I see that you are not ready for the red pill yet... just keep dreaming 
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
I'll Post This Here - Hornady's Podcast #50. I thought it was one of their best, but some reloaders might not like what they see....
- Thread starter JAS-SH
- Start date
New Year,
Another way to drive clicks, They know with math and stats, the more you include, the happier it makes math people. They get to shout. Finally, Someone is Adding in More Numbers and more data points, ya...
However, we have learned how to shortcut these tasks over the years to get to the point faster and easier.
Let's look at Hornady and the 4DOF software and compare them to weaponized math.
Weaponized Math has been staring us in face for how long, and it took Marc and a bottle of Rye to figure it out. And it's 100% better than any of their software to get you started or to derive dope from an unknown or lesser position. I am sure they disagree.
This is a case of getting the same result with much more work. The bitch is because it is math, you can't argue more data will not change something; the question is does it change it in a meaningful way that we need to look at.
If you are shooting 1.5 MOA plates in a field match, do you need benchrest accuracy or will a 3/8th group with an SD of 8fps be good enough for what we are doing?
How much is enough and at what point is it self-defeating. It's been ages since we had guys post tiny groups on the internet and then claim they can't attend an event because they are not finished doing load development. Streamlining load development should not be negative and simply saying the sample size is too small is bullshit, if the guy is successful it is just the right amount for him and his system
Another way to drive clicks, They know with math and stats, the more you include, the happier it makes math people. They get to shout. Finally, Someone is Adding in More Numbers and more data points, ya...
However, we have learned how to shortcut these tasks over the years to get to the point faster and easier.
Let's look at Hornady and the 4DOF software and compare them to weaponized math.
Weaponized Math has been staring us in face for how long, and it took Marc and a bottle of Rye to figure it out. And it's 100% better than any of their software to get you started or to derive dope from an unknown or lesser position. I am sure they disagree.
This is a case of getting the same result with much more work. The bitch is because it is math, you can't argue more data will not change something; the question is does it change it in a meaningful way that we need to look at.
If you are shooting 1.5 MOA plates in a field match, do you need benchrest accuracy or will a 3/8th group with an SD of 8fps be good enough for what we are doing?
How much is enough and at what point is it self-defeating. It's been ages since we had guys post tiny groups on the internet and then claim they can't attend an event because they are not finished doing load development. Streamlining load development should not be negative and simply saying the sample size is too small is bullshit, if the guy is successful it is just the right amount for him and his system
None of them are shooting anything from Hornady, so they'll never know.
TLDR- clickbait title by Hornady.
I think people forget why we shoot groups. it doesn't follow at all "your groups are too small" if larger groups take longer to shoot, as 30 and 50 shot groups definitely do. larger groups are longer duration groups, all other things equal...larger, longer duration groups are inherently less "accurate" when shot in field conditions by normal humans.
But the induced innaccuracy of larger groups, to a first approximation, is not simple stochastic variance...and thus it doesn't go away by shooting larger groups (sample sizes)...its just the opposite, actually...and this is thus essentially a boring and tedious point to make the title of the Podcast.
If we are exploring accuracy limits (as in clinics, comps and load dev, etc) we want to shoot in format that is more accurate not less. that means shorter time windows, and smaller groups that go with them...all other things equal. The "innaccuracy" induced by the TIME ...doesn't get removed by shooting larger groups, over longer periods of time, because the source of innacuracy correlates to the time exposure.
The Hordady guys look like good dudes, but The Litz research (Vol 3) eg part1 or chapters 1-4...IMHO covers most of this ground.
I think people forget why we shoot groups. it doesn't follow at all "your groups are too small" if larger groups take longer to shoot, as 30 and 50 shot groups definitely do. larger groups are longer duration groups, all other things equal...larger, longer duration groups are inherently less "accurate" when shot in field conditions by normal humans.
But the induced innaccuracy of larger groups, to a first approximation, is not simple stochastic variance...and thus it doesn't go away by shooting larger groups (sample sizes)...its just the opposite, actually...and this is thus essentially a boring and tedious point to make the title of the Podcast.
If we are exploring accuracy limits (as in clinics, comps and load dev, etc) we want to shoot in format that is more accurate not less. that means shorter time windows, and smaller groups that go with them...all other things equal. The "innaccuracy" induced by the TIME ...doesn't get removed by shooting larger groups, over longer periods of time, because the source of innacuracy correlates to the time exposure.
The Hordady guys look like good dudes, but The Litz research (Vol 3) eg part1 or chapters 1-4...IMHO covers most of this ground.
The stupidity was a real mind boggling display. It was so hard for me to believe at first glance that my reaction was Wait? What? But then it immediately downed on me that he doesn't even know what a Bartlein Barrel is
.“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”
—Albert Einstein
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
—Mark Twain
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
—Albert Einstein
PS. some of those quotes are not correctly attributed but they are funny!
Last edited:
You're the same idiot that tried to tell the owner of ZCO where his scopes weren't made. History doth repeat!
I'm not sure that's correct. Larger groups can be a lot of 5-shot groups. I have just that example from this morning. I went to the range this morning and tested 3 different brands of .223 ammo. I fired a total of 70 rounds. All shot and chronographed in many discrete 5 shot group shot consecutively, with four "cold range" calls interrupting.
Guess which ammo did the worst? Yup,the first one tested. Worst Chrono data and worst accuracy. The Best was the second one tested, and it barely won over the third one.
So, I have to kind of disagree with the premise that "longer duration groups are less "accurate"". Unless it's a semantics issue that I'm not following...
It's common sense, we cannot maintain our focus like that unless you are a world class athlete
You can shoot 5 x 5 and breaking it up is not the same as trying to do a 25 shot group in one sitting, but you can do 25 in blocks, that is what he is saying.
The biggest issue is recoil, it moves us and we have to reset the position which changes the variables. Using a fixture like they do, and the fucking barrels are giant, so fuck the guys that think its' the same, the fixture stuff I know Hornady has and I have seen are nothing like our "Guns" and as noted, the fixture vs human discussions was put to bed years ago, funny we have to revisit, the Human Factor cannot be under or overstated.
The test would be, get a bag of ammo, start shooting a group and don't stop until you drop one outside what you consider correct. Everyone is different, where you fall down has a ton of factors. Sports medicine is real, they know what happens to our bodies and mind with these types of endeavors, it takes a lot to overcome it.
You can shoot 5 x 5 and breaking it up is not the same as trying to do a 25 shot group in one sitting, but you can do 25 in blocks, that is what he is saying.
The biggest issue is recoil, it moves us and we have to reset the position which changes the variables. Using a fixture like they do, and the fucking barrels are giant, so fuck the guys that think its' the same, the fixture stuff I know Hornady has and I have seen are nothing like our "Guns" and as noted, the fixture vs human discussions was put to bed years ago, funny we have to revisit, the Human Factor cannot be under or overstated.
The test would be, get a bag of ammo, start shooting a group and don't stop until you drop one outside what you consider correct. Everyone is different, where you fall down has a ton of factors. Sports medicine is real, they know what happens to our bodies and mind with these types of endeavors, it takes a lot to overcome it.
So... one thing that came up in both podcasts #50 and #52 was the disclaimer that this was just for 'plate match' guns or hunting rifles, and that things would be different for F-class or BR guns. Me being one of 'those guys', I'd like to hear more about *that*.
Let me put the 1/4moa into perspective a little.
Mark here at the shop (helps in the office) does shoot BR and currently holds 2 or 3 world records. I got him to shoot F class a few years ago...get him out of that BR scene a little....LOL!
Anyways he shot the nationals just a couple of months ago and we pulled the results. So over 80 shooters shot the Nat's. Light gun, heavy gun and Sporter results are this.....So thirty (30) five shot groups for record. A total of 150 rounds fired for the grand agg.
We took the top 10 shooters and they're grand agg was .2673".
We took the bottom 10 shooters and they're grand agg was .5793"
The avg. for those two numbers above is .4233".
All of these guys are shooting custom match bullets (no match bullets from Hornady, Sierra, Barnes, Berger etc...to my knowledge at all), custom guns, custom barrels and custom ammunition they load and tune themselves in most cases for conditions at the match. Shooting over flags and tuned rests as well.
So if a guy says....my gun will shoot 1/4moa all day long...our response is...take it to the BR nationals...you will win everything.
Looking back at like the last 10 years of the agg's....numbers for the grand agg. for an average is a upper .2xx's to around a flat .3xx".
Mark here at the shop (helps in the office) does shoot BR and currently holds 2 or 3 world records. I got him to shoot F class a few years ago...get him out of that BR scene a little....LOL!
Anyways he shot the nationals just a couple of months ago and we pulled the results. So over 80 shooters shot the Nat's. Light gun, heavy gun and Sporter results are this.....So thirty (30) five shot groups for record. A total of 150 rounds fired for the grand agg.
We took the top 10 shooters and they're grand agg was .2673".
We took the bottom 10 shooters and they're grand agg was .5793"
The avg. for those two numbers above is .4233".
All of these guys are shooting custom match bullets (no match bullets from Hornady, Sierra, Barnes, Berger etc...to my knowledge at all), custom guns, custom barrels and custom ammunition they load and tune themselves in most cases for conditions at the match. Shooting over flags and tuned rests as well.
So if a guy says....my gun will shoot 1/4moa all day long...our response is...take it to the BR nationals...you will win everything.
Looking back at like the last 10 years of the agg's....numbers for the grand agg. for an average is a upper .2xx's to around a flat .3xx".
Last edited:
I didn't get that from the post and apologize for that. In retrospect, the title of the podcast could be considered in the context of non stop firing as it applies to single shooters doing the testing.
That said however, is an assumption without first looking at their methodology as explained in the podcast. Which, as it turn's out was discussed: 10-shots followed by a barrel cool down break. That is definitely not the same as shooting all 30 shots nonstop.
Heck, I had a lot of breaks this morning shooting those 70 rounds. And I will be the first one to admit that in the last three 5-shot groups I caught myself flinching twice! And those are the ones I caught! So I get that.
Sure, the uninitiated will say that, my gun shoots 1/4 minute all day long, but do they... cause they are not saying, they shoot 1/4 Minute all day long
This is just an 2023 version of that older mindset, which Frankly Speaking, I have not seen in a long time. Maybe on Facebook in the groups were new shooters have no problem jumping both feet into a conversation. But Honestly, when was the last time you saw a disagreement between members here because somebody said 1/4 Minute all day long. That ship stopped sailing here circa 2015
Very few people volunteer the 1/4 minute all day long anymore.
Chris Way and his RifleKraft talks about it now in the context of the well rounded shooter. They are doing riff on him, he posts all the time he strives to be a 1 MOA Shooter. His variable is from 4 positions stacked on top of each other. A much better representation of what shooter is vs what a Shooter CAN BE
Here let me explain with visuals
A Kraft Target Drill, 3 shots, prone, sitting, kneeling, standing, from support. The target on the top is a mentored shooter, the target at the bottom was a high end Law Enforcement Division.
Saying a plate shooter needs to be doing X which is more on par with what we see in the BR world is the controversy, hence a well made viral podcast.
This is just an 2023 version of that older mindset, which Frankly Speaking, I have not seen in a long time. Maybe on Facebook in the groups were new shooters have no problem jumping both feet into a conversation. But Honestly, when was the last time you saw a disagreement between members here because somebody said 1/4 Minute all day long. That ship stopped sailing here circa 2015
Very few people volunteer the 1/4 minute all day long anymore.
Chris Way and his RifleKraft talks about it now in the context of the well rounded shooter. They are doing riff on him, he posts all the time he strives to be a 1 MOA Shooter. His variable is from 4 positions stacked on top of each other. A much better representation of what shooter is vs what a Shooter CAN BE
Here let me explain with visuals
A Kraft Target Drill, 3 shots, prone, sitting, kneeling, standing, from support. The target on the top is a mentored shooter, the target at the bottom was a high end Law Enforcement Division.
Saying a plate shooter needs to be doing X which is more on par with what we see in the BR world is the controversy, hence a well made viral podcast.
Reminds me of the three types of lies:
(1) Lies
(2) Damn Lies
(3) Statistics
Having paid for all my rifles (ok most of em) by being employed using statistics there is A LOT missing in these discussions, and more isn't always better.
For instance on 1 rifle we can have
Position to Position shooter Variation (Think Kraft Rifle Drill)
Shot to shot shooter variations (Usually what we try and minimize) which can be further broken down to
Trigger Press
Recoil Management
Target Sighting
Breath Control
Round to Round powder variation (reloading fun!)
Round to Round Bullet weight variation (OCD reloading fun)
Mechanical Rifle Variation (1/4 day all day if I do my part! rofl)
And of course that takes no account for temperature changes in the weather, barrel, acction ammo nor fatigue and stress in the shooter.
From a statistical standpoint very few people break those out and rather they group them into one giant "group"
When I ran the machines and one of the semiconductor fabs I had to manage the following for a simple resistance measurement:
Wafer to Wafer Variation Avg
Wafer to Wafer Variation Std Dev
Within Wafer Variation Avg
Within Wafer Variation Std Dev
Tool to tool variation Avg
Tool to tool variation Std Dev
Its rare that people understand how these interact with each other and tbh i see 0 discussion of how the variations mix.
Most people can tell you the SD, but they have no idea what it represents.
Fewer can tell you how the SD of the Ammo combines with the SD of the Shooter.
TLDR Version: Statistics isn't "More Data"-- A real discussion of "how many rounds to zero your rifle" needs to take into account the shooter, the equipment, and the conditions.
Or as #3 would say: Can you hit the damn plate or not (Ok he said "Do you wanna race or don't you")
(1) Lies
(2) Damn Lies
(3) Statistics
Having paid for all my rifles (ok most of em) by being employed using statistics there is A LOT missing in these discussions, and more isn't always better.
For instance on 1 rifle we can have
Position to Position shooter Variation (Think Kraft Rifle Drill)
Shot to shot shooter variations (Usually what we try and minimize) which can be further broken down to
Trigger Press
Recoil Management
Target Sighting
Breath Control
Round to Round powder variation (reloading fun!)
Round to Round Bullet weight variation (OCD reloading fun)
Mechanical Rifle Variation (1/4 day all day if I do my part! rofl)
And of course that takes no account for temperature changes in the weather, barrel, acction ammo nor fatigue and stress in the shooter.
From a statistical standpoint very few people break those out and rather they group them into one giant "group"
When I ran the machines and one of the semiconductor fabs I had to manage the following for a simple resistance measurement:
Wafer to Wafer Variation Avg
Wafer to Wafer Variation Std Dev
Within Wafer Variation Avg
Within Wafer Variation Std Dev
Tool to tool variation Avg
Tool to tool variation Std Dev
Its rare that people understand how these interact with each other and tbh i see 0 discussion of how the variations mix.
Most people can tell you the SD, but they have no idea what it represents.
Fewer can tell you how the SD of the Ammo combines with the SD of the Shooter.
TLDR Version: Statistics isn't "More Data"-- A real discussion of "how many rounds to zero your rifle" needs to take into account the shooter, the equipment, and the conditions.
Or as #3 would say: Can you hit the damn plate or not (Ok he said "Do you wanna race or don't you")
What DocRDS said above and this is a key one also....
"And of course that takes no account for temperature changes in the weather, barrel, acction ammo nor fatigue and stress in the shooter."
I also like your last comment... "Or as #3 would say: Can you hit the damn plate or not (Ok he said "Do you wanna race or don't you")"
I remember Jim teaching I hi power rifle class I was in. Jim at one time coached the Marine Corp rifle team. Anyways he said they where shooting team matches and someone else asked him if he would also coach they're team. Jim said yea sure. So a shooter gets done shooting and complained to Jim...." You we're not giving me good wind calls!" Jim replied back, "No I gave you excellent wind calls...I wasn't chasing your spotter!"
"And of course that takes no account for temperature changes in the weather, barrel, acction ammo nor fatigue and stress in the shooter."
I also like your last comment... "Or as #3 would say: Can you hit the damn plate or not (Ok he said "Do you wanna race or don't you")"
I remember Jim teaching I hi power rifle class I was in. Jim at one time coached the Marine Corp rifle team. Anyways he said they where shooting team matches and someone else asked him if he would also coach they're team. Jim said yea sure. So a shooter gets done shooting and complained to Jim...." You we're not giving me good wind calls!" Jim replied back, "No I gave you excellent wind calls...I wasn't chasing your spotter!"
Not sure if they do or don't disagree, But I sure as hell don't!!!
Wep Math worked like magic for me. Never owned a chrono until this last Christmas. Wife got me one
.I set up a new 6mm rifle from scratch last year and I used Wep Math exclusively, using the factory ammo box number for velocity and validating it as I went.
How good did it work? I'll tell ya! By the time I got to steel at 626 yards for the first time well, my cold bore shot is below. OK! So it was low but by only ~.2 freakin mils!
To me Wep Math was indispensable. As a matter of fact, I used to get home from a shoot, get myself a scotch and my calipers and adjust my 4DOF calculator. That said I have it dialed in now but I'm still going after a better zero. Can't argue with more excuses to go shooting!
That all said, once dialed in 4DOF works perfectly. And that zero angle shit is a perfect solution for a "forever zero". Sweet!
Cold Bore 626 Yards - All Wep Math:
I don't know why people are hating what they are saying so much. They are right.
No amount of "real world factors" will ever make results from small samples more significant than what they are in theory. Theoretical confidence intervals are as narrow as they get. Adding in shooter, setup, wind, etc variation only adds more noise and makes you even less confident in your results. So, trying to justify using small groups to draw conclusions because "real world factors" is bogus. They actually justify even larger samples.
This is also where you have to look at what you're trying to accomplish and make some economic decisions about how many sources of variation you are willing to spend the time, effort, and money to control. If you're just using a cartridge for hunting within a couple hundred yards, turning necks, sorting bullets, testing seating depths in 0.003" increments is a waste of time. If you're shooting PRS, maybe you add more controls. If you're shooting F-class, even more. If you're shooting benchrest and trying to win a major competition, you're trying to control everything you can think of.
But if you do all the benchrest tricks and spend 20 minutes on each round, that still won't make load comparisons based on 5 shot groups shot by a human in an outdoor environment very informative. What it does is make sure that all of your ammo is more consistent, and the load that you end up picking is probably excellent, regardless of whether you can actually be very confident that it's statistically "better" than the others.
No amount of "real world factors" will ever make results from small samples more significant than what they are in theory. Theoretical confidence intervals are as narrow as they get. Adding in shooter, setup, wind, etc variation only adds more noise and makes you even less confident in your results. So, trying to justify using small groups to draw conclusions because "real world factors" is bogus. They actually justify even larger samples.
This is also where you have to look at what you're trying to accomplish and make some economic decisions about how many sources of variation you are willing to spend the time, effort, and money to control. If you're just using a cartridge for hunting within a couple hundred yards, turning necks, sorting bullets, testing seating depths in 0.003" increments is a waste of time. If you're shooting PRS, maybe you add more controls. If you're shooting F-class, even more. If you're shooting benchrest and trying to win a major competition, you're trying to control everything you can think of.
But if you do all the benchrest tricks and spend 20 minutes on each round, that still won't make load comparisons based on 5 shot groups shot by a human in an outdoor environment very informative. What it does is make sure that all of your ammo is more consistent, and the load that you end up picking is probably excellent, regardless of whether you can actually be very confident that it's statistically "better" than the others.
10 years from now we'll have another breakthrough in shooting for groups and determining load development. Then we'll divide the community again and argue over who is the Fudd and who is the idiot.
OK! So where the hell were you when this whole thread started over a week ago
. We could have been done with this crap a long time ago! And I'm the one that started it!Outstanding post Bud! Stay around and pay attention. We need people like you in here!
".....Calling DocRDS, Statistical BS spill on aisle 3..."
Thanks again!
JAS
See like I said, the Math Guys .... the numbers are right.
End of the day, the best reloader in the world is useless if they can't shoot to begin with. Human Factor Trumps all
I can get in a Hendrick's Nascar, doesn't mean I won't get black flagged 3 laps in, best equipment in the world is nothing special in the hands of the mediocre. Perfect practice over gimmicks, 3x 10 shot groups are not gonna improve my shooting.
No thanks I will practice more and reload less, our methods of 5 shot groups has served us well for more time than I can count so I will stick with it. If I need to throw a few more downrange to solve a problem I will, but nothing bets a Shooter.
I focus on the man, not the equipment unless its to diagnose
End of the day, the best reloader in the world is useless if they can't shoot to begin with. Human Factor Trumps all
I can get in a Hendrick's Nascar, doesn't mean I won't get black flagged 3 laps in, best equipment in the world is nothing special in the hands of the mediocre. Perfect practice over gimmicks, 3x 10 shot groups are not gonna improve my shooting.
No thanks I will practice more and reload less, our methods of 5 shot groups has served us well for more time than I can count so I will stick with it. If I need to throw a few more downrange to solve a problem I will, but nothing bets a Shooter.
I focus on the man, not the equipment unless its to diagnose
It's easier (and less emotionally risky) to spend $1500 on an AMP seating press and convince myself that I'm making more accurate ammo than it is to sink $1500 into ammunition and training though.
Confidence is an excellent motivator. But it induces bias. That's why all studies worth reading are done with double blinds.
double blind
noun
- A testing procedure designed to avoid biased results by ensuring that at the time of the test neither the administrators nor the subjects know which subjects are receiving a test treatment and which belong to a control group.Good Pso
Good Post! Thanks..
Exactly
Just like Bryan saying Tuners don't work, why is He saying it, because there is a contract and he is competing against tuners
Get the AMP skip the class ... genus
Just like Bryan saying Tuners don't work, why is He saying it, because there is a contract and he is competing against tuners
Get the AMP skip the class ... genus
I was actually thinking about that yesterday when reading this thread.
But what a pain in the ass. Load up a bunch of ammo, randomize every cartridges placement in the firing order, find someone else to go shoot it without you there, and manage to track every round's impact on target, just so you can do good statistics... That's a recipe for misery.
I think one of the funniest part of the whole discussion is how Hornady made the point against their own factory ammo
They gave a SD / ES standards they felt was acceptable and their own ammo is wickedly out of spec by their own admission.
So this whole idea is only valid if you are reloading as their current Match ammo is not even acceptable for a Hunter Match according to their own numbers
Bottom line: if you compete you have to reload today as their ammo falls far short of acceptable.
They gave a SD / ES standards they felt was acceptable and their own ammo is wickedly out of spec by their own admission.
So this whole idea is only valid if you are reloading as their current Match ammo is not even acceptable for a Hunter Match according to their own numbers
Bottom line: if you compete you have to reload today as their ammo falls far short of acceptable.
A *lot* of what we do or spend money on in the shooting sports amounts to a warm-n-fuzzy safety blanket. Or as the saying goes... "if you think it makes a difference, it probably will".
I've actually tried that... not the double blind, but testing groups in random order... pretty sure I caused myself more grief putting the wrong bullets in the wrong group than it was worth. On the other hand, tracking the rounds on target is a whole lot easier than it used to be, with the advent of (relatively) inexpensive e-targets that can record the shot placement and spit it out in a CSV file if you really want it. But then you get into the whole back-n-forth debate on the point error inherent in *those* systems, Doppler shift from using open mics vs. enclosed, how many mics, etc. etc. etc.
It never ends. Someone will always bitch about *something*, given the opportunity.
Last edited:
Extreme truth! PIA for sure to get valid data. That's statistics for you. Still, lot's of shooting is a great indicator of all - Shooter ability, reloading, factory ammo, and the rifle itself to say the least.
It's a conundrum. No Easy day!
I still haven't forgotten that I chunk a shot approximately 2-3% of the time. Make the rifle a magnum without a brake or suppressor and mysteriously that percentage doubles (that's 4-6% for the non-weaponized math guys). The old 'third screw on the buttstock' claims many a victim if we're being honest...and we haven't even got into long range wind calls.
We're on the verge of hammering every dude who produces a good 5 shot group, or 10 shot group with a "called" flier. The forums are going to fill up with accusations of rifles not being as good as the owner claims, and hurt feelings because nobody will be able to blame their flier on their Hornady ammo or components (fukken genius Hornady... I see what you did there).
Seriously though; 95% of the guys who are arguing in this thread would be extremely successful in their disciplines (hunting, local PRS, recreational shooting) with a 1 MOA rifle. Why we now feel armed to shit on the weekend warrior who is proud of a group they fired is only going to hurt our community.
^ Yes, we will still have to endure the single, (3) shot, 1/4 MOA group occasionally from the keyboard commando flaunting his Tacticalrifles.Net, Chlamydia action, wonder thumper with pretty dang good ammo. Those are the same guys who hold their fish 6" from the camera, and sit 5' behind their deer/hog/whatever. If you're going to get bent out of shape over the internet because of that, stick to the Bear Pit where the guys share booby pictures because their wives would beat them up for looking at a porn channel.
We're on the verge of hammering every dude who produces a good 5 shot group, or 10 shot group with a "called" flier. The forums are going to fill up with accusations of rifles not being as good as the owner claims, and hurt feelings because nobody will be able to blame their flier on their Hornady ammo or components (fukken genius Hornady... I see what you did there).
Seriously though; 95% of the guys who are arguing in this thread would be extremely successful in their disciplines (hunting, local PRS, recreational shooting) with a 1 MOA rifle. Why we now feel armed to shit on the weekend warrior who is proud of a group they fired is only going to hurt our community.
^ Yes, we will still have to endure the single, (3) shot, 1/4 MOA group occasionally from the keyboard commando flaunting his Tacticalrifles.Net, Chlamydia action, wonder thumper with pretty dang good ammo. Those are the same guys who hold their fish 6" from the camera, and sit 5' behind their deer/hog/whatever. If you're going to get bent out of shape over the internet because of that, stick to the Bear Pit where the guys share booby pictures because their wives would beat them up for looking at a porn channel.
I've done real life tests in multiple calibers. Just finished one on my AR with .223 ammo this morning. When you throw everything in the pot, What we consider high SDs and ES don't make a substantial difference in the results. Look at the chrono results compared to the target.
Except for one crazy load from no other than Black Hills, which had ES in the 150s and it showed big time on paper, the other two loads had ES in the 50s and 60s and shot very well. I'll post those soon in the Semi-auto forum.
Considering the targets shot from shooters I see day to day at the range, I will humbly say that I'm an above average shooter. Not great, but pretty darn good. Hey, I'm 68, so you try it when you're my age and fighting cataracts!
Getting old is all about diminishing returns. The golden years thing they talk about is bullshit. It's the rust years!
Today I had one factory ammo that had the Best SDs and ES. It did not shoot the best 5-shot group.
Three possibilities, I screwed up, Not enough shots to find the bad side and it just happened to show up in the particular 5-shot group, or my favorite: very low SDs and Low ES spreads (within reason) don't matter as much as we think. Not talking BR and F-Class here.
The two best factory loads had ES of 69 and 56. The best groups of the day were with the one with 69.
It's simple, shooting in general creates outliers at the target, reducing them outliers is the wholly grail. I get that. But it's a lot easier said than done.
Shoot, shoot and shoot some more. Get instruction. There is no magic solution at the reloading bench.
The SD/ES spread doesn't show at 100 it shows at distance, like beyond 800
That is where the problem lies with high SD numbers, at distance on small targets, this is where Litz lives with the WEZ to show you how bad you'll miss
Bad factory ammo can be fine at 100, 300, 500, but terrible at 800, 1000, etc
That is where the problem lies with high SD numbers, at distance on small targets, this is where Litz lives with the WEZ to show you how bad you'll miss
Bad factory ammo can be fine at 100, 300, 500, but terrible at 800, 1000, etc
Great stuff! That last paragraph! That one should be in the shooters bible ROFL!!
Very True! And, I have his books, I see them from here right now sitting in my living room. He does mention that a lot of the horizontal dispersion is wind though and those look like his Wez simulations, not actual shots. AND, How many people shoot THAT many shots at a target?
There's only one entity - the Department of Defense. They actually do that! Would love to see those!
Now... I'd argue that point. I had a setup that was shooting pretty good at a major team practice. Came home, had a state championship the following weekend but out of those primers. Grabbed some from the LGS, same brand/model different lot #s, and loaded them up, and headed out. Luckily it was easy driving distance, cuz that afternoon I came home to do some emergency load testing! Same everything but lot of primers was suddenly shooting about 8-ring elevation @1k which put me solidly dead-a$$ last. Unusual, to say the least. Tested some other primers, never saw a difference in groups out to 300 but the velocities... went from an ES of 41 and SD of 18, to an ES of 10-11 and SD of 4-5. Picked the one I had the most of, loaded them up and drove back the next morning. Clawed my way back to second in the agg. So I'm not onboard with 'SD doesn't matter'.
Last edited:
That was actually a AB, DOD image so they did ...
its the WEZ from the 2010 trials
its the WEZ from the 2010 trials
Heres a 3 shot group for you. 1,000 yards.
I don't shoot 10 shot groups because bullets, primers and power are expensive, a little hard to come by and take time to put together.
You forgot to cover the flier with a quarter.
So I tested this stuff this weekend just to see if theres something to it. I dont think I learned anything just burned 60 rounds of components. Two 30 shot groups. I guess I should have shot 50 round groups then thy would open up. 100 yards 6 dasher hawk hill heavy comp.
Attachments
Last edited:
From Bryan Zolnikov over on Patreon (posted here with permission):
Not exactly within the normal clientele for this crowd, but I figure it'll spark some interest nonetheless.
Not exactly within the normal clientele for this crowd, but I figure it'll spark some interest nonetheless.
Last edited:
I have no experience with tuners, so perhaps that ignorance explains any errors in what I'm about to say, but... depending on how they actually structure the methodology, that looks like confirmation bias in the making.
Let's say that a tuner has 10 settings. At the beginning of your test, you shoot a 5 shot group on each setting. One of those will be the smallest group and you declare it the best setting. That's your base line. You go out the next day, and shoot a new group on each setting. Lo, you find one of the other settings shoots a much better group that day. Does that mean the tuner got you back into tune?
Due to pure randomness, on any given day, the base setting has a 10% chance of delivering the smallest group. Meaning that there's a 90% chance that one of the other settings will produce a smaller group than the base setting, even if the tuner is actually doing nothing at all. So, while it might look to some like the tuner is bringing the load back into tune, it could be that you're just rolling a 10 sided die, and convincing yourself that it's not random just because a 1 doesn't come up every time.
And that Jackass mathematician asks, what is their statistical power and statistical significance. (alpha--false pos, beta--false negatives)
Well, since the whole process is in the planning stages still, maybe you should reach out to him and raise your concerns. Or you could just continue to bitch from the sidelines about how it's done wrong (according to you).
This is why I still shoot 3 shot groups when doing load development.
Not to settle on the lucky .1moa group but to disregard the 1moa+ groups.
Once I’ve found my node of a few groups that shoot good enough for what I want, then I’m happy.
If my 3-5 shot .25moa group is statistically inaccurate and is actually .346moa who cares, it’s as good a group as I can be bothered developing. My larger sample size comes from the next 100-300 rounds I load up and shoot for practise and matches.
As BLKWLFK9 said, just load er up and let rip.
They totally screwed the tuner test to make it look bad, this was done on purpose as there is a contract floating around
The used a TUNED LOAD and then used a tuner to retune it that is not how they work, they PURPOSELY made the tuners look bad.
They are slick and using words like Science as much as they do, they try to shut down any disagreement, they want to sell the government a process vs slapping on tuner when the M118LR load is off.
Tuners absolutely work, there are several ways to use them and there are ways to not, they did it the way nobody uses a tuner.
Here was my success story, I was loading for the Valkyrie, I knew I needed speed so I loaded it for 2950+ and by chance landed right at 3025fps with an SD of 5....
So if you look at the seating depth I had several loads, 1.7 to 1.795, which this one was good. However the group was about 3/4 of an inch at 100, not good.
So I added a tuner and didn't even dial it in yet and an my group immediately went to 1/2" and at 600 I did this :
Now I have a 1/2" group at 100, and 4" vertical at 600, I bet I can now tune this guy even better because I haven't' even messed with it. I can now dial this guy in , even at distance.
Guys are using tuners every single day, with great success.
I don't have to chase the load, I can use the tuner, other guys can tune in lesser factory barrels, what I can you is an absolutely waste of time... Taking a good barrel and load and putting a tuner on.
In fact the first time I looked at tuner my Bartlien barrel was better alone than trying to tune it, I did 3 sets of groups with tune and that looked really good, tried to improve and went 18 more sets without much change, so that shows a great barrel might not need it if the load is good. When the load sucks, a tuner works
The used a TUNED LOAD and then used a tuner to retune it that is not how they work, they PURPOSELY made the tuners look bad.
They are slick and using words like Science as much as they do, they try to shut down any disagreement, they want to sell the government a process vs slapping on tuner when the M118LR load is off.
Tuners absolutely work, there are several ways to use them and there are ways to not, they did it the way nobody uses a tuner.
Here was my success story, I was loading for the Valkyrie, I knew I needed speed so I loaded it for 2950+ and by chance landed right at 3025fps with an SD of 5....
So if you look at the seating depth I had several loads, 1.7 to 1.795, which this one was good. However the group was about 3/4 of an inch at 100, not good.
So I added a tuner and didn't even dial it in yet and an my group immediately went to 1/2" and at 600 I did this :
Now I have a 1/2" group at 100, and 4" vertical at 600, I bet I can now tune this guy even better because I haven't' even messed with it. I can now dial this guy in , even at distance.
Guys are using tuners every single day, with great success.
I don't have to chase the load, I can use the tuner, other guys can tune in lesser factory barrels, what I can you is an absolutely waste of time... Taking a good barrel and load and putting a tuner on.
In fact the first time I looked at tuner my Bartlien barrel was better alone than trying to tune it, I did 3 sets of groups with tune and that looked really good, tried to improve and went 18 more sets without much change, so that shows a great barrel might not need it if the load is good. When the load sucks, a tuner works
Similar threads
