-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Range Report Group size means little
- Thread starter Ledzep
- Start date
Are you looking at just running one big full factorial screening design, with aliased factors, or doing a more iterative approach with a fractional factorial screening design to weed out the less significant factors (before the barrel dies and/or the heat death of the universe), with a follow-up response surface model to 'map out' the results? How do you anticipate establishing factor levels, handling blocking, etc.? Have you considered the use of additional center point runs to help estimate the error / confidence levels, so one doesn't have to run quite as many replicates at each point?
I'll be your huckleberry
I've got a literally brandy new Krieger .223 Rem barrel by RBros on my Origin, that might be a good candidate for this sort of project.
Last edited:
I would think screening design first and then go full factorial once you've winnowed it down to 3 or 4. In most cases I like picking high and low settings for each factor. I'll save center points for full factorial if we don't have too many factors left. The software takes care of identifying all of the blocked variables. The idea that this question has been out there for so long tells me it's probably an interaction of several factors.
I also like proving this out with something that isn't a barrel burner like .223 or .308. Barrel wear would be one factor we could rule out pretty quickly in a screening design with a low wear caliber like .223.
I also like proving this out with something that isn't a barrel burner like .223 or .308. Barrel wear would be one factor we could rule out pretty quickly in a screening design with a low wear caliber like .223.
So the next step would be identifying the factors... Here are a few off the top of my head, what else?
charge weight
seating depth
neck tension
bullet weight
brass volume
brass weight
Annealed (yes/No)
# of firings
Primer lot
Powder lot
pointed or not
Tubb ring or not
plastic tipped or hollow point
Bullet Genie score
assembled cartridge runout
charge weight
seating depth
neck tension
bullet weight
brass volume
brass weight
Annealed (yes/No)
# of firings
Primer lot
Powder lot
pointed or not
Tubb ring or not
plastic tipped or hollow point
Bullet Genie score
assembled cartridge runout
Over the years I've tried to keep reloading simple, because I value my time and sanity, and also felt like if you chase after more nuances you'll introduce more variables with more processes.
Now with 3 kids, I've been simplifying more, and pursuing loads that I can simply throw by volume and go shoot and practice.
Load development sometimes seems very easy, other times it seems tougher with certain barrels, as represented in all of the conversation above. I've typically blamed it on myself for that day.
I'm definitely enjoying this thread. Based on the way this conversation is trending, would it seem feasible to say: pick a seating depth, find pressure with powder charge and back off a few tenths and go shoot? Maybe tweak seating depth from there if needed.
It seems that an actual organized data base of velocity nodes and distance to lands for bullets would be beneficial. I want to say these nodes still exist as there are recipes that simply work in everything....or something is wrong. I think more than anything the above statistics shows that most barrels are 1/2-3/4 MOA barrels over a larger sample size vs the 1/4-1/2 MOA 5 shot groups we show here and there. Sometimes you get a hummer of a barrel...fair?
Throw in the fact that a lot of us use these rifles in PRS or hunting for an average target size of 2 MOA and the obsessing becomes moot. Tiny groups can help some guys confidence, but dope, wind reading, and getting into solid positions counts far more. Get into F-class and benchrest, and you see those guys dumping barrels a lot sooner than we might.
Now with 3 kids, I've been simplifying more, and pursuing loads that I can simply throw by volume and go shoot and practice.
Load development sometimes seems very easy, other times it seems tougher with certain barrels, as represented in all of the conversation above. I've typically blamed it on myself for that day.
I'm definitely enjoying this thread. Based on the way this conversation is trending, would it seem feasible to say: pick a seating depth, find pressure with powder charge and back off a few tenths and go shoot? Maybe tweak seating depth from there if needed.
It seems that an actual organized data base of velocity nodes and distance to lands for bullets would be beneficial. I want to say these nodes still exist as there are recipes that simply work in everything....or something is wrong. I think more than anything the above statistics shows that most barrels are 1/2-3/4 MOA barrels over a larger sample size vs the 1/4-1/2 MOA 5 shot groups we show here and there. Sometimes you get a hummer of a barrel...fair?
Throw in the fact that a lot of us use these rifles in PRS or hunting for an average target size of 2 MOA and the obsessing becomes moot. Tiny groups can help some guys confidence, but dope, wind reading, and getting into solid positions counts far more. Get into F-class and benchrest, and you see those guys dumping barrels a lot sooner than we might.
Im no genius here so don't shoot lol.
Air temp? Tested from 15-95 degrees. Lets see how true the SD/ES varies
Barrel Temp. Cold temp Pressure signs vs Hot temp pressure signs
Ammo temp
I'd say that ambient temp, baro pressure, lighting and wind speed/direction are all more of a noise/nuisance factor to be blocked for - specifically because you *can't* control it in any meaningful sense.
Record it, be aware of it, account for it, but it's not a factor in your design.
Record it, be aware of it, account for it, but it's not a factor in your design.
Similarly, you'd need to establish a protocol for how many rounds between cleanings, firing cadence, how many fouling shots after cleaning to get back up to nominal levels of fouling and/or barrel heat, what to do in the event of severe weather shifts (wind or rain storm comes through unexpectedly), and how to account for known bad shots. If a shot flat out breaks bad, there's no sense in counting it. I'm all for including the usual shooter error, but there are times that $hit happens that should not be included in test results of any kind. In a 'real' test they'd probably either exclude the data point (with a note as to why) or re-run the series.
I think a lot of the lot# items above are probably getting a bit too far down into the weeds, though it might be interesting to see how they line up on a Pareto chart or a Q-Q plot. Some of the things like Tubb nose ring and Bullet Genie are highly specialized, and unless you have a genie in your pocket that one ain't happening.
I *do* have a stash of 200.20Xs that the guy I bought them off of went full Dexter's Laboratory on - sorted by OAL, BTO *and* Bullet Genie score. And no, I'm not volunteering those for this test; those are for my primary FTR match gun.
that one ain't happening. I *do* have a stash of 200.20Xs that the guy I bought them off of went full Dexter's Laboratory on - sorted by OAL, BTO *and* Bullet Genie score. And no, I'm not volunteering those for this test; those are for my primary FTR match gun.
Bore condition is for sure a bigger variable than most people give it credit for in my experience
lol! Exactly! This is why I've talked myself out of shooting a DOE before.
It would be cool to see how it might change things... what if you found that you shoot .05 mil higher every ten rounds per minute just based on system heat soak? I see a lot of misses in the last couple of shots in a stage...is it shooter focus or a factor they haven't accounted for?
My response to that would be that I shoot F-class on a fairly high level (well, *used* to...) and haven't seen it matter enough there to be a significant factor on an NRA LR-FC 10/X-ring, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if people are missing the last few shots in a stage, it ain't the barrel heat... unless maybe it's barrel *mirage*, since you heathens don't use mirage shields
You're not the only one
I'd lean towards keeping it smaller/simpler at first... it can be expanded later if it proves useful. Smaller scale would also simplify a *lot* of the control/blocking issues.
One of the reasons I've always been particularly interested in this sort of test is the topic of interactions. I'm guessing most people here are fixated on what would be known as 'main effects' i.e. the effect of one particular factor like powder charge, seating depth, etc. We all *know* those things matter (although some might argue as to the degree). I'm more interested in the *interaction* between factors.
We 'know' that powder charge affects MV, via pressure. And seating depth can also affect MV to some degree, in that it can change the start of the pressure curve. So testing them completely independently, as we mostly do, makes limited sense. In gross terms, as some here have mentioned, I've heard thumbrules of as much as 0.100" in seating depth equating to 1 full grain of powder charge.
That's the sort of stuff I'm particularly interested in exploring - seeing if there really are any two-factor interactions that are worth paying attention to. From what I've read, three-factor (and above) interactions that are actually significant tend to be vanishingly rare in 'real' systems, so we can probably ignore those from the get-go.
Keeping it simple makes sense.
How about?
Powder Charge Hi-Med-Lo
Seating depth Hi-Med-Lo
Neck Tension Hi-Med-Lo
We wouldn't have any interactions that are confounded with another and I'm betting we would explain 85% of the variation in a group. If we find that we're only explaining 30% we know that we'd need to expand the factor list.
How about?
Powder Charge Hi-Med-Lo
Seating depth Hi-Med-Lo
Neck Tension Hi-Med-Lo
We wouldn't have any interactions that are confounded with another and I'm betting we would explain 85% of the variation in a group. If we find that we're only explaining 30% we know that we'd need to expand the factor list.
Mainly cleaning...some of my barrels and buddy’s barrels who I know are pretty anal about tracking and cleaning have noticed relatively small velocity increases as round count increases between cleanings...deep clean, brings them back down to prior speeds or even less sometimes...I’ve never specifically set out to test it, just noticed the common trend over time
Wear eventually...but it takes a quite a few rounds and they’ll start slowing down
Last year before the brawl, my 6creed had 700ish rounds on it...chrono and dope lined up w/ 3000fps...shot the 200ish for the match, lots of 15-20 round barrel burner stages, and cleaned the barrel afterwards...same left over ammo chrono’d and doped @ 2960 fps...adding 0.5gr of powder popped the speed back up to 3000fps
You're not the only one
I'd lean towards keeping it smaller/simpler at first... it can be expanded later if it proves useful. Smaller scale would also simplify a *lot* of the control/blocking issues.
One of the reasons I've always been particularly interested in this sort of test is the topic of interactions. I'm guessing most people here are fixated on what would be known as 'main effects' i.e. the effect of one particular factor like powder charge, seating depth, etc. We all *know* those things matter (although some might argue as to the degree). I'm more interested in the *interaction* between factors.
We 'know' that powder charge affects MV, via pressure. And seating depth can also affect MV to some degree, in that it can change the start of the pressure curve. So testing them completely independently, as we mostly do, makes limited sense. In gross terms, as some here have mentioned, I've heard thumbrules of as much as 0.100" in seating depth equating to 1 full grain of powder charge.
That's the sort of stuff I'm particularly interested in exploring - seeing if there really are any two-factor interactions that are worth paying attention to. From what I've read, three-factor (and above) interactions that are actually significant tend to be vanishingly rare in 'real' systems, so we can probably ignore those from the get-go.
I’ve “Mathed” the muzzle velocity thing a couple times also and those values match real close to what I saw
0.1gr of powder was worth ~5 to 8 fps on avg
.050-.100” extra of jump or throat extension moved avg velocities ~50-75fps
It was predictable enough I took known baseline loads and showed someone how I could swing the velocities to where I wanted them without actually shooting any rounds to check it...I was typically within 10 fps
Are you starting w a fresh barrel? If so barrel speed up has to be accounted for! Total round count and length of your project here? 12 months?
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
I've been saying that sort of shit for years. As a junior member of the local San Lorenzo gun club at the age of 11 an instructor at the age of 95 pretty much taught me that. Remember it like yesterday. This was about the same time they broke the DNA code.
I do my ladders with LabRadar at 100 because the closest range only goes to 100. When I settle on a couple loads to play with, I'll usually play at 300 and validate at 500 and either 850 or 1000, depending on where I'm shooting.
I think you're a little closer than me... though when the passes clear, and the fire road gates open, I got you by a bit getting out to the Sierras.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
You dont it have to be meticulous if you're not chasing an immaterial difference in group size. Meticulous may be material if the level of competition is like those few that are like the session musicians that are in high demand. Nevertheless, you're describing a play on the method of least squares and reloaders have been using it for decades. You don't need to be a mathematician, magician, statistician to incorporate it. Nobody here is reinventing the wheel. Old forgotten reloaders have stacks of papers rotting away in attics that worked this out long ago. Some of which was published so why actually find and read them when you can come up with it and then take credit for it.
Here is another play on it from days of old...
YOUR CHRONOGRAPH CAN TELL YOU MORE – 24HOURCAMPFIRE
www.24hourcampfire.com
You dont it have to be meticulous if you're not chasing an immaterial difference in group size. Meticulous may be material if the level of competition is like those few that are like the session musicians that are in high demand. Nevertheless, you're describing a play on the method of least squares and reloaders have been using it for decades. You don't need to be a mathematician, magician, statistician to incorporate it. Nobody here is reinventing the wheel. Old forgotten reloaders have stacks of papers rotting away in attics that worked this out long ago. Some of which was published so why actually find and read them when you can come up with it and then take credit for it.
Here is another play on it from days of old...
YOUR CHRONOGRAPH CAN TELL YOU MORE – 24HOURCAMPFIRE
Agreed. I think this thread is a lot of “rediscovery.”
You dont it have to be meticulous if you're not chasing an immaterial difference in group size. Meticulous may be material if the level of competition is like those few that are like the session musicians that are in high demand. Nevertheless, you're describing a play on the method of least squares and reloaders have been using it for decades. You don't need to be a mathematician, magician, statistician to incorporate it. Nobody here is reinventing the wheel. Old forgotten reloaders have stacks of papers rotting away in attics that worked this out long ago. Some of which was published so why actually find and read them when you can come up with it and then take credit for it.
Here is another play on it from days of old...
YOUR CHRONOGRAPH CAN TELL YOU MORE – 24HOURCAMPFIRE
I’m still reading through the article, but after skimming it, I don’t immediately see where it contradicts my point:
Someone who uses a better powder scale, turns necks for uniformity, and checks neck tension with something like a pin gauge as well as culling loaded rounds through arbor press with force or psi gauge
vs
someone who has a not so great scale, and just runs brass through a bushing die and seats on a press where you can’t distinguish between 40 and 140 psi
They both shoot a 3 or 5 shot string over chrono and look at their ES. The meticulous brass prepper can be fairly confident his results are going to be indicative of what he can expect as long as he keeps his high QC process.
While the other shooter has a much higher chance he lucked into either a few very good rounds or a few very bad rounds. Therefore needing more shots to validate data.
I’m strictly speaking ES. As you can have a low SD with a high ES. But you’ll never have a Low ES with a high SD. As such, that’s the number I look at.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Why would you think I was contradicting you? Other than now you are just skimming through what amounts to a summary article and drawing that conclusion.
Shit... the more I read, the more I'm sticking with factory "match grade" ammo. I know... HERESY! LOL! This reloading stuff sounds like a giant pain in the ass.
I'm consistently shooting sub-MOA with just about every brand of factory ammo I put through my RPR 6.5CM (with 3800 rounds through the barrel). Doesn't matter if it's Hornady ELD-M... or Federal Gold Medal Match Berger Hybrid... or Prime... or the new Berger Target Hybrid cartridges. All of them... sub-MOA... every time. I buy whatever is "on sale."
On a good day, when I hold my mouth right, I'm shooting sub-1/2-MOA. I'd say I average 3/4-MOA on any given day. With factory ammo! All I've gotta do is buy it! I do own a Magnetospeed V3 to get velocities to plug into the Strelok Pro app. But, MAN... the stuff you guys are describing to get an "acceptable" load... holy crap. A lot of work for nearly indiscernable improvements.
Sorry... couldn't help it. Carry on! I still find it all quite interesting. And, I save my brass for you guys, too.
I'm consistently shooting sub-MOA with just about every brand of factory ammo I put through my RPR 6.5CM (with 3800 rounds through the barrel). Doesn't matter if it's Hornady ELD-M... or Federal Gold Medal Match Berger Hybrid... or Prime... or the new Berger Target Hybrid cartridges. All of them... sub-MOA... every time. I buy whatever is "on sale."
On a good day, when I hold my mouth right, I'm shooting sub-1/2-MOA. I'd say I average 3/4-MOA on any given day. With factory ammo! All I've gotta do is buy it!
I do own a Magnetospeed V3 to get velocities to plug into the Strelok Pro app. But, MAN... the stuff you guys are describing to get an "acceptable" load... holy crap. A lot of work for nearly indiscernable improvements.Sorry... couldn't help it. Carry on! I still find it all quite interesting.
And, I save my brass for you guys, too.Shit... the more I read, the more I'm sticking with factory "match grade" ammo. I know... HERESY! LOL! This reloading stuff sounds like a giant pain in the ass.
I'm consistently shooting sub-MOA with just about every brand of factory ammo I put through my RPR 6.5CM (with 3800 rounds through the barrel). Doesn't matter if it's Hornady ELD-M... or Federal Gold Medal Match Berger Hybrid... or Prime... or the new Berger Target Hybrid cartridges. All of them... sub-MOA... every time.
On a good day, when I hold my mouth right, I'm shooting sub-1/2-MOA. I'd say I average 3/4-MOA on any given day. With factory ammo! All I've gotta do is buy it!
Sorry... couldn't help it. Carry on! I still find it all quite interesting.
I don’t think you’ll find a huge difference in PRS match performance if you use quality factory ammo and dope it out anytime you switch lots. There’s guys out there winning or placing very high with hornady 6cm ammo with a 40-60 ES
As mentioned above, for this game, proper dope is the most important ammo part.
Shit... the more I read, the more I'm sticking with factory "match grade" ammo. I know... HERESY! LOL! This reloading stuff sounds like a giant pain in the ass.
I'm consistently shooting sub-MOA with just about every brand of factory ammo I put through my RPR 6.5CM (with 3800 rounds through the barrel). Doesn't matter if it's Hornady ELD-M... or Federal Gold Medal Match Berger Hybrid... or Prime... or the new Berger Target Hybrid cartridges. All of them... sub-MOA... every time. I buy whatever is "on sale."
On a good day, when I hold my mouth right, I'm shooting sub-1/2-MOA. I'd say I average 3/4-MOA on any given day. With factory ammo! All I've gotta do is buy it!
Sorry... couldn't help it. Carry on! I still find it all quite interesting.
myself and another shooter won local club matches for years with factory ammo and still had people telling us "well thats yall, i HAVE to reload..." lol
sub moa isnt difficult these days tho, thats why ive been able to load whatever i want and still make it work compared to guys testing every little detail...good barrels and components
I don't even do that. I just do it every once in a while to see if there's been a change - most likely due to barrel / throat wear. But, from what I've seen / learned... I would have to agree with your last sentence.
Oh... I don't do PRS, either. I just shoot for fun. I've done the occasional F-class match, mainly for the opportunity to shoot at 600 yards, at a range 2-1/2 hours away. I don't place well... but, I don't usually come in last place, either! LOL!
Mostly I shoot for fun at a local range 100 - 300 yards. I just like to see how small a group I can make with my rudimentary equipment and skills. My most recent "best group" at 300 yards. This was factory Hornady ELD-M 140-gr. 3800 rounds through the barrel at this point. Right before the 'rona hit us. Haven't been to the range since.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Shit... the more I read, the more I'm sticking with factory "match grade" ammo. I know... HERESY! LOL! This reloading stuff sounds like a giant pain in the ass.
I'm consistently shooting sub-MOA with just about every brand of factory ammo I put through my RPR 6.5CM (with 3800 rounds through the barrel). Doesn't matter if it's Hornady ELD-M... or Federal Gold Medal Match Berger Hybrid... or Prime... or the new Berger Target Hybrid cartridges. All of them... sub-MOA... every time. I buy whatever is "on sale."
On a good day, when I hold my mouth right, I'm shooting sub-1/2-MOA. I'd say I average 3/4-MOA on any given day. With factory ammo! All I've gotta do is buy it!
Sorry... couldn't help it. Carry on! I still find it all quite interesting.
You are right. Most reload as an extra part of the sport and to save money and the reality is they get the same results as you only they may never admit it. A good rifle and shooter combo will improve results along with the basic reloading not to mention if one is a casual or extreme shooter. Some reload to get that little extra precision they need to compete and that is twice as much work if not more so there is an opportunity cost built into that if one doesn't fall into that upper class shooter. Even fewer compete at such a high level that even some of them have a reloading expert to partner with to get the most accuracy and precision. But most just reload to save money over the long run. It doesn't take long to recoup your initial investment as long as expectations don't exceed the reality downrange and that is when people start getting carried away with investing too much into reloading and coming up with methods of wasting their time over something that is probable not fixable. But then again somebody may enjoy it more than shooting since it is getting to where we don't advise people to shoot anything with recoil, lol. Eventually, they have to go out and shoot their reloads so they put a howitzer brake on the end of a .243 Win or some other fancy derivative of it. I had to throw that in there
Last edited by a moderator:
If you enjoy doing it, then that's the ONLY reason you need, eh?
But, as for saving money... from what I've seen, it's debatable. If you include your TIME as part of the "opportunity" cost, then I submit you're not saving any money and may even cost MORE than buying factory ammo. But, again... if you ENJOY it, then the cost doesn't really matter.
But, I do believe the argument of higher accuracy and precision falls a bit flat these days. I suppose one could still make an argument for higher CONSISTENCY. Perhaps. But, from a practical shooter's standpoint, I think it's still splitting hairs.... unless you're a benchrest shooter that's vying for world-record level groups.
The best reason to reload is because you like doing it.
I still follow and read these threads, because they are interesting from a technical standpoint, and I like learning.
...or if you have a touch of OCD personality, and want to know to a higher level of certainty that you have certain things under your control.
Might be an illusion, but if it helps ya sleep at night...
If you enjoy doing it, then that's the ONLY reason you need, eh?
But, as for saving money... from what I've seen, it's debatable. If you include your TIME as part of the "opportunity" cost, then I submit you're not saving any money and may even cost MORE than buying factory ammo. But, again... if you ENJOY it, then the cost doesn't really matter.
But, I do believe the argument of higher accuracy and precision falls a bit flat these days. I suppose one could still make an argument for higher CONSISTENCY. Perhaps. But, from a practical shooter's standpoint, I think it's still splitting hairs.... unless you're a benchrest shooter that's vying for world-record level groups.
The best reason to reload is because you like doing it.
I load because I enjoy it as a second hobby.
Shooting discipline also matters. You won’t find a successful F class or BR shooter running factory rounds.
Shooting practical sized steel targets is a double edged sword. On one side it’s forgiving enough that factory or mediocre hand loads won’t be what costs you a match. On the other side, if all someone has done is load for this type of shooting, it’s very easy to think you’re doing it really well until you see what some other disciplines are doing.
Without going through and reading the entire thread, this is a very interesting observation, and objectively correct. However, for the majority of shooters who do not compete in PRS or benchrest competitions, I think it's a bit of an overcomplication. Let's take your example- a load based on .3-.6 MOA five round groups that opens up to .9 MOA because of the incorrect assumptions that result from shooting groups with such a small sample size. For me, as a medium distance hunter, that is perfectly fine. Considering that an average .6MOA group is much tighter than most groups with factory ammo would be, I've effectively gotten 80% of the benefit out of the process of handloading without having to increase the amount of time, money and resources I spend handloading by 4 or 5 times in order to take my data over the line into statistical certainty.
If your idea of "practical shooting" is going out a couple or few hundred yards, then sure. But you don't need to be a benchrest shooter to get a lot of value out of reloading properly.
Example #1:
When I first got my 6CM, I did not have my dies yet, so bought 200 rounds of Hornady factory, match-grade ammo to break in the barrel and have a little fun. I was not overly impressed with the results. I was getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 MOA with 5-shot groups.
When I got my dies, I used the spent Hornady brass and was shooting 2" groups at 300 yards. Decent, but still short of where I wanted to be.
Finally, Lapua got into the 6CM game, and I bought a bunch of their brass. On my first trip to the nearby 100 yard range to get some once-fired brass, I fired the first shot, then the second. Where did it go? I had to look through the spotting scope to see that it went in the same hole. The rest of the shots were within .4 inches - and the rifle consistently shot in that neighborhood there on out.
Example #2:
First shots, post barrel break-in, out of my 300 PRC were using Hornady and I got 5-shot groups again in the 3/4 MOA range. My goal was to use this rifle for mile+ shooting. Without going into the gory details about my brass saga, I got better brass, found the load, and now shoot best groups roughly in the 1/3 range.
Example #3:
A friend was having issues with his newly rebarreled 338. He had his seating depth way out and was getting 3" groups at 300 yards. Brought the seating depth in, and his ES/SD dropped, along with his group size (roughly averages just over 1" now)
I'd love for someone who thinks that the "argument of higher accuracy and precision falls a bit flat these days" to explain what the reason could possibly be for these improving results using their logic and view of the reloading world.
This notion that you can consistently get the same results from factory ammo as you do from a post-load-development round is simply not supported by the data. CAN you get similar results? Sure, if all the stars align and it just so happens that your rifle is a good match for a particular factory ammo. WILL you always get similar results? No.
I'm not even sure about the "shoot a lot" thing. It's a money pit as bad or worse than any other hobby out there. Of course, when I tell my wife about it, I say something to the effect of:
"If I buy the ammo, it costs $2/round. When I reload, I get to reuse the brass, the powder only costs about a quarter, and the bullet is about thirty cents."
I think it's easier to be consistent, if only because you can shoot brass that has been tailored to the chamber of your individual rifle. That and the ability to QC every step of your reloading process is huge. Funny how you start noticing inconsistencies that are visually apparent with things like seating depth in factory ammo once you start loading your own.
If your idea of "practical shooting" is going out a couple or few hundred yards, then sure. But you don't need to be a benchrest shooter to get a lot of value out of reloading properly.
Example #1:
When I first got my 6CM, I did not have my dies yet, so bought 200 rounds of Hornady factory, match-grade ammo to break in the barrel and have a little fun. I was not overly impressed with the results. I was getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 MOA with 5-shot groups.
When I got my dies, I used the spent Hornady brass and was shooting 2" groups at 300 yards. Decent, but still short of where I wanted to be.
Finally, Lapua got into the 6CM game, and I bought a bunch of their brass. On my first trip to the nearby 100 yard range to get some once-fired brass, I fired the first shot, then the second. Where did it go? I had to look through the spotting scope to see that it went in the same hole. The rest of the shots were within .4 inches - and the rifle consistently shot in that neighborhood there on out.
you changed components...thats been covered since the beginning of the the thread
Example #2:
First shots, post barrel break-in, out of my 300 PRC were using Hornady and I got 5-shot groups again in the 3/4 MOA range. My goal was to use this rifle for mile+ shooting. Without going into the gory details about my brass saga, I got better brass, found the load, and now shoot best groups roughly in the 1/3 range.
again...component change
Example #3:
A friend was having issues with his newly rebarreled 338. He had his seating depth way out and was getting 3" groups at 300 yards. Brought the seating depth in, and his ES/SD dropped, along with his group size (roughly averages just over 1" now)
new barrel fresh off the lathe/cleaned...the only difference in the above pics is the first group started around 30-35 rounds on the barrel...the middle 2 were 50-60...the last 2 were back to back 5 shot groups when it had 75-80 rounds...its all the same load
it has shot consistently like the last picture since
was that the case in your situation, maybe not...could have been similar...have you gone back and shot the "bad" loads again since changing it?
I'd love for someone who thinks that the "argument of higher accuracy and precision falls a bit flat these days" to explain what the reason could possibly be for these improving results using their logic and view of the reloading world.
This notion that you can consistently get the same results from factory ammo as you do from a post-load-development round is simply not supported by the data. CAN you get similar results? Sure, if all the stars align and it just so happens that your rifle is a good match for a particular factory ammo. WILL you always get similar results? No.
i dont think anyone is saying this, least not from what im reading
Attachments
But that's not my point. In some cases, first shots were factory, subsequent reloads using same components, but reloaded. My point in posting is in response to this notion that "the argument of higher accuracy and precision falls a bit flat these days."
I had already broken in the barrel in both cases. In my friend's case, the seating depth was well past barrel break in, as he had already done powder charge load development.
Perhaps I am completely taking the statement: "the argument of higher accuracy and precision falls a bit flat these days" completely out of context.
6br lapua factory ammo is cloverleaf stuff
see someone reload 6br, just volume/throwing powder and it makes factory look like a shotgun
actually see someone shoot true 300 or 600 yard BR loads with proper loading... and youll cry
everybody's a big fish in their pond
you didnt actually use the same components...lot to lot along can change things...you dont have access to the same powder hornady/federal/who ever uses...unless youre an ammo manufacturer, then maybe lol
the main thing im seeing is...im picking whatever charge and jump i want, using similar quality components, as my buddy's (who are no slouch shooters), who are testing charges/jumps,distanct groups/etc......and my results are as good or better than theirs without cherry picking and explaining away shots...thats just what ive seen.....they still swear by their load developments tho...
i generally feel GOOD factory match ammo is "good enough" for most...but its not consistently as good as hand loads where everything can be controlled better....if you arent already in consistently in the top 10-20% with good factory ammo...reloads probably arent going to help you much
Similar threads
