A pretty common point of contention right now is whether or not load development is as productive as people think. Hornady produced a podcast that stated many forms of traditional load development techniques are myths and if people shot higher sample sizes they would see that their results don't repeat. This has spurred all kinds of disagreement. My theory is that there is nuance to that position but I believe some people have taken it to heart and all they heard was "load development is a myth", some heard "you need larger sample sizes to truly evaluate", and some people altogether disagree with the entire premise. I also think the nuance comes in the form of the context. That when loading for established cartridges like 6 BR, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6GT, 223, and 308W many people the tiny gains people think they're making.... they're not and a higher sample size would show that .2 mrad group size improvement doesn't repeat, but when loading ugly ducklings like big magnums, extreme wildcats, copper monos, and certain pistol cartridges this hypothesis doesn't apply because these cartridges are so sensitive to seating depth and powder charges, case capacity density, and neck tension there are vast differences and gains to be made. I also think Hornady was pointing a finger at the traditional OCW's and round robins but some people threw the baby out with the bath water and think their stance applies to all forms of load development. Seating depth doesn't matter. Charge weight only matters for how fast you want to go and pressure. Use quality components and you're never going to meaningfully improve accuracy. And if you shot large enough sample sizes you'd see that.
So, let's clearly outline the shades of grey on this stance and see what everyone thinks they heard. I'm not interested in actually arguing which perspective is right. I want to know where people land on this.
I summarized the positions in the poll, but to more clearly outline each I'll break them down below. They represent the spectrum from hard-line "load development is a myth" descending down to "don't you bad mouth my OCW".
1. Any form of load development to "tune" accuracy is a myth. This means you think seating depth doesn't matter, in any cartridge. Charge weight doesn't change accuracy. Use quality components and load 29gr of Varget in a 6BR because that's as good as it's going to get. And the same applies to 375 Enabler at 3000yds.
2. Only certain gross changes can change accuracy. Changing powder types or bullet types can change or improve accuracy but you need to shoot a large(30+ rounds) to truly evaluate. .010" seating depth ladders and .3gr powder ladders are still myths. OCW's definitely myths.
3. Some forms are legitimate, as long as the sample size is large enough. This is for the people that think the entire point of the podcast was the sample size. Yes, you can change accuracy and POI with charge weight, seating depth, and neck tension but the fatal flaw in many people's"load development " is the lack of sample size so they misread the results. But there are still some wackadoo legacy methods out there like OCW's, round robins, single shot velocity ladders looking for flat spots.
4. All options are on the table, but sample size. Basically #3 but not ruling out legacy methods used to round robin POI tests.
5. Sample size isn't always required, but there are some quack methods out there. This for those 3rd tuner-tuning people looking for .3" groups. It those folks that have a .2" requirement and when round #2 is already at .5" they call it a bad load and move on. Because the group can't get better. But if they're shooting a 10rd group and rounds 1-5 are good, they're going to keep shooting because rounds 6-10 could get worse. But velocity flat spots don't exist and 3rd round robins are exactly what Hornady was talking about.
6. There is absolutely merit to OCWs and round robins. Shut your whore mouth about OCWs, round robins, and POI tests. I already know my gun shoots good enough and I want a stable load at distance. A consistent POI across and variance of charge weights is how you establish a long range load.
7. I still think velocity flat spots and accuracy nodes exist. Cool story bro. I'm more interested in a stable load that that exists in a velocity flat spot. That sweet spot shows me where stability at distance is.
Now that you've read the full description of poll options #1-7, go back and clarify your stance.
So, let's clearly outline the shades of grey on this stance and see what everyone thinks they heard. I'm not interested in actually arguing which perspective is right. I want to know where people land on this.
I summarized the positions in the poll, but to more clearly outline each I'll break them down below. They represent the spectrum from hard-line "load development is a myth" descending down to "don't you bad mouth my OCW".
1. Any form of load development to "tune" accuracy is a myth. This means you think seating depth doesn't matter, in any cartridge. Charge weight doesn't change accuracy. Use quality components and load 29gr of Varget in a 6BR because that's as good as it's going to get. And the same applies to 375 Enabler at 3000yds.
2. Only certain gross changes can change accuracy. Changing powder types or bullet types can change or improve accuracy but you need to shoot a large(30+ rounds) to truly evaluate. .010" seating depth ladders and .3gr powder ladders are still myths. OCW's definitely myths.
3. Some forms are legitimate, as long as the sample size is large enough. This is for the people that think the entire point of the podcast was the sample size. Yes, you can change accuracy and POI with charge weight, seating depth, and neck tension but the fatal flaw in many people's"load development " is the lack of sample size so they misread the results. But there are still some wackadoo legacy methods out there like OCW's, round robins, single shot velocity ladders looking for flat spots.
4. All options are on the table, but sample size. Basically #3 but not ruling out legacy methods used to round robin POI tests.
5. Sample size isn't always required, but there are some quack methods out there. This for those 3rd tuner-tuning people looking for .3" groups. It those folks that have a .2" requirement and when round #2 is already at .5" they call it a bad load and move on. Because the group can't get better. But if they're shooting a 10rd group and rounds 1-5 are good, they're going to keep shooting because rounds 6-10 could get worse. But velocity flat spots don't exist and 3rd round robins are exactly what Hornady was talking about.
6. There is absolutely merit to OCWs and round robins. Shut your whore mouth about OCWs, round robins, and POI tests. I already know my gun shoots good enough and I want a stable load at distance. A consistent POI across and variance of charge weights is how you establish a long range load.
7. I still think velocity flat spots and accuracy nodes exist. Cool story bro. I'm more interested in a stable load that that exists in a velocity flat spot. That sweet spot shows me where stability at distance is.
Now that you've read the full description of poll options #1-7, go back and clarify your stance.
(338NM)
