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....

[Doom]

Unfortunately the problem with statistics is not that they are wrong but that there is a lack of understanding of what the statistics can tell us. Whether your sample set is 3 shots, 20 shots, or 100 shots it is statistically significant. It is the level of significance that is important to understand. Shooting a 3 shot group to zero a rifle will give you a pretty good zero but it is not likely to be the best zero for a 1000yd competition. In a sport where the term "precision" is constantly used when it comes to data we often refer to data that has little precision to it. This is especially true with chronograph data.

When a shooter takes a chronograph out and fires x rounds over it he is obtaining data for those x rounds, on the assumption that they represent what similarly prepared rounds will do in the future. The collection of the data and what it represents is the province of statistics. The leap from past or current knowledge to the future is the province of probability. The data obtained is a random sample and that sample can and should be used to predict what we can expect from those future rounds. The data can also be used to compare the likelihood that two or more sets of data are different.

Consider a shooter that loads and fires 3 shots over a chronograph looking for a 2900 fps mean velocity and a 10 or less standard deviation for his reloads to suit his application, and obtains a mean velocity of 2904 fps, a standard deviation of 8.5 fps, and an extreme spread of 17 fps. He says "Man, I'm there!" and proceeds loading annumition on that basis. But what does his data really tell him. The truth lies in the probabilities and confidence that those 3 shotsnare representative of what the future rounds will be. It is normal to consider 95% confidence interval to be used as a metric to have confidence in what the sample data tells us. In this case the mean of 2904 for three shots gives a confidence interval of 2883 to 2925 fps as the likely range for the true mean velocity. This range of probable velocity may or may not be an issue for the shooter. If we apply a 95% confidence interval to the test standard deviation the likely true range is between 4.5 fps to 53.7 fps. If the shooter was looking for a 10SD then is something between 4.5 and 53.7 fps acceptable? Probably not. So he goes back and shoots 5 shots, and the results are mean between 2889 and 2911 fps, SD between 5.21 and 25 fps. ES of 22 fps. Acceptable? If he shoots 10 rounds and the standard deviation is 8.8 fps then the SD range is 6.06 to 16.1 fps (ES 28) and if he shoots 20 rounds and the standard deviation is 8.7 fps the SD range is now 6.61 to 12.7 fps (ES 37). Notice that unlike mean velocity, standard deviation is not symmetrical and is skewed. It is not normally distributed and follows a Chi-squred distribution as opposed to normal. Had the shooter used the 3 or 5 shot data he likely would have been severely disappointed in the performance of his reloads on target.

Consider what happens when comparing standard deviations of two different samples with "something different" about the samples (think primers?). Sample 1 has 5 shots with a SD of 9 and Sample 2 has 5 shots with a SD of 15. How do we intrepret this data. Obviously the 9 is less than the 15 but is it better and by how much? When analyzed by the usual F test statistic there is an 82% chance that that the 9 is statistically less than 15 but we do not know by how much. We can look at the confidence intervals for the 9 and find it to be 5.4 and 25.9 fps and the 15 to be between 9 and 43.1 fps. So while we have a fair amount of confidence that for this test the 9 is statistically less than the 15 for a large population we have very little confidence in what SDs they actually represent or by actually how much the difference is. Because of the large overlap in confidence intervals (9 to 26) it's likely that if this test were run again with 5 shot samples the results could be different.

 

[SONIC SAAMI]

An actual photo of the general public heading out to buy the latest and greatest reloading equipment and or component.

 

[JAS-SH]

Unfortunately the problem with statistics is not that they are wrong but that there is a lack of understanding of what the statistics can tell us. Whether your sample set is 3 shots, 20 shots, or 100 shots it is statistically significant. It is the level of significance that is important to understand. Shooting a 3 shot group to zero a rifle will give you a pretty good zero but it is not likely to be the best zero for a 1000yd competition. In a sport where the term "precision" is constantly used when it comes to data we often refer to data that has little precision to it. This is especially true with chronograph data.

When a shooter takes a chronograph out and fires x rounds over it he is obtaining data for those x rounds, on the assumption that they represent what similarly prepared rounds will do in the future. The collection of the data and what it represents is the province of statistics. The leap from past or current knowledge to the future is the province of probability. The data obtained is a random sample and that sample can and should be used to predict what we can expect from those future rounds. The data can also be used to compare the likelihood that two or more sets of data are different.

Consider a shooter that loads and fires 3 shots over a chronograph looking for a 2900 fps mean velocity and a 10 or less standard deviation for his reloads to suit his application, and obtains a mean velocity of 2904 fps, a standard deviation of 8.5 fps, and an extreme spread of 17 fps. He says "Man, I'm there!" and proceeds loading annumition on that basis. But what does his data really tell him. The truth lies in the probabilities and confidence that those 3 shotsnare representative of what the future rounds will be. It is normal to consider 95% confidence interval to be used as a metric to have confidence in what the sample data tells us. In this case the mean of 2904 for three shots gives a confidence interval of 2883 to 2925 fps as the likely range for the true mean velocity. This range of probable velocity may or may not be an issue for the shooter. If we apply a 95% confidence interval to the test standard deviation the likely true range is between 4.5 fps to 53.7 fps. If the shooter was looking for a 10SD then is something between 4.5 and 53.7 fps acceptable? Probably not. So he goes back and shoots 5 shots, and the results are mean between 2889 and 2911 fps, SD between 5.21 and 25 fps. ES of 22 fps. Acceptable? If he shoots 10 rounds and the standard deviation is 8.8 fps then the SD range is 6.06 to 16.1 fps (ES 28) and if he shoots 20 rounds and the standard deviation is 8.7 fps the SD range is now 6.61 to 12.7 fps (ES 37). Notice that unlike mean velocity, standard deviation is not symmetrical and is skewed. It is not normally distributed and follows a Chi-squred distribution as opposed to normal. Had the shooter used the 3 or 5 shot data he likely would have been severely disappointed in the performance of his reloads on target.

Consider what happens when comparing standard deviations of two different samples with "something different" about the samples (think primers?). Sample 1 has 5 shots with a SD of 9 and Sample 2 has 5 shots with a SD of 15. How do we intrepret this data. Obviously the 9 is less than the 15 but is it better and by how much? When analyzed by the usual F test statistic there is an 82% chance that that the 9 is statistically less than 15 but we do not know by how much. We can look at the confidence intervals for the 9 and find it to be 5.4 and 25.9 fps and the 15 to be between 9 and 43.1 fps. So while we have a fair amount of confidence that for this test the 9 is statistically less than the 15 for a large population we have very little confidence in what SDs they actually represent or by actually how much the difference is. Because of the large overlap in confidence intervals (9 to 26) it's likely that if this test were run again with 5 shot samples the results could be different.

Good post, in well explained layman's terms. Most people don't have much of a clue as to what SD really is or means.

And you said it right - one of the problems wit SD, especially true of small samples is that the pesky outliers thing can either show up or not in those samples. That presents a quandary.

If there are outliers in the sample then it's easy to see that there is definitely something wrong with the results and they shouldn't be readily trusted. However, if there are no outliers in a small sample, that doesn't mean they don't exists - so that the next small group while in the actual intended shooting use might show some. And then either the F-word comes out, or the classic "That was me" rationalization.

Outliers in small samples will skew the average/mean used to calculate distribution. One leg of the bell curve will be longer or shorter than the other. As you said, at that point the distribution is no longer "normal" - probability inferences from such results are then likely to be inaccurate.

And in as simple words as I can say it, this is essentialy what the Nebraska boys at Hornady are trying to communicate.

Thanks for the post!

 

[Doom]

An actual photo of the general public heading out to buy the latest and greatest reloading equipment and or component.
View attachment 8038456

The great Primer Stampede of 2020!

 

[Doom]

...

Outliers in small samples will skew the average/mean used to calculate distribution. One leg of the bell curve will be longer or shorter than the other. As you said, at that point the distribution is no longer "normal" - probability inferences from such results are then likely to be inaccurate.

And in as simple words as I can say it, this is essentialy what the Nebraska boys at Hornady are trying to communicate.

Thanks for the post!

To your point on distribution, "normal" is a term that applies to a large population. Sample sets, even large ones are not necessarily normal, and smaller sets are not normal. I had intended to mention that but lost the thought somewherere along the line.

I thought the Cornhuskers did a great job of explaining the effects of sample size and they had the benefit of doing it with actual data. I was also glad to see them concentrate on target data and not spend a lot of time or energy on chronograph data.

 

[AMwood]

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.

Doesn’t this fit with the points about sample size? You and your rifle are clearly in the consistent 1/2 MOA group size. If you had only fired 3, 5, or 10 rounds you’re groups might be even smaller (i.e., 0.4, 0.3, 0.25, etc.) but statistically speaking that wouldn’t be a true representation of the load or rifle.

The images you posted include any variance that exists and therefore you could say those 0.6 and 0.5 MOA groups are the true capability of the load/rifle/shooter on average. Maybe this is where you were going. Anyways, nice shooting

 

[Sparkeytj]

Doesn’t this fit with the points about sample size? You and your rifle are clearly in the consistent 1/2 MOA group size. If you had only fired 3, 5, or 10 rounds you’re groups might be even smaller (i.e., 0.4, 0.3, 0.25, etc.) but statistically speaking that wouldn’t be a true representation of the load or rifle.

The images you posted include any variance that exists and therefore you could say those 0.6 and 0.5 MOA groups are the true capability of the load/rifle/shooter on average. Maybe this is where you were going. Anyways, nice shooting

It does, i understand the statistics involved. My concern is as I stated in my first post. The conclusions drawn from the statistics which if I remember were load divelopement was for the most part unnecessary. Pick a load 1gr off max 20 thou off the lands and run with it was the statement that didn't sit well with me. If I had settled for that thinking a 1 moa group was acceptable I would never know the true capability of my rifle. I think true load divelopement is still nessicary. There were groups in the load divelopement for that rifle that were 5 shot groups over .5 if its all the same how does that happen? I know all I need is a 1 moa rifle for the shooting I do but, a 1/2 moa rifle gives me more wind budget and I have a hard time settling for mediocrity. I think my next test would be to take my worst group and fire 30 shots of that to see how much worse it would be but, I dont care that much. The one thing I think I may change with this "new" information is i will probably shoot a 20ish shot group when I establish my initial zero.

 

[MarkyMark007]

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....

after long years you just dont get it. when we talk about statistics, you talk about shooter ability and other nonsense...

tuners work, that also Bryan Litz says. just for added weight on the barrel.

but how they work is other question. tuner producers says that you should 'tune' your tuner by turning it for ~1/32 turn and see what 3-shot group is. and that this small of a change does make a difference.

NOW you can prove that this is wrong and turn your tuner by 1/32 and shoot 3 shot groups. and than pick the 'node' and the best group, and pick worse group. and THAN go shoot on longer range with 10 shots and see if your other setting on the tuner is realy out of tune!

this is how it is done!

 

[Yoteski]

Something to keep in mind as far as tuned loads go. 3/4" group doesn't equate to a 3/4" group 100% of the time. Yeah, obvious I know, this is what the whole podcast/thread is about, but I think that's what's getting lost in the noise. Say I get one flyer out of 10, i.e 10%, and the rest go in to 3/8. Now, apply this to a match setting. I load 250 rounds of ammo up for a match. 25 of those are known flyers. Now, it is a crapshoot, but I stand a pretty good chance of having very good ammo on any given target. Now, I could be shooting at 1 moa targets or 3 moa targets. My 3/8" ammo give me a better chance at a slightly missed wind call/edge hit, etc. No one knows if the 3/4" ammo is going to show up on the 1 moa or 3 moa plate, but unless I'm extremely unlucky, I should stand a decent chance of having 10 good rounds at a 1 moa plate.
Same goes for SD. We want to tilt the load for flyers to be the exception, not the norm. It really might be okay to delete the shot that takes a 5 SD to a 15 SD. Statistical relevance works both ways, not always for the worst.
Different types of bias has been discussed, and the placebo effect is real, even advantageous at times. If I know my rifle shoots 3/8" 90% of the time, I'm going to feel much more confident in my system, which can equate to more hits. For anyone who has actually competed, it absolutely boosts confidence to put down a great group on zero day/hit all the practice plates, etc. I actually won't shoot a group on the zero range for this reason. I might take a shot to make sure the system is still mechanically zeroed, but then I'm moving to plates at distance if available; at least there I can blame misses on the wind .

 

[MarkyMark007]

Pick a load 1gr off max 20 thou off the lands and run with it was the statement that didn't sit well with me. If I had settled for that thinking a 1 moa group was acceptable I would never know the true capability of my rifle. I think true load divelopement is still nessicary. There were groups in the load divelopement for that rifle that were 5 shot groups over .5 if its all the same how does that happen? I know all I need is a 1 moa rifle for the shooting I do but, a 1/2 moa rifle gives me more wind budget and I have a hard time settling for mediocrity.

you are quite right and quite qrong. first of all, your 5-shot group can be on 'best' 5-shot group or 'worse' 5-shot group from your average 1/2 MOA rifle. you just dont know it, if you don't shoot more.
but I agree, I would like to see 1/4 MOA 5-shot groups rather than 1/2.

but picking a load which is 1gr from max and 0.020'' off is not always the answer.
what did LEDZEP see for load developement is: 1) make large steps to see differences. 2) slower speed was more accurate. so no 0.2gr & 0.003' increment and no max charge.
start at 'minimum/medium/what velocity you are targeting' and make +1gr charge [NOT 0.2gr]. and for seating depth use bergers advice for 0.040' difference [NOT 0.003'].
and the most important thing: better components (bullets) shoot better. there is a 'reason' that some bullets are prefferd for some disciplines, like f-class, benchrest...
powder + primer combo is also important, to get smallest velocity SD and best precision. some powder+primer combinations just doesnt work in some cartridges.

 

[Frank Green]

Hey @Frank Green, what's your hot take on the hornady podcast?

I watched the whole thing. Want to rewatch a couple of parts again.

I have a call into Hornady guys as I have a couple of questions for them that if they could elaborate more on. I'll update later when I talk to them.

Later, Frank

 

[Sparkeytj]

you are quite right and quite qrong. first of all, your 5-shot group can be on 'best' 5-shot group or 'worse' 5-shot group from your average 1/2 MOA rifle. you just dont know it, if you don't shoot more.
but I agree, I would like to see 1/4 MOA 5-shot groups rather than 1/2.

but picking a load which is 1gr from max and 0.020'' off is not always the answer.
what did LEDZEP see for load developement is: 1) make large steps to see differences. 2) slower speed was more accurate. so no 0.2gr & 0.003' increment and no max charge.
start at 'minimum/medium/what velocity you are targeting' and make +1gr charge [NOT 0.2gr]. and for seating depth use bergers advice for 0.040' difference [NOT 0.003'].
and the most important thing: better components (bullets) shoot better. there is a 'reason' that some bullets are prefferd for some disciplines, like f-class, benchrest...
powder + primer combo is also important, to get smallest velocity SD and best precision. some powder+primer combinations just doesnt work in some cartridges.

Ok if my best group may not be the best group what are the odds it isnt. Between testing charge weight seating depth and gathering dope/zeroing at the end thats pretty close to a statistically significant group. With all the talk of statistics it all seems to inject doubt without any real solutions.
Berger on there website has a procedure to test seating depth if it didnt matter why post anything. When it comes to powder its my understanding different powders burn better under diffrent case fill percentages and an optimum ratio exists. A 1gr change has a much larger impact on a 223 than a 50BMG. It seems to me that all these varaibles interact and are hard to test individually which is why I do load divelopement the way I do. If the barrel is the most important piece for an accurate rifle I think its all about giving my barrel the most consistent round in terms of pressure. Everything I change effects pressure and pressure can be very finicky to keep consistent across all temps and conditions.
The target seems to keep changeing in terms of the podcast they make a statement, people disagree, then they make another podcast stateing something diffrent all like the first statement was never made. Makes it hard to take anything real from what they have to offer. I guess I coud just take what they have to say as gospel I guess it would make things easier

 

[AMwood]

Ok if my best group may not be the best group what are the odds it isnt. Between testing charge weight seating depth and gathering dope/zeroing at the end thats pretty close to a statistically significant group. With all the talk of statistics it all seems to inject doubt without any real solutions.
Berger on there website has a procedure to test seating depth if it didnt matter why post anything. When it comes to powder its my understanding different powders burn better under diffrent case fill percentages and an optimum ratio exists. A 1gr change has a much larger impact on a 223 than a 50BMG. It seems to me that all these varaibles interact and are hard to test individually which is why I do load divelopement the way I do. If the barrel is the most important piece for an accurate rifle I think its all about giving my barrel the most consistent round in terms of pressure. Everything I change effects pressure and pressure can be very finicky to keep consistent across all temps and conditions.
The target seems to keep changeing in terms of the podcast they make a statement, people disagree, then they make another podcast stateing something diffrent all like the first statement was never made. Makes it hard to take anything real from what they have to offer. I guess I coud just take what they have to say as gospel I guess it would make things easier

Honestly, it sounds like the main point of all this seems to be getting lost in the noise and tangential rants about how to go about load development. Main point being larger sample sizes produce statistically significant results, give a true picture of the load’s performance on average, and whether that average is on par with the statistical mean. How you go about finding that average is where everyone wants to argue. If you can perform a ladder test, shoot some groups, and play with seating depth then go shoot a group of 20-35 that matches the initial group size you found during development then you succeeded. If it doesn’t match that initial group size then that’s where the small sample size misled you.

Personally, you proved your system works for you both in the real world and statistically, all this other discussion is noise. Bottom line develop a load however you want but verify it with a large sample size.

 

[Jackomason]

Honestly, it sounds like the main point of all this seems to be getting lost in the noise and tangential rants about how to go about load development. Main point being larger sample sizes produce statistically significant results, give a true picture of the load’s performance on average, and whether that average is on par with the statistical mean. How you go about finding that average is where everyone wants to argue. If you can perform a ladder test, shoot some groups, and play with seating depth then go shoot a group of 20-35 that matches the initial group size you found during development then you succeeded. If it doesn’t match that initial group size then that’s where the small sample size misled you.

Personally, you proved your system works for you both in the real world and statistically, all this other discussion is noise. Bottom line develop a load however you want but verify it with a large sample size.

I appreciate this view. I think the parts where they ruffled feathers was when they painted with a broad brush everyone who shoots 5 shot groups.

There is also merit to the idea that you shouldn't do load development with the hopes to find the right load, but rather to weed out the bad loads.

Large sample size right off the bat seems silly to me. Maybe I'm wrong there, but that's where I'm at.

 

[AMwood]

I appreciate this view. I think the parts where they ruffled feathers was when they painted with a broad brush everyone who shoots 5 shot groups.

There is also merit to the idea that you shouldn't do load development with the hopes to find the right load, but rather to weed out the bad loads.

Large sample size right off the bat seems silly to me. Maybe I'm wrong there, but that's where I'm at.

I hear you. I’m not here to be an evangelist for everything they said but I have to think that if you did this type of testing enough you’d begin to recognize trends and where you could short cut certain steps by making bigger changes up front because it’ll cut through the noise more noticeably.

They caveat a bunch of stuff in both podcasts by stating that it can vary depending on the rifle, chamber, cartridge, bullet, powder, etc. Which might sound like a way to get around the finer points but it’s accurate because statistics doesn’t deal in absolutes, it deals in probabilities.

 

[morganlamprecht]

It does, i understand the statistics involved. My concern is as I stated in my first post. The conclusions drawn from the statistics which if I remember were load divelopement was for the most part unnecessary. Pick a load 1gr off max 20 thou off the lands and run with it was the statement that didn't sit well with me. If I had settled for that thinking a 1 moa group was acceptable I would never know the true capability of my rifle. I think true load divelopement is still nessicary. There were groups in the load divelopement for that rifle that were 5 shot groups over .5 if its all the same how does that happen? I know all I need is a 1 moa rifle for the shooting I do but, a 1/2 moa rifle gives me more wind budget and I have a hard time settling for mediocrity. I think my next test would be to take my worst group and fire 30 shots of that to see how much worse it would be but, I dont care that much. The one thing I think I may change with this "new" information is i will probably shoot a 20ish shot group when I establish my initial zero.

i had multiple people test this years ago...along with myself with multiple guns...all of the guys i worked with were also well above average shooters, all capable of/had won multiple club level matches/top 25 placing at 2 day matches any given event

basically went like like the following

if you take X bullet and Y powder...and do a normal incremental powder/jump test that everyone does, .2 - .5 gr....003-.005" jumps, 3 or 5 shot groups, one guy even did 10 shots when he got to the jump test...

say all groups shot during testing powder range from .8 to .2, clear winner there...that was a common range from guns used (all custom bolt guns, with high end components...shot from bipod/rear bag or bags only for some of the hunting guns with no bipod)

all groups again in jump testing ranged from .8 to .2...another clear winner

when the shooters then loaded up the worst .8 from the powder and jump tests, along with the best .2 groups from those tests...and shot them for 10-20 round groups...they all averaged in the .5-.7 range, just like your pics...and the difference between those .5 and .7 groups were generally outliers...tight center dispersion with a couple rounds making the group slightly bigger

they did the test on 2-3 different days...the smaller group wasnt always the same load...

all that to say...those shooters could have picked that same X powder, put that same Y bullet on top from the beginning...and got the same results they ended with, without doing any of the small incremental and small sample window testing they did

the highlighted portion is what ive heard a lot..."i could retest this, but i dont care/ammo is expensive/i dont have time..." ....there are plenty people who have tested it, dont care about the cost, and have the time...but when we share the results with people who havent, they ignore it or explain it away with made up personal theory...so i gave up lol

Some side notes to explain some of the reasoning....
NOT saying that a gun will shoot every bullet type the same size no matter what...a 1/2 moa rifle is not a thing...it would need to be a 1/2 moa system (rifle/barrel, ammo, shooter)...in what ive seen, you put a barnes in a GOOD rifle, itll prolly hover around 3/4-1.5moa for a larger sample size...a hornady match (eld might be better than BTHP in a particular barrel, or might be the opposite), 1/2-1moa...a berger hybrid, 1/2-3/4...those are the bullets i have the most experience with and have tested A LOT myself and with others

my personal comments for people who stick to their incremental workups because at the end they got their 1/2 moa group...not meant in a disrespectful way, but maybe a light bulb coming on way...i have a stack of bolt guns/barrels over the last few years...that i picked a speed for that bullet weight/cartridge, added enough of a known good powder option to get to that speed, seated a bullet .020, .050, .075, or .100" off (picked at random based on where i want the bullet positioned in the neck, if im working a slower powder and need more case room ill run .020, if powder volume isnt a concern i normally pick .050")...and ill get the same results or better than they have...they dont believe its possible, but we shot for score pretty often so it was hard to argue with

in general, i will say picking components is key...bergers will (wont say always cause im sure there are some iffy berger lots and excellent hornady lots) generally outshoot hornady overall, pretty noticeably...i could see hornady maxing out keeping rifles in the .7-1" range, while bergers, id bet will hold smaller...same with lapua/high quality brass vs hornady/fed/etc...velocity numbers will be better from the good stuff

put a berger in lapua, and youre gunna outperform (shooter excluded) a hornady in hornady almost everytime, id bet, based on what ive seen...not to say hornady isnt completely serviceable, myself and others have won a ton with hornady, but if trying to gain every small advantage possible, its a thing...at least with the eld/bthp match bullets, ive never messed with the A-tips so cant comment there

overall, i think a lot of people are misreading or seeing the Hornady info in the wrong light...at least from what im gathering...

i havent heard them say "YOU HAVE TO SHOOT 50 ROUND GROUPS TO HIT ANYTHING OR HAVE ANY SUCCESS!!"

what im hearing is...youd likely have just as good of success picking a good bullet/powder, loading to a safe working charge, and learning how to shoot/dope it. You CAN do small sample testing all you want...and YES, you can short cut, YES you can skip steps, YES you can hit a lot of targets doing so...you can do whatever you want...BUT if you do short cut, and you see some variations and inconsistency in the results...THESE could be some reasons why...ive cut a ton of corners and had plenty success, but i learned where/how/what to cut over the years and i learned where to look to correct things when they show up every now and then

currently...every barrel i have on a gun, hunting and match, from 223 to 280PRC (300prc necked down)...i loaded 1 round each, 0.5gr apart (.3gr jumps for 223 if pressure is a concern), 10 total rounds...to get an idea of my velocity

this week for example, 6.5prc/rl26/124 hammer hunter...never shot a Hammer bullet in my 6.5prc before...so starting from scratch...i just picked .050" off the lands because i liked the look of where it put the case mouth vs the bands ...i just did 56.5, 57, 57.5, etc...shot all rounds at 1 dot with a labradar, total group was right @ 1", with 9 shots being in the .7 range and 1 slightly out...i wanted 3200-3300 fps...59.5gr put me at 3255...i didnt need to shoot 30 rounds of each for the speed, because if you take the data from all 10 rounds shot and find the fps/grain_of_powder average across all those charge weights, you can be pretty spot on anywhere you pick in the range

i also dont care what the ES/SD are because in my experience if i wanted to change it, id have to change components...i already have ADG brass, 124 Hammers, RL26, and CCI200s...and im not changing any of those, so it is what it is...all quality stuff and good reloading practices, im not worried about it

went back out to confirm the next day and put 3 rounds (1 clean cold bore + 2 follow up) on a 1/4" dot in 1 ragged hole, from a 9# suppressed hunting rifle...again, i dont feel the need to shoot 30, because if i count the 10 from the day before (of all different charges) and the 3 from today, 13 total...im confident, itll never be worse than the 1" (worst bullet impact from the day before) ...if i shot a 10 round group with 5 grain spread of powder and all would have hit a 1moa dot...im confident if i loaded the same charge for all rounds...it would be as good or likely even better...more than adequate to get the job done

now, if i had done those same 10 shots, and sprayed a 2"+ group down range all over...personally, i would just scrap the bullet, and move on to another, i wouldnt waste time trying to force it...ive done that plenty in the past, and it never gave amazing results in the long run....although i did do the same 10 shot test with the 124s and VV n165 to compare speed/accuracy, and got a similar result...so 23 total rounds, 20 different charges, all would have hit a 1 moa dot @ 100

match rifles are done the same...ive had similar/slightly better results becaue easier to shoot rifles...theyre as good as anyone is posting about on social media from a shoulder fired rifle, and i have/would not hesitate again to take them to any field comp against anyone

i wont make comments on what can be seen/done from joystick rest/rail gun type setup, because i dont have much experience with them...maybe they can do better, but if you arent shooting with one, you arent going to get those results from your bag/bipod either in my opinion...then again theres always the guy hitting 50% at matches that swears by his load work routine and 1/4 moa guns...

lot of txt, but these topics have a lot of nuance lol...not all was aimed at you personally Spark....just had a comment that caught my attention, then some general experience/rambling...i would be curious if you did go back and test the "bad" load tho with an honest effort in similar conditions against your good one...conditions are key for a lot of people who dont have ideal testing ranges...testing one load on a day with 3-5mph steady winds and good lighting can for sure show differences vs 2-10 mph gusty winds and variable lighting, even at 100 yds...also needs to be same lots of all components, not all lots are made equal...it'll either match what ive seen or it wont...either way some info would be learned

ok, im going to go back to shooting my bows now...3d season is comin up! lol

 

[Jackomason]

They lumped BR and F-class guys into the mix on the first podcast and in the second they clarified they were talking about steel plate shooters.

These large volume tests are seen across the country, every weekend, in BR and F-class. (Maybe I should go watch some time so I'm not assuming). Is the score board full of people with good luck? Are they playing stupid games filled with delusion?

What are they doing differently than we are when it comes to barrels, brass, bullets, powder etc.. ?

 

[morganlamprecht]

They lumped BR and F-class guys into the mix on the first podcast and in the second they clarified they were talking about steel plate shooters.

These large volume tests are seen across the country, every weekend, in BR and F-class. (Maybe I should go watch some time so I'm not assuming). Is the score board full of people with good luck? Are they playing stupid games filled with delusion?

What are they doing differently than we are when it comes to barrels, brass, bullets, powder etc.. ?

100 yd BR specifically because at 100 yds is where most people are doing their load test so most applicable to this discussion...they have very specialized equipment...wind flags...adjusting aim/firing cycles based on conditions...some change loads constantly on the fly to achieve the results for that one single time frame...etc

they are doing a whole variety of things to achieve what they do, that ive never seen anyone doing a load work up @ 100 yds do outside of the BR arena, and arent even feasible for a field shooter to apply

and once you add shooter adjusting for guesstimated conditions, the best results are no longer laid solely on the rifle/load...its who had a good enough load and handled the conditions the best

Bartlein Frank laid out results from the higher end of BR matches in some above posts...those are the results for having every possible advantage tilted in favor of accuracy...start removing those things...flags, reloading prep, highest end rifles, experienced shooters, etc...the best expected results are only going to get worse and worse

 

[RegionRat]

Is the score board full of people with good luck? Are they playing stupid games filled with delusion?

What are they doing differently than we are when it comes to barrels, brass, bullets, powder etc.. ?

The calm days versus the windy days will show differences.

On those calm days, the scores are clumped tighter.

But when the winds start switching and blowing, you start to see a spread between the rookies and the high masters... with or without flags... YMMV

Happy New Year!

 

[MarkyMark007]

If you can perform a ladder test, shoot some groups, and play with seating depth then go shoot a group of 20-35 that matches the initial group size you found during development then you succeeded. If it doesn’t match that initial group size then that’s where the small sample size misled you.

very nicely put !

 

[MarkyMark007]

i have a stack of bolt guns/barrels over the last few years...that i picked a speed for that bullet weight/cartridge, added enough of a known good powder option to get to that speed, seated a bullet .020, .050, .075, or .100" off...and ill get the same results or better than they have...

just quick question: are you selecting your load by seating depth ? or you just pick one ?

 

[Zatchmo]

 

[MarkyMark007]

did I hurt your feelings because I said that your load developement is wrong?

 

[LR1845]

did I hurt your feelings because I said that your load developement is wrong?

No your more like that turd that won’t go down no matter how hard you plunge.

 

[MarkyMark007]

No your more like that turd that won’t go down no matter how hard you plunge.

oh, I hurt your feelings too!

 

[LR1845]

oh, I hurt your feelings too!

Not at all just pointing out the obvious.

 

[morganlamprecht]

just quick question: are you selecting your load by seating depth ? or you just pick one ?

none are where they are based on any shooting tests/results if that makes sense...ive measured where the lands are with each particular bullet, then i randomly picked 20/50/75/100 off to start with and loaded them there...then shot over a chrono to get to the speed i want, never gone back and messed with the depths, or needed too

ive tried probably 3-4 different bergers and 2 different hornady's in 223, 6/6.5creed, 6.5prc, 280prc, and 308...and with most of those bullets in multiple barrels, ive tried them at multiple or all of those random jumps and never saw significant changes...if the barrel liked that particular bullet, it shot it well anywhere i put it

before around 2017/18ish...not sure on exact time line, i had done all the normal powder/jump tests...and i saw similar results as everyone else. i gave people advice on here and in person about what i did because they would ask...i hit a lot of target and had success in matches so it had to be working, right? lol

around 2018-19, the last 1-2 yrs i was shooting competitively/seriously, i spent probably 8-10 months and 2-3k rounds in all those various calibers just testing to see what mattered, what i could mess up on purpose (not purposely using bad reloading techniques to make crap ammo, but just changes to load specs...ammo was still loaded as best i can load it)...id do a load work up start to finish, then i pick the worst load on purpose and take it to a match...or from one match to the next id randomly change my bullet jump from .020 to .100....id shoot 10 different charges with a bullet over the chrono and let a buddy pick which charge to shoot without even seeing a group size or ES/SD numbers, just 10-single shot speeds...i even took 2 different 6mm barrels and throated one out .075" longer than saami, and the other .0100" longer...then shot the same ammo thru them both in multiple matches...a 108 berger around 2900 fps...of course some of these things required rezero/redope...but on the range and in comps, i didnt have any fall off in accuracy/consistency...matches i nailed the winds id still hit 90+%...there was a stretch for a year or so i never shot the same load in the same barrel twice in consecutive matches...performance never dipped

there are threads on the hide i semi documented it from back then also, not sure how easy theyd be to find, but after spending all the time doing load work....then all the time trying to prove/mess up that load work...and still shooting the same results the whole time...i just quit worrying about it lol

one example i remember was a 308 barrel...it didnt like 168 elds with varget/8208xbr/2000mr...it would shoot them barely 1" for 5 shot groups on average...id get some small ones, but then id also get some bigger ones...that same barrel i could use any of those 3 powders and put a 175/185 berger, or a 175 sierra smk on top, and it would shoot 10 round groups in the .6-.8 range over and over

 

[morganlamprecht]

I have so many random images on my phone from years ago can’t remember what all is from what lol but these are 2 examples I could recognize

These are from when I was still testing random stuff, before I finally settled in on the 10 shots/0.5gr apart method I mentioned above that I have been using ever since…but they’re similar enough to it...these were part of the steps that lead me to that

Pic isn’t labeled but I can tell from the charge/velocity range this was a .308 175 Berger in lapua brass, most likely varget…probably a Krieger barrel

May 2020

Green dots pic is a test of a new (at the time) 6.5creed, 140 Berger long range target, .050” off lands (picked randomly), lapua brass, and h4350…a bartlein barrel

August 2020

Both sets are approx 2 grain spread…if I would have aimed all the top pic rounds at the same dot…it’d be a tiny 7 round group

Bottom pic I’m pretty sure those green dots are 3/4” iirc…20 rounds, 2 grain spread, never would have missed it minus the zero offset from the 130 hybrids I was zero’d for to start…account for the 0.1 I dialed after the first 2 rounds, how small would that 20 round group be? I’d be fine with it

I don’t remember what I loaded on the 308 because I don’t have that barrel anymore, but the 6.5creed, it’s still on that rifle and I just shot it yesterday…had to rezero because I removed the brake that was on previously and replaced it with a can…I’ve been runnin 41.7 grains because that put me right at the 2750 fps I like to run a 140 from a 6.5creed

All Rounds are numbered in the order I shot them (6-10, should be 7-10, marked it up wrong)…turned the chrono on after the first 3 shots because barrel was clean/oiled, been sitting in the safe

Both rifle and ammo haven’t been fired in ~2 yrs before yesterday, ammo has been loaded the whole time on the shelf

And of course, my zero is right in between 2 clicks lol screw it

In case anyone wonders, I was just using someone else’s old target they left up so we didn’t have to call the range cold for me to go put up my own, I knew I was only adjusting my zero for the can and wouldn’t be there long …that why it’s stapled over and has someone else’s Dot drill practice all over it, blue writing are the windage adjustments I made between dots

Off top of my head, I currently have 3-6creed, 2-6.5creed, 1-6.5prc, 1-308, 2-223, and 1-280prc…all with similar results to these in the safe…while I was still shooting seriously a few years ago and testing everything I did, I went thru a large amount of other various chambers and barrels also…I don’t wanna add it all up lol

Just so it’s clear, I KNOW these single shots alone aren’t an indicator of actual group sizes for that particular charge when I shoot them…BUT, I’m very, very confident(from experience), if it puts all the rounds like that over various powder charges…it’s goin to shoot really good once I pick a single charge and load it…literally been that easy

when i was testing all of this, i also ran all loads out many, many times at 400/600/800 yds (furthest i had available at the time), and they all held the same .5-.75ish moa average over lots of groups and lots of days...

no tricks, no voodoo, no tuner magic...thats all of it, that simple

side note: just realized the 3 rounds confirming zero i mentioned in post #216 w/ the 6.5prc/124 hammer hunters/RL26 from a few days before....thats is the cut out square in the bottom of the 2nd to last pic, u can see the 3 rounds through the backer board...cut it out to tape to the box of loaded ammo so i know its zero'd/confirmed for hunting in the future when ive forgotten where i left off lol

 

[secondofangle2]

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

By your own logic, Frank, you should do fewer than three laps, then you won’t get flagged.

 

[TrevK]

All the podcast really did for me is leave me with more questions that I had initially going in.

 

[JBoomhauer]

@morganlamprecht

Thats funny you say VooDoo. My group of shooting buddies refer to much of the “Load development” guys talk about as VooDoo magic.

I have the same results as you. Pick a semi random load with quality components and 9/10 it shoots.

 

[Lowlight]

By your own logic, Frank, you should do fewer than three laps, then you won’t get flagged.

No dumbass by m logic posted more than once here, we already figured all this out and settled on smaller numbers to test and verify vs high volume numbers, because exactly as posted above overdoing it is a waste of time.

We been doing this for more than 5 minutes and have determined a 5 shot group works fine.

 

[Vallery Patrick]

I get the sample size part, simple math. But the rest of it was just mumbo jumbo bs. I do appreciate seeing more of this type of stuff being presented nowadays esp by some top end shooters. The real problem with much of this is most reloaders do not have a seasoned process in the load room or the required skill to shoot the difference. Find a safe max and back off 1.5 to 2 grains. Every rifle will shoot in there. And if you run Quick Load you will see they almost always line up with a barrel time. It just does not need to be a complicated process and require multiple 50 shot strings to proof.

hmmm

 

[timintx]

Very informative thread thanks to all who contributed . Nice to see some sanity for once .
Timintx

 

[flounderv2]

Ok, Ill play

Its obvious at this point that the entire debate about rifle consistency, performance capability, and tuners, etc will continue for a long time. I plan on continuing to build on these types of articles as well as other topics with various rifles, setups, ammo types etc. The point being. Tuners Work! Volume of shots alone does not make a good test no matter what some like to think. Below is a test using a railgun setup so no shooter influence but also calls out sources of error in some published tests that people tend to look over. Again Ill say, that quantity of shots alone is not a good test. You need to understand the sources of error and adjust your testing setup accordingly. I dont turn my lights on and off 25x just to make sure they are working and its not a fluke.

Tuner Testing Results

Tuner Testing Example For those that don’t feel like reading the entire article the first few bullets are the cliffs notes A rifle fixture was used to eliminate all potential shooter error Approximately 140 rounds were fired for the test using a 223 and bulk ammo The best node identified...

www.kineticsecuritysolutions.com

 

[The_Steward]

Ok, Ill play

Its obvious at this point that the entire debate about rifle consistency, performance capability, and tuners, etc will continue for a long time. I plan on continuing to build on these types of articles as well as other topics with various rifles, setups, ammo types etc. The point being. Tuners Work! Volume of shots alone does not make a good test no matter what some like to think. Below is a test using a railgun setup so no shooter influence but also calls out sources of error in some published tests that people tend to look over. Again Ill say, that quantity of shots alone is not a good test. You need to understand the sources of error and adjust your testing setup accordingly. I dont turn my lights on and off 25x just to make sure they are working and its not a fluke.

Tuner Testing Results

Tuner Testing Example For those that don’t feel like reading the entire article the first few bullets are the cliffs notes A rifle fixture was used to eliminate all potential shooter error Approximately 140 rounds were fired for the test using a 223 and bulk ammo The best node identified...

www.kineticsecuritysolutions.com

Well, bad news for them. First, their math is wrong. They calculated the averages on the "bad tune" result using only the first 4 groups. Probably a coding error, but the difference between the averages is actually larger than they say.

But the second problem: the good tune produced groups that averaged a quarter inch smaller.... with a standard deviation of the groups at 0.29 inches. Just looking at their 5x5 results suggest that there's not statistical basis to conclude that the tuner produced better groups.

The p-value on the difference is 0.2. 20% of the time, a result like that would be expected to happen by random chance alone.

 

[ma smith]

Imagine if your scope 'tuners' were as unreliable to demonstrate performance as barrel 'tuners'...



150 rounds later maybe(?) I'll have zeroed my optic...

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

I wish they would have made the group photos at the end bigger and easier to see/compare.

 

[TicTacTex]

 

[RegionRat]

I had to bite my lip at several points, but the swirl will continue....

I must side with Jayden on that sticking point over whether PRS is a precision topic.

Just my opinion, but PRS, Silhouette, etc, are precision topics just like Highpower and BR when it comes to gun capability assessments.

Just because body, barricades, and field positions are used to support the gun during the match, versus always off the bag rests, should not imply that those guns are not precision topics.

I am also of the view that the way a gun is evaluated has nothing to do with the game scoring as just hit or miss on a plate.

If that were the case, then F-Class targets are just score rings and those don't report shot placement in MOA either.

Too much wine... carry on... YMMV

 

[JAS-SH]

I like Erik - enjoy a lot of his podcasts. But this one must have been painful for him. He went after Jayden, right off the bat, and although Jayden quickly got a very serious look, he politely proceeded to stomp on Erik.

To paraphrase - THIS IS NOT the actual conversation but it's the gist of the moment the tide turned in the podcast:

Erik: "Have you ever seen a 1/4 MOA rifle?"

Jayden: "I have not…"

Erik: "Well... How can you say that? Look at benchrest - blah blah...."

Jayden: "Are you saying that a 1/4 MOA gun always shoots 1/4 MOA every single time?”

Erik: "Well, ah, well, ah..."

Jayden: If you are saying that the gun shoots 1/4 ON AVERAGE then sure, there are some of those around."

Erik: "Well in benchrest and F-class...... OK, it’s an average...."

Jayden: "OK, so1/4 MOA average? Over how many shots? An average over MANY shots means that some of the shots will definitely be over 1/4 MOA.... And I have those numbers right here.... The more you shoot the bigger that high number gets…”

Erik: "Well, ah, well, ah... I agree... But we do things our way, because they work..."


And about PRS, not being a precision sport? Well, Erik tried it and he got beaten BAD. I'm sure he would have done better with all shots being at a 10-inch plate from the prone at a 1000.... But then, so would have a lot of the PRS guys. PRS rifles have incredible precision these days, and the shooters are very, very good.

Most everyone I've seen who shoot BR and F-Class constantly talk about precision. That is a misinterpretation that derives from extremely controlled circumstances and in no way represent shooting in the real world, where accuracy matters as much as precision. BR IS about precision.Those contests are won or lost by the size of the groups, regardless of where they land on the target.

Precision is only about the instrument and what it is attached to. Unless you use a rail gun or shoot BR then It is up to the shooter (the attachment) to get accuracy out of said precision instrument - Period.

 

[kthomas]

You wanna stir some shit up, start talking statistics, precision and hit probability to the ELR crowd.

*Cough* I mean yes.. yes of course your ES is 15 fps. Very impressive!

It's pretty painful, but at this point I don't even bother to engage in such debates.

Shooters & reloaders have a notorious lack of understanding about statistics and data analysis. And it doesn't seem like any discipline is immune. Surprisingly the BR crowd gets as caught up in it as easily as any. Same with ELR.

It's no wonder that products such as tuners fly off the shelves.

 

[timintx]

It's pretty painful, but at this point I don't even bother to engage in such debates.

Shooters & reloaders have a notorious lack of understanding about statistics and data analysis. And it doesn't seem like any discipline is immune. Surprisingly the BR crowd gets as caught up in it as easily as any. Same with ELR.

It's no wonder that products such as tuners fly off the shelves.

After a benchrest match there is plenty of statistics. The whole match is all about statistics and is the only discipline that requires true .250 or lower aggs match after match is 100 yd benchrest just to be in the top 10 most of the time. A 6 target agg of .170 -.190 area is quite common to win most all of the time at least in my opinion, and then the grand agg which is the sum of two gun agg in each class [heavy 10 shot groups and light five shot groups.]and at 100 and 200 yards. It is a true art and does happen quite frequently. 1000yd benchrest has a requirement of .2-.3 agg to win. , I have seen 2 target aggs as low as 2.1 inches at 1000yds and 2.3-2.9 inch 3 target aggs , now it takes a 2-3 inch agg to win at 1000yd nationals , no other discipline requires that kind of consistent precision to win.

Timintx

 

[MarkyMark007]

the biggest problem with Hornady's (=Ledzep) testing is that they commonly testing their inferior bullets in their inferior cartridges.

because hornady's bullets are the worst from most biggest producers (Lapua, Berger, Sierra), and benchres shooters use even way better bullets than the best commercial.

and about cartridges; if you test precision and velocity ES/SD in lousy cartridges like 6 ARC and 6,5 CreedMoor, you CAN'T get results like in realy accurate cartridges like 6 PPC (for short range benchrest), 6,5x47 Lapua (for long range benchrest)...

those cartridges and bullets are just way way better than Hornady's stuff.

and brass... nobody is using Hornady's brass in benchrest line... this is just wrong what are they saying about that they cant see the difference between their and other brass. probably they are lying because they work for Hornady or in those inferior cartridges they can't see the difference.

But on other things I absolutely believe them.

 

[Yoteski]

I like Erik - enjoy a lot of his podcasts. But this one must have been painful for him. He went after Jayden, right off the bat, and although Jayden quickly got a very serious look, he politely proceeded to stomp on Erik.

To paraphrase - THIS IS NOT the actual conversation but it's the gist of the moment the tide turned in the podcast:

Erik: "Have you ever seen a 1/4 MOA rifle?"

Jayden: "I have not…"

Erik: "Well... How can you say that? Look at benchrest - blah blah...."

Jayden: "Are you saying that a 1/4 MOA gun always shoots 1/4 MOA every single time?”

Erik: "Well, ah, well, ah..."

Jayden: If you are saying that the gun shoots 1/4 ON AVERAGE then sure, there are some of those around."

Erik: "Well in benchrest and F-class...... OK, it’s an average...."

Jayden: "OK, so1/4 MOA average? Over how many shots? An average over MANY shots means that some of the shots will definitely be over 1/4 MOA.... And I have those numbers right here.... The more you shoot the bigger that high number gets…”

Erik: "Well, ah, well, ah... I agree... But we do things our way, because they work..."


And about PRS, not being a precision sport? Well, Erik tried it and he got beaten BAD. I'm sure he would have done better with all shots being at a 10-inch plate from the prone at a 1000.... But then, so would have a lot of the PRS guys. PRS rifles have incredible precision these days, and the shooters are very, very good.

Most everyone I've seen who shoot BR and F-Class constantly talk about precision. That is a misinterpretation that derives from extremely controlled circumstances and in no way represent shooting in the real world, where accuracy matters as much as precision. BR IS about precision.Those contests are won or lost by the size of the groups, regardless of where they land on the target.

Precision is only about the instrument and what it is attached to. Unless you use a rail gun or shoot BR then It is up to the shooter (the attachment) to get accuracy out of said precision instrument - Period.

When Erik started going on about how only benchrest and F-class are precision shooters, this immediately popped into my head......

 

[37L1]

Your groups never get smaller with additional shots.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Your groups never get smaller with additional shots.

I've said this same thing for yrs, but a couple 3 shot groups by itself holds little merit. If you fire 3 shot groups at 100 yard intervals to 1K, and they are all good, you've accomplished something. But, the rifle and you need accomplish this on more than one day, and in differing climates. Which actually makes your sample size larger than realized, it is not just done in one or two settings.
Face it, at times, you may as well add shots to the group, it is that bad, adding 2 or 5 more shots actually makes the group look more acceptable. Nowhere is this more apparent than with 22LR.
We will never all agree on the path taken to load accurate ammo, but we should all agree that it is worthwhile.
I like target results, as well as numbers results, but the more I mess around with tuners and rimfire ammunition, the more questions I have.

 

[Yoteski]

the biggest problem with Hornady's (=Ledzep) testing is that they commonly testing their inferior bullets in their inferior cartridges.

because hornady's bullets are the worst from most biggest producers (Lapua, Berger, Sierra), and benchres shooters use even way better bullets than the best commercial.

and about cartridges; if you test precision and velocity ES/SD in lousy cartridges like 6 ARC and 6,5 CreedMoor, you CAN'T get results like in realy accurate cartridges like 6 PPC (for short range benchrest), 6,5x47 Lapua (for long range benchrest)...

those cartridges and bullets are just way way better than Hornady's stuff.

and brass... nobody is using Hornady's brass in benchrest line... this is just wrong what are they saying about that they cant see the difference between their and other brass. probably they are lying because they work for Hornady or in those inferior cartridges they can't see the difference.

But on other things I absolutely believe them.

I thought the same thing until I listened to his podcast with Erik; I posted as much previously in this thread. I think with Miles and Seth on the podcast also, there was a lot of extra noise where the data and statistics get lost in some misinterpretation. I don't mean that as bad noise, I just mean it gets really confusing when the conversation was pulled several different directions. Jayden kept going back saying, "average," in Erik's podcast. What it seemed like Erik kept overlooking, was that for an average group of .25, you have to have both larger and smaller groups. It's never just .25 over and over and over again.

 

[morganlamprecht]

If you fire 3 shot groups at 100 yard intervals to 1K, and they are all good, you've accomplished something. But, the rifle and you need accomplish this on more than one day, and in differing climates.

this is how i finally settled on evaluating and doping my rifles

the ones i fire at 100, need to be 1/2 moa or better average...pretty much all of them...and on the point of aim

when i move to 400, be it 2, 3, 5, etc shots...they still better fall in the 1/2-3/4moa range, also on POA

when i move to 600...and 800...same as above...im looking for 1/2-3/4 moa for all shots fired at every range combined and hitting where im expecting them too...a 1/4moa group 3" off the edge of the plate are just misses

 

[kthomas]

After a benchrest match there is plenty of statistics. The whole match is all about statistics and is the only discipline that requires true .250 or lower aggs match after match is 100 yd benchrest just to be in the top 10 most of the time. A 6 target agg of .170 -.190 area is quite common to win most all of the time at least in my opinion, and then the grand agg which is the sum of two gun agg in each class [heavy 10 shot groups and light five shot groups.]and at 100 and 200 yards. It is a true art and does happen quite frequently. 1000yd benchrest has a requirement of .2-.3 agg to win. , I have seen 2 target aggs as low as 2.1 inches at 1000yds and 2.3-2.9 inch 3 target aggs , now it takes a 2-3 inch agg to win at 1000yd nationals , no other discipline requires that kind of consistent precision to win.

Timintx

Data on group size but no statistical data and analysis on what contributed to those group sizes.

There is plenty of myth and lore in the BR world and reloading.