Load development is a myth?

morganlamprecht · Nov 15, 2024

but...at the same time there is the other group of people who stands firm thinking they are seeing substantial differences between two different 3-5 shot groups that are .4 and .6moa

to hell with both of em haha

JR1200W3 · Nov 15, 2024

morganlamprecht said:
some people have to just use their brain a little bit on the sample size thing...seems a few people heard "you need large samples..." and have just been screaming it without understanding it...you need large sample to hash out SMALL differences...not so much for larger ones...

if you fire two different load 3 round groups and one is 2600/2605/2608.....and the second group is 2905/2900/2910...you can rest pretty dang sure whatever you changed was the cause without testing anything else lol

now if youre trying to compare 2605/2615/2609 vs 2610/2613/2617....or .7moa vs .6moa vs .5moa....youre going to have to fire a lot of rounds to hash that noise out...

I completely agree about the sample size bandwagoning. I won't ever deny a higher sample size will illuminate results with more fidelity, but I would nitpick that it isn't always necessary to accomplish what you want. It just depends. Hence #5 in the poll. And it's interesting to see the results of the poll with #3 being the most popular.

supercorndogs · Nov 15, 2024

morganlamprecht said:
yea this was wayyyy before anyone even thought about 30s...heck 10 was "wasting too much time/money" according to most people lol

how i tested back then was to load up my baseline load...shoot X number of the baseline prior to what i was testing...then shoot my tests...then reshoot another X number of my baseline...used this to make there was no noticeable shift/bias occurring in the barrel strictly from the number of rounds being fired...if the baseline before and after landed where they should AND the test loads showed a clear difference with hardly any overlap...i called it good enough to be plausible lol

People get so enomoured with "what to do" they will miss the nuance and not unders tand why. They will tell you your 3rd groups don't mean anything when there are 5 of them next to each other.

Just point out the wheel going round. We used to want 5x5s if someone said their gun was 1/2 moa. Proofing with a 30rd sample isn't super revolutionary. Anyone who shoots proves their load over time with large samples.

supercorndogs · Nov 15, 2024

morganlamprecht said:
but...at the same time there is the other group of people who stands firm thinking they are seeing substantial differences between two different 3-5 shot groups that are .4 and .6moa

to hell with both of em haha

I was just looking for a picture of a target I had the other day. I was shooting groups with my 223. Just tying to get some more rounds one the barrel. Force on target a little. Get 3/4 of vertical spread bullet holes not touching anymore. Get good NPA drive them through the same hole again. Shooting 10rd strings I always get impatient and open up that spread forcing my rifle on target after it has moved a little over the subsquent shots. Moving targets forces me to reset. I feel like none of that really means anything for field positions because I am always foring my rifle on target somewhat.

morganlamprecht · Nov 15, 2024

supercorndogs said:
People get so enomoured with "what to do" they will miss the nuance and not unders tand why. They will tell you your 3rd groups don't mean anything when there are 5 of them next to each other.

Just point out the wheel going round. We used to want 5x5s if someone said their gun was 1/2 moa. Proofing with a 30rd sample isn't super revolutionary. Anyone who shoots proves their load over time with large samples.

thats true...i should have more accurately stated 30 rounds per group during testing

JR1200W3 · Nov 15, 2024

I'd also like to address this "100yd group" thing that was halfway thrown out there.

A comment was made: (paraphrasing), "...I don't care about how it shoots at 100, I care about how it shoots at distance.."

To me, accuracy and precision are final. Above all else. Velocity, BC, etc. And yes, at some distance ES is a component of precision. But the idea that 100yd precision is inconsequential compared to group size at distance is nonsensical to me. If your load doesn't shoot at 100, it's not going to shoot at distance. You have to believe in the whole bullets going to sleep thing which was put to rest a long time ago. And yes, just because a group shoots well at 100, it doesn't guarantee it will shoot well at distance. But without relying on "feel" or "I don't have any data but I suspect" type of beliefs, the obvious cause of that is the bullet. That is the bullets job and at a certain distance ES plays a factor. If you have a load that shoots well at 100 and doesn't shoot well at distance, and you have reasonable ES, it's either your wind call or you need to try another bullet.

I think a persons ability to shoot their zero counts for more than load development and is the ying and yang of calling wind. The most important and impactful of the 4 rifle fundamentals is Position. This has the biggest impact on precision and accuracy at distance. We know that loading bipods differently causes elevational POI shifts. Head position, eye centered in the ocular socket, centered in the exit pupil all play an important role in precision and accuracy. I think a bigger problem that people ignore is being able to lay down and shoot the same zero day after day. And position change after position change. And shooting groups at 100 is how you sustain the muscle memory and perishable skills of maintaining your zero. And that's just laying down and shooting off your belly. Then you need to be able to do it positionally. And on top of all of that your data is anchored off your 100yd zero. So why wouldn't you ensure you have a solid anchor? I don't think this is a beginners task. There are some fundamentals that masters continually train and can perform these fundamentals at a high level, which is what makes them masters. Sets and reps makes masters.

supercorndogs · Nov 15, 2024

morganlamprecht said:
some people have to just use their brain a little bit on the sample size thing...seems a few people heard "you need large samples..." and have just been screaming it without understanding it...you need large sample to hash out SMALL differences...not so much for larger ones...

if you fire two different load 3 round groups and one is 2600/2605/2608.....and the second group is 2905/2900/2910...you can rest pretty dang sure whatever you changed was the cause without testing anything else lol

now if youre trying to compare 2605/2615/2609 vs 2610/2613/2617....or .7moa vs .6moa vs .5moa....youre going to have to fire a lot of rounds to hash that noise out...

I typed mine before i read yours. You be Pete. I will be re-Pete.

FatBoy · Nov 15, 2024

JR1200W3 said:
I completely agree about the sample size bandwagoning. I won't ever deny a higher sample size will illuminate results with more fidelity, but I would nitpick that it isn't always necessary to accomplish what you want. It just depends. Hence #5 in the poll. And it's interesting to see the results of the poll with #3 being the most popular.

Not exactly load testing , but sample size would have certainly saved me a couple headaches with a Dasher I’m having rebuilt. It’s an NRA Any Rifle and shot lights out for about 16 rounds, then started throughly shots out the top for another 6-7 rounds, then settled back downs. Consistent across two weekends, 7 matches with two different shooters.

So, is this an ammo problem? No, I don’t think so. Would a longer string of testing identified this? Maybe. What it does reenforce is we’re working with a system to put those rounds on target and the system needs to be tested at least to the expectation of its intended use. If I was hunting with this rifle, or just doing 5 shots groups with cool downs, I never would have seen this behavior.

IMO, there are some known load/twist rate combos that shoot well in almost every caliber. These are my Go-TOS as running 6.5x284 for several years broke me of the 200-300 round load test shit forever. At the cost of components, I’ll not go back. I’d rebuild a rifle first… it’s cheaper.

As to the scale thing, Phillip Crow won the Leech Cup two year (in a row I think) which is 20 straight record shots at 1k with iron sights from a sling and coat , with ammo thrown on a charge master and dumped directly into the case. Dude is a human bench rest but it produced “good enough” SDs to be a champion many times over. I’m sure he played with the load until it was consistent, which can be tricky with 7mm bullets IMO.

morganlamprecht · Nov 15, 2024

supercorndogs said:
I was just looking for a picture of a target I had the other day. I was shooting groups with my 223. Just tying to get some more rounds one the barrel. Force on target a little. Get 3/4 of vertical spread bullet holes not touching anymore. Get good NPA drive them through the same hole again. Shooting 10rd strings I always get impatient and open up that spread forcing my rifle on target after it has moved a little over the subsquent shots. Moving targets forces me to reset. I feel like none of that really means anything for field positions because I am always foring my rifle on target somewhat.

ive had some related discussions between a few other local shooting buddies...their claim is along the lines that i personally see very small variations in load changes due to how i shoot technique-wise

whatever that/my technique is...i can change a lot of stuff in the load...and they dont move a whole lot on paper @ 100...obviously at distance, speed matters if the changes affect that

but theyve seen the process i settled on and use...and when they try to use it...they dont typically see the same results...similar, but there seems to be a lot more variation in their data sets.

tho if that variation is shooter based, i dont really see how theyd find a load to cover that up...may be a reason theyre not quite as consistent day to day

morganlamprecht · Nov 15, 2024

JR1200W3 said:
I'd also like to address this "100yd group" thing that was halfway thrown out there.

A comment was made: (paraphrasing), "...I don't care about how it shoots at 100, I care about how it shoots at distance.."

To me, accuracy and precision are final. Above all else. Velocity, BC, etc. And yes, at some distance ES is a component of precision. But the idea that 100yd precision is inconsequential compared to group size at distance is nonsensical to me. If your load doesn't shoot at 100, it's not going to shoot at distance. You have to believe in the whole bullets going to sleep thing which was put to rest a long time ago. And yes, just because a group shoots well at 100, it doesn't guarantee it will shoot well at distance. But without relying on "feel" or "I don't have any data but I suspect" type of beliefs, the obvious cause of that is the bullet. That is the bullets job and at a certain distance ES plays a factor. If you have a load that shoots well at 100 and doesn't shoot well at distance, and you have reasonable ES, it's either your wind call or you need to try another bullet.

I think a persons ability to shoot their zero counts for more than load development and is the ying and yang of calling wind. The most important and impactful of the 4 rifle fundamentals is Position. This has the biggest impact on precision and accuracy at distance. We know that loading bipods differently causes elevational POI shifts. Head position, eye centered in the ocular socket, centered in the exit pupil all play an important role in precision and accuracy. I think a bigger problem that people ignore is being able to lay down and shoot the same zero day after day. And position change after position change. And shooting groups at 100 is how you sustain the muscle memory and perishable skills of maintaining your zero. And that's just laying down and shooting off your belly. Then you need to be able to do it positionally. And on top of all of that your data is anchored off your 100yd zero. So why wouldn't you ensure you have a solid anchor? I don't think this is a beginners task. There are some fundamentals that masters continually train and can perform these fundamentals at a high level, which is what makes them masters. Sets and reps makes masters.

100% agree...

in 2016 i shot the same 6.5creed barrel from February at the Brawl (won) to the Finale (14th i think?)...i never moved my zero once.

in all my rifles, once i figured out how to set them up to be mostly bomb proof, the only real zero issues i ever had were tracked back to really severe impacts (like removing/bending material) and a couple mechanical scope issues

supercorndogs · Nov 15, 2024

morganlamprecht said:
ive had some related discussions between a few other local shooting buddies...their claim is along the lines that i personally see very small variations in load changes due to how i shoot technique-wise

whatever that/my technique is...i can change a lot of stuff in the load...and they dont move a whole lot on paper @ 100...obviously at distance, speed matters if the changes affect that

but theyve seen the process i settled on and use...and when they try to use it...they dont typically see the same results...similar, but there seems to be a lot more variation in their data sets.

tho if that variation is shooter based, i dont really see how theyd find a load to cover that up...may be a reason theyre not quite as consistent day to day

I feel like it's something easier to pick up the easier the gun is to shoot. A fairly heavey 223 is one of the easier ones to shoot off a bag and bipod.

JR1200W3 · Nov 15, 2024

FatBoy said:
What it does reenforce is we’re working with a system to put those rounds on target and the system needs to be tested at least to the expectation of its intended use.

Ehh, I shoot 100rd matches. Are you saying I need to shoot 100rd samples of each load in an outing?

Again. It depends. If you're an Fclass shooter, and 20rd strings x 3 relays is your match then ya, it probably makes sense to proof your load during a practice session with a 20rd string at distance. But I don't know that that idea scales up in a practical manner for other disciplines.

As an analogy, I am currently working with some young instructors who teach a different discipline than shooting. Mountaineering. In this discipline there is an established Critical Task List that qualified folks have to recertify on annually. Our Instructors complaint is that while there is a standard for certification there isn't a venue for people with this advanced skill set to perform the testing while also in a simulated combat environment where they're employing fires and maneuvering. The issue is that you would need to be able to fire mortars and machine guns on glaciated terrain. Where in the Continental US can you do that? Lol. There are one maybe two places, but most anywhere with glaciated terrain or pristine mountains in the lower 48 is a national treasure. You ain't going to turn Longs Peak into churned mud.

So I think with some complex operations it's acceptable to assemble the varied skills in isolation of each other so that on game day you can put them together in the conduct of the exercise. The train as you fight idea is a simple one that people can over complicate often.

DM1975 · Nov 15, 2024

supercorndogs said:
OCW is not looking for any kind of SD numbers.

You’re correct and I should clarify. I lumped it in with everything else but my point is that using 3 to 5 shot groups isn’t giving you enough information in any of those tests regardless of what you’re testing for.

sirhrmechanic · Nov 15, 2024

Huskydriver said:
What about tuners and structured barrels?

I'll show myself out

No need… it is a good point.

And all contribute to accuracy.

To say that developing a load for a gun/ barrel does not help implies that 100 years of wildcatting and handloading did t get us where we are now.

I might make the assertion (based on nothing more than intuition) that modern factory match ammo is probably so highly-repeatable that it is very hard to improve on it with handloading.

But there are dozens of factors that are part of making that perfect group or shot or 4000 yard hit or clean kill…..

And handloading is a part of that.

It’s also part of the fun. To seek that perfect group with a rifle you built or tuned or ‘spec’d. With ammo you made yourself. Means that your excuses are all boiling down to… you guessed it… you!

There is value to that.

Sirhr

FatBoy · Nov 15, 2024

JR1200W3 said:
Ehh, I shoot 100rd matches. Are you saying I need to shoot 100rd samples of each load in an outing?

Again. It depends. If you're an Fclass shooter, and 20rd strings x 3 relays is your match then ya, it probably makes sense to proof your load during a practice session with a 20rd string at distance. But I don't know that that idea scales up in a practical manner for other disciplines.

I agree with this. I would also suspect you keep data of how the rifle is performing across the long matches.

Another example of mine, I had a 6BR that started to speed up 18 to 20 rounds after clean bore, raising POI at 1k almost a full MOA within 2 shots. I knew it well enough to keep track of it and expect it. I believe this was also a bedding issue, not ammo related.

That said, I agree with what you’re saying. I only adds this to say “it depends” and personally I like to test the variables I can. Ammo is just a part of it.

JR1200W3 · Nov 15, 2024

FatBoy said:
I agree with this. I would also suspect you keep data of how the rifle is performing across the long matches.

A great day is when you place top 5. A good day is when you don't have any elevational misses, just wind. A bad day is when you have mechanical issues, floaty zeros or have to take data out after a certain distance, or make avoidable mistakes as the shooter.

supercorndogs · Nov 15, 2024

DM1975 said:
You’re correct and I should clarify. I lumped it in with everything else but my point is that using 3 to 5 shit groups isn’t giving you enough information in any of those tests regardless of what you’re testing for.

Your clarification is incorrect.

DM1975 · Nov 15, 2024

supercorndogs said:
Your clarification is incorrect.

Lol ok

jthor · Nov 15, 2024

While feel isn't a metric it does feel like some cartridges are easier to load for than others. Specifically short, and "fat" powder column cartridges like the 6BR and its variants, 6.5 PRC, and 300 WSM. Maybe that's why the FClass community went to the 7-6.5 PRCW other than brass?

A little off topic, but I've seen having the gun chambered with the "appropriate" chamber make huge gains in ease of reloading. Specifically for me was my old Service Rifle barrel that had a CLE chamber. It would shoot lights out with 77s, but loading 80s for it for the 600 yard line was a PIA to get it to shoot well. At least the combo that worked well for it. It did not like our COTS black hills 80 SMKs for sure. My newer barrel chambered in a wylde shoots 77s well and 80 SMKs or 80.5 FBs with 24.4 of varget.

All in all.
A good barrel, chamber, brass, appropriately selected bullet and powder combo always makes reloading easier.

morganlamprecht · Nov 15, 2024

3-5 shot groups can tell you certain things...not everything

if im shooting a charge/pressure ladder its more of a verification of the bullet/powder combo...not the individual loads themselves...

ex...if i shoot 3 shot groups of charges from 40-43gr in 0.3 increments and all of the groups hit a similar POI and print between .2-.6" groups...im comfortable saying i can load that bullet/powder combo anywhere in that range and see an avg performance around .4-.5" and a consistent POI

what i CANT tell with any certainty is if those individual .2 vs .3 vs .4 vs .5 vs .6" 3 shot groups are a true representation of their specific loads performance and how they would compare to each other over the next 100s+ rounds of shooting one or the other...

the other end of that spectrum is if i shot that same 3 shot charge range and group 1 was .3" and hit 1" higher than midline...group 2 was 1.5" and hit midline...group 3 was .6" and hit 1/2" above midline, and group 4 was .5" and hit 3/4" below midline...etc etc basically group sizes from terrible to great and POI shifts all over...

all that 2nd test would tell me is that bullet/powder combo sucks in that barrel and has zero consistency...all those 3 shot groups are showing you is a random small window sample from a giant composite group and a terrible load combo...toss it, aint worth wasting time IMO

im going to steal this guys post for an example of what it SHOULD look like when you have a good/consistent combo...Post #15

How To Read OCW Test Results

I went to the range today and shot my load using OCW. This is my very first time using this method. I'm having a hard time interpreting the results. Based on what I read online, you pick the load that has single-digit ES (FPS) velocity but others are looking for clusters that are adjacent to...

www.snipershide.com

you cant be completely sure any of those are no doubt better than any of the others, but you can be very confident anything loaded in that range of charges will perform similar to the overall average of them combined

JR1200W3 · Nov 15, 2024

I "feel" like there's a lot of mental acrobatics going on with people that want to be seen as having a particular stance on load development. But then when they get talking, they say things that can only be true if you believe in certain combustion characteristics that can be manipulated.

Here's an interesting thought. Exercise. Pretend you work for a dictionary company and they ask you to make a definition for load development. What is your definition?

I will go first.

Load development is any systematic act or process to manipulate or produce a desired outcome in internal or external ballistics by a person or entity who assembles ammunition.

morganlamprecht · Nov 15, 2024

JR1200W3 said:
I "feel" like there's a lot of mental acrobatics going on with people that want to be seen as having a particular stance on load development. But then when they get talking, they say things that can only be true if you believe in certain combustion characteristics that can be manipulated.

Here's an interesting thought. Exercise. Pretend you work for a dictionary company and they ask you to make a definition for load development. What is your definition?

I will go first.

Load development is any systematic act or process to manipulate or produce a desired outcome in internal or external ballistics by a person or entity who assembles ammunition.

I couldnt disagree with that definition, but it sounds a lot broader than most anyone ive discussed "load development" with

if im reading/understanding that correctly, any selection of a certain component not just chosen at random would be considered "load development"?

my definition would be similar....but would need the addition of the systematic act/process being performance/results based

picking a berger, grabbing h4350, and adding powder until that berger goes a desired, predetermined speed range before ever firing a round or looking at any results IMO (and anyone ive discussed reloading with would not techincally be considered load dev) by our common understanding of it

"load dev" as i think most would understand it...would fall under picking that berger, grabbing h4350, shooting different amounts of powder and picking a choice based off results...then changing the depth...picking another choice...etc etc as deep as one wants to go. this one is where the sample sizes and data becomes a hot topic

DM1975 · Nov 15, 2024

morganlamprecht said:
3-5 shot groups can tell you certain things...not everything

if im shooting a charge/pressure ladder its more of a verification of the bullet/powder combo...not the individual loads themselves...

ex...if i shoot 3 shot groups of charges from 40-43gr in 0.3 increments and all of the groups hit a similar POI and print between .2-.6" groups...im comfortable saying i can load that bullet/powder combo anywhere in that range and see an avg performance around .4-.5" and a consistent POI

what i CANT tell with any certainty is if those individual .2 vs .3 vs .4 vs .5 vs .6" 3 shot groups are a true representation of their specific loads performance and how they would compare to each other over the next 100s+ rounds of shooting one or the other...

the other end of that spectrum is if i shot that same 3 shot charge range and group 1 was .3" and hit 1" higher than midline...group 2 was 1.5" and hit midline...group 3 was .6" and hit 1/2" above midline, and group 4 was .5" and hit 3/4" below midline...etc etc basically group sizes from terrible to great and POI shifts all over...

all that 2nd test would tell me is that bullet/powder combo sucks in that barrel and has zero consistency...all those 3 shot groups are showing you is a random small window sample from a giant composite group and a terrible load combo...toss it, aint worth wasting time IMO

im going to steal this guys post for an example of what it SHOULD look like when you have a good/consistent combo...Post #15

How To Read OCW Test Results

I went to the range today and shot my load using OCW. This is my very first time using this method. I'm having a hard time interpreting the results. Based on what I read online, you pick the load that has single-digit ES (FPS) velocity but others are looking for clusters that are adjacent to...

www.snipershide.com

you cant be completely sure any of those are no doubt better than any of the others, but you can be very confident anything loaded in that range of charges will perform similar to the overall average of them combined

I can get more in line with this than I can a lot of the other methods. It’s when someone says a 3 or 5 shot group alone is going to be the end all be all of the performance of a certain charge weight and bullet combination that I have issues with. The room for error and probability in general in 3 or 5 shots is just too great for that, be it SD’s or group size. But if over a series of these groups if a particular load isn’t performing then it simply isn’t performing.

jthor · Nov 15, 2024

JR1200W3 said:
that can only be true if you believe in certain combustion characteristics that can be manipulated.

Out of curiosity, what combustion characteristics are folks manipulating?

Changed · Nov 15, 2024

The more I shoot, the less I believe in "Nodes" or "Tuning".

I believe in Quality—good-quality bullets, brass, powder, barrels, actions, scopes, and stocks.

I've taken brand new rifles with new Lapua brass, Berger bullets, and Hodgdon's or Vihtavuori Powder and shot one-hole groups with zero tuning.

Case in point: Brand new barrel, brass...etc.

The image below is of a three-shot group. These happen to be the first three shots after zeroing the new barrel. I picked a very light charge to break the barrel in with.

6GT, Berger 108BT, Varget, Hornady Brass.

FatBoy · Nov 15, 2024

I do believe that there is a benefit to ladder testing a range of charges at distance. For example, 3 x shots at 600 yards with charges ranging from 32.0 to 33.6 in .3 grain increments. If you find 2 or three consecutive charges that have the same or roughly the same POI on target, load for the middle of that and then your fudge factor for tiny mistakes on charges is built in. As long as this load holds the expected precision, who cares what the numbers look like?

If all of the charges fall inside your accuracy window, fuck it, you’re good. Pick one and go.

E-targets have really simplified this.

ACard · Nov 15, 2024

Hecouldgoalltheway said:
I started with a 95 step process, (or whatever it was), and these days it's about 5 steps, and my cartridges are just as precise.

I open the reloading manual, select a powder, decide on a charge (I pick an even number, usually about 70% of the way from listed min to max). Then I find max coal, back off 20k, load 10 and test. 9 times out of 10 I have a sub moa load. I might, maybe, if I have time and feel like it, play with seating depth or slight changes to powder charge, but that's it.

Oh yeah, and I avoid VLD bullets. I think the 95 step process was neccessary to make VLD's shoot consistently.

Interesting, I pretty much do the same but shoot 6mm VLD's (109) and have had great successes.

Hecouldgoalltheway · Nov 15, 2024

ACard said:
Interesting, I pretty much do the same but shoot 6mm VLD's (109) and have had great successes.

Man, I shot 250 rounds in a 6cm barrel trying to get a load for that exact bullet that would work. My coal ended up like 70k from where I started. I shot probably 60 rounds before reading that berger reccomends huge jumps in coal when creating a load. I think the consensus is that they either like to be jammed, or a massive jump, and very little in between. I just think there are easier bullets to load for, and when I say "I think", I mean that I know, and when a say "easier bullets to load for", I mean basically all of them.

JR1200W3 · Nov 15, 2024

jthor said:
Out of curiosity, what combustion characteristics are folks manipulating?

Perceived air fuel ratios that produce low SDs. But you'd have to ask the folks that are saying this is the hypothesis. I didn't say it. Someone else did

ACard · Nov 15, 2024

Hecouldgoalltheway said:
Man, I shot 250 rounds in a 6cm barrel trying to get a load for that exact bullet that would work. My coal ended up like 70k from where I started. I shot probably 60 rounds before reading that berger reccomends huge jumps in coal when creating a load. I think the consensus is that they either like to be jammed, or a massive jump, and very little in between. I just think there are easier bullets to load for, and when I say "I think", I mean that I know, and when a say "easier bullets to load for", I mean basically all of them.

I heard the same and was reluctant to try them. I have several thousand rounds down the tube with 115 DTACS in 6XC. I tried them regardless because i was tired of weird inconsistencies with the dtacs, literally all i did was adjust for the seating depth and kept my load the same. The 109's perform much better and with a 5 SD over a 50 round sampling compared to 9. Needless to say I am on the 109 train now, lol.

Eta- 38.8 grains of H4350 yields me an avg velocity of 3022

supercorndogs · Nov 15, 2024

Hecouldgoalltheway said:
Man, I shot 250 rounds in a 6cm barrel trying to get a load for that exact bullet that would work. My coal ended up like 70k from where I started. I shot probably 60 rounds before reading that berger reccomends huge jumps in coal when creating a load. I think the consensus is that they either like to be jammed, or a massive jump, and very little in between. I just think there are easier bullets to load for, and when I say "I think", I mean that I know, and when a say "easier bullets to load for", I mean basically all of them.

Sometimes a barrel takes some rounds before it starts shooting.

jthor · Nov 15, 2024

JR1200W3 said:
Perceived air fuel ratios that produce low SDs. But you'd have to ask the folks that are saying this is the hypothesis. I didn't say it. Someone else did

Gotcha!

CK1.0 · Nov 15, 2024

When you find clowns clowning around, sometimes it's best to hang back and enjoy the entertainment.

supercorndogs · Nov 16, 2024

It's funny how a lack of experince so often rears its head with such self assurance. I think there is even a phrase for it....

memilanuk · Nov 16, 2024

A couple observations...

One, when it comes to an especially small group... 'fliers' work both ways. Nobody likes to admit it, but if you've been doing this long enough, we've all had that one shot that broke weird/funny/off and totally expected it to land somewhere out in the toolies... but it went right in the same hole as the others. We love to tell ourselves it was the result of clean livin', good NPA / follow-through / whatever, but at the end of the day... bad shots can go 'into' the group as well as 'out'. We just don't usually recognize them as such.

The other thing, kinda related to the sample size thing: while I'll heartily agree that more samples is almost always better, the bigger samples introduce some opportunity for error all their own. Longer strings usually result in more barrel heat, fouling, wear, etc. And typically end up causing the tester to shoot through more varied conditions. All of which are conditions that are endemic to the sport we've chosen; but they are all difficult to control for, especially at the casual/amateur level (for most of us, this is a hobby; it's supposed to be 'fun') - not everyone has access to a fully instrumented 200yd indoor range. There are methods/techniques for isolating those kinds of effects as much as possible, as it's also common in industrial scenarios to have only limited test budgets, and you can't control/fix *every* possible nuisance variable there either. Unfortunately, those usually get off into math/stats that most people don't even want to know about, much less attempt.

But my point is this: while more shots is great, people should maybe not get so caught up in some arbitrary sample size requirement unless a) you know how to offset/account for the additional errors they might be incurring in the process, and/or b) you actually *need* the results to be scientifically rigorous for publication. If not... then understand that what you see on paper might have a bit of error to it, allow for it, and maybe try to test it again a time or two to verify.

Yote Klr · Nov 17, 2024

JR1200W3 said:
Perceived air fuel ratios that produce low SDs. But you'd have to ask the folks that are saying this is the hypothesis. I didn't say it. Someone else did

They need to realize powder contains it's own oxidizer. You can load ammo in the vaccum of space and still fire. It doesn't need any air/ fuel ratio at all.

JR1200W3 · Nov 18, 2024

CK1.0 said:
When you find clowns clowning around, sometimes it's best to hang back and enjoy the entertainment.

That's funny because you have stated the you believe load development is a myth but you also admitted that you load ~~develop~~ to low SDs using the "right air fuel combustion ratio".

It really kinda sounds like you haven't completely figured out exactly what you believe. Perhaps you are still learning and don't think you have it all figured out. Like maybe you're still open to new information.

FatBoy · Nov 18, 2024

I have spent a little bit of time re-reading this and thinking about it some. I guess where I land is really kind of simple. Unless you are shooting factory ammo, you load develop. You may do it half ass and just stick with the first load if it shoots (me) or you may be the worst OCD benchrester out there or any spot in between BUT, if you are rolling your own, you are load developing.

I think this can actually be applied if you shoot factory ammo as well. If you test several different brands and look for the one that shoots best in your rifle or pistol, you just did a version of load development.

CK1.0 · Nov 18, 2024

JR1200W3 said:
That's funny because you have stated the you believe load development is a myth but you also admitted that you load ~~develop~~ to low SDs using the "right air fuel combustion ratio".

It really kinda sounds like you haven't completely figured out exactly what you believe. Perhaps you are still learning and don't think you have it all figured out. Like maybe you're still open to new information.

I've figured out what I need to figure out and I haven't waffled at all, you just won't hear it, you're the one who keeps pushing that I'm doing load development when I'm not.

This thread, like so many others on this topic, has devolved into nonsense, complete with guys talking about "nodes" as if that's a real thing (it's not), guys using ridiculously small sample sizes to make decisions (dumb), no one blaming themselves when the gun doesn't shoot good (just gotta find that magic load), with guys who believe the same nonsense jerking each other off.

I've already done some type of similar thing to pretty much everything mentioned in this thread and I'm telling you it's all bullshit.

A bunch of goofballs patting each other on the back because they do similar dumb stuff isn't very exciting or insightful.

Instead of steering the thread toward a confirmation bias circle jerk, maybe try what I do and see???

None of the guys squawking the loudest have offered to throw down and say "Fuck it, I'll pull a load out of the air and see if this guy is full of shit". Why do you think that is? Maybe afraid of the truth that I might be onto something? Don't say it's the money/components... if anyone is half as into this stuff as I am then they know that pissing through ~$100 means nothing... Commit. Load 100 rounds or more of some middle-of-the-road charge and middle-of-the road length and find out.

Water is wet, and these neverending load development quests are pointless fool's errands. Get over it.

JR1200W3 · Nov 18, 2024

CK1.0 said:
I've figured out what I need to figure out and I haven't waffled at all, you just won't hear it, you're the one who keeps pushing that I'm doing load development when I'm not.

This thread, like so many others on this topic, has devolved into nonsense, complete with guys talking about "nodes" as if that's a real thing (it's not), guys using ridiculously small sample sizes to make decisions (dumb), no one blaming themselves when the gun doesn't shoot good (just gotta find that magic load), with guys who believe the same nonsense jerking each other off.

I've already done some type of similar thing to pretty much everything mentioned in this thread and I'm telling you it's all bullshit.

A bunch of goofballs patting each other on the back because they do similar dumb stuff isn't very exciting or insightful.

Instead of steering the thread toward a confirmation bias circle jerk, maybe try what I do and see???

None of the guys squawking the loudest have offered to throw down and say "Fuck it, I'll pull a load out of the air and see if this guy is full of shit". Why do you think that is? Maybe afraid of the truth that I might be onto something? Don't say it's the money/components... if anyone is half as into this stuff as I am then they know that pissing through ~$100 means nothing... Commit. Load 100 rounds or more of some middle-of-the-road charge and middle-of-the road length and find out.

Water is wet, and these neverending load development quests are pointless fool's errands. Get over it.

Did you, or did you not say,

"...and picking a combustion fuel/air ratio that produces favorable SDs consistently. "

and..

"When I make a change I load at least 100 rounds, always. If I'm deciding on whether I like a bullet or not I shoot at least 500 (usually more) before I make up my mind"

Why are you shooting 100rds to confirm your load if load development is a myth? What is there to proof? Just load to velocity and go, right?

And why do you think there is a load that is a combustion fuel/air ratio that produces favorable SDs if you think load development is a myth? And don't bother with seating depth. It has no impact. But it doesn't change velocity, does it?

Haney · Nov 19, 2024

XP1K · Nov 19, 2024

Yote Klr said:
They need to realize powder contains it's own oxidizer. You can load ammo in the vaccum of space and still fire. It doesn't need any air/ fuel ratio at all.

Speaking of a vacuum, I've heard of people pulling a vacuum on powder before loading it to pull moisture out of it. What kind of effect would this have on es/sd ?

DM1975 · Nov 19, 2024

XP1K said:
Speaking of a vacuum, I've heard of people pulling a vacuum on powder before loading it to pull moisture out of it. What kind of effect would this have on es/sd ?

I’m no expert on it but from what I understand most powders are made and are supposed to be stored at around 50-55% relative humidity. I don’t know how it would affect SD’s but it would likely change how much powder is actually thrown for any given charge weight and possibly change the burn rate of the powder as well.

LR1845 · Nov 19, 2024

@CK1.0 couple of serious questions....
How long have you been hand loading?
How many barrels have you shot out?
How many different cartridges have you shot?
What types of shooting do you actually do and how many rounds do you shoot a year?

CK1.0 · Nov 19, 2024

LR1845 said:
@CK1.0 couple of serious questions....
How long have you been hand loading?
How many barrels have you shot out?
How many different cartridges have you shot?
What types of shooting do you actually do and how many rounds do you shoot a year?

I’ve been loading blaster stuff (9mm, .40, 5.56) for 10+ years, precision rifle stuff for ~5 years. I’ve shot out 9 barrels (5 in 6CM, 4 in 6GT, about to spin on #5), I probably shoot somewhere ~3K+rds or more per year through the bolt guns, at least ~5K per year in 9mm through pistols/PCC, I haven’t really been shooting much 5.56 the last few years as I’ve gotten more into bolt-guns (but for many years I shot ~3-5K of that stuff).

I shoot PRS, USPSA, IDPA, 3-gun/2-gun, even some 600 and 1000 yard IBS Benchrest in Tactical Division now and again to see how my rifle is shooting (off a Harris and same rear bag I use for PRS).

I’ve never won an IBS match (probably have never given it my full effort honestly, I go more for the hang and to see where my rifle/ammo stacks up), but I’ve won more than a few relays and have seen my targets up against others enough times to know it wasn’t my ammo/loads preventing me from finishing at or near the top.

@JR1200W3, so by your logic, if I try out 17s and big rubber versus some 20s on my truck to see what I like better, am I doing “tire/wheel development”? I don’t think so.

It’s fine if guys are skeptical of what I’m putting forth, but I’ve done what you do, put your money where your mouth is and try my way: load 100 or more rounds so they are as close to being the same as the next (single-digit SD range) of something middle-of-the-road and see what you get?

wade2big · Nov 19, 2024

A rifle will either shoot a bullet/powder combination or it won’t. If it won’t, swap one or both and try again. Learning and embracing this has made my hand loading endeavors less tiresome and frustrating.

I pick a bullet/powder combo. Load 5 each in .5gr increments and shoot at 100yds. Are the groups acceptable? If not swap powder and/or bullet and do it again. Pick the charge that gives you the velocity you are looking for as long as the pressures are safe. Load plenty here and verify with a larger sample. Chances are I got it.

I don’t fine tune seating depth. I don’t fine tune powder charge. All my loads are loaded on “.0” or “.5” and my seating depth is mag length or .20-30” off or further if using lighter weight bullets. All arbitrary to keep it simple.

morganlamprecht · Nov 19, 2024

ill post the last barrel i setup and yall can discuss if this is "load dev" or not...

for the past idk...5+ yrs or so (however long the original threads on here were), ive done with everything from 223 up thru 300prc wildcats (necked down to 7mm)...and in 15-18# match rifles (i dont have any with added weights, only AIAT and plain foundation stocks), and multiple sub 10# custom hunting rifles in wood stocks...all custom barrels/guns, no factory rifles...

this barrel was for my AIAT...6 creed, bartlein...twist is somewhere between 1:7-1:8, not sure, didnt ask...and the contour is a normal match weight contour in the med palma/marksmen range...not a truck axle...typically my smith just gets whatever is easiest to get quick or on hand because he knows i aint picky...he hands me something i know will work, and i run it

i had ~10# of N160 at home on the shelf id never used so i was going to burn that up in this barrel...no pet 6creed N160 loads im aware of, so i loaded up ~20 rounds of my normal generic h4350/108 berger load to get a zero and foul it

fired those 20ish, shot great...cleaned the barrel out, shot a handful of foulers then switched to the N160...

108 berger
N160
lapua brass
cci450

i seated it .050" off and the only requirement i had was to run the bullet in the 2950-3000fps range (once it had fully sped up) because thats were i like running 6 creeds for a good balance of ballistics/brass and barrel life

i fired the pressure/velocity test string to see what was what and those results are below...idk which shots are which in the group, not a concern for me...as u can see, with only 1 shot samples there are outliers/flat spots/whatever you want to call them...i just call them random chance (or i think dispersion is what hornady uses)

Here, im not paying much attention to accuracy...im just running the bolt, center reticle, break shot...no wind flags, no waiting for wind to die...just rack bang rack bang...etc

BUT if that group had been say 2-3"...id just scrap that bullet/powder combo...anything like the above or better, no concerns for me

since i wanted 2950-3000 fps, 41.4-41.8, put me right around 2900fps which after the barrel speeds up over the next 100-200 rounds should be just right...

loaded up 20 rounds @ 41.5gr...back to the range a few days later...i clean my barrels after every range trip which makes the clean/cold bore slower, so i fired a few foulers until i saw the velocity settle back in that same 2900-2925 range...took 4 rounds...

the last 16 rounds to confirm zero are below and how i shot them...i shot bench, then prone, then 1 last confirmation on the bench...16 rounds, 2 different positions, whatever size the composite is...all i can ask for...

a few weeks later i took this barrel/load w/ ~45-50 rounds on it to a prone hanging steel match w/ 1.5, 1, and 0.5moa targets, no wind flags. steel hanging in front of dirt berms.

100 yd zero and chrono (labradar), no DOPE confirmation

iirc i finished 4th out of 23-24 shooters...on the 1k 3rd stage, my barrel was speeding up (2960fps iirc on the chrono vs the 2922fps i started with) and i missed a few rounds just high until i got it centered back up...the difference between 1st and 4th place was only a few impacts so no room for DOPE errors at this match lol once i got my DOPE adjusted the only miss was on a 0.5moa @ 800...scoring results are below...

700yds: 2/2 on 1.5moa; 2/3 on 1moa
500yds: 2/2 on 1.5moa; 3/3 on 1moa
1k yds: 2/4 on 1.5moa; 0/1 on 1moa
(made DOPE adjustment)
800 yds: 2/2 on 1.5moa; 2/2 on 1moa; 0/1 on 0.5moa
900 yds: 1/1 on 1.5moa; 3/3 on 1moa; 1/1 on 0.5moa

all said...there was nothing about the results that caused me concern with the load...the steel was shot up, not fresh painted so corrections arent always obvious, but any adjustments i saw and applied, translated down range...if/when i go shoot again in another 6+ months probably, i have no concerns showing up again with this combo

that got a lot longer than i thought it would be lol but thats it...from out of the lathe to a match w/ results

DM1975 · Nov 19, 2024

wade2big said:
A rifle will either shoot a bullet/powder combination or it won’t. If it won’t, swap one or both and try again. Learning and embracing this has made my hand loading endeavors less tiresome and frustrating.

I pick a bullet/powder combo. Load 5 each in .5gr increments and shoot at 100yds. Are the groups acceptable? If not swap powder and/or bullet and do it again. Pick the charge that gives you the velocity you are looking for as long as the pressures are safe. Load plenty here and verify with a larger sample. Chances are I got it.

I don’t fine tune seating depth. I don’t fine tune powder charge. All my loads are loaded on “.0” or “.5” and my seating depth is mag length or .20-30” off or further if using lighter weight bullets. All arbitrary to keep it simple.

This is basically what I’ve started to do. After I decide on the velocity I confirm by shooting 5 groups of 5 in that charge weight, measure the individual groups, then overlay them and measure the total to get an idea of what that load is going to do, then use that to fine tune my zero if needed.

I’m not saying it’s the end all, be all method to use but it’s what works best for me so far.

JR1200W3 · Nov 19, 2024

CK1.0 said:
@JR1200W3, so by your logic, if I try out 17s and big rubber versus some 20s on my truck to see what I like better, am I doing “tire/wheel development”? I don’t think so.

That is the most disconnected, unrelated analogy....

I'm just trying to drill down on your statement about pursuing the right air/ fuel combustion ratio to produce low SDs but at the same time not doing load development.

JR1200W3 · Nov 19, 2024

morganlamprecht said:
ill post the last barrel i setup and yall can discuss if this is "load dev" or not...

for the past idk...5+ yrs or so (however long the original threads on here were), ive done with everything from 223 up thru 300prc wildcats (necked down to 7mm)...and in 15-18# match rifles (i dont have any with added weights, only AIAT and plain foundation stocks), and multiple sub 10# custom hunting rifles in wood stocks...all custom barrels/guns, no factory rifles...

this barrel was for my AIAT...6 creed, bartlein...twist is somewhere between 1:7-1:8, not sure, didnt ask...and the contour is a normal match weight contour in the med palma/marksmen range...not a truck axle...typically my smith just gets whatever is easiest to get quick or on hand because he knows i aint picky...he hands me something i know will work, and i run it

i had ~10# of N160 at home on the shelf id never used so i was going to burn that up in this barrel...no pet 6creed N160 loads im aware of, so i loaded up ~20 rounds of my normal generic h4350/108 berger load to get a zero and foul it

fired those 20ish, shot great...cleaned the barrel out, shot a handful of foulers then switched to the N160...

108 berger
N160
lapua brass
cci450

i seated it .050" off and the only requirement i had was to run the bullet in the 2950-3000fps range (once it had fully sped up) because thats were i like running 6 creeds for a good balance of ballistics/brass and barrel life

i fired the pressure/velocity test string to see what was what and those results are below...idk which shots are which in the group, not a concern for me...as u can see, with only 1 shot samples there are outliers/flat spots/whatever you want to call them...i just call them random chance (or i think dispersion is what hornady uses)
View attachment 8549463 View attachment 8549464

Here, im not paying much attention to accuracy...im just running the bolt, center reticle, break shot...no wind flags, no waiting for wind to die...just rack bang rack bang...etc

BUT if that group had been say 2-3"...id just scrap that bullet/powder combo...anything like the above or better, no concerns for me

since i wanted 2950-3000 fps, 41.4-41.8, put me right around 2900fps which after the barrel speeds up over the next 100-200 rounds should be just right...

loaded up 20 rounds @ 41.5gr...back to the range a few days later...i clean my barrels after every range trip which makes the clean/cold bore slower, so i fired a few foulers until i saw the velocity settle back in that same 2900-2925 range...took 4 rounds...

the last 16 rounds to confirm zero are below and how i shot them...i shot bench, then prone, then 1 last confirmation on the bench...16 rounds, 2 different positions, whatever size the composite is...all i can ask for...
View attachment 8549467

a few weeks later i took this barrel/load w/ ~45-50 rounds on it to a prone hanging steel match w/ 1.5, 1, and 0.5moa targets, no wind flags. steel hanging in front of dirt berms.

100 yd zero and chrono (labradar), no DOPE confirmation

iirc i finished 4th out of 23-24 shooters...on the 1k 3rd stage, my barrel was speeding up (2960fps iirc on the chrono vs the 2922fps i started with) and i missed a few rounds just high until i got it centered back up...the difference between 1st and 4th place was only a few impacts so no room for DOPE errors at this match lol once i got my DOPE adjusted the only miss was on a 0.5moa @ 800...scoring results are below...

700yds: 2/2 on 1.5moa; 2/3 on 1moa
500yds: 2/2 on 1.5moa; 3/3 on 1moa
1k yds: 2/4 on 1.5moa; 0/1 on 1moa
(made DOPE adjustment)
800 yds: 2/2 on 1.5moa; 2/2 on 1moa; 0/1 on 0.5moa
900 yds: 1/1 on 1.5moa; 3/3 on 1moa; 1/1 on 0.5moa

all said...there was nothing about the results that caused me concern with the load...the steel was shot up, not fresh painted so corrections arent always obvious, but any adjustments i saw and applied, translated down range...if/when i go shoot again in another 6+ months probably, i have no concerns showing up again with this combo

that got a lot longer than i thought it would be lol but thats it...from out of the lathe to a match w/ results

So, ya. I'd call that load development. Kind of a hasty form of it. And it's not too far off from what I do. I'm probably a little more methodical and shoot *gasp* a bigger sample size. But similar. And, it's worth saying, you're shooting one of the most consistent and forgiving 6mm bullets in existence. The 108 Berger is an awesome bullet.

Like I said in the first post, I think a large part of the disagreement of load development is what people thinks constitutes load development. It reminds me of this skit.

Having trouble using the site?

Load development is a myth?

Load development is a myth?

1. Any form of load development to "tune" accuracy is a myth.

2. Only certain gross changes can change accuracy

3. Some forms are legitimate, as long as the sample size is large enough

4. All options are on the table, but sample size

5. Sample size isn't always required, but there are some quack methods out there

6. There is absolutely merit to OCWs and round robins.

7. I still think velocity flat spots and accuracy nodes exist

Sergeant

Supporter

Ham Fisted Gorilla

Ham Fisted Gorilla

Sergeant

Supporter

Ham Fisted Gorilla

After 20 years, going anonymous..

Sergeant

Sergeant

Ham Fisted Gorilla

Supporter

The Poors

Command Sgt. Major

After 20 years, going anonymous..

Supporter

Ham Fisted Gorilla

The Poors

Sergeant of the Hide

Sergeant

Supporter

Sergeant

The Poors

Sergeant of the Hide

Major Hide Member

After 20 years, going anonymous..

Chief Mad Hatter

Your mom's favorite shit poster

Supporter

Chief Mad Hatter

Ham Fisted Gorilla

Sergeant of the Hide

\m/ SLAYER \m/

Ham Fisted Gorilla

F'ing nuke

Private

Supporter

After 20 years, going anonymous..

\m/ SLAYER \m/

Supporter

Major Hide Member

Private

The Poors

Gunny Sergeant

\m/ SLAYER \m/

Two Star General

Sergeant

The Poors

Supporter

Supporter

Similar threads