accuracy? Raise your hand if you fire 30 round zero groups.
So you have any links or data? The guy literally said he mind could be changed….
There seems to be some loads that shoot well in almost every rifle, then some rifle's don't like that load and you'll have to find something else. I'm not saying it's a catch all but it can work really well.
The last 4 barrels I have changed have shot the same load well enough to entirely skip load dev.
Lot's of the top PRS guys also just toss on a new tube, same load and go.
I shoot 10rds for zero, seems to fade out the noise.
I think if more people started shooting 10rd groups they'd realize their rifle shoots bigger than they think, and 10rds is pretty standard for a string of fire.
I don't think anyone considers 10 rounds to be a large sample size. I think there's some bandwagoning going on in the internets, but what those same people do in practice is something entirely different. I don't disagree that a higher sample size is going to give you more fidelity, but I think there is a point of diminishing returns. So I think to throw it out there in a cavalier manner on a podcast is slightly disingenuous. There has to be a practical nature to it and shooting 30 round groups to confirm zero at the beginning of a match is impractical. And there's no logic that supports high sample sizes for precision but not being necessary for accuracy. It's just the demonstrated rubber meeting the road on where people cut off the diminishing returns in favor of practical application.
10 is not a large sample size but I found it to be a fairly typical point of where the group would essentially stop getting larger, plus it's a typical string of fire. If you had an E-target those next 20 rounds would provide you with useable data but shooting at paper it's pointless to just send them all through an existing hole.
I think the typical load dev allows us to weed out a lot of junk but doesn't really set us up with the best possible load like most people think/ thought it does, Larger shot groups and sample sizes are required for that. My point still stands some google searching is likely gonna get him just as close as a one trip load development.
Right. I agree with all. A larger sample will give you a more full picture but in the interest of efficiency, firing an additional 20rds at the same group just to watch it grow from .4" to .6" isn't going to make me change anything. We all know a larger round count is likely going to manifest a larger group but we don't necessarily care. And we're not walking around making claims about what our rifles are capable of. Illuminating the distinction between.6 and .4 isn't going to change the price of rice in China for us and we're still going to take that load to the match.
And yes, I have historical loads from previous Dasher and BR barrels that will be the first thing I will try in the new barrel. BUT, if those don't look so hot, then what? Am I going to shoot 30 more rounds of the same load into the same group? Or am I going to change something? Called LD.
It's like watching a guy shooting a stage that just keeps sending round after round off the right side, in the same spot. In your head you're thinking, "Jesus, make a call, change something. Stop using the same hold over and over again." I like to quip when I'm shooting a stage and someone spotting calls, "That last round was high on the plate." Response: "Look guy, I'm dealing with a cone of fire here, lol" But that's a joke. I'm not going to keep shooting the same hold waiting for the statistical anomaly to reach outside of my 75% of rounds in the WEZ to knick the edge of the plate. I'm going to change something.
