Load development is a myth?

[morganlamprecht]

but...at the same time there is the other group of people who stands firm thinking they are seeing substantial differences between two different 3-5 shot groups that are .4 and .6moa

to hell with both of em haha

 

[JR1200W3]

some people have to just use their brain a little bit on the sample size thing...seems a few people heard "you need large samples..." and have just been screaming it without understanding it...you need large sample to hash out SMALL differences...not so much for larger ones...

if you fire two different load 3 round groups and one is 2600/2605/2608.....and the second group is 2905/2900/2910...you can rest pretty dang sure whatever you changed was the cause without testing anything else lol

now if youre trying to compare 2605/2615/2609 vs 2610/2613/2617....or .7moa vs .6moa vs .5moa....youre going to have to fire a lot of rounds to hash that noise out...

I completely agree about the sample size bandwagoning. I won't ever deny a higher sample size will illuminate results with more fidelity, but I would nitpick that it isn't always necessary to accomplish what you want. It just depends. Hence #5 in the poll. And it's interesting to see the results of the poll with #3 being the most popular.

 

[supercorndogs]

yea this was wayyyy before anyone even thought about 30s...heck 10 was "wasting too much time/money" according to most people lol

how i tested back then was to load up my baseline load...shoot X number of the baseline prior to what i was testing...then shoot my tests...then reshoot another X number of my baseline...used this to make there was no noticeable shift/bias occurring in the barrel strictly from the number of rounds being fired...if the baseline before and after landed where they should AND the test loads showed a clear difference with hardly any overlap...i called it good enough to be plausible lol

People get so enomoured with "what to do" they will miss the nuance and not unders tand why. They will tell you your 3rd groups don't mean anything when there are 5 of them next to each other.

Just point out the wheel going round. We used to want 5x5s if someone said their gun was 1/2 moa. Proofing with a 30rd sample isn't super revolutionary. Anyone who shoots proves their load over time with large samples.

 

[supercorndogs]

but...at the same time there is the other group of people who stands firm thinking they are seeing substantial differences between two different 3-5 shot groups that are .4 and .6moa

to hell with both of em haha

I was just looking for a picture of a target I had the other day. I was shooting groups with my 223. Just tying to get some more rounds one the barrel. Force on target a little. Get 3/4 of vertical spread bullet holes not touching anymore. Get good NPA drive them through the same hole again. Shooting 10rd strings I always get impatient and open up that spread forcing my rifle on target after it has moved a little over the subsquent shots. Moving targets forces me to reset. I feel like none of that really means anything for field positions because I am always foring my rifle on target somewhat.

 

[morganlamprecht]

People get so enomoured with "what to do" they will miss the nuance and not unders tand why. They will tell you your 3rd groups don't mean anything when there are 5 of them next to each other.

Just point out the wheel going round. We used to want 5x5s if someone said their gun was 1/2 moa. Proofing with a 30rd sample isn't super revolutionary. Anyone who shoots proves their load over time with large samples.

thats true...i should have more accurately stated 30 rounds per group during testing

 

[JR1200W3]

I'd also like to address this "100yd group" thing that was halfway thrown out there.

A comment was made: (paraphrasing), "...I don't care about how it shoots at 100, I care about how it shoots at distance.."

To me, accuracy and precision are final. Above all else. Velocity, BC, etc. And yes, at some distance ES is a component of precision. But the idea that 100yd precision is inconsequential compared to group size at distance is nonsensical to me. If your load doesn't shoot at 100, it's not going to shoot at distance. You have to believe in the whole bullets going to sleep thing which was put to rest a long time ago. And yes, just because a group shoots well at 100, it doesn't guarantee it will shoot well at distance. But without relying on "feel" or "I don't have any data but I suspect" type of beliefs, the obvious cause of that is the bullet. That is the bullets job and at a certain distance ES plays a factor. If you have a load that shoots well at 100 and doesn't shoot well at distance, and you have reasonable ES, it's either your wind call or you need to try another bullet.

I think a persons ability to shoot their zero counts for more than load development and is the ying and yang of calling wind. The most important and impactful of the 4 rifle fundamentals is Position. This has the biggest impact on precision and accuracy at distance. We know that loading bipods differently causes elevational POI shifts. Head position, eye centered in the ocular socket, centered in the exit pupil all play an important role in precision and accuracy. I think a bigger problem that people ignore is being able to lay down and shoot the same zero day after day. And position change after position change. And shooting groups at 100 is how you sustain the muscle memory and perishable skills of maintaining your zero. And that's just laying down and shooting off your belly. Then you need to be able to do it positionally. And on top of all of that your data is anchored off your 100yd zero. So why wouldn't you ensure you have a solid anchor? I don't think this is a beginners task. There are some fundamentals that masters continually train and can perform these fundamentals at a high level, which is what makes them masters. Sets and reps makes masters.

 

[supercorndogs]

some people have to just use their brain a little bit on the sample size thing...seems a few people heard "you need large samples..." and have just been screaming it without understanding it...you need large sample to hash out SMALL differences...not so much for larger ones...

if you fire two different load 3 round groups and one is 2600/2605/2608.....and the second group is 2905/2900/2910...you can rest pretty dang sure whatever you changed was the cause without testing anything else lol

now if youre trying to compare 2605/2615/2609 vs 2610/2613/2617....or .7moa vs .6moa vs .5moa....youre going to have to fire a lot of rounds to hash that noise out...

I typed mine before i read yours. You be Pete. I will be re-Pete.

 

[FatBoy]

I completely agree about the sample size bandwagoning. I won't ever deny a higher sample size will illuminate results with more fidelity, but I would nitpick that it isn't always necessary to accomplish what you want. It just depends. Hence #5 in the poll. And it's interesting to see the results of the poll with #3 being the most popular.

Not exactly load testing , but sample size would have certainly saved me a couple headaches with a Dasher I’m having rebuilt. It’s an NRA Any Rifle and shot lights out for about 16 rounds, then started throughly shots out the top for another 6-7 rounds, then settled back downs. Consistent across two weekends, 7 matches with two different shooters.

So, is this an ammo problem? No, I don’t think so. Would a longer string of testing identified this? Maybe. What it does reenforce is we’re working with a system to put those rounds on target and the system needs to be tested at least to the expectation of its intended use. If I was hunting with this rifle, or just doing 5 shots groups with cool downs, I never would have seen this behavior.

IMO, there are some known load/twist rate combos that shoot well in almost every caliber. These are my Go-TOS as running 6.5x284 for several years broke me of the 200-300 round load test shit forever. At the cost of components, I’ll not go back. I’d rebuild a rifle first… it’s cheaper.

As to the scale thing, Phillip Crow won the Leech Cup two year (in a row I think) which is 20 straight record shots at 1k with iron sights from a sling and coat , with ammo thrown on a charge master and dumped directly into the case. Dude is a human bench rest but it produced “good enough” SDs to be a champion many times over. I’m sure he played with the load until it was consistent, which can be tricky with 7mm bullets IMO.

 

[morganlamprecht]

I was just looking for a picture of a target I had the other day. I was shooting groups with my 223. Just tying to get some more rounds one the barrel. Force on target a little. Get 3/4 of vertical spread bullet holes not touching anymore. Get good NPA drive them through the same hole again. Shooting 10rd strings I always get impatient and open up that spread forcing my rifle on target after it has moved a little over the subsquent shots. Moving targets forces me to reset. I feel like none of that really means anything for field positions because I am always foring my rifle on target somewhat.

ive had some related discussions between a few other local shooting buddies...their claim is along the lines that i personally see very small variations in load changes due to how i shoot technique-wise

whatever that/my technique is...i can change a lot of stuff in the load...and they dont move a whole lot on paper @ 100...obviously at distance, speed matters if the changes affect that

but theyve seen the process i settled on and use...and when they try to use it...they dont typically see the same results...similar, but there seems to be a lot more variation in their data sets.

tho if that variation is shooter based, i dont really see how theyd find a load to cover that up...may be a reason theyre not quite as consistent day to day

 

[morganlamprecht]

I'd also like to address this "100yd group" thing that was halfway thrown out there.

A comment was made: (paraphrasing), "...I don't care about how it shoots at 100, I care about how it shoots at distance.."

To me, accuracy and precision are final. Above all else. Velocity, BC, etc. And yes, at some distance ES is a component of precision. But the idea that 100yd precision is inconsequential compared to group size at distance is nonsensical to me. If your load doesn't shoot at 100, it's not going to shoot at distance. You have to believe in the whole bullets going to sleep thing which was put to rest a long time ago. And yes, just because a group shoots well at 100, it doesn't guarantee it will shoot well at distance. But without relying on "feel" or "I don't have any data but I suspect" type of beliefs, the obvious cause of that is the bullet. That is the bullets job and at a certain distance ES plays a factor. If you have a load that shoots well at 100 and doesn't shoot well at distance, and you have reasonable ES, it's either your wind call or you need to try another bullet.

I think a persons ability to shoot their zero counts for more than load development and is the ying and yang of calling wind. The most important and impactful of the 4 rifle fundamentals is Position. This has the biggest impact on precision and accuracy at distance. We know that loading bipods differently causes elevational POI shifts. Head position, eye centered in the ocular socket, centered in the exit pupil all play an important role in precision and accuracy. I think a bigger problem that people ignore is being able to lay down and shoot the same zero day after day. And position change after position change. And shooting groups at 100 is how you sustain the muscle memory and perishable skills of maintaining your zero. And that's just laying down and shooting off your belly. Then you need to be able to do it positionally. And on top of all of that your data is anchored off your 100yd zero. So why wouldn't you ensure you have a solid anchor? I don't think this is a beginners task. There are some fundamentals that masters continually train and can perform these fundamentals at a high level, which is what makes them masters. Sets and reps makes masters.

100% agree...

in 2016 i shot the same 6.5creed barrel from February at the Brawl (won) to the Finale (14th i think?)...i never moved my zero once.

in all my rifles, once i figured out how to set them up to be mostly bomb proof, the only real zero issues i ever had were tracked back to really severe impacts (like removing/bending material) and a couple mechanical scope issues

 

[supercorndogs]

ive had some related discussions between a few other local shooting buddies...their claim is along the lines that i personally see very small variations in load changes due to how i shoot technique-wise

whatever that/my technique is...i can change a lot of stuff in the load...and they dont move a whole lot on paper @ 100...obviously at distance, speed matters if the changes affect that

but theyve seen the process i settled on and use...and when they try to use it...they dont typically see the same results...similar, but there seems to be a lot more variation in their data sets.

tho if that variation is shooter based, i dont really see how theyd find a load to cover that up...may be a reason theyre not quite as consistent day to day

I feel like it's something easier to pick up the easier the gun is to shoot. A fairly heavey 223 is one of the easier ones to shoot off a bag and bipod.

 

[JR1200W3]

What it does reenforce is we’re working with a system to put those rounds on target and the system needs to be tested at least to the expectation of its intended use.

Ehh, I shoot 100rd matches. Are you saying I need to shoot 100rd samples of each load in an outing?

Again. It depends. If you're an Fclass shooter, and 20rd strings x 3 relays is your match then ya, it probably makes sense to proof your load during a practice session with a 20rd string at distance. But I don't know that that idea scales up in a practical manner for other disciplines.

As an analogy, I am currently working with some young instructors who teach a different discipline than shooting. Mountaineering. In this discipline there is an established Critical Task List that qualified folks have to recertify on annually. Our Instructors complaint is that while there is a standard for certification there isn't a venue for people with this advanced skill set to perform the testing while also in a simulated combat environment where they're employing fires and maneuvering. The issue is that you would need to be able to fire mortars and machine guns on glaciated terrain. Where in the Continental US can you do that? Lol. There are one maybe two places, but most anywhere with glaciated terrain or pristine mountains in the lower 48 is a national treasure. You ain't going to turn Longs Peak into churned mud.

So I think with some complex operations it's acceptable to assemble the varied skills in isolation of each other so that on game day you can put them together in the conduct of the exercise. The train as you fight idea is a simple one that people can over complicate often.

 

[DM1975]

OCW is not looking for any kind of SD numbers.

You’re correct and I should clarify. I lumped it in with everything else but my point is that using 3 to 5 shot groups isn’t giving you enough information in any of those tests regardless of what you’re testing for.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

What about tuners and structured barrels?





















I'll show myself out

No need… it is a good point.

And all contribute to accuracy.

To say that developing a load for a gun/ barrel does not help implies that 100 years of wildcatting and handloading did t get us where we are now.

I might make the assertion (based on nothing more than intuition) that modern factory match ammo is probably so highly-repeatable that it is very hard to improve on it with handloading.

But there are dozens of factors that are part of making that perfect group or shot or 4000 yard hit or clean kill…..

And handloading is a part of that.

It’s also part of the fun. To seek that perfect group with a rifle you built or tuned or ‘spec’d. With ammo you made yourself. Means that your excuses are all boiling down to… you guessed it… you!

There is value to that.

Sirhr

 

[FatBoy]

Ehh, I shoot 100rd matches. Are you saying I need to shoot 100rd samples of each load in an outing?

Again. It depends. If you're an Fclass shooter, and 20rd strings x 3 relays is your match then ya, it probably makes sense to proof your load during a practice session with a 20rd string at distance. But I don't know that that idea scales up in a practical manner for other disciplines.

I agree with this. I would also suspect you keep data of how the rifle is performing across the long matches.

Another example of mine, I had a 6BR that started to speed up 18 to 20 rounds after clean bore, raising POI at 1k almost a full MOA within 2 shots. I knew it well enough to keep track of it and expect it. I believe this was also a bedding issue, not ammo related.

That said, I agree with what you’re saying. I only adds this to say “it depends” and personally I like to test the variables I can. Ammo is just a part of it.

 

[JR1200W3]

I agree with this. I would also suspect you keep data of how the rifle is performing across the long matches.

A great day is when you place top 5. A good day is when you don't have any elevational misses, just wind. A bad day is when you have mechanical issues, floaty zeros or have to take data out after a certain distance, or make avoidable mistakes as the shooter.

 

[supercorndogs]

You’re correct and I should clarify. I lumped it in with everything else but my point is that using 3 to 5 shit groups isn’t giving you enough information in any of those tests regardless of what you’re testing for.

Your clarification is incorrect.

 

[DM1975]

Your clarification is incorrect.

Lol ok

 

[jthor]

While feel isn't a metric it does feel like some cartridges are easier to load for than others. Specifically short, and "fat" powder column cartridges like the 6BR and its variants, 6.5 PRC, and 300 WSM. Maybe that's why the FClass community went to the 7-6.5 PRCW other than brass?

A little off topic, but I've seen having the gun chambered with the "appropriate" chamber make huge gains in ease of reloading. Specifically for me was my old Service Rifle barrel that had a CLE chamber. It would shoot lights out with 77s, but loading 80s for it for the 600 yard line was a PIA to get it to shoot well. At least the combo that worked well for it. It did not like our COTS black hills 80 SMKs for sure. My newer barrel chambered in a wylde shoots 77s well and 80 SMKs or 80.5 FBs with 24.4 of varget.


All in all.
A good barrel, chamber, brass, appropriately selected bullet and powder combo always makes reloading easier.

 

[morganlamprecht]

3-5 shot groups can tell you certain things...not everything

if im shooting a charge/pressure ladder its more of a verification of the bullet/powder combo...not the individual loads themselves...

ex...if i shoot 3 shot groups of charges from 40-43gr in 0.3 increments and all of the groups hit a similar POI and print between .2-.6" groups...im comfortable saying i can load that bullet/powder combo anywhere in that range and see an avg performance around .4-.5" and a consistent POI

what i CANT tell with any certainty is if those individual .2 vs .3 vs .4 vs .5 vs .6" 3 shot groups are a true representation of their specific loads performance and how they would compare to each other over the next 100s+ rounds of shooting one or the other...

the other end of that spectrum is if i shot that same 3 shot charge range and group 1 was .3" and hit 1" higher than midline...group 2 was 1.5" and hit midline...group 3 was .6" and hit 1/2" above midline, and group 4 was .5" and hit 3/4" below midline...etc etc basically group sizes from terrible to great and POI shifts all over...

all that 2nd test would tell me is that bullet/powder combo sucks in that barrel and has zero consistency...all those 3 shot groups are showing you is a random small window sample from a giant composite group and a terrible load combo...toss it, aint worth wasting time IMO

im going to steal this guys post for an example of what it SHOULD look like when you have a good/consistent combo...Post #15

How To Read OCW Test Results

I went to the range today and shot my load using OCW. This is my very first time using this method. I'm having a hard time interpreting the results. Based on what I read online, you pick the load that has single-digit ES (FPS) velocity but others are looking for clusters that are adjacent to...

www.snipershide.com

you cant be completely sure any of those are no doubt better than any of the others, but you can be very confident anything loaded in that range of charges will perform similar to the overall average of them combined

 

[JR1200W3]

I "feel" like there's a lot of mental acrobatics going on with people that want to be seen as having a particular stance on load development. But then when they get talking, they say things that can only be true if you believe in certain combustion characteristics that can be manipulated.

Here's an interesting thought. Exercise. Pretend you work for a dictionary company and they ask you to make a definition for load development. What is your definition?

I will go first.

Load development is any systematic act or process to manipulate or produce a desired outcome in internal or external ballistics by a person or entity who assembles ammunition.

 

[morganlamprecht]

I "feel" like there's a lot of mental acrobatics going on with people that want to be seen as having a particular stance on load development. But then when they get talking, they say things that can only be true if you believe in certain combustion characteristics that can be manipulated.

Here's an interesting thought. Exercise. Pretend you work for a dictionary company and they ask you to make a definition for load development. What is your definition?

I will go first.

Load development is any systematic act or process to manipulate or produce a desired outcome in internal or external ballistics by a person or entity who assembles ammunition.

I couldnt disagree with that definition, but it sounds a lot broader than most anyone ive discussed "load development" with

if im reading/understanding that correctly, any selection of a certain component not just chosen at random would be considered "load development"?

my definition would be similar....but would need the addition of the systematic act/process being performance/results based

picking a berger, grabbing h4350, and adding powder until that berger goes a desired, predetermined speed range before ever firing a round or looking at any results IMO (and anyone ive discussed reloading with would not techincally be considered load dev) by our common understanding of it

"load dev" as i think most would understand it...would fall under picking that berger, grabbing h4350, shooting different amounts of powder and picking a choice based off results...then changing the depth...picking another choice...etc etc as deep as one wants to go. this one is where the sample sizes and data becomes a hot topic

 

[DM1975]

3-5 shot groups can tell you certain things...not everything

if im shooting a charge/pressure ladder its more of a verification of the bullet/powder combo...not the individual loads themselves...

ex...if i shoot 3 shot groups of charges from 40-43gr in 0.3 increments and all of the groups hit a similar POI and print between .2-.6" groups...im comfortable saying i can load that bullet/powder combo anywhere in that range and see an avg performance around .4-.5" and a consistent POI

what i CANT tell with any certainty is if those individual .2 vs .3 vs .4 vs .5 vs .6" 3 shot groups are a true representation of their specific loads performance and how they would compare to each other over the next 100s+ rounds of shooting one or the other...

the other end of that spectrum is if i shot that same 3 shot charge range and group 1 was .3" and hit 1" higher than midline...group 2 was 1.5" and hit midline...group 3 was .6" and hit 1/2" above midline, and group 4 was .5" and hit 3/4" below midline...etc etc basically group sizes from terrible to great and POI shifts all over...

all that 2nd test would tell me is that bullet/powder combo sucks in that barrel and has zero consistency...all those 3 shot groups are showing you is a random small window sample from a giant composite group and a terrible load combo...toss it, aint worth wasting time IMO

im going to steal this guys post for an example of what it SHOULD look like when you have a good/consistent combo...Post #15

How To Read OCW Test Results

I went to the range today and shot my load using OCW. This is my very first time using this method. I'm having a hard time interpreting the results. Based on what I read online, you pick the load that has single-digit ES (FPS) velocity but others are looking for clusters that are adjacent to...

www.snipershide.com

you cant be completely sure any of those are no doubt better than any of the others, but you can be very confident anything loaded in that range of charges will perform similar to the overall average of them combined

I can get more in line with this than I can a lot of the other methods. It’s when someone says a 3 or 5 shot group alone is going to be the end all be all of the performance of a certain charge weight and bullet combination that I have issues with. The room for error and probability in general in 3 or 5 shots is just too great for that, be it SD’s or group size. But if over a series of these groups if a particular load isn’t performing then it simply isn’t performing.

 

[jthor]

that can only be true if you believe in certain combustion characteristics that can be manipulated.

Out of curiosity, what combustion characteristics are folks manipulating?

 

[Changed]

The more I shoot, the less I believe in "Nodes" or "Tuning".

I believe in Quality—good-quality bullets, brass, powder, barrels, actions, scopes, and stocks.

I've taken brand new rifles with new Lapua brass, Berger bullets, and Hodgdon's or Vihtavuori Powder and shot one-hole groups with zero tuning.

Case in point: Brand new barrel, brass...etc.

The image below is of a three-shot group. These happen to be the first three shots after zeroing the new barrel. I picked a very light charge to break the barrel in with.

6GT, Berger 108BT, Varget, Hornady Brass.

 

[FatBoy]

I do believe that there is a benefit to ladder testing a range of charges at distance. For example, 3 x shots at 600 yards with charges ranging from 32.0 to 33.6 in .3 grain increments. If you find 2 or three consecutive charges that have the same or roughly the same POI on target, load for the middle of that and then your fudge factor for tiny mistakes on charges is built in. As long as this load holds the expected precision, who cares what the numbers look like?

If all of the charges fall inside your accuracy window, fuck it, you’re good. Pick one and go.

E-targets have really simplified this.

 

[ACard]

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.

Interesting, I pretty much do the same but shoot 6mm VLD's (109) and have had great successes.