Finding the node for 147gr ELD-M + H4350

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Hi Everyone
Today I managed to go to the range and do some testing.
Rifle is a Defiance Ruckus with 24” CF proof Barrel with 1:7.5 twist.

Here is my sizing process:
-Peterson 2 times fired LRP
-FL sized with SAC sizing die
-Ran through mandrel for 2k neck tension.
Trimmed to 2.009
C.B.T.O= 2.166 (0.020 off the jam)
C.O.A.L= 2.878
Primer: CCI BR2
Powder: H4350
Chronograph: LabRadar
All the brasses had the same exact shoulder size. Powder charges triple checked before seating and settled by tapping on the bench lol.

Here is the results:

40.8g
SD:4.71 ES:9.88 2695fps

41.0gr
SD: 9.11 ES:18.35 2714fps

41.2gr
SD: 10.45 ES: 22.25 2726fps

41.3gr
SD: 14.13 ES: 29.80 2748fps

41.4gr
SD: 13.06 ES: 27.97 2743fps

41.5gr
SD: 4.10 ES: 10.95 2761fps

41.6
SD: 13.2 ES: 32 2762fps

41.8
SD: 18.33 ES: 38.37 2785fps

I started having a little bit of heavy bolt lift at 41.4gr

I see two flat spots around 41.3-41.4 and 41.5-41.6

I like the ES/SD of 41.5 but here is the issue, at this point if I seat the bullet deeper it will cause more pressure and if I higher to reduce the pressure I am only 10 thou of the jam which is very close considering future adjustments I don’t want to go over AICS Mag length.

Any suggestions to choose the right node would be appreciated.

 

[howler]

Four shot groups aren’t statistically significant and powder nodes aren’t real.

Pick a charge weight that meets the velocity you’re seeking and mess with the seating depth until they tighten up.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Four shot groups aren’t statistically significant and powder nodes aren’t real.

Pick a charge weight that meets the velocity you’re seeking and mess with the seating depth until they tighten up.

Ok what do you think about 41.5 then? Its the best one statistically but with heavy bolt

 

[howler]

you don’t want any heavy bolt, that means you’re pushing it too much and should back off at least half a grain or more. Don’t get me wrong, there are still a lot of people that believe in ocd and powder nodes and all that. But don’t run an over pressure load, for your own good. That’s just a safety thing, and also you’ll damage your rifle and kill all your brass.

 

[RegionRat]

I will add just one concept to the one where you just pick any charge step and go to depth tuning.

Instead, re-think those results with an eye on the group centroid shifts.

Try not to pick a charge step right next to a place where the group center is jumping.

If you can pick more than one stable zone, those are the speeds that you should re-test at distance to pick the best one.

Then see if you think depth tuning can do any better. YMMV

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

Another question
My once and twice fired brass was always at 1.4865 shoulder size, and I would bump them 2 thou. this time I used a longer COAL, I see all my brass grown to 1.4895
So in order to close the bolt freely I have to bump them 5 thou. there is no way that’s my chamber size, I even tried the go and no-go gauge and everything looks fine.I am wondering what could be the reason for this excessive shoulder growth?

 

[RegionRat]

If you own your gage, check your chamber length compared to the gage by using a layer of Scotch Tape on the base of the gage to see when the bolt resists closing on the gage.

Once you know the rough dimensions of the chamber compared to your gage, you can then also check your brass compared to that gage plus the offset to the chamber length.

Keep in mind, Go-No-Go chamber gages are for the length from the base to the shoulder datum, but do not tell us anything about the diameters of the brass, chamber, or dies. Dies have a strong adjustment leverage on length, but not on diameter.

If your brass, dies, and chamber are not coordinated for diameter, you can also have trouble, but most times this doesn't hit us.

It can take several firing cycles to get the brass to fully form to the chamber. There is an art to allowing a case to expand to the chamber while also tying to control the diameters yet not bumping the shoulder datum back too soon. When the case diameter gets worked down, the shoulder datum length can often extend and add to the confusion.

Knowing the chamber's shoulder datum length is a good way to avoid chasing your tail. Let the shoulder grow while you size the neck for several cycles. Only allow the die to work enough to be able to close the bolt. Watch all the dimensions including the shoulder diameter and the 200 line and keep notes. When you are sure you have allowed the brass to fully expand, then decide on shoulder bump dimensions.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

If you own your gage, check your chamber length compared to the gage by using a layer of Scotch Tape on the base of the gage to see when the bolt resists closing on the gage.

Once you know the rough dimensions of the chamber compared to your gage, you can then also check your brass compared to that gage plus the offset to the chamber length.

Keep in mind, Go-No-Go chamber gages are for the length from the base to the shoulder datum, but do not tell us anything about the diameters of the brass, chamber, or dies. Dies have a strong adjustment leverage on length, but not on diameter.

If your brass, dies, and chamber are not coordinated for diameter, you can also have trouble, but most times this doesn't hit us.

It can take several firing cycles to get the brass to fully form to the chamber. There is an art to allowing a case to expand to the chamber while also tying to control the diameters yet not bumping the shoulder datum back too soon. When the case diameter gets worked down, the shoulder datum length can often extend and add to the confusion.

Knowing the chamber's shoulder datum length is a good way to avoid chasing your tail. Let the shoulder grow while you size the neck for several cycles. Only allow the die to work enough to be able to close the bolt. Watch all the dimensions including the shoulder diameter and the 200 line and keep notes. When you are sure you have allowed the brass to fully expand, then decide on shoulder bump dimensions.

Thanks for the advice
I already measured chamber length from shoulder and it’s roughly 1.4865.
The confusing part for me this time is the excessive shoulder to base that is about 1.4895
Do you think the higher shoulder length is due to the longer COAL Comparing to the previous load? From 2.135 to 21.66

 

[Seymour Fish]

Four shot groups aren’t statistically significant and powder nodes aren’t real.

Pick a charge weight that meets the velocity you’re seeking and mess with the seating depth until they tighten up.

Pure garbage. I’d explain it to you, but then I’d have to understand it for you

 

[howler]

Pure garbage. I’d explain it to you, but then I’d have to understand it for you

Awww I hurt the fudd’s feelings

 

[NiteQwill]

Pure garbage. I’d explain it to you, but then I’d have to understand it for you

Please enlighten us.

 

[howler]

Please enlighten us.

Can’t wait for 200 lines of straight caps lock yelling (with no paragraphs) and purely speculative claims.

 

[RegionRat]

Thanks for the advice
I already measured chamber length from shoulder and it’s roughly 1.4865.
The confusing part for me this time is the excessive shoulder to base that is about 1.4895
Do you think the higher shoulder length is due to the longer COAL Comparing to the previous load? From 2.135 to 21.66

If you established that your chamber length is 1.4865" bolt face to shoulder datum, and your brass is 1.4895, then the brass should not fit into the chamber.

A 0.003" interference isn't trivial so something is wrong with either or both measurements if that brass fits.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

If you established that your chamber length is 1.4865" bolt face to shoulder datum, and your brass is 1.4895, then the brass should not fit into the chamber.

A 0.003" interference isn't trivial so something is wrong with either or both measurements if that brass fits.

With the firing pin and ejector I can chamber both of them
1.4865 was the twice fired and shorter COAL
But when I take the firing pin and ejector out, the only way I can drop the bolt freely os sizing to 1.4845
1.4875 needs a lot of force to close

 

[RegionRat]

But when I take the firing pin and ejector out, the only way I can drop the bolt freely os sizing to 1.4845

No matter what the issue with your gages and calipers.... using nothing but your dies and chamber, if you need to size to close the bolt, then size to close the bolt.... If that continues to work for several more cycles, then you can always learn to inspect later.

At some point, put a micrometer to the 200 line and the shoulder on your virgin brass and also on brass fired several cycles.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

No matter what the issue with your gages and calipers.... using nothing but your dies and chamber, if you need to size to close the bolt, then size to close the bolt.... If that continues to work for several more cycles, then you can always learn to inspect later.

At some point, put a micrometer to the 200 line and the shoulder on your virgin brass and also on brass fired several cycles.

Good idea
I am going to size a few more brass with the shims removed and screw down the sizng die more and compare the sizes in web area

 

[Seymour Fish]

Awww I hurt the fudd’s feelings

Your bold assertion that powder nodes don’t exist flies in the face of current best practices. Suggest you learn from watching the Cortina interviews with Jack Neary and Lou Murdica to broaden your education. Alex Wheeler will explain positive compensation to you. Cortina has modified the original Creighton Audette ladder testing such that 3 shots per powder step don’t blurr the vertical placement, yet it is the same test, fired at various points on a horizontal line at 100 yds. The OP’s impact centers are moving a great deal in the vertical plane, thus raising issues 1)perhaps he started too high in powder charge, as groups enlarge and tend to spit going up 2) a simple one shot ladder , which is a damn fine screening for suitable powder, might say switch powders, based on observation and experience with these matters, and the utter failure to find anything stable and useful here. To further broaden your knowledge, Williada on “OzFclass” can help you conceptualize tuning for short/medium range with no positive compensation by virtue of system analysis, and the pitfall by which such system falls apart at long range, and of course vice-versa. Once you grasp these concepts in use by all top shooters across multiple disciplines, you should be able to discern when statistics might actually be useful. At your current stage of understanding, it appears you only have one hammer, and things you don’t comprehend appear to be nails. As following these suggestions would require you to put forth some effort, and it would be much easier to act “triggered” and scream FUDD, make your choice

 

[howler]

Your bold assertion that powder nodes don’t exist flies in the face of current best practices. Suggest you learn from watching the Cortina interviews with Jack Neary and Lou Murdica to broaden your education. Alex Wheeler will explain positive compensation to you. Cortina has modified the original Creighton Audette ladder testing such that 3 shots per powder step don’t blurr the vertical placement, yet it is the same test, fired at various points on a horizontal line at 100 yds. The OP’s impact centers are moving a great deal in the vertical plane, thus raising issues 1)perhaps he started too high in powder charge, as groups enlarge and tend to spit going up 2) a simple one shot ladder , which is a damn fine screening for suitable powder, might say switch powders, based on observation and experience with these matters, and the utter failure to find anything stable and useful here. To further broaden your knowledge, Williada on “OzFclass” can help you conceptualize tuning for short/medium range with no positive compensation by virtue of system analysis, and the pitfall by which such system falls apart at long range, and of course vice-versa. Once you grasp these concepts in use by all top shooters across multiple disciplines, you should be able to discern when statistics might actually be useful. At your current stage of understanding, it appears you only have one hammer, and things you don’t comprehend appear to be nails. As following these suggestions would require you to put forth some effort, and it would be much easier to act “triggered” and scream FUDD, make your choice

Cortina? The same one that sells tuners, which have been shown to be snake oil?

I don’t care what some people did that happen to be good shooters. If a world champion shooter always takes 5 steps backwards and then does a triple backflip before every match they win, I bet you’d try to say that is the reason. Correlation does not equal causation.

I’m not the one that’s triggered, you came into the thread with rude comments because you can’t handle people having differing opinions.

 

[NiteQwill]

Your bold assertion that powder nodes don’t exist flies in the face of current best practices. Suggest you learn from watching the Cortina interviews with Jack Neary and Lou Murdica to broaden your education. Alex Wheeler will explain positive compensation to you. Cortina has modified the original Creighton Audette ladder testing such that 3 shots per powder step don’t blurr the vertical placement, yet it is the same test, fired at various points on a horizontal line at 100 yds. The OP’s impact centers are moving a great deal in the vertical plane, thus raising issues 1)perhaps he started too high in powder charge, as groups enlarge and tend to spit going up 2) a simple one shot ladder , which is a damn fine screening for suitable powder, might say switch powders, based on observation and experience with these matters, and the utter failure to find anything stable and useful here. To further broaden your knowledge, Williada on “OzFclass” can help you conceptualize tuning for short/medium range with no positive compensation by virtue of system analysis, and the pitfall by which such system falls apart at long range, and of course vice-versa. Once you grasp these concepts in use by all top shooters across multiple disciplines, you should be able to discern when statistics might actually be useful. At your current stage of understanding, it appears you only have one hammer, and things you don’t comprehend appear to be nails. As following these suggestions would require you to put forth some effort, and it would be much easier to act “triggered” and scream FUDD, make your choice

Wall of text: triggered

 

[Seymour Fish]

Cortina? The same one that sells tuners, which have been shown to be snake oil?

I don’t care what some people did that happen to be good shooters. If a world champion shooter always takes 5 steps backwards and then does a triple backflip before every match they win, I bet you’d try to say that is the reason. Correlation does not equal causation.

I’m not the one that’s triggered, you came into the thread with rude comments because you can’t handle people having differing opinions.

So you have made your choice, and it’s all “Mansplaining” to you. Litz’s denunciation of tuner effectiveness is a classic fallacy, as you can’t tune a handful of wet shit with a tuner or with statistics. Cherry-picking your gurus has led you down the primrose path to nowhere. Perhaps you might learn from a handful of fuds who actually win. Did you “follow the science” with Fauci ? Get “woke” and all Jabbed-up ? Life is an IQ test. Good luck

 

[NiteQwill]

So you have made your choice, and it’s all “Mansplaining” to you. Litz’s denunciation of tuner effectiveness is a classic fallacy, as you can’t tune a handful of wet shit with a tuner or with statistics. Cherry-picking your gurus has led you down the primrose path to nowhere. Perhaps you might learn from a handful of fuds who actually win. Did you “follow the science” with Fauci ? Get “woke” and all Jabbed-up ? Life is an IQ test. Good luck

Give up. No one cares.

And who mentioned Litz? Fauci. Wokeness. Only you did. No one cares.

Many people in this thread actually do win. You just don't see them bragging about it.

 

[Hylo]

I tune my atmosphere nodes at every match via taco bell and triples scoop of rocky road in a waffle cone the night before. I find that a stout mixture of methane and sulfur around the muzzle gives my bullet a slicker trajectory and tightens my groups up.

 

[howler]

So you have made your choice, and it’s all “Mansplaining” to you. Litz’s denunciation of tuner effectiveness is a classic fallacy, as you can’t tune a handful of wet shit with a tuner or with statistics. Cherry-picking your gurus has led you down the primrose path to nowhere. Perhaps you might learn from a handful of fuds who actually win. Did you “follow the science” with Fauci ? Get “woke” and all Jabbed-up ? Life is an IQ test. Good luck

I get jabbed every day with fresh doses of wokeness

 

[Hockeystud87]

So you have made your choice, and it’s all “Mansplaining” to you. Litz’s denunciation of tuner effectiveness is a classic fallacy, as you can’t tune a handful of wet shit with a tuner or with statistics. Cherry-picking your gurus has led you down the primrose path to nowhere. Perhaps you might learn from a handful of fuds who actually win. Did you “follow the science” with Fauci ? Get “woke” and all Jabbed-up ? Life is an IQ test. Good luck

Are you saying Fauci doesn't do ladder tests to find nodes?

 

[hlee]

I won’t be able to dig it up, but @Molon has a pretty well thought out method of load development that amplifies the statistical power of low round count groups. Essentially, he combines the groups from 3 charge weights into a “composite group” and chooses the middle weight in the smallest composite group. The theory is that this method gets you the charge weight that is least affected by small variations, doesn’t rely on a chronograph, and doesn’t use any more ammunition than a standard test. It does rely on a repeatable point of aim that can be used to align the groups.

 

[ZA206]

I click onto this thread expecting to see interesting info on 147's and H4350, and all I see is purse swinging!!
LOLOLOL!!!

 

[SnowMan]

6.5 Creedmoor, 42g H4350, 24" 8 twist barrel, 2.94" oal, @2840fps. I pulled one shot but it seemed to work ok.

 

[Molon]

I won’t be able to dig it up, but @Molon has a pretty well thought out method of load development that amplifies the statistical power of low round count groups.

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ns-accuracy-node-detection-technique.7175931/

....

 

[45-90]

Just got done shooting a light 16" barreled 308 Win trying new bullets and powders in the 16" barrel. After some time with many loads...I thought I'd try the Varget loads ...Surprisingly horrible velocity variations 54.6 S/D the worst of any powder tried by double, and triple. Tried another bullet I had loaded with Varget, it too was really bad, not quite as bad it came in 2 nd for worst...so Varget will be discarded as a viable powder, as it was not only a lot slower and less accurate and velocities all over. But in longer 26" barrels it was great.

 

[45-90]

In this 16" AR 10 experiment, all powder charges were weighed...soon as I
Stopped using Varget, with its huge 49.6 S/D the largest over 6 shots only.
And changed powders...Standard deviations were as small a 3.5, 8.9, 12, velocities were high with better accuracy in an AR 10 16" barrel 6 lbs 3 oz without scope. Same Lake City brass. Mitary primer...only the powder was changed. In this case 2000MR, was the winner, by a mile over Varget, the worst powder of the day, behind Big Game, 6.5 Staball, and 2000 MR. W 748.
All ball powders...it surprised me. Varget has always been a 308 standard, in most everyone's experience... but in a 16" or less barrel it is horrible, at least in my limited experience with light short AR 10...maybe this will help someone looking for smaller velocity variations in short barrels....just change powder. No annealing, no case prep, no special primers, no chasing the lands, just all cheap LC primed unfired, resized brass, weight powder load bullet and shoot, my mags are 2.860" ish SS mags.
The lower is milled for 2.940" to 2.960" long cartridges in a different Proof Barreled AR 10, depending on brand of mag.
Done with Varget in this 16" AR, it failed to preform in "this" short barrel...your experience may be different..but food for thought for anyone having trouble with high velocity spreads...try a ball powder.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

In this 16" AR 10 experiment, all powder charges were weighed...soon as I
Stopped using Varget, with its huge 49.6 S/D the largest over 6 shots only.
And changed powders...Standard deviations were as small a 3.5, 8.9, 12, velocities were high with better accuracy in an AR 10 16" barrel 6 lbs 3 oz without scope. Same Lake City brass. Mitary primer...only the powder was changed. In this case 2000MR, was the winner, by a mile over Varget, the worst powder of the day, behind Big Game, 6.5 Staball, and 2000 MR. W 748.
All ball powders...it surprised me. Varget has always been a 308 standard, in most everyone's experience... but in a 16" or less barrel it is horrible, at least in my limited experience with light short AR 10...maybe this will help someone looking for smaller velocity variations in short barrels....just change powder. No annealing, no case prep, no special primers, no chasing the lands, just all cheap LC primed unfired, resized brass, weight powder load bullet and shoot, my mags are 2.860" ish SS mags.
The lower is milled for 2.940" to 2.960" long cartridges in a different Proof Barreled AR 10, depending on brand of mag.
Done with Varget in this 16" AR, it failed to preform in "this" short barrel...your experience may be different..but food for thought for anyone having trouble with high velocity spreads...try a ball powder.

Sometimes the combination of primer and powder just doesn’t work
Here is a picture from my powder charge test with my AR10
Br2 primer
43.7grs Varget
168 ELDM

 

[45-90]

Sometimes the combination of primer and powder just doesn’t work
Here is a picture from my powder charge test with my AR10
Br2 primer
43.7grs Varget
168 ELDM
View attachment 8224742

What is the AR 10 barrel length? Wondering it a short barrel phenomenon? Or just the barrel...you can only take what the barrel gives ya.
I've had many 308s shoot Varget, well, but not this 16" but the 26" & 27" bolt guns loved Varget. That's why I i was surprised at its terrible performance here.

 

[Max_The_Phoenix]

What is the AR 10 barrel length? Wondering it a short barrel phenomenon? Or just the barrel...you can only take what the barrel gives ya.
I've had many 308s shoot Varget, well, but not this 16" but the 26" & 27" bolt guns loved Varget. That's why I i was surprised at its terrible performance here.

Mine is the Daniel Defense DD5 v4 18” barrel

 

[45-90]

I have a heavy SS 18" Proof barrel, ...should try the exact Varget load in that, the next time out and compare, with the light 16". I have a feeling it's just this barrel that doesn't like Varget.

 

[supercorndogs]

Your bold assertion that powder nodes don’t exist flies in the face of current best practices. Suggest you learn from watching the Cortina interviews with Jack Neary and Lou Murdica to broaden your education. Alex Wheeler will explain positive compensation to you. Cortina has modified the original Creighton Audette ladder testing such that 3 shots per powder step don’t blurr the vertical placement, yet it is the same test, fired at various points on a horizontal line at 100 yds. The OP’s impact centers are moving a great deal in the vertical plane, thus raising issues 1)perhaps he started too high in powder charge, as groups enlarge and tend to spit going up 2) a simple one shot ladder , which is a damn fine screening for suitable powder, might say switch powders, based on observation and experience with these matters, and the utter failure to find anything stable and useful here. To further broaden your knowledge, Williada on “OzFclass” can help you conceptualize tuning for short/medium range with no positive compensation by virtue of system analysis, and the pitfall by which such system falls apart at long range, and of course vice-versa. Once you grasp these concepts in use by all top shooters across multiple disciplines, you should be able to discern when statistics might actually be useful. At your current stage of understanding, it appears you only have one hammer, and things you don’t comprehend appear to be nails. As following these suggestions would require you to put forth some effort, and it would be much easier to act “triggered” and scream FUDD, make your choice

This^^^^^^^^ This isn't triggered, this is an excellent explanation. The same guys telling you nodes don't exists are the same guys who would have been telling you to look for velocity flat spots with your chronograph 2 years ago. Their understanding of things seems to be tied to the last youtube video they watched, and may or may not have understood. That's why its all the rage now to tell people their number of shots is not statistically significant.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

This^^^^^^^^ This isn't triggered, this is an excellent explanation. The same guys telling you nodes don't exists are the same guys who would have been telling you to look for velocity flat spots with your chronograph 2 years ago. Their understanding of things seems to be tied to the last youtube video they watched, and may or may not have understood. That's why its all the rage now to tell people their number of shots is not statistically significant.

Way way back I would have been one of those people telling you to look for flat spots in velocity. Since then I chronographed every fired shot in load development and recorded the data. I also stopped relying on just a couple of small samples.

If you look back at the first post in this thread and the OP's follow up question, he wants to explore 41.5gr because it has a lower ES/SD than .1gr above and .1gr below (which looked terrible). If he reshoots all three charge weights with large enough samples he is going to see the SD's of all three look similar and the velocities diverge. The reason is because 41.4gr is less propellant than 41.5gr, which is less propellant than 41.6gr.

The real question is why did anyone ever think that differences in propellant charge weights had no effect on velocity when it is demonstrable that increasing propellant charge weight increases chamber pressure? The answer is because there are too many variables besides charge weight and the standard reloading methodology is to use small samples. It's true, there are no such thing as velocity nodes. And you're right, not long ago everyone would have told the OP to look for flat spots. The word changes and people learn as groups.

 

[supercorndogs]

Way way back I would have been one of those people telling you to look for flat spots in velocity. Since then I chronographed every fired shot in load development and recorded the data. I also stopped relying on just a couple of small samples.

If you look back at the first post in this thread and the OP's follow up question, he wants to explore 41.5gr because it has a lower ES/SD than .1gr above and .1gr below (which looked terrible). If he reshoots all three charge weights with large enough samples he is going to see the SD's of all three look similar and the velocities diverge. The reason is because 41.4gr is less propellant than 41.5gr, which is less propellant than 41.6gr.

The real question is why did anyone ever think that differences in propellant charge weights had no effect on velocity when it is demonstrable that increasing propellant charge weight increases chamber pressure? The answer is because there are too many variables besides charge weight and the standard reloading methodology is to use small samples. It's true, there are no such thing as velocity nodes. And you're right, not long ago everyone would have told the OP to look for flat spots. The word changes and people learn as groups.

I think a lot of people miss the Forrest looking for the trees. We constantly see people wanting us to diagnose problems because of what their chrono is telling them. Almost none of those people ever have actual paper targets. Or any idea of actual vertical spreads past 600y. Maybe the next big shooting sport is going to be shooting over a chronograph and seeing who can get the best numbers.

All that said I have rifles that shoot great with a randomly chosen charge. They could proabaly shoot better. But if they are shooting good enough it's not worth the extra time to me.

What I see is many peopel are getting caught up minutia that doesnt matter to them yet. Or looking for some secret no one else knows about yet. Problem is that secret isn't going to make a noticeable difference for them. Bringing us back to a great old adage. Can I shoot the difference?

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I think a lot of people miss the Forrest looking for the trees. We constantly see people wanting us to diagnose problems because of what their chrono is telling them. Almost none of those people ever have actual paper targets. Or any idea of actual vertical spreads past 600y. Maybe the next big shooting sport is going to be shooting over a chronograph and seeing who can get the best numbers.

All that said I have rifles that shoot great with a randomly chosen charge. They could proabaly shoot better. But if they are shooting good enough it's not worth the extra time to me.

What I see is many peopel are getting caught up minutia that doesnt matter to them yet. Or looking for some secret no one else knows about yet. Problem is that secret isn't going to make a noticeable difference for them. Bringing us back to a great old adage. Can I shoot the difference?

Except the OP did have paper targets and you're changing the subject. The old'sters may not have used chronographs the same way as shooters today do but the fact remains that the top end of shooters live inside their chrono's. Wall-Of-Text guy name dropped like his life depended on it and you gave him the warm nod of affirmation. Even the YT celeb F-Class daddy uses his chrono everyday, 600 yard target or not.

If I lived in yesteryear I would still be parroting sleeping bullets, sine wave target reading, and three shot populations. Thankfully I don't and, regardless of posted 600 yard groups, we know enough today that any variation in powder charge will reflect a difference in MV given enough data to see through the noise of variables. You're free to quibble over whether I/We/You/Anyone can shoot the difference but that is a different conversation or an excuse not to use paragraphs (Wall-Of-Text guy.

 

[supercorndogs]

Except the OP did have paper targets and you're changing the subject. The old'sters may not have used chronographs the same way as shooters today do but the fact remains that the top end of shooters live inside their chrono's. Wall-Of-Text guy name dropped like his life depended on it and you gave him the warm nod of affirmation. Even the YT celeb F-Class daddy uses his chrono everyday, 600 yard target or not.

If I lived in yesteryear I would still be parroting sleeping bullets, sine wave target reading, and three shot populations. Thankfully I don't and, regardless of posted 600 yard groups, we know enough today that any variation in powder charge will reflect a difference in MV given enough data to see through the noise of variables. You're free to quibble over whether I/We/You/Anyone can shoot the difference but that is a different conversation or an excuse not to use paragraphs (Wall-Of-Text guy.

I am not changing any subject. You seem to be having an argument with yourself. I didnt say anything about powder charge in relation to velocity. POI does however change in relation to powder charge. So when I say node I am speaking of an area of relatively stable POI in relation to charge weight.