PRS Talk How does being in a “node” actually matter?

[Geaux tigers]

I’m an f class guy and came over to the hide to learn about prs

And stubbled across this thread. I can say some of this is very funny and some guys are very knowledgeable.

(Nodes) yep there real
Ask the BR shooter that just shot a 2” group at 1000 or the f class guy that just cleaned the target at a grand

And there’s gonna be some one that comes back and says this is prs no need for that kind of precision. I disagree

If nodes exist in the two disciplines above they magically go away when u get to prs

 

[Dthomas3523]

I’m an f class guy and came over to the hide to learn about prs

And stubbled across this thread. I can say some of this is very funny and some guys are very knowledgeable.

(Nodes) yep there real
Ask the BR shooter that just shot a 2” group at 1000 or the f class guy that just cleaned the target at a grand

And there’s gonna be some one that comes back and says this is prs no need for that kind of precision. I disagree

If nodes exist in the two disciplines above they magically go away when u get to prs

Give a real life example when someone lost a PRS match because they weren’t in a node.

No one said they don’t exist. But if you think comparing shooting BR or when someone in F class has to shoot an MOA at worst in changing conditions is comparable to PRS, you have more to learn about PRS.

I know many F class shooters who come to PRS and before long they are either short cutting or not worrying much with their loads as they do in F class. The requirements are much less in this game. This game isn’t that much “precision” as it is “practical.”

 

[lash]

The requirements are much less in this game. This game isn’t that much “precision” as it is “practical.”

I would argue that the game isn’t as much “practical” as it is “pretentious”. At least that is what it has become. To argue that common sense load development methods, such as finding a solid node, are not relevant just because so many have migrated to high velocity mouse farts and because the game has allowed for this, is a disservice at best to marksmen everywhere. This is true even if you are correct in applying it only to this little slice of the shooting world.

By now, most know that PRS has become the IPSC of rifle competitions and they’ve capitalized in that fact. That’s perfectly okay, but nobody that’s respected in the defensive pistol world would recommend it for practical pistol training.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I would argue that the game isn’t as much “practical” as it is “pretentious”. At least that is what it has become. To argue that common sense load development methods, such as finding a solid node, are not relevant just because so many have migrated to high velocity mouse farts and because the game has allowed for this, is a disservice at best to marksmen everywhere. This is true even if you are correct in applying it only to this little slice of the shooting world.

By now, most know that PRS has become the IPSC of rifle competitions and they’ve capitalized in that fact. That’s perfectly okay, but nobody that’s respected in the defensive pistol world would recommend it for practical pistol training.

I and others are also arguing *some* those “common sense” load development techniques either aren’t required anymore or were never true to begin with.

Back to the same logic as barrel cleaning. Everyone has a different method that works. So, that means none of them are needed, as if they were, some wouldn’t work.

If no one shits the bed at PRS matches because their individual loading method works what’s that point to?

The “common sense” methods of the past had more to do with covering the stacking errors of inconsistent bullets, powder, brass, chrono’s etc etc.

Those tolerances are now much, much better. Therefore we don’t need the methods used during those times. Except for a small amount of shooters, people are still using load testing methods we used in the 90’s. Our equipment and products have changed drastically, but our methods have not (generally speaking). That’s an issue.

And as always, this post is in the PRS section and not general loading for a reason. It’s very specific and any comparisons to anything else are wasted time. You shouldn’t be reading the PRS section for this when there are labeled marksmanship or loading sections for the rest of this.

I’d venture to say, *most* anyone here heavily disagreeing (not just at small points where we are on same page overall) doesn’t have any data on how their gun won’t shoot in the .5 moa area with a low enough ES, without doing their normal loading method. Modern components have made this all but trivial for the rifles we are using.

 

[lash]

Back to the same logic as barrel cleaning. Everyone has a different method that works. So, that means none of them are needed, as if they were, some wouldn’t work.

Mmmmkay then.

I'm glad that you have it all figured out and are oh so willing to share it with us, the unwashed masses. I shall no longer ever question anything you post , as always, in the PRS section. I probably cannot read either.

 

[Geaux tigers]

Give a real life example when someone lost a PRS match because they weren’t in a node.

No one said they don’t exist. But if you think comparing shooting BR or when someone in F class has to shoot an MOA at worst in changing conditions is comparable to PRS, you have more to learn about PRS.

I know many F class shooters who come to PRS and before long they are either short cutting or not worrying much with their loads as they do in F class. The requirements are much less in this game. This game isn’t that much “precision” as it is “practical.”

I do have a lot to lean about prs as you stated that’s why I’m on the hide to learn enough to go to my first match. So nope no examples from me.

Some early post saying no one can an example of losing point of impact in a match.

Another about a good 100 yd load that fell apart at distance.

I’ll bite I had a load small group that suckered me in 1/4 inch (not Moa) at 300yds turned in to over 1 moa of vertical just to days later when the temp dropped 20* (i’ll also note that I don’t put a lot of faith in velocity flat spots. That’s just me from testing)
If I was shooting at one moa plate in prs I could see some misses in my future

Oh and shooter B who ever that might be didn’t just guess he took the work of others that tested (that he read on the inter web)

Let’s say the dasher he probably just guessed 32-33.3 varget and a 105 pill. And the BRA he just guessed 31-31.5 of h4895
You have 1.5 gran window to get lucky

 

[jsimonh]

You don’t have to buy it for it to be true. Take a log book and start gathering data over thousands of rounds.

The minute you say “I feel” and not “here is what I can show”, you’re speaking anecdotally and that’s no longer a logical debate. Just an emotional one.

Obviously confidence in your equipment is important. But if you “feel” at a disadvantage with a .7 rifle......you have more important things to work on that turning it into a .25 rifle.

This has been an interesting thread for sure. I dont see how your last statement holds any water though. If you are trying to hit a 1/2 to 1 moa target prone at any distance how could having a 3/4moa gun not be a disadvantage to someone with a 1/4moa gun? Shooters being roughly the same level.

 

[LloydBraun]

This has been an interesting thread for sure. I dont see how your last statement holds any water though. If you are trying to hit a 1/2 to 1 moa target prone at any distance how could having a 3/4moa gun not be a disadvantage to someone with a 1/4moa gun? Shooters being roughly the same level.

Keep chasing that node then. He’s not trying to tell you not too. My last 4 barrels 2 6.5x47 and 2 BR’s. Shoot a few 10 shot groups at a a few different seating depths on loads that I know are rain safe at 600 yrds and pick the one with best vertical. Then true out my muzzle velocity at 600 and check my dope at 1000 on paper to adjust BC and done with it. Have never had one that didn’t shoot inside of 3 or 4 inches at 600 and inside a minute at 1000. Were shooting very much positional with lots of movement at normally 2 to 3 moa targets. I can hold my own and am comfortable knowing it wasn’t because I didn’t go hunting for nodes that I missed any targets. Get off your belly and Practice more positional shooting and less chasing the magical load will help anyone improve in PRS.

 

[jsimonh]

Keep chasing that node then. He’s not trying to tell you not too. My last 4 barrels 2 6.5x47 and 2 BR’s. Shoot a few 10 shot groups at a a few different seating depths on loads that I know are rain safe at 600 yrds and pick the one with best vertical. Then true out my muzzle velocity at 600 and check my dope at 1000 on paper to adjust BC and done with it. Have never had one that didn’t shoot inside of 3 or 4 inches at 600 and inside a minute at 1000. Were shooting very much positional with lots of movement at normally 2 to 3 moa targets. I can hold my own and am comfortable knowing it wasn’t because I didn’t go hunting for nodes that I missed any targets. Get off your belly and Practice more positional shooting and less chasing the magical load will help anyone improve in PRS.

So you shoot a few 10 shot groups to find a good shooting group under roughly 1/2 moa and press on. Cool. So do I. Shoot good components and its not that hard to have a good shooting gun/group. Nothing in your reply makes me think a 3/4moa load wouldn't matter vs a 1/4moa load. If you can hold on target in any position you will put more hits on target with a better grouping gun. How is this even a disagreement?

 

[LV Precision]

So you shoot a few 10 shot groups to find a good shooting group under roughly 1/2 moa and press on. Cool. So do I. Shoot good components and its not that hard to have a good shooting gun/group. Nothing in your reply makes me think a 3/4moa load wouldn't matter vs a 1/4moa load. If you can hold on target in any position you will put more hits on target with a better grouping gun. How is this even a disagreement?

Seems that the Precision Rifle Blog has already done this analysis. The question is whether you can shoot the difference in a PRS-stage.

How Much Does Group Size Matter?

As long-range shooters, we tend to obsess over every little detail. We think everything is important...

precisionrifleblog.com

 

[jsimonh]

Seems that the Precision Rifle Blog has already done this analysis. The question is whether you can shoot the difference in a PRS-stage.

View attachment 7479350

How Much Does Group Size Matter?

As long-range shooters, we tend to obsess over every little detail. We think everything is important...

precisionrifleblog.com

I remember reading this and the 1000 yd target data did surprise me. Being able to shoot the difference to me seems irrelevant because its the same shooter with either gun in the same situation. 5-8% hit increase doesn't sound like a lot but in reality it is. An increase is an increase.

 

[High H2o]

"Flat spots" in a velocity vs. powder charge graph are statistically irrelevant. Do the same test 3 times and you'll find a different "node" each time. Unless you are taking a sample of about 20 shots at each powder charge your velocity numbers are totally bogus. If you are taking a sample of 20 shots at each charge your barrel probably changed speeds during the test. Haha
View attachment 7450162

lol, nice.
Does anyone have a link to what a "node" is? I've loaded thousands of rounds, killed elk at 700yrds, but i'm not sure I've ever found a node. I try to be as accurate as possible in my reloading, but when i double check powder weight, or ogive cartridge length, they are always off a smidge. I've never found a G spot either, so maybe it's me...

 

[MakeSawdust]

I think there is merit to both arguments. A lot of posts here recently have been geared towards new shooters. I do believe it is true that a new shooter will not see a difference in their score shooting a 3/4 moa gun vs a 1/4 moa gun.

I also believe that most well built custom rifles that nearly everyone is shooting nowdays will shoot half moa easily. A heavy barreled rifle with a concentric chamber in any popular prs chambering will usually shoot half to 3/4 moa for the WORST groups during load development. This is using good components, obviously.

It is possible to tune a rifle to shoot better. No arguement from me there. Also, a tighter shooting rifle will be more forgiving and will score better in a match to an extent. Especially if there are multiple kyl/tyl or small target stages.

I took a gun shooting 3/4 moa to a one day Border Wars match last summer and took 5th. I missed a couple small targets where the shots felt good and the exact same hold got me a hit on the second shot. I also had an edge hit that didn't get called. With a tighter shooting gun I likely would have had 3 more points. It would not have moved me up but one or two places. It was a really calm day, so the hit percentages were super high, even on the small targets.

Unless you are towards the top of the match there are a lot more points to be gained by building better positions and following the fundamentals of marksmanship than worrying about how tight your gun is shooting. At the match in question there were a few stages where I dropped the last shot of the stage because I was worried about cleaning the stage and not shooting. It would have made the 3 shots a non issue and my score would have been significantly higher if I could have picked up those shots that were from shooting error and not the gun.

 

[BFuller]

I'll answer your question with another question (because I don't have an answer).

WHY does a velocity flat spot, or "node", exist in the first place? Why would a charge range of 0.3 to 0.6 gr of powder yield the same velocity when logically adding powder linearly should increase velocity linearly? Isn't that where it would make sense to WANT to be?

Why are there sometimes powder charges where adding only 0.1gr nets you a significantly higher step up in velocity?

These are serious questions; internal ballistics experts please chime in LOL

If both shooters can throw to +/- 1 kernel (so roughly +/- 0.03gr) then I can't disagree that theoretically shooter A and B should have the same results for a single match. That's assuming no electronic scale drift over the course of loading ammo for the match. Will both shooters be able to shoot the same load over the course of the season, or will shooter B's need to be retuned before each match?

Another question; is a powder charge "node" dependent on the actual volume of powder, or the resultant velocity? Is the node still a node when you're shooting a temp sensitive powder and you go from 100F to 40F? Is the node still a node when the barrel wears and you lose velocity due to throat erosion?

I will also add, the "node" method used may matter as well. The 10-shot Satterlee method is flawed IMO, even with a 1-kernel scale, due to being only 1 shot per charge weight. And the OCW method relies more on barrel tuning and POI shifts; generally velocity isn't even considered.

Why does the node exist? That is the question I want an answer to, I.E what is the mechanism. And also, will it actually remain a node if we fire 10+ shots at each charge weight?

 

[BFuller]

I have been reading this thread today (far too much of my life I'll never get back!) I have some thoughts/observations/questions about comments in this thread; but, not necessarily in a way that responds to the original question posed by @Dthomas3523 . I am not trying to be combative here, just asking the questions as I see them.

To make sure we are all looking at the same glossary of terms people have been using: (according to what people have been saying here and my interpretation of that)

• Velocity Node - a place on the charge vs velocity graph that is flatter than the general slope of the trend line (where changes in charge weight have less effect on velocity)

• Positive Compensation - according to Bryan Litz, "Positive compensation is when a rifle/load produces a condition in which the faster than average bullets are exiting the muzzle when it's at the bottom of its up-and-down vibration pattern (or when it's traveling down), and the slower than average bullets are exiting the muzzle when it's at the top if it's cycle (or moving up). In other words, the system is self-correcting in the sense that faster bullets are essentially pointed lower. "

• Seating depth tuning - changing seating depth to change how small the rifle will group at a given charge weight (I assume this is basically changing when the bullet leaves the barrel relative to muzzle movement from stress waves traveling in the barrel)

• Barrel tuner tuning - moving a mass at the end of the barrel to change the muzzle movement for a given bullet seating and charge weigh. I.E. bullet arrives when it arrives and tuner makes sure barrel is moving as little as possible by altering the macro harmonic behavior of the barrel.

• Charge weight tuning general - for a given seating depth, change the charge weight and see what groups the smallest

• Charge weight tuning for vertical dispersion - try and find a charge weight that produces less vertical dispersion (could be positive compensation or just small SD and ES of muzzle velocity)

• Optimal Seating Depth for secant ogive VLD bullets - The seating depth that produces the smallest groups, something that these types of bullets tend to be sensitive to. Not talked about here really but something I want to touch on.

Thoughts/Comments/Questions:

1. If you can measure your MV with a good chrono over say 10-15 rounds and your SD and ES meet a standard that will result in a small enough vertical dispersion at your intended target range, positive compensation can't help you. If it is happening and it isn't going to make any difference if you already have low vertical dispersion. Furthermore, even if it was helping you the effect would only be right at one distance and would then diverge again. As such, if you can achieve sufficient MV consistency there is little to no point in bothering with trying to test and find the ideal positive compensation effect.
2. You could assess how consistent your loads are in terms of vertical dispersion without a chrono, by looking at vertical dispersion on target at a range that is far enough for it to develop. But why would you unless you don't have a decent chrono? Using a chrono with and accuracy of a couple FPS is going to introduce less uncertainty into your test than you will as the shooter if you are going by vertical group size on paper. Furthermore, the vertical dispersion you see will also be partly do to the general group size the gun is capable of, not just the difference in MV.
3. I have yet to hear a logical and physical explanation that hypothesizes why a given step size in charge weight could produce a different change in velocity depending on exactly where you were on the "ladder" of charge weights you are testing. Have I missed this explanation somewhere? I.E. other that random variation why would an additional 0.3 grain not result in the same increase in velocity when going from 40.1 to 40.4 and when going from 42.1 to 42.4? My assumption is that if you had a barrel that was at say 250 rounds and you did the .3 grain step charge process, but you did it with 15+ rounds at each charge weight, firing one at each charge weight and then going back to start (barrel cooled to same temp each time), when you graphed the results there would not be any "velocity node" visible.
4. If seating depth tuning for good groups is about getting the bullet to leave the barrel at the "right" time relative to dynamic muzzle movement, why are some bullets more sensitive that others? I.E. why would changing the seating depth on a secant ogive VLD bullets effect the time the bullets leaves the muzzle more than a hybrid?
5. If a tuner can be used to do the job of seat depth testing, can it be used to tune a sensitive secant ogive VLD bullets that aren't at the "optimum" seating depth? Or are there two different effects taking place here that aren't the same for the to types of bullets?
6. If secant ogive VLD bullets do have something else going on with seating depth that can't be fixed with a tuner, what are you actually doing when you get them to group well, if it isn't about timing and muzzle movement? (things a tuner can agedly fix)
7. If we assume that any of the charge weights are sufficient, and if we assume that changing seating depth is basically changing when the bullet leaves the barrel to the optimum time, couldn't we also choose a nominal seating depth and then change the charge weight in small increments to "tune" when the bullet leaves the barrel and thus produce small groups? Then pick the charge weight the groups smallest and proceed?

 

[Dthomas3523]

I have been reading this thread today (far too much of my life I'll never get back!) I have some thoughts/observations/questions about comments in this thread; but, not necessarily in a way that responds to the original question posed by @Dthomas3523 . I am not trying to be combative here, just asking the questions as I see them.

To make sure we are all looking at the same glossary of terms people have been using: (according to what people have been saying here and my interpretation of that)

• Velocity Node - a place on the charge vs velocity graph that is flatter than the general slope of the trend line (where changes in charge weight have less effect on velocity)

• Positive Compensation - according to Bryan Litz, "Positive compensation is when a rifle/load produces a condition in which the faster than average bullets are exiting the muzzle when it's at the bottom of its up-and-down vibration pattern (or when it's traveling down), and the slower than average bullets are exiting the muzzle when it's at the top if it's cycle (or moving up). In other words, the system is self-correcting in the sense that faster bullets are essentially pointed lower. "

• Seating depth tuning - changing seating depth to change how small the rifle will group at a given charge weight (I assume this is basically changing when the bullet leaves the barrel relative to muzzle movement from stress waves traveling in the barrel)

• Barrel tuner tuning - moving a mass at the end of the barrel to change the muzzle movement for a given bullet seating and charge weigh. I.E. bullet arrives when it arrives and tuner makes sure barrel is moving as little as possible by altering the macro harmonic behavior of the barrel.

• Charge weight tuning general - for a given seating depth, change the charge weight and see what groups the smallest

• Charge weight tuning for vertical dispersion - try and find a charge weight that produces less vertical dispersion (could be positive compensation or just small SD and ES of muzzle velocity)

• Optimal Seating Depth for secant ogive VLD bullets - The seating depth that produces the smallest groups, something that these types of bullets tend to be sensitive to. Not talked about here really but something I want to touch on.

Thoughts/Comments/Questions:

1. If you can measure your MV with a good chrono over say 10-15 rounds and your SD and ES meet a standard that will result in a small enough vertical dispersion at your intended target range, positive compensation can't help you. If it is happening and it isn't going to make any difference if you already have low vertical dispersion. Furthermore, even if it was helping you the effect would only be right at one distance and would then diverge again. As such, if you can achieve sufficient MV consistency there is little to no point in bothering with trying to test and find the ideal positive compensation effect.
2. You could assess how consistent your loads are in terms of vertical dispersion without a chrono, by looking at vertical dispersion on target at a range that is far enough for it to develop. But why would you unless you don't have a decent chrono? Using a chrono with and accuracy of a couple FPS is going to introduce less uncertainty into your test than you will as the shooter if you are going by vertical group size on paper. Furthermore, the vertical dispersion you see will also be partly do to the general group size the gun is capable of, not just the difference in MV.
3. I have yet to hear a logical and physical explanation that hypothesizes why a given step size in charge weight could produce a different change in velocity depending on exactly where you were on the "ladder" of charge weights you are testing. Have I missed this explanation somewhere? I.E. other that random variation why would an additional 0.3 grain not result in the same increase in velocity when going from 40.1 to 40.4 and when going from 42.1 to 42.4? My assumption is that if you had a barrel that was at say 250 rounds and you did the .3 grain step charge process, but you did it with 15+ rounds at each charge weight, firing one at each charge weight and then going back to start (barrel cooled to same temp each time), when you graphed the results there would not be any "velocity node" visible.
4. If seating depth tuning for good groups is about getting the bullet to leave the barrel at the "right" time relative to dynamic muzzle movement, why are some bullets more sensitive that others? I.E. why would changing the seating depth on a secant ogive VLD bullets effect the time the bullets leaves the muzzle more than a hybrid?
5. If a tuner can be used to good the job of seat depth testing, can it be used to tune a sensitive secant ogive VLD bullets that aren't at the "optimum" seating depth? Or are there two different effects taking place here that aren't the same for the to types of bullets?
6. If secant ogive VLD bullets do have something else going on with seating depth that can't be fixed with a tuner, what are you actually doing when you get them to group well, if it isn't about timing and muzzle movement? (things a tuner can agedly fix)
7. If we assume that any of the charge weights are sufficient, and if we assume that changing seating depth is basically changing when the bullet leaves the barrel to the optimum time, couldn't we also choose a nominal seating depth and then change the charge weight in small increments to "tune" when the bullet leaves the barrel and thus produce small groups? Then pick the charge weight the groups smallest and proceed?

Number 2:

The only real reason to test at distance (if you have good chrono) is to verify your bullets are consistent from bullet to bullet. I basically do this while gathering dope.


Number 3:

I’m not an internal ballistics expert, but I’m sure
case capacity/fill and powder/primercombinations are part of the answer


Number 7:

That’s basically what people did circa 1995 when they would load the round to the book length. They would load charge weights and pick the best group.

The rest I have theories on, but cannot answer with any degree of certainty.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I saw this post and it made me think of this discussion. "Nobody loses matches because they didn't do enough load development". It seems like every other match I go to there's some poor soul that is shaking his head about their load, "It was good Wednesday when I developed it, don't know what happened...". People trying the"set it and forget it" method. Just whip something together. This right here is how bad dope, perceived shifty zero, "load fell apart" excuses happens....

View attachment 7581881

I agree that’s how excuses happen.

But I promise you that load won’t lose a match for him.

If his velocity is consistent, and it’s shooting an acceptable group size, it can’t just randomly stop running the same velocity area.

 

[Dthomas3523]

His problem will be when the barrel speeds up as he doesn’t have many rounds on it.

That’s a separate issue from not performing load development.

 

[phlegethon]

I agree, what people say at matches isn’t data. I hear people blame a lot of missed shots on wind even when I see leaves falling straight down from trees and I hit center with a center hold.

 

[Dthomas3523]

IF.....

IF hope is a course of action.....

Without proper load development he can only hope.

No.....we have done the research. It’s not needed in the case you screenshot.

Weighing 34.0 remotely close to a grain with a Berger .010 jumped won’t shoot bad enough to be the reason he loses the match.

Go take your gt and try it.

 

[Dthomas3523]

In fact, pick any charge weight randomly from 31-34. Put them on a spin wheel. Let it tell you what to load.

Load it on a reputable scale, prep brass properly, and run a berger at .020.

Won’t lose a match because of it.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Fuck it. I’ll do it. Match on Sunday.

1: 31.0
2: 31.2
3: 31.4
4: 31.6
5: 31.8
6: 32.0
7: 32.2
8: 32.4
9: 32.6
10: 32.8
11: 33.0
12: 33.2
13: 33.4
14: 33.6
15: 33.8
16: 34.0

@phlegethon please do a random number generator from 1-16 (google provides one). I’ll load that charge and run a 109 .020 off lands using Wheeler method.

All I will do is chrono and true.

 

[Sheldon N]

Fuck it. I’ll do it. Match on Sunday.

1: 31.0
2: 31.2
3: 31.4
4: 31.6
5: 31.8
6: 32.0
7: 32.2
8: 32.4
9: 32.6
10: 32.8
11: 33.0
12: 33.2
13: 33.4
14: 33.6
15: 33.8
16: 34.0

@phlegethon please do a random number generator from 1-16 (google provides one). I’ll load that charge and run a 109 .020 off lands using Wheeler method.

All I will do is chrono and true.

I spun the wheel, it says you're loading 31.8 gr....


of Titegroup.

 

[stello1001]

Fuck it. I’ll do it. Match on Sunday.

1: 31.0
2: 31.2
3: 31.4
4: 31.6
5: 31.8
6: 32.0
7: 32.2
8: 32.4
9: 32.6
10: 32.8
11: 33.0
12: 33.2
13: 33.4
14: 33.6
15: 33.8
16: 34.0

@phlegethon please do a random number generator from 1-16 (google provides one). I’ll load that charge and run a 109 .020 off lands using Wheeler method.

All I will do is chrono and true.

Google's generator came up with number 8 on my attempt.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Do it with a 6GT

6gt hornady brass cci450 and Berger 109

Barrel is a proof steel with about 1200rnds in it.

I’ll clean as I normally do and go.

 

[Dthomas3523]

How much deviation is that? What's your normal load?

I run 34.0 (picked purely for 2950 or so velocity)

 

[Dthomas3523]

Make it more interesting

1: .020
2: .030
4: .040
5: .050
6: .060
7: .070
8: .080
9: .090
10: .100

@phlegethon do another one please

 

[Dthomas3523]

Worth noting, I did say in the 3rd post or so that seating depth has been adjusted. But I don’t think it will matter with these bullets.

 

[phlegethon]

Make it more interesting

1: .020
2: .030
4: .040
5: .050
6: .060
7: .070
8: .080
9: .090
10: .100

@phlegethon do another one please

 

[47guy]

#7...i just pulled my BRA barrel yesterday....2100 rounds at .070 off...the one before was the same....2 other guys here running the same seating one just pulled a barrel at 2400 seating was .070 the entire life

 

[Dthomas3523]

33.2
.030 off lands

Done

 

[phlegethon]

Fuckin softballs....

first spin for both, no incentive to lie LOL

 

[Dthomas3523]

Fuckin softballs....

Throw out some numbers. I’ll at least load some and run over chrono and shoot paper.

 

[phlegethon]

One of these days when I have time I want to do the whole OBT process with GRT and then shoot 25 rounds of that and 25 rounds exactly between half nodes, or the nearest whole numbers.

 

[47guy]

This is how you load develop

Use some dude's load off the internet

i and several guys here have shot enough BRA barrels to know what works.

 

[47guy]

also enough of the 109s to know what dave is saying is correct.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Ya, I was just being cynical. But since you mentioned it.... Does that mean some combo works better than others....?

Now that I won’t disagree with at all.

Some combos definitely do better.

 

[Sheldon N]

i and several guys here have shot enough BRA barrels to know what works.

Pretty much everything.

At least with 105 hybrids and either Varget or H4895. Can't recall ever having a group get much larger than 0.6MOA during load development and seating depth tests. Never had a double digit SD either.

 

[47guy]

Ya, I was just being cynical. But since you mentioned it.... Does that mean some combo works better than others....?

ive shot 105 hybrids 109 hybrids and some 105 customs...barts infinity’s...also peterson and lapua brass...cci450s cciBR4s fed205Ms and yes some combos preform better than others but honestly id through any of those combos together with varget or shooters world precision from 30.1 to 31.3 and shoot a PRS match.

 

[47guy]

So, what are we agreeing with each other now? Or just debating optional vs necessity?

I've been shooting a Dasher long enough to know what works too. But I will still optimize my load. Via load development. And so you're argument is that it isn't necessary for PRS? The performance increase margin is too little?

I feel like this is a little bit of a flex move

im in the same thought group as Dthomas...im not saying you but i do think ppl spend way to much time on load development.

the guy i mention above that went 2400 and just swapped barrels shot 100 brake in....load up 10 rounds in varying charge weights shot a ladder at 600yds load 10 from best of ladder and tuned at 100yds....we shot a match saturday and he shot a 37 outta 40.

 

[Dthomas3523]

So, what are we agreeing with each other now? Or just debating optional vs necessity?

I've been shooting a Dasher long enough to know what works too. But I will still optimize my load. Via load development. And so you're argument is that it isn't necessary for PRS? The performance increase margin is too little?

I feel like this is a little bit of a flex move

I’m saying it’s not necessary and won’t be the reason you lose a prs match.

There has been nothing cryptic at all this entire thread.

Even if you know zero about dasher, you can literally take any safe powder charge and it will run consistent enough that you won’t lose a prs match “falling out a node” or whatever other excuse someone wants to use.

The performance increase isn’t enough to be the reason you lose. You won’t magically start missing 1-2moa plates because you didn’t optimize something.

If that took anyone however many pages to figure out, they weren’t reading and were interjecting their own version (this happened several times with some and I had to keep reminding the context is PRS style matches).

 

[Dthomas3523]

Pretty much everything.

At least with 105 hybrids and either Varget or H4895. Can't recall ever having a group get much larger than 0.6MOA during load development and seating depth tests. Never had a double digit SD either.

This is my point. Modern rounds + modern components + good process = everything shoots well inside what we need for what we are trying to accomplish. Spending time looking for “nodes” is fine if you have time or like doing it. If you have to pick......just load up something and shoot.

I haven’t tested all this with stuff like 30-06 and .270 type stuff. I’ll get around to it one day.

 

[Newbie2020]

Also @Dthomas3523 is node chasing even less important w heavy contour barrels we use in matches due to less significant barrel whip vs a pencil barrel a guy might use for mountain hunting?

 

[MTB doc]

@Dthomas3523, first off, thanks for sharing all your experience.

One question I have is when you say you pick what velocity you want, how do you come up with that number? Thanks

 

[Dthomas3523]

@Dthomas3523, first off, thanks for sharing all your experience.

One question I have is when you say you pick what velocity you want, how do you come up with that number? Thanks

I don’t like going over 3k fps. From my limited experience, that starts torching throats faster. So if I want to go “fast” I go for 2950.

If I want slow and steady, 2775-2800.

 

[Ledzep]

I haven't found a single node ever.

If you "test" with small enough sample size (1-5 shots per variable) then you will pick up on "sinusoidal" white noise. If you repeat your tests several times over, the results (AKA your "node") will not be the same.

Testing variables at 20-50 shots per, I have found only linear and "swooping arc" trends, never sinusoidal, and never "nodes". I'm not the only one that's tested this way and found the same things. Some have even taken it to 100 per variable.

Unanimously in my testing, more powder charge leads to more dispersion. Talking across 4 cartridges, 7 barrels, 15+ powders, several bullets per caliber. I'm not saying I have all of the answers, but what I've done is more thorough than anything I've ever seen published or posted. I haven't hit every facet that I'd like to and continue adding data to the file when I can. So I can't speak for everything, but nodes are one thing that has never shown up in several thousand documented rounds.

As far as it relates to this subject, there are combinations of components that work better than others. I would say if you just grab shit, pick a charge, and throw it together, you're looking at .75-1.2 MOA for a 20 shot group (most probably .8-1.0). If you try every possible combination and stumble onto some especially good lots of components (and a good barrel) you might be able to eek out down in the 0.4-.06 MOA range. From a hit probability standpoint, you will see a small improvement by having that tighter shooting combination. At that point, however, you're talking about 300-500 rounds of load development to have sample sizes large enough to truly know what you have.

From a realistic "What should I do if I don't want to try to win BR nationals" perspective, throw shit together, believe in yourself, and roll with it. I suggest trying a 10 shot group of combination A. If you're happy with it, rock and roll. If not, try a different powder. If that doesn't work try a different bullet. If that doesn't work try a different barrel. I have thrown away barrels with 150 rounds on them because they're just not shooters. Not worth the time and components to fuck with barrels that don't want to "try".

Most folks that are doing 1 shot satterlee tests or 3-5 shot groups per variable might as well be in the "threw shit together" group because of the test-to-test noise they're playing in. If you don't believe me, go print 20 rounds on paper at 100-400yd. Very very few people will post back with .4-.6 MOA groups. Lots of people will tell me I'm stupid for suggesting a statistically viable sample size to isolate and test variables....

YMMV.

 

[Newbie2020]

Holy crap. A guy might be killed for a post like that one.....but I like it.......

 

[lash]

I think that a caveat is in order. I realize that this discussion is focused on PRS and current target size etc., but I also believe that the dis issuing is more specific than that. I think that the idea has definite merit for the 6mm cartridges that are currently most competitive for PRS, but there are still many people that shoot PRS that are not currently/yet using 6mm for this game.

It needs to be understood that not every cartridge is as forgiving and as easy to load for as is the 6mm, be it BR, BRA, BRX, Dasher, ARC or other BR based cartridge. When you can show me, through actual data keeping and posted results that this works for the 6.5 and .30 family of popular cartridges, I’ll listen.

I already found out for myself that you can throw a pig at 6BR with Berger 105s and it will shoot well.

 

[Precision Underground]

I think that a caveat is in order. I realize that this discussion is focused on PRS and current target size etc., but I also believe that the dis issuing is more specific than that. I think that the idea has definite merit for the 6mm cartridges that are currently most competitive for PRS, but there are still many people that shoot PRS that are not currently/yet using 6mm for this game.

It needs to be understood that not every cartridge is as forgiving and as easy to load for as is the 6mm, be it BR, BRA, BRX, Dasher, ARC or other BR based cartridge. When you can show me, through actual data keeping and posted results that this works for the 6.5 and .30 family of popular cartridges, I’ll listen.

I already found out for myself that you can throw a pig at 6BR with Berger 105s and it will shoot well.

This. When the thread was started it was an across the board generalization. I disagreed. Slowly it turned into “with my axle barreled 6mm”. In that case, I agree. The whole point of load development is to tune to vibrations/harmonics/whatever you want to call it. That’s not much of a factor with heavy barreled bolt guns. Pretty much of my heavy barrel load dev targets look like 5-7 different groups with tiny changes in POI. But do it with a gas gun or a thin barreled bolt gun and POi moves all over the place.