Load development is a myth?

[JR1200W3]

A pretty common point of contention right now is whether or not load development is as productive as people think. Hornady produced a podcast that stated many forms of traditional load development techniques are myths and if people shot higher sample sizes they would see that their results don't repeat. This has spurred all kinds of disagreement. My theory is that there is nuance to that position but I believe some people have taken it to heart and all they heard was "load development is a myth", some heard "you need larger sample sizes to truly evaluate", and some people altogether disagree with the entire premise. I also think the nuance comes in the form of the context. That when loading for established cartridges like 6 BR, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6GT, 223, and 308W many people the tiny gains people think they're making.... they're not and a higher sample size would show that .2 mrad group size improvement doesn't repeat, but when loading ugly ducklings like big magnums, extreme wildcats, copper monos, and certain pistol cartridges this hypothesis doesn't apply because these cartridges are so sensitive to seating depth and powder charges, case capacity density, and neck tension there are vast differences and gains to be made. I also think Hornady was pointing a finger at the traditional OCW's and round robins but some people threw the baby out with the bath water and think their stance applies to all forms of load development. Seating depth doesn't matter. Charge weight only matters for how fast you want to go and pressure. Use quality components and you're never going to meaningfully improve accuracy. And if you shot large enough sample sizes you'd see that.

So, let's clearly outline the shades of grey on this stance and see what everyone thinks they heard. I'm not interested in actually arguing which perspective is right. I want to know where people land on this.

I summarized the positions in the poll, but to more clearly outline each I'll break them down below. They represent the spectrum from hard-line "load development is a myth" descending down to "don't you bad mouth my OCW".

1. Any form of load development to "tune" accuracy is a myth. This means you think seating depth doesn't matter, in any cartridge. Charge weight doesn't change accuracy. Use quality components and load 29gr of Varget in a 6BR because that's as good as it's going to get. And the same applies to 375 Enabler at 3000yds.

2. Only certain gross changes can change accuracy. Changing powder types or bullet types can change or improve accuracy but you need to shoot a large(30+ rounds) to truly evaluate. .010" seating depth ladders and .3gr powder ladders are still myths. OCW's definitely myths.

3. Some forms are legitimate, as long as the sample size is large enough. This is for the people that think the entire point of the podcast was the sample size. Yes, you can change accuracy and POI with charge weight, seating depth, and neck tension but the fatal flaw in many people's"load development " is the lack of sample size so they misread the results. But there are still some wackadoo legacy methods out there like OCW's, round robins, single shot velocity ladders looking for flat spots.

4. All options are on the table, but sample size. Basically #3 but not ruling out legacy methods used to round robin POI tests.

5. Sample size isn't always required, but there are some quack methods out there. This for those 3rd tuner-tuning people looking for .3" groups. It those folks that have a .2" requirement and when round #2 is already at .5" they call it a bad load and move on. Because the group can't get better. But if they're shooting a 10rd group and rounds 1-5 are good, they're going to keep shooting because rounds 6-10 could get worse. But velocity flat spots don't exist and 3rd round robins are exactly what Hornady was talking about.

6. There is absolutely merit to OCWs and round robins. Shut your whore mouth about OCWs, round robins, and POI tests. I already know my gun shoots good enough and I want a stable load at distance. A consistent POI across and variance of charge weights is how you establish a long range load.

7. I still think velocity flat spots and accuracy nodes exist. Cool story bro. I'm more interested in a stable load that that exists in a velocity flat spot. That sweet spot shows me where stability at distance is.

Now that you've read the full description of poll options #1-7, go back and clarify your stance.

 

[JR1200W3]

For the record, I heard Hornady say #2, but I think they meant #3, and I'm at #5.

 

[diggler1833]

I'm in the position that if you shoot enough barrels, you'll eventually see most of the options listed above.

By and large though, I've collected too much anecdotal evidence that suggests that for every input you vary, you will see an output variation as well...whether it be large or small. Maybe enough to consider it, or maybe not. That's up to the shooter.

I also subscribe to the train of thought that many shooters can't shoot the necessary difference to be able to put total confidence in their load. I chase every tenth - mostly for a hobby and to better myself and my practices - but that trouble isn't worth it to many.

I guess that places me closest to #3.

*****

Let the shit throwing begin...

 

[Jgault]

It depends I shoot with guys on occasion who’s goal is to put bullets number 2 and 3 through the same hole as bullet 1 and they swear by it. For me if I find a load that puts me within an inch depending on the weapon for a somewhat reasonable price I’m happy, so depends on your perspective. With a very large budget for the weapon and ammo I’m sure it makes a difference, but whatever makes you happy. That being said I have allot of different powders chasing the dragon for good loads.

 

[memilanuk]

 

[tinker]

I'm in the position that if you shoot enough barrels, you'll eventually see most of the options listed above.

By and large though, I've collected too much anecdotal evidence that suggests that for every input you vary, you will see an output variation as well...whether it be large or small. Maybe enough to consider it, or maybe not. That's up to the shooter.

I also subscribe to the train of thought that many shooters can't shoot the necessary difference to be able to put total confidence in their load. I chase every tenth - mostly for a hobby and to better myself and my practices - but that trouble isn't worth it to many.

I guess that places me closest to #3.

*****

Let the shit throwing begin...

Pretty much my thoughts as well. I heard hornady say it "seating depth DOESN'T MATTER....LOAD TO MAG LENGTH". That just isn't true.

Everything makes a difference, some more than others. I don't sort or point bullets. Doesn't mean it wouldn't make a difference, just not enough for ME to chase it.

 

[wvfarrier]

 

[Makinchips208]

In the big picture, wouldn’t normal distribution show that taking hornady’s word alone be like doing a one or two shot group?

 

[CK1.0]

I'm a "pick a speed" guy who doesn't believe in load development anymore.

But, sometimes I have to shoot a few different MVs before I decide where I want to run based on good old ballistic trajectory (faster gets there sooner and covers up more bad technique, slower recoils less and covers up less) and picking a combustion fuel/air ratio that produces favorable SDs consistently. I don't consider that load development, simply pragmatism.

That said, I picked #1 (but I'm not sure I've met the "any form" qualifier enough for some).

 

[Huskydriver]

What about tuners and structured barrels?





















I'll show myself out

 

[JR1200W3]

I'm a "pick a speed" guy who doesn't believe in load development anymore.

But, sometimes I have to shoot a few different MVs before I decide where I want to run based on good old ballistic trajectory (faster gets there sooner and covers up more bad technique, slower recoils less and covers up less) and picking a combustion fuel/air ratio that produces favorable SDs consistently. I don't consider that load development, simply pragmatism.

That said, I picked #1 (but I'm not sure I've met the "any form" qualifier enough for some).

How do you reconcile the idea that changing seating depth and charge weight doesn't make a difference but you also think some cartridges are inherently more accurate than others. How do those two thoughts work in your head?

ETA: what cartridges are you loading for that have proven this to be true? Do you load any weird wildcats?

 

[JR1200W3]

For all the #3's.....do you shoot 30rd groups during your version of load development? Or do we think one thing but do another thing in practice?

If no to the first question, how do you reconcile the difference between accuracy and precision? If you think you need 30 + rounds in one group to evaluate precision, do you shoot 30 + rounds to confirm zero? Does sample size apply to one but not the other?

 

[Huskydriver]

I'll be honest for the last 2 years all I do is go load up a couple .020 off the lands to see where the pressure curve gets to Sniperhide hide starting load levels and check the speed. Might go up or down a tad to get where I think I wanna be. Then I load up a few more see how it groups. If she's holding moa or better I go full send.

Usually check it before a match ... Or the next reload cycle through the brass... If she's still holding we full send that noise again

 

[diggler1833]

For all the #3's.....do you shoot 30rd groups during your version of load development? Or do we think one thing but do another thing in practice?

If no to the first question, how do you reconcile the difference between accuracy and precision? If you think you need 30 + rounds in one group to evaluate precision, do you shoot 30 + rounds to confirm zero? Does sample size apply to one but not the other?

I am a firm believer that by the time I've shot and averaged (4) 5-round groups including a couple at 300+ yards...that I have a pretty decent idea what the rifle is going to shoot the next time I want to sit my fat ass down and shoot another 5-round group. Maybe I blow it out another 1/4 MOA, but I don't see wide swings.

If I shot 20 shot strings for competition, I'd want to shoot 20 shot groups in practice/load development confirmation. Hunting rifles get 4 x 3-shot groups with a complete cool down between. It works surprisingly well despite the statisticians telling me how foolish I am.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

I started with a 95 step process, (or whatever it was), and these days it's about 5 steps, and my cartridges are just as precise.

I open the reloading manual, select a powder, decide on a charge (I pick an even number, usually about 70% of the way from listed min to max). Then I find max coal, back off 20k, load 10 and test. 9 times out of 10 I have a sub moa load. I might, maybe, if I have time and feel like it, play with seating depth or slight changes to powder charge, but that's it.

Oh yeah, and I avoid VLD bullets. I think the 95 step process was neccessary to make VLD's shoot consistently.

 

[DM1975]

I tried velocity node testing for a new load. Everyone told me it was the thing to do so I tried it out and found a node. I went back and reshot the test and the SD’s were all different. I decided to do a large sample size test and worked up 25 shot tests shot 5x5 in various charge weights. That is to say that each bach if 25 was shot in 5 shot increments and measured. Then the total of 25 was measured afterwards.

In each case in a single charge weight the individual 5 shot groups had different SD’s and I could easily pick one as a “node”. But once I added all 5 groups together for each charge weight what I discovered was that the SD’s for each charge weight were extremely close to one another.

I shot over 150 rounds doing this testing and failed to find any velocity nodes within the large sample size regardless of finding them in the 5 shot samples. Some of the 5 shot samples were even as low as having an SD of 2.6 but that same charge weight from the same batch would have a 5 shot group up to a 13 in SD in some cases.

I found I had an average SD of 9 fps and never varied more than 2 fps. In fact if I re shot the same load the SD would still vary some but never outside of that +/- 2 fps spread.

All of my powder was measured to the hundredth of a grain, my neck tension was tested with a seating force of within 10 psi, all brass was the same from the same lot and annealed, primers were all seated with a primal rights primer seater to the same depth, all powder is stored and was measured and loaded between 50-55% humidity, anything loaded outside of these parameters was used as fouling shots. Powder was H4350, bullets were 147 grain ELD-m, primers were Federal gold medal match, brass was Gunwerks.

Things that I did notice was there was a shift in POI about mid way through the testing, and very little shift in group size.

I think having a low SD is very important but I think it’s more of a measure of how consistent your load development process is than anything else. One thing for sure was that the individual 5 shot groups were all very different and giving the appearance of “nodes” even amongst the same charge weights.

But this is only one test using only one rifle.

 

[DM1975]

It’s probably important to point out that I believe that if I raised the sample size to a greater number that the velocity spread between the different charge weights would likely shrink even more.

Also in all cases I could cherry pick 5 velocities from each 25 shot sample and end up with very low or very high SD’s depending on which ones I picked.

 

[morganlamprecht]

I tried velocity node testing for a new load. Everyone told me it was the thing to do so I tried it out and found a node. I went back and reshot the test and the SD’s were all different. I decided to do a large sample size test and worked up 25 shot tests shot 5x5 in various charge weights. That is to say that each bach if 25 was shot in 5 shot increments and measured. Then the total of 25 was measured afterwards.

In each case in a single charge weight the individual 5 shot groups had different SD’s and I could easily pick one as a “node”. But once I added all 5 groups together for each charge weight what I discovered was that the SD’s for each charge weight were extremely close to one another.

I shot over 150 rounds doing this testing and failed to find any velocity nodes within the large sample size regardless of finding them in the 5 shot samples. Some of the 5 shot samples were even as low as having an SD of 2.6 but that same charge weight from the same batch would have a 5 shot group up to a 13 in SD in some cases.

I found I had an average SD of 9 fps and never varied more than 2 fps. In fact if I re shot the same load the SD would still vary some but never outside of that +/- 2 fps spread.

All of my powder was measured to the hundredth of a grain, my neck tension was tested with a seating force of within 10 psi, all brass was the same from the same lot and annealed, primers were all seated with a primal rights primer seater to the same depth, all powder is stored and was measured and loaded between 50-55% humidity, anything loaded outside of these parameters was used as fouling shots. Powder was H4350, bullets were 147 grain ELD-m, primers were Federal gold medal match, brass was Gunwerks.

Things that I did notice was there was a shift in POI about mid way through the testing, and very little shift in group size.

I think having a low SD is very important but I think it’s more of a measure of how consistent your load development process is than anything else. One thing for sure was that the individual 5 shot groups were all very different and giving the appearance of “nodes” even amongst the same charge weights.

But this is only one test using only one rifle.

long while back i did similar...a lot of what i found before Hornady/Miles ever made the public podcasts was discussed here in various threads when he(Miles/Ledzep) found similar...1 308 barrel i spun up and put probably 1200 rounds doing similar tests...also did smaller tests on 223, 6.5creed, and 6.5prc...

seems like anyone who doesnt use the excuse of cost to test/retest larger samples finds similar...i also worked with a handful of other shooters so it wasnt just my results we saw

lots of nuance so its hard to discuss in text and most people have trouble grasping the concepts even when explained to them...like someone who is a 3/4moa shooter on a good day trying to figure out if this .6moa group or this .55moa group is the best load...if you cant see the issue with that, i got nothing for u

i guess i fall somewhere between Option 2 thru 5 and it just depends lol

my broad strokes...applying to someone shooting from a bipod/rear bag...basically anything short of a full BR/F open setup that removes as much of the shooter as possible...

**WITH MY RELOADING PROCESS** ( i'm putting this in caps, because maybe there are things others do to cause small things to matter/show up on target more drastically...for me they simply dont. in those cases, id be lookin to refine the process instead of tweaking the load, but thats my opinion)

selecting compnents...
no...i dont think a berger, barnes, hornady, sierra, etc will all shoot the same size groups in a barrel...so that part of "load dev" matters
no...i dont think varget, 8208, 4895, rl15 will all shoot the same size groups in a barrel...so that part of "load dev" matters
same for brass brand and possibly primer style/brand

"load dev"...
no...i dont think changing the jump on your berger hybrid or hornady eld .001/.003/etc matters as much as people give credit...if talkin jump vs jam, thats a large change, sure might matter.
no...i dont think changing your powder charge from 40.2 to 40.5 to 40.8 matters as much in the same way...ive shot 10 shot groups in various calibers and multiple barrels using 10 different charges over a 2-3gr spread that most people would be satisfied with as a "worked up final load"

a lot of the guys ive shot with who are heavily invested with their chosen load dev are the ones who can never explain why "theyre off today", "im not doing my part...", "this load shot .1moa the other day, idk what the problem is..." types. just because it shot a .1 last week in "testing", theyll be damned if every group outta that rifle with that load doesnt shoot .1s going forward.....

there is nothing wrong with their load or their rifle, they just have unrealistic expectations of their performance potential based on bad sampling and selective data...they remember their best, not their average, and completely ignore their worst. theres an upper and lower limit for every load anyone is shooting, and ignoring that is doing themselves a disservice...

i judge myself at my worst...i can bring that to the table or better every time. no need for the stars to align

and a lot of people will try to twist that i dont worry about their version of load dev to mean, i just settle for worse groups/performance...and thats incorrect. what actually happens is im already matching/bettering where theyre at without doing any of what theyre having to do when shooting similar rifle systems. ive tried their steps and methods and it added nothing to my results...why would i continue to do it?

also keep in mind, there are lots of results to be had in spite of something, not BECAUSE of it...ive done things to loads/barrels on purpose, that according to most would hurt their performance...and still won matches with them. i didnt win the match BECAUSE i randomly dropped the speed of a load from 3100 to 2650 fps...i didnt win BECAUSE i hand throated the chamber out .100"+ and shot the same ammo thru it (re-doped, because velocity will drop doing that...)...i won those matches in spite of doing any of that. winning by itself, is not a great overall metric without knowing the whole picture.

do whatver felt needed to get to the performance desired....then start undoing it one by one and see where it matters...take that worked up load thats been shooting and trusted, and change the charge by 1gr and seat the bullet .040 deeper...see what it does...not just 5 rounds...shoot 100. ...start intentionally trying to undo it and it might be surprising.

RELATED STORY:
I had a buddy who really took to liking the Satterlee test of single shots for velocity flat spots...we discussed it, he knew where i stood...he was still a fan.

one day i took a rifle out and fired a single shot velocity ladder...i asked him to pick the load he preferred. then i went out and repeated the same velocity ladder again. it didnt repeat exactly and had a different "flat spot" area in the charge weights...and when i showed it to him his reply was something to the effect of "id still run either of those loads since those were the flat spots...". aint much meaningful to discuss with that thought process...lol

 

[CK1.0]

How do you reconcile the idea that changing seating depth and charge weight doesn't make a difference but you also think some cartridges are inherently more accurate than others. How do those two thoughts work in your head?

ETA: what cartridges are you loading for that have proven this to be true? Do you load any weird wildcats?

I don’t think any cartridges are inherently more accurate than others, and have never said that. However, I do think some cartridges are easier to load for than others (usually smaller capacity cases that can run faster powders like Varget and such, and arguably that has more to do with the faster powders and their combustion characteristics than the case's/cartridges).

It seems like you are using “accuracy” as a metric and I don’t do that. I look and load for repeatability and low SDs exclusively, IMO accuracy is based purely on the rifle system and the shooter. IDK if I’m just lucky (I doubt it) or what, but if I shoot decently enough, my rifles nearly always print .3”-.4” without trying too hard when using a 22lb rifle with an 8oz trigger. I don’t even really care about 100 yard groups though, I want low SDs and small groups at distance too or who cares what the 100 yard groups look like? (I don’t)


(It seems like every other week there’s a thread from a guy asking to interpret some ladder/OCW or whatever where there’s a bunch of shitty groups in a row, looking for someone to tell them it’s the load and not the gun, and I’m almost always like “maybe look in the mirror and learn how to shoot first buddy” lol.)

 

[st1650]

Pick up quality components and it won’t matter nearly as much as you think.
It mostly comes down to picking the right powder, consistent bullets and having the same neck tension and the same amount of powder in every case. 20thou - 40thou from the lands, pick one as long as it’s not a huge jump or a huge jam. 41.5 H4350 vs 42.3 H4350 for the 140 Hybrid ? Doesn’t matter …
But yeah nothing makes me cringe more than seeing these guys load ammo with shit dies and a untuned charger master and do the whole 0.1gr increment to try to find a “flat spot” and then be all confused when their “flat spot” doesn’t jive with their “accuracy node”
Broscience McDojo crap brought in by obese click bait faggot guntuber “HERES 11 REASONS WHY YOUR HANDLOADS ARENT 1/8 MOA, WATCH MY 33MIN AD FILLED BOOMER GARBAGE FOR THE TRUTH”

 

[vh20]

I shot over 150 rounds doing this testing and failed to find any velocity nodes within the large sample size regardless of finding them in the 5 shot samples. Some of the 5 shot samples were even as low as having an SD of 2.6 but that same charge weight from the same batch would have a 5 shot group up to a 13 in SD in some cases.

I see this more than I like shooting 10-shot strings over a chrono, 5 at a time with a short break in between to let the suppressor cool (mirage starts to creep in making misses hard to spot at ELR). With a load that seems to average an SD of around 8-9, sometimes the first 5 shots will have a really low SD (like your 2.6), then the next 5 will blow the SD up to 13 for the 10-shot total (an extreme case, but saw it last week). Other times, the first 5 will have a big SD due to an unexpectedly large ES, but the next 5 will bring it down as long as they all stay well within the Min/Max velocities established by the first 5.
Fortunately, most of the time the load behaves as expected from its history over a long time, but these occasional things above will paint a very different picture if taken alone.

Also in all cases I could cherry pick 5 velocities from each 25 shot sample and end up with very low or very high SD’s depending on which ones I picked.

Exactly.

 

[JR1200W3]

I don’t think any cartridges are inherently more accurate than others, and have never said that. However, I do think some cartridges are easier to load for than others (usually smaller capacity cases that can run faster powders like Varget and such, and arguably that has more to do with the faster powders and their combustion characteristics than the case's/cartridges).

It seems like you are using “accuracy” as a metric and I don’t do that. I look and load for repeatability and low SDs exclusively, IMO accuracy is based purely on the rifle system and the shooter. IDK if I’m just lucky (I doubt it) or what, but if I shoot decently enough, my rifles nearly always print .3”-.4” without trying too hard when using a 22lb rifle with an 8oz trigger. I don’t even really care about 100 yard groups though, I want low SDs and small groups at distance too or who cares what the 100 yard groups look like? (I don’t)


(It seems like every other week there’s a thread from a guy asking to interpret some ladder/OCW or whatever where there’s a bunch of shitty groups in a row, looking for someone to tell them it’s the load and not the gun, and I’m almost always like “maybe look in the mirror and learn how to shoot first buddy” lol.)

Last paragraph of your last post in the 6.5 GT thread you started. Though you didn't use the words "inherently accurate" you said " easy to load for" in the context of it's case capacity & shoulder angle. If we stay out of hair splitting territory, most people would say that's pretty synonymous.

You're correct. My personal metric is precision. But I didn't specifically rule out load development for other reasons. Like brass life or forming wildcats. Personally, I don't worry about SDs and ES very much because that's where using quality brass, powder, and powder dropper will usually get you under 10 SD and I don't believe in load development for that magical SD node. Because I don't believe in nodes for most cartridges. Additionally, for the competitions that I shoot, SDs don't have much effect. I think it's something people get wrapped up in and then shoot 85% of a PRS match inside the range where you can't even true a BC much less see the affect of SDs.
And with some of the weirdo wildcats like 375 Raptor you're not going to load develop 13 grains of Lil Gun in a 308 case to single digit SDs.