Range Report Group size means little
- Thread starter Ledzep
- Start date
ive done it in 2 barrels and let other people pick the "bad" and the "good"
then i shot 2- 10 shot groups of each round robin at 200 yds...they both averaged .6-.7moa but had slightly different group shapes
another barrel i did it at 100 yds...similar results
ive also done lots of 10 round sample tests with random loads @ 100 and tracked how the group was formed for each...some groups the first 3-5 rounds went into 1 hole, and the rest made the group slightly bigger
others the first 3 made the entire spread then the following 7 punched out the middle
i did that with 3 different powders in 1 barrel, end of the day the 10 shot groups averaged .5s-.8s w/ that bullet, but there was no clear winner when repeated on multiple days
so which samples would you want to take?
ive had buddies do their own load work up and get a "winner" at the end...thought they had it til they went back and shot a "loser" vs the "winner" on the same days for 2-3 trips...they were basically the same
So, if the consensus:
Group OCW testing isn’t the way to go unless you shoot much larger sample sizes? Which would in turn be quite a bit more rounds on your barrel.
If so, what’s the solution?
Group OCW testing isn’t the way to go unless you shoot much larger sample sizes? Which would in turn be quite a bit more rounds on your barrel.
If so, what’s the solution?
And this is why i do my load development at 300 yards over the course of year. 300 yards will take the environmental factors out. This works for me and the rest is up to the shooter.
So, should i be taking from this data and this thread, that i should just find a velocity i like, play with seating depth, and go?? ES, SD, and group size be damned?? Im not agreeing or disagreeing with the data in either direction, Im having a hard time seeing the conclusion and recommendation from the data.
since some time in the first half of 2019, i aint even played with seating depth...
ive loaded the bullet i wanted to shoot .050-.100 off (picked different in different barrels) and just shot it...i have 4 rifles and i think 9 barrels set up for them that way
maintaining sub moa to 800 yds (furthest i have to routinely test) hasnt been an issue with sample sizes pretty much everyone already accepts
plenty of 1/2 moa 3 and 5 shot groups...plenty of 3/4 moa 10 shot groups
yup...for the past 6 months to a year
ive done tons of load dev and tests (jump and charge wt) on multiple barrels, testing what most consider sufficient and necessary, but at the end i havent made any load choices off of it
shooting buddies see me doing it, while they still are testing and load working...scores when we shoot against each other hasnt said i have anything to worry about
what matters when i show up is how perfect my dope is
Last edited:
Holy crap, this post has gained some traction.
A few things:
1. We will never agree or come to the same conclusion on how to do shit.
2. We all may be right.
3. Ledzep needs to get laid, I can drive over and pay for a hooker for him. No time for pussy if shooting 50 shot groups.
4. Let's all agree to #3
A few things:
1. We will never agree or come to the same conclusion on how to do shit.
2. We all may be right.
3. Ledzep needs to get laid, I can drive over and pay for a hooker for him. No time for pussy if shooting 50 shot groups.
4. Let's all agree to #3
i say do what works best for you...and this is eactly why i shoot LD at 100yds(because it takes most of all 3 things out you mention)then shoot best of the 100yds at 600yds then adjust seating if needed but 95% of the time the best load from 100yds shoots the best at 600yds and needs no adjusting and if it shoots at 600yds its going to shoot at 1100yds which is about as far as i normally shoot.
i do not need to shoot out a barrel trying to find a load or over analyzing everything to the 9th then go out and shoot a bad group and start over...ive been there and done that...like i said i DO NOT LIKE loading i do it because it needs to be done and its not hard ppl just make it hard.
its great that these guys are taking loading to the next level the problem i see is everyone jumps on the bandwagon and the whole thing turns into a shit show...just like ladder tests and satterlees LD ECT...it works for them but not for most.
just like my way works for me but maybe not for you or the other guys posting in this thread...i shoot 3 shot groups because IMO more becomes a test of shooter more than equipment...if i was a BR or F-class shooter i might do things differently.
yup, im not trying to convince anyone how to do anything...its how i have/am doing it
results of that are what they are
the fact that satterlee's 10 shot powder tests convinced so many it worked and they got actual good data from it was a clear sign to me that most didnt have any idea what they were actually doing/getting, and them having any success with it pointed to, whatever they would have picked to load would have netted similar results for them
ive marked 20 cases of a few various brands of brass and fired them, tracking velocity of each case...over 2 and 3 repetitions the outliers werent the same pieces of brass...it was random throughout the 20
Man 50 shot groups once a month for 12 months in varying temps just to figure if a load is consistent equals a shot out barrel and $3-$5k of my hard earned money. Fuck me my head hurts...
thats why i quit worrying about it lol
my match barrels usually dont even last 12 months to test that long lol
one of the 6mm's i have was put on in Nov one year and pulled off to set back in Feb...match schedule was heavy for a few months
my match barrels usually dont even last 12 months to test that long lol
one of the 6mm's i have was put on in Nov one year and pulled off to set back in Feb...match schedule was heavy for a few months
A lot of benchrest shooters will use boutique hand swaged bullets from places such as Bart Bullets or Vapor Trails. More expensive then Berger's, longer wait time, but a more consistent and thus a more precise projectile.
And you'll find a perfect load just in time to replace the barrel.
You're not alone.
My take away from it is.
-OCW saterlee type load tests are an illusion.
-Nodes are a figment of your imagination.
-Your barrel either shoots all or nothing.
-Minimum 20 shot groups to find out any useful data. 40 is better
-groups dont matter
I agree with this.
The Satterlee method bugs me, because it's so statistically irrelevant that it's essentially meaningless. I've loaded up two separate identical ladders side by side on numerous occasions to test this, and you wouldn't find a common "node" between them ever.
I feel like the Satterlee method is one of the worst consistent advices given to reloaders, and is still perpetuated today by some people that should definitely know better.
I am not video taping this midget bang just for your share of the costs. FYI
I agree. People have a tendency to really, really overthink things during reloading.
I do all my load testing at 100 yards. It hasn't failed me at long range, though I wouldn't expect to beat Alex Wheeler at a 1,000 benchrest comp. Shoots more then good enough and consistent for me.
What's funny about this thread is that some of the main guys agreeing with the OP, are taking it different ways. Some seem to think that this is a reason to get even more anal retentive over reloading, using other methods to account for this. Others are saying that their reloading process has gotten simpler, because it doesn't really matter much what you do.
I like @morganlamprecht's method of just saying fuck it, and making the process even simpler. I'm not an anal retentive reloader, but I haven't gotten quite that simple yet haha.
So does this mean, in reality, factory ammo is equal to hand loads in the regards of accuracy? Hornady 6cm, 2950fps es of 31, .5moa group at 100 = hand loaded 108eldms, 2950fps ES of 16, .25 MOA groups at 100? Both should have the same hit percentage?
im sure there are things you can do to really jack up some reloads, but i would bet it was more of an issue with a technique or process than the actual loads themselves
i ordered 500 88eld's for one of my 223 barrels last year...wasted 200-250 of them trying to eliminate the "fliers"...it would shoot 80-85% of them into dimes at 100 and the others would fly out 1/2-3/4" in any direction...3 different powders, all the jumps, same results...then i shot 2-10 round strings at 200 one day and only 18 of them made it to the target...switched to 77 smk, 77 bergers, and 80.5 bergers...all hammered, "fliers" gone with no load work
i gave the remaining 250+ to a buddy who swore the 88s shot amazing for him for free, even paid shipping to dallas, i just wanted em gone...he sent me pics of the groups, if anything they were slightly worse than mine, but close...he was happy enough with it
i ordered 500 88eld's for one of my 223 barrels last year...wasted 200-250 of them trying to eliminate the "fliers"...it would shoot 80-85% of them into dimes at 100 and the others would fly out 1/2-3/4" in any direction...3 different powders, all the jumps, same results...then i shot 2-10 round strings at 200 one day and only 18 of them made it to the target...switched to 77 smk, 77 bergers, and 80.5 bergers...all hammered, "fliers" gone with no load work
i gave the remaining 250+ to a buddy who swore the 88s shot amazing for him for free, even paid shipping to dallas, i just wanted em gone...he sent me pics of the groups, if anything they were slightly worse than mine, but close...he was happy enough with it
My “fuck it” usually happens with groups.
I enjoy messing with brass to get low ES numbers. But once I have what I believe is a stable powder node, then I’ll just run .020 off and use tuner to tight group up. I may mess with seating, but many times I just run with it.
I know the ES is as good as I can get it, and it’s shooting well enough to hit most anything in a prs match. I’m more likely to fuck up getting into/out of a position than I am to miss because I didn’t tighten group as best I could via seating depth.
im saying no because they are loaded with different component lots and powder
one can clearly be better than the other
you can probably search the forums and find plenty of posts from people who switched lots of the same components and had things fall apart
i know ive had lots of people tell me
i dont want people thinking im suggesting all powders/bullets/primers/etc shoot the same no matter what...thats way off the mark...obviously some combos are better than others...
im suggesting that your 40gr vs 40.6gr and your .018 and .027 jumps...might not be as different as most people think they are
im suggesting that your 40gr vs 40.6gr and your .018 and .027 jumps...might not be as different as most people think they are
I'm similar in a way. I'll do an initial bullet seating depth test, and never mess with seating after that. I will do some velocity testing, and once I settle on a load I also stick with that. It generally works really well, and I don't have to worry any further over the life of the barrel. I rock on with the same load through the barrels life.
I don't get too crazy with brass prep. I tumble in rice, F/L size and prime. Some cartridges I will anneal every few firings, others I don't anneal at all. I'll trim/chamfer/deburr (Giraud) with some cartridges, others I don't even bother. My 6BRA is the one I don't really fuck with the brass much at all.
I don't bother with weighing, cleaning primer pockets, uniforming primer pockets, or doing any nitpicky shit that takes up a lot of time.
My ammo shoots 5 round groups in 1/3 moa or better, with sub 15 ES and SD's generally 5 or less. Haven't found a need to be really anal about shit, and the more I learn, the more I find out that I could be even less anal with my process.
I think the problem with the Satterlee method wasn't the method itself, so much as the presentation/hype. Specifically, the newer shooter/loader demographic *really* latched onto it as a way to load without having to actually *learn* how to load, and interpret the results normally. In that respect, I think it did that particular segment a gross disservice.
For experienced shooters, working with a cartridge/bullet/powder combination that they are already familiar with but on a 'new' barrel... yeah, I think it's entirely possible to load up a small selection of loads using a known-good combination of components and find the 'sweet' spot - or close enough for practical matters - in fairly short order. But the key word there is 'experienced'.
I've done the same... loaded up two, three or five shots per increment and ran thru the ladder, round-robin aka OCW style. If you looked at any *one* of those ladders, you'd be convinced the 'node' was one place - look at another of the ladders, and you'd swear it was some where else. Might be pretty close together, might not. If I do something like this, I generally go back, plot the data in a spreadsheet (because it amuses me), and also plot the *average* for each increment, and use that for the trend line. I rarely see the distinct plateaus that people love to post pics of... but you can usually see some repeatable trends.
I think the ladder is good for finding pressure, as well as velocity per charge weight.
I was one of those newer reloaders once upon a time, that bought into that shit. Took me 2 years to figure out I was wasting my time. None of the loads I developed in those 2 years with the so called "node" would be a load that I would settle on today. Seemed fast and convenient, but it doesn't really tell you as much as they advertise.
As an experienced reloader, I can use a ladder to get a velocity to know where my load will be happy at. For example, over a few barrels with 6.5 creedmoor, I've found that if I sling a 140 Berger Hybrid at ~2830 fps in a 24" barrel, the thing will shoot. Still on my first 6BRA barrel, but I bet if I found where my next barrel shoots the 105's at ~2970 fps (that's with a 28" bbl), I'll have another shooter of a load.
How the Satterlee method is continually promoted is pretty disingenous.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I still believe in the OCW's ability to map out the gross nodal movement of the barrel, and I believe that positive compensation is a real effect...
There has to date, always been a clear indication with these 4 groups where the barrel is in that sinusoidal cycle.
I tend to choose the charge weights striking higher from POA because they have more forgiveness of small velocity fluctuations at distance.
That is my operating theory, and it has seemed to bear itself out in my experience.
Definitely want to echo this.
Again, gross adjustments can make small differences. If you change the charge weight by 2 grains, you may notice better ES/SD by a couple fps. Dispersion may be slightly better or worse. Especially if you get really heavy handed on the charge weights you can wreck group size. I certainly believe that powder charge has a much better chance of affecting groups size than seating depth does.
What is not true, however, is 41.0gr has an SD of 4fps and 41.5gr has an SD of 18fps. 5-shot samples will occasionally tell you as much. If you loaded up 20 of each you'd see they probably both have an SD within 1-2fps of each other. If you shot 50 you probably can't tell them apart based on MV data, other than 41.5 being faster.
I shot a few tests that varied from .100" jump to .030" jam and saw no convincing trend in dispersion. Definitely saw a trend in pressure/MV once they started jamming though. MV and pressure drop the further you jump. Disclaimer: It was a fairly insensitive bullet tested (75gr Hornady bthp), and it was a factory grade barrel so some of the accuracy potential could have been lost in the noise. At some point I'll give it another go with a 6.5 Creedmoor.
As far as factory ammo being just as good as reloads-- it depends. I'd guess not in most cases, but in many cases the two will be closer than a guy might think.
To the guys that settle on 100 yard groups while testing during load devolvement. If you have lets say 3 different loads w 3 different bullets all equal ragged groups, how are you determine what shoots better at distance? All being low SD ES! Im my experience the 300 yard testing or 600 yard that others have mentioned is what makes or breaks a load before i take it out to distance. Not all bullets are equally accurate at distance.
These two statements would now go against most things top F class shooters are doing.
i referenced what ive found in post #110
how many and what types of bullets are you testing?
anything im shooting seriously past 5-600 yds is a top quality match bullet near the top end of the weight for that caliber...generally a berger...if i want to go cheaper i keep a lot of hornady/sierras on the shelf also
i havent found any reason to bother with any other bullets than berger otm/hybrids, hornady eld/bthp, or sierra smk's in match guns
hunting rifles, i shoot barnes solids in most of them
the bergers win at distance pretty much across the board for me if 100 yds is anywhere near the same between them ( usually all of them are really close)
theres a reason berger dominates the f class paper game, but even they get set aside for custom bullets by the BR guys
I only load w Berger, Hornady ELD ( Have A-Tips but haven't loaded them yet), Warner Flatline, Lapua Scenar. I guess my point is,,, a load that prints .5 moa or less at 100 doesn't always stay .5 moa at further distance even w single digit numbers. Maybe its due to me running high SG numbers w fast twist. I don't have any issues w my method of testing. Just trying to pick up pointers here.
I just shoot Berger Hybrids, so non-issue.
I used to try different bullets, but found Berger's to be work very well, and easy. I shoot hybrids in every cartridge I shoot. It's easy to get them to shoot well. I don't chase the "new shiny" with bullets anymore, learned my lesson from the 140 RDF's.
there are too many variables to shift thru there IMO
personally, ive never had a load hammer consistently at 100 and not do the same at distance (within that bullet/loads reach)
in general for my match barrels, they need to consistently hold sub moa for 8-10 round strings in good conditions...i havent had an issue doing so to 800 yds
positive compensation can be a real thing also...someone may shoot a 2" group at 800, but bullet and wind variation corrected for X amount of shooter error and it just happened to come together
personally, ive never had a load hammer consistently at 100 and not do the same at distance (within that bullet/loads reach)
in general for my match barrels, they need to consistently hold sub moa for 8-10 round strings in good conditions...i havent had an issue doing so to 800 yds
positive compensation can be a real thing also...someone may shoot a 2" group at 800, but bullet and wind variation corrected for X amount of shooter error and it just happened to come together
i agree and have tracked brass that was a higher ES that the rest and the next time i shot it it would be right in with the rest and this is another reason i leave my V3 home...unless i see the same issue over a couple of range trips i do not worry about it and ive shot out enough barrels to know when its a barrel going bad.
this is why i stick to bergers...ive had the same with sierras to...not as bad as hornady but still.
I guess the thing that I struggle with accepting that "it is all a wash in the end if you bump up the sample size" is... if so then how are the ocw and seating depth tests results repeatable?
And wouldn't zero's be wondering all over the place? I do know people that chase zero's, but I can't say I've really had that problem.
this is why you do not shoot several bullets....stick with bergers or better....if a berger wont shoot something is wrong.
i have not checked my zero in at least 800 rounds...sunday we calibrated a new target frame for our shot marker...i put 4 through the same hole and 5 broke the left edge.
My zero is always within a tenth of a mil or better where it previously was, and that tenth of change (if it does have that tiny shift) is admittedly probably me, not being identical behind the rifle and applying all the identical pressures while shooting.
I attribute shifting zero/POI more to the conditions/rifles from what I’ve seen
I’ve seen it consistently cause the same deviations on different ranges around here Between multiple shooters
Correct for it 1 evening and next time out u have to remove what u corrected, back to original
I’ve seen it consistently cause the same deviations on different ranges around here Between multiple shooters
Correct for it 1 evening and next time out u have to remove what u corrected, back to original
I haven’t personally seen anyone show they’re legit repeatable without making excuses or explaining away shots
2 guys (2 of the top shooters in our club) tried it in the past couple months...both had clear winners on single days...consecutive trips proved otherwise
Generally, whatever they tested...powder or jump...if the best group was 1/4” and the worst was 3/4”....when they went back And reverified the “good” load multiple days...the groups were between the same 1/4” - 3/4”
When I made them reshoot the “bad” load on multiple days...guess what...
I’m not buying the “man this load shot .1s all day every day last week! I must be off today” bull jive
I wish we could just move the grouping/best load discussion more towards a mathematical representation. For example, there's no way a 3 shot group would be considered a statistically valid sample size given the amount of variation you would detect at 100 yds. You can trick yourself into thinking you've found the right combo. I think we all understand this from our own intuition. Many have said as much above.
If we use a Y= f(x) model to describe a rifle system... you have an output variable (Y_group size) that will show variation based on different input variables (X_Charge, _brass, _seating depth, _neck tension, _etc). I've toyed with the idea of running a Design of Experiments (DOE) on this but I stop because I don't have the time to shoot all of the runs that would be required. A properly designed and executed DOE would answer once and for all what the most important factor or combinations of factors are that influence group size.
That said, I have the software to do all of the calculations and analysis. I would be willing to design and evaluate a statistically valid DOE if someone wants to volunteer to shoot the designed runs.
If we use a Y= f(x) model to describe a rifle system... you have an output variable (Y_group size) that will show variation based on different input variables (X_Charge, _brass, _seating depth, _neck tension, _etc). I've toyed with the idea of running a Design of Experiments (DOE) on this but I stop because I don't have the time to shoot all of the runs that would be required. A properly designed and executed DOE would answer once and for all what the most important factor or combinations of factors are that influence group size.
That said, I have the software to do all of the calculations and analysis. I would be willing to design and evaluate a statistically valid DOE if someone wants to volunteer to shoot the designed runs.
