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 or 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.

 

[vh20]

More grist for the mill. For the record, I don’t really have a strong enough opinion to weigh in on the poll. I kind of have a middle of the road opinion on what does and doesn’t matter. Anyway, here’s a pressure ladder I shot looking for the charge where first signs of pressure show up in this rifle when I began load development for it. Which charge will give the tightest group? (338NM)

Exact same thing happened doing a 300PRC:

I’m not making a statement, but when four rounds, a full grain apart in charge weight all shoot into 0.24 or 0.41 inches on completely different rifles/cartridges, it does leave one scratching their head about what “load development” really means. It would appear that any of those loads would perform on paper.
Edit to add: the 76.0 load for the 300 was the FIRST Berger bullet ever fired from that barrel, which was pre-fouled with nothing but 225ELDs. Same thing for the 338 above, the 86.0 load was the first Berger ever fired from the barrel that had previously never shot anything but 300SMKs, and was pre-fouled with them. My guess for the reason both of these rounds hit low vs the rest in the ladder was due to that bullet having a different bore condition and essentially having to re-foul the barrel for the new bullet type.

 

[diggler1833]

As far as velocity flat spots, I generally only see linear results in my own testing. Sometimes the ratio of powder to velocity might be a little more or less, but I've never added a 1% charge weight increase and had the same chronograph results (flat spot) so far.

However, I also frequently notice that ES and SD get tighter as case fill goes up, moreso with ball powders too. It isn't guaranteed, but occurs frequently enough that I usually expect it during testing.

 

[morganlamprecht]

More grist for the mill. For the record, I don’t really have a strong enough opinion to weigh in on the poll. I kind of have a middle of the road opinion on what does and doesn’t matter. Anyway, here’s a pressure ladder I shot looking for the charge where first signs of pressure show up in this rifle when I began load development for it. Which charge will give the tightest group? (338NM)
View attachment 8546080

Exact same thing happened doing a 300PRC:

View attachment 8546086

^^ thats what ive seen i mentioned above shooting pressure ladders many times in a lot barrels from .223 up thru 300prc wildcat variations

 

[Ledzep]

My testing/experience has shown to match pretty much spot on with @morganlamprecht . There is a long list of components, interactions, dimensions, etc... with various cartridges, powders, bullets, primers, cases, barrels, reamers and of that list a great number of those things can individually affect performance in a big way. It's difficult to speak in absolutes.

That said, I haven't adjusted my seating die in 3 6mm ARC barrels and I'm consistently producing ammo that floats between .5-.75 MOA for 20 shot strings with SD's in the 5-9fps range. I have adjusted powder charge in different barrels to make velocity match pressure test results to keep myself under 62,000psi. I have zero fear that adjusting .5gr will cause my load to "fall apart". Same thing in 6.5 Creedmoor and 300 PRC except I've had a couple barrels that require RL-16 instead of H4350, or RL-26 instead of H1000. I have never seen velocity flat spots except with improperly slow burning powder (add more powder and nothing happens) and almost unanimously the testing I've done shows one-directional trends (if a trend exists) in powder charge vs. dispersion. Haven't seen notches/nodes for that, either.

Assuming the long list of interactions is within reasonable bounds, I find it mostly to be a game of component matching (on a higher level it can even be a matter of lot matching) and keeping pressures sane. I jump .035" on everything and I would have to begin top-level competing in BR or F-class to make it worth my time to do more fiddling with seating depth. I am certainly leaving some performance on the table but to reliably achieve that performance requires more testing than I care to do routinely.

There are 100% benefits to be had by reloading vs. factory ammo. Different components can for sure behave differently. Components of different mfg. and even different lots have different levels of achievable performance. If a combination of components behaves poorly, you are not likely to fix it or cause dramatic changes by fiddling with powder charge or seating depth. If you want to know what a load is capable of, shoot at least 20-30 rounds of it with correlated POA/POI before comparing it to another load. You'll find when you start doing that, hit probability differences between loads aren't as big as you might originally believe.

 

[morganlamprecht]

ive seen types of bullets yield good numbers on the chrono and shoot terrible groups...ES/SDs were right in line with everything else i shoot, but accuracy was never there

some barnes solids specifically (excluding the LRX line)

a certain lot of hornady 88 elds

various hornady gmx's

some version of a lehigh i cant remember

...and probably others i cant remember...no amount of load fiddling got those to what my level of consistency/acceptable is

in those instances, changing the bullet choice and nothing else fixed the precision and the chrono numbers remained similar

a bullet has to come out of the barrel straight/balanced/etc and going the same speed...not just the same speed. the chrono predicts where i expect it to end up, based on where it starts...but alone it cant fully predict where that start is IMO

 

[CK1.0]

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.

View attachment 8546059


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.

Well, to each his own, "easier to load for" and "accurate" are two different things in my book, but I disagree strongly about SDs and ES not mattering much.

To me, consistency shot to shot and low SDs is everything. IMO good/low SDs is what determines one’s confidence in the bullets going where they think they’re going and the overall repeatability dictating one’s cone of fire.

It should be obvious, but I don’t believe in “nodes” or any of that nonsense either, but I fully believe in being the best ammo factory one can be and that more often than not, it’s the Indian, not the arrow.

I’ve heard it mentioned before, but I’ve never personally witnessed a load that yields good numbers shoot bad, and when I hear that, I think it’s safe to assume the people saying it are overestimating their capabilities and ignoring that the problem was probably them (not the load/gun). YMMV.

 

[JR1200W3]

Barnes LRX is a good example of a bullet where seating depth matters. They shoot very well out of my 7WSM after I tried three seating depths in gross .030 intervals.

I guess I could shoot more rounds for a better sample size and understand the true group size, but I just don't care to. It is what it is now. I'm going with it. I could beat a 17rd hole in the center of the target and let 14% of a 20rd group show the fliers to represent a slightly larger group size, but it wouldn't change anything for me.

Meanwhile 75gr ELD-M's are a great example of no seating depth or charge weights or even different powder reduced the odd flyers I would get from them in my .223 bolt gun. They would look good for a 5 rd group and then look shitty. I had the same experience in a 22GT. I chased them and came to the conclusion that over many loading and shooting sessions what I was seeing was exactly what Hornady stated. No amount of finite load development would improve them and over a large sample size you'll see the real aggregate. I switched to 85.5gr Bergers and solved the problem.

Two things being true at the same time. But if one is spoken in absolutes then it makes it a false statement. Because sometimes it's true and sometimes it's not. Depending....

 

[DM1975]

More grist for the mill. For the record, I don’t really have a strong enough opinion to weigh in on the poll. I kind of have a middle of the road opinion on what does and doesn’t matter. Anyway, here’s a pressure ladder I shot looking for the charge where first signs of pressure show up in this rifle when I began load development for it. Which charge will give the tightest group? (338NM)

View attachment 8546080

Exact same thing happened doing a 300PRC:

View attachment 8546086

I’m not making a statement, but when four rounds, a full grain apart in charge weight all shoot into 0.24 or 0.41 inches on completely different rifles/cartridges, it does leave one scratching their head about what “load development” really means. It would appear that any of those loads would perform on paper.
Edit to add: the 76.0 load for the 300 was the FIRST Berger bullet ever fired from that barrel, which was pre-fouled with nothing but 225ELDs. Same thing for the 338 above, the 86.0 load was the first Berger ever fired from the barrel that had previously never shot anything but 300SMKs, and was pre-fouled with them. My guess for the reason both of these rounds hit low vs the rest in the ladder was due to that bullet having a different bore condition and essentially having to re-foul the barrel for the new bullet type.

With my testing I had a POI shift of 1/10 mil low at the mid point of my testing as I reduced my charge weight. It was the only shift in POI I had and that zero didn’t change as I went lower after that. It did not affect group size though.

What I also had was shooting one of the faster loads out of my other 6.5 Creedmoor the group was pretty wide, almost an inch. When I reduced the charge weight the groups shrunk to just under 1/2 inch. I attribute this to the fact that while that barrel is 2” shorter it also shoots on average about 30 fps faster than the one I was using for testing and I was slightly over pressure I think.

 

[JR1200W3]

From the last match our club had.

100rds
10 stages
39 total targets
10 targets were over 600yds

- 32 shots to be fired in the 10 targets over 600yds
- 30fps ES on a 22GT 85.5 Berger going 3200 produces a 1.2" vertical spread at 600yds. Non-issue on a 1.5 - 3moa plate. 32% of your points and these plates are still within the capabilities of a 30fps ES

10rds to be fired on targets over 800yds.
-30fps ES on a 22GT 85.5 Berger going 3200 produces a 2.3" vertical spread at 800yds. Non-issue on a 1.5 - 3moa plate. 10% of your points and these plates are still within the capabilities of a 30fps ES

If you go off math, there doesn't seem to be a large affect.

 

[JR1200W3]

Typing this about my 22GT and 85.5gr Bergers just made me remember when I took it to my first match. I loaded the night before and was mandreling after FL sizing. I loaded them in a 550 and when I reached in the blue bin to start putting them in the 100rd Alpha cartridge box, I realized the mandrel had opened the necks up to much. I thought I had checked neck tension but I fucked up somehow and the bullets were pushing down in the case when I was ham handedly grabbing a bunch. They were at all kinds of OAL and it was late at night the evening prior to the match. So, fuck it. It's what I'm shooting. When I loaded mags the next day at the match I would pull bullets up in the neck so they all looked even, lol. And they shot F'n great. Prime example of shooting well despite some of the things we do. But I still wouldn't advise someone to shoot varying lengths of seating depth or jump with no neck tension because it worked for me once, in one cartridge.

 

[CK1.0]

ive seen types of bullets yield good numbers on the chrono and shoot terrible groups...ES/SDs were right in line with everything else i shoot, but accuracy was never there

some barnes solids specifically (excluding the LRX line)

a certain lot of hornady 88 elds

various hornady gmx's

some version of a lehigh i cant remember

...and probably others i cant remember...no amount of load fiddling got those to what my level of consistency/acceptable is

in those instances, changing the bullet choice and nothing else fixed the precision and the chrono numbers remained similar

a bullet has to come out of the barrel straight/balanced/etc and going the same speed...not just the same speed. the chrono predicts where i expect it to end up, based on where it starts...but alone it cant fully predict where that start is IMO

This is maybe just something I've never encountered... and if switching bullets is all it took to fix it, then there's probably a discernable explanation out there somewhere (maybe the twist didn't work with the bullet weight? or a bad lot of bullets? etc). So I see what you're saying and believe good numbers yielding bad groups can legitimately happen in certain cases.

But IME, if I see good numbers from the chrono and if my barrel/rifle are in good shape, if I put my effort into trying to shoot good, then it shoots good, period.

I guess you could say I'm weary/skeptical of any guy who's too quick to blame the gun or the load... because from what I've seen, most times it's more a case of guys being in denial that it's them, with them just looking for something to blame it on. It seems like a lot of guys would rather search for some mythical "node" or drive back and forth to the range burning up their shit playing with things like seating depth and charge weights rather than simply look in the mirror and put in the work (practice). Even for the guys who are true believers when it comes to load development, from my point of view, it's more than likely just the placebo effect of some sort, or like a Rorschach test where they see what they want to see.

If most clubs are like my club, there's like a small army of dudes who are stuck in neverending load development, with fancy supposed long-range rifles that spend most of their time never reaching out past 100 yards (and it's kind of sad honestly). Sometimes it seems like, for too many guys, load development is the whole hobby.

 

[CK1.0]

FWIW, for guys who maybe haven't seen/read them before, Cal Zant's "How Much Does It Matter?" series from 2015 is excellent and worth the time.

IMHO, especially this one (the WEZ shot simulator stuff is killer, one can literally see how groups shrink with lower SDs):

How Much Does SD Matter?

As long-range shooters, we tend to obsess over every little detail. After all, we’re trying to hit r...

precisionrifleblog.com

 

[DM1975]

This is maybe just something I've never encountered... and if switching bullets is all it took to fix it, then there's probably a discernable explanation out there somewhere (maybe the twist didn't work with the bullet weight? or a bad lot of bullets? etc). So I see what you're saying and believe good numbers yielding bad groups can legitimately happen in certain cases.

But IME, if I see good numbers from the chrono and if my barrel/rifle are in good shape, if I put my effort into trying to shoot good, then it shoots good, period.

I guess you could say I'm weary/skeptical of any guy who's too quick to blame the gun or the load... because from what I've seen, most times it's more a case of guys being in denial that it's them, with them just looking for something to blame it on. It seems like a lot of guys would rather search for some mythical "node" or drive back and forth to the range burning up their shit playing with things like seating depth and charge weights rather than simply look in the mirror and put in the work (practice). Even for the guys who are true believers when it comes to load development, from my point of view, it's more than likely just the placebo effect of some sort, or like a Rorschach test where they see what they want to see.

If most clubs are like my club, there's like a small army of dudes who are stuck in neverending load development, with fancy supposed long-range rifles that spend most of their time never reaching out past 100 yards (and it's kind of sad honestly). Sometimes it seems like, for too many guys, load development is the whole hobby.

I shot 147 ELDM side by side with 143 ELDX and both had similar SD’s and were loaded using the exact same process but the 143’s wouldn’t even hold a 1.5 MOA group. It is not uncommon for a bullet/powder combination to shoot well out of some rifles but not others.

 

[vh20]

This is maybe just something I've never encountered... and if switching bullets is all it took to fix it, then there's probably a discernable explanation out there somewhere (maybe the twist didn't work with the bullet weight? or a bad lot of bullets? etc). So I see what you're saying and believe good numbers yielding bad groups can legitimately happen in certain cases.

But IME, if I see good numbers from the chrono and if my barrel/rifle are in good shape, if I put my effort into trying to shoot good, then it shoots good, period.

I guess you could say I'm weary/skeptical of any guy who's too quick to blame the gun or the load... because from what I've seen, most times it's more a case of guys being in denial that it's them, with them just looking for something to blame it on. It seems like a lot of guys would rather search for some mythical "node" or drive back and forth to the range burning up their shit playing with things like seating depth and charge weights rather than simply look in the mirror and put in the work (practice). Even for the guys who are true believers when it comes to load development, from my point of view, it's more than likely just the placebo effect of some sort, or like a Rorschach test where they see what they want to see.

If most clubs are like my club, there's like a small army of dudes who are stuck in neverending load development, with fancy supposed long-range rifles that spend most of their time never reaching out past 100 yards (and it's kind of sad honestly). Sometimes it seems like, for too many guys, load development is the whole hobby.

Yep. I’m looking for Good Enough, not necessarily Best. Good Enough for me is sub-0.5MOA @ 100, ES in the 20s, and single-digit SD. I don’t always get it (my 300PRC load is great one day and not so much the next). But when I can get those numbers I’m done, and sending them all ELR after that.

 

[CK1.0]

It's worth noting that part of the reason I feel the way I do about load development is that I never use small sample sizes.

When I pick a load (usually out of thin air), I load 100 (or more, sometimes as many as 300). Then I shoot them, without deciding whether it's a good or bad load or what I'm going to do next until I'm done.

Let's say I picked 32 grains and it netted me 2800fps, if I'm curious if I might get better numbers going faster or slower, I might load the next 100 (or more) +/- a whole grain (either 31gn or 33gn), after using a simple equation to see what my speeds might look like: 2800/32=87.5, therefore 31gn should be ~2712 (87.5x31), 33gn ~2887.5 (87.5x33). This equation is almost always within ~5-10fps of what I actually net.

When I make a change I load at least 100 rounds, always. If I'm deciding on whether I like a bullet or not I shoot at least 500 (usually more) before I make up my mind.

Doing this keeps me honest and deters me from chasing fairy tales (and I'm not lucky and I don't believe in coincidence, yet somehow my shit always shoots ~.3"-.4" at 100 yards).

I don't care about or look for accuracy because when you shoot as many as I do, it gets pretty easy to tell that 99.9% of the time, if it doesn't shoot, it's me, not the load.

 

[morganlamprecht]

This is maybe just something I've never encountered... and if switching bullets is all it took to fix it, then there's probably a discernable explanation out there somewhere (maybe the twist didn't work with the bullet weight? or a bad lot of bullets? etc). So I see what you're saying and believe good numbers yielding bad groups can legitimately happen in certain cases.

But IME, if I see good numbers from the chrono and if my barrel/rifle are in good shape, if I put my effort into trying to shoot good, then it shoots good, period.

I guess you could say I'm weary/skeptical of any guy who's too quick to blame the gun or the load... because from what I've seen, most times it's more a case of guys being in denial that it's them, with them just looking for something to blame it on. It seems like a lot of guys would rather search for some mythical "node" or drive back and forth to the range burning up their shit playing with things like seating depth and charge weights rather than simply look in the mirror and put in the work (practice). Even for the guys who are true believers when it comes to load development, from my point of view, it's more than likely just the placebo effect of some sort, or like a Rorschach test where they see what they want to see.

If most clubs are like my club, there's like a small army of dudes who are stuck in neverending load development, with fancy supposed long-range rifles that spend most of their time never reaching out past 100 yards (and it's kind of sad honestly). Sometimes it seems like, for too many guys, load development is the whole hobby.

All that does apply in most cases

Fortunately for me, I’ve had/have enough rifles and barrels that I can tell In handful of rounds if its the rifle system/load

In those cases twist rates and all that were fine for the uses, those barrels shot multiple other bullets in those same weight ranges fine…twists were at/faster than recommended, calculated stability was fine and barrels were cleaned and maintained. some bullets just don’t jive with a barrel.

Whether that’s the fault of the bullet or the barrel/chamber, idk…but when the shooter can switch bullets, or rifles altogether, and outshoot that bullets bench groups while doing 90 second 10 round barricade groups, it’s pretty easy to rule out the shooter lol

 

[JR1200W3]

FWIW, for guys who maybe haven't seen/read them before, Cal Zant's "How Much Does It Matter?" series from 2015 is excellent and worth the time.

IMHO, especially this one (the WEZ shot simulator stuff is killer, one can literally see how groups shrink with lower SDs):

How Much Does SD Matter?

As long-range shooters, we tend to obsess over every little detail. After all, we’re trying to hit r...

precisionrifleblog.com

Thanks for linking that. It's been a couple of years since I read it. I thought this portion of his article was specifically relevant to our discussion.

"Lowering your SD has a slightly bigger improvement on the further target, but we can still see the point of diminishing returns as the lines start to level off. In these scenarios, there is a big 5% difference from 20 fps to 15 fps, but only 2.9% improvement from 15 fps to 10 fps, and then just a 1% improvement in hit percentage going from an SD of 10 fps to 3 fps! This is primarily because, once again, most misses at long range are caused by wind and not vertical dispersion. Bryan Litz says “If you’re missing the target for reasons unrelated to vertical dispersion, then reducing vertical dispersion won’t improve hit percentage very much.”

It really reinforces my opinion that hyper focusing on SDs has diminishing returns and as long as you're in the low teens or under 10 you're fine. And you can do that without load development with Alpha/ Lapua brass, Hodgdon Extreme powders, CCI450's, and an Autotrickler without even trying. In fact that is also mentioned in the article you linked.

It’s relatively easy for a reloader to produce ammo with an SD of 15 fps, but you have to be meticulous and use good equipment if you want to wrestle that down into single digits.

 

[st1650]

Thanks for linking that. It's been a couple of years since I read it. I thought this portion of his article was specifically relevant to our discussion.

"Lowering your SD has a slightly bigger improvement on the further target, but we can still see the point of diminishing returns as the lines start to level off. In these scenarios, there is a big 5% difference from 20 fps to 15 fps, but only 2.9% improvement from 15 fps to 10 fps, and then just a 1% improvement in hit percentage going from an SD of 10 fps to 3 fps! This is primarily because, once again, most misses at long range are caused by wind and not vertical dispersion. Bryan Litz says “If you’re missing the target for reasons unrelated to vertical dispersion, then reducing vertical dispersion won’t improve hit percentage very much.”

It really reinforces my opinion that hyper focusing on SDs has diminishing returns and as long as you're in the low teens or under 10 you're fine. And you can do that without load development with Alpha/ Lapua brass, Hodgdon Extreme powders, CCI450's, and an Autotrickler without even trying. In fact that is also mentioned in the article you linked.

It’s relatively easy for a reloader to produce ammo with an SD of 15 fps, but you have to be meticulous and use good equipment if you want to wrestle that down into single digits.

Autotrickler isn't really required if you tune a chargemaster and run it on DC.

 

[CK1.0]

I don’t think getting low SDs is the difference between finishing in the mid-pack or on the podium. I’m just saying low SDs is a concrete way of knowing one’s gun is shooting as close as we can manage to the same spot every time and a way of knowing that its cone of fire is about as small as we can make it.

To me, that’s a verifiable predictor of what should happen, so when I print a .3” group one day and then it opens up and prints a .6” group the next, I can safely assume I’m the problem. So before I go dicking around with the load, miraculously, if I put more effort into fundamentals like getting a better/cleaner trigger-press, and maybe concentrate a little more on minding my follow-through and NPA, my groups always shrink back to where they were. No mythical “node” stuff necessary.

 

[supercorndogs]

All that does apply in most cases

Fortunately for me, I’ve had/have enough rifles and barrels that I can tell In handful of rounds if its the rifle system/load

In those cases twist rates and all that were fine for the uses, those barrels shot multiple other bullets in those same weight ranges fine…twists were at/faster than recommended, calculated stability was fine and barrels were cleaned and maintained. some bullets just don’t jive with a barrel.

Whether that’s the fault of the bullet or the barrel/chamber, idk…but when the shooter can switch bullets, or rifles altogether, and outshoot that bullets bench groups while doing 90 second 10 round barricade groups, it’s pretty easy to rule out the shooter lol

I asked frank Green about barrels that don't like a particular bullet. His response was about the SD in bore and bullet diameter measurements. I don't rmeber what thread it was in.

It's funny how the wheel goes round and round and we come back to old things. The adage, "can you shoot the diffrence" has been handed down through time for a reason. Probably why BR started. Some stubborn bastards were like," by God, I will figure out if I can shoot the diffrence."

I have been happy with a minimal reloading process for a long time.

I remember once shooting a charge weight ladder for my 243AI with some noselr cc 105. The initial ladder went one ragged hole for 6 or 7 shots. That rifle kreiger barrel built by LRI never shot another ragged hole group with 105cc. It was lights out with anything else. I had the same problem with 155cc in my 308.

 

[DM1975]

I don’t think getting low SDs is the difference between finishing in the mid-pack or on the podium. I’m just saying low SDs is a concrete way of knowing one’s gun is shooting as close as we can manage to the same spot every time and a way of knowing that its cone of fire is about as small as we can make it.

To me, that’s a verifiable predictor of what should happen, so when I print a .3” group one day and then it opens up and prints a .6” group the next, I can safely assume I’m the problem. So before I go dicking around with the load, miraculously, if I put more effort into fundamentals like getting a better/cleaner trigger-press, and maybe concentrate a little more on minding my follow-through and NPA, my groups always shrink back to where they were. No mythical “node” stuff necessary.

I agree that a low SD is important but what is a low SD? That becomes subjective. If you’re shooting something like F Class then 10 to 15 fps might be unacceptable, but if you’re shooting PRS it might be fine.

I suppose the point really is that a lot of the methods used to get those low numbers simply don’t work like people think they do. Ladder tests, node tests, ocw tests, bullet seating, etc. These all rely on 3 to 5 shot groups and you simply can’t get enough information with that to tell anything more than maybe your average velocity.

I personally believe velocity testing is a complete waste of time. I have no personal data on bullet seating depth but I have a suspicion that it’s also a waste of time.

How I work on lower SD’s? I work on it through perfecting my process as much as I can. But I’m not gonna bust my ass trying to squeeze out every single inch of perfection that I can. I’m not going to sort brass by weight or volume, I’m not going to sort bullets by weight, I’m not going to point bullets, I’m not going to tweak concentricity, I’m not going to sort primers, etc…

I also don’t think you have to shoot 100-500 rounds to get an idea of what your load is going to do. I think 20 rounds is going to give you a really good idea if it’s going to shoot well or not. It might not be the whole story but it’s enough to tell if it’s a promising load or not. At that point if it’s crap I’m going to change bullets or powder. That’s it. Not gonna chase my tail when there is no tail to chase. I’m going to find an acceptable level of accuracy and that’s it. But I also understand that group dispersion happens and understand circular error probability enough not to get upset if all of a sudden I shoot a 3/4 moa group.

 

[morganlamprecht]

i have an interesting ES/SD reduction story...caveat, i only did it one time, didnt retest it in other calibers, etc...i wont say its absolute, but could be worth checking...

at some point way back i was using large pocket lapua brass...and i was hearing reports of "small primer brass yielding better numbers/consistency..."

so i decided to try it...ordered small primer brass and cci450s

and initially what i found matched those reports...the numbers i was getting from similar loads w/ cci450s was always slightly better than what id see on average with cci200s...i know there are a lot more variables than just the primer size when talking about that change, but i was still curious if i could isolate something...had to start somewhere

if i was used to seeing 25-40es/8-12sd with the large primers in samples...i was seeing 15-25es/5-8sd with the small primers...same bullets and powder.....just example numbers, i dont remember the exact...it was a long time ago. But, the small primers/brass were giving consistently better numbers than i was used to seeing...slightly, but still there

so i weighed the different brass...ranges between the small and large versions we basically a wash...

started lookin at the primers...i always bought primers in large lots, so i was using the same lots of each throughout everything...

weighed them (i dont remember the actual weights, just the spread/differences i observed)...and the large primers i had, if the average was 5.5gr, the low was like 5.2 and the high was like 5.8, with the vast majority of them being scattered in the 5.3-5.7 range...i had never weight sorted primers before so i didnt know if this was good or bad at this point

weighed the smalls...and in the 100ct tray i weighed out they were all almost identical...if the average in this batch was 4.5gr, the low was like 4.4 and the high 4.6, with probably 95% of them being 4.5 exactly...

so from that, i took 10 rounds of the large rifle primers that weighed near the low end around 5.3gr...then 10 rounds of the upper end around 5.7gr...and compared them...both batches had similar es/sd, but the heavier primers velocity average was like 15 fps faster iirc

AND...both of those 10 round large primer strings now had similar ES/SD to my small primer strings......so i went back and loaded up a few more 10 round strings of large primers of the same weights...and doing that, the large velocity numbers performed right with my small primers numbers

from what i could tell in that case...my conclusion was it had nothing to do with my reloading/process, it was just a variation between different lots of components...and i also dont think that every batch of small rifles primers will be more consistent than large, id bet its just luck of the manufacturing draw

anddddd i never weight sorted primers again, because F that time suck lol but at least i had a decent hint as to some "why"

 

[JR1200W3]

The idea that putting together a charge weight (or even a seating depth, I'm not sure if you committed to that but it kind of sounded that way) to attain a low SD being "the load". Where a different charge weight may not achieve the just-right fuel air combustion mixture.
1) that sounds like someone's version of load development. I know you said you didn't consider that to be load development, just pragmatism. But by most anyone else's definition they would probably call that LD.
2) The idea that you've achieved a load that is consistent at distance and stable over time by loading to a particular charge weight with a low SD borders on the ideas that velocity nodes are based on.

 

[JR1200W3]

i have an interesting ES/SD reduction story...caveat, i only did it one time, didnt retest it in other calibers, etc...i wont say its absolute, but could be worth checking...

at some point way back i was using large pocket lapua brass...and i was hearing reports of "small primer brass yielding better numbers/consistency..."

so i decided to try it...ordered small primer brass and cci450s

and initially what i found matched those reports...the numbers i was getting from similar loads w/ cci450s was always slightly better than what id see on average with cci200s...i know there are a lot more variables than just the primer size when talking about that change, but i was still curious if i could isolate something...had to start somewhere

if i was used to seeing 25-40es/8-12sd with the large primers in samples...i was seeing 15-25es/5-8sd with the small primers...same bullets and powder.....just example numbers, i dont remember the exact...it was a long time ago. But, the small primers/brass were giving consistently better numbers than i was used to seeing...slightly, but still there

so i weighed the different brass...ranges between the small and large versions we basically a wash...

started lookin at the primers...i always bought primers in large lots, so i was using the same lots of each throughout everything...

weighed them (i dont remember the actual weights, just the spread/differences i observed)...and the large primers i had, if the average was 5.5gr, the low was like 5.2 and the high was like 5.8, with the vast majority of them being scattered in the 5.3-5.7 range...i had never weight sorted primers before so i didnt know if this was good or bad at this point

weighed the smalls...and in the 100ct tray i weighed out they were all almost identical...if the average in this batch was 4.5gr, the low was like 4.4 and the high 4.6, with probably 95% of them being 4.5 exactly...

so from that, i took 10 rounds of the large rifle primers that weighed near the low end around 5.3gr...then 10 rounds of the upper end around 5.7gr...and compared them...both batches had similar es/sd, but the heavier primers velocity average was like 15 fps faster iirc

AND...both of those 10 round large primer strings now had similar ES/SD to my small primer strings......so i went back and loaded up a few more 10 round strings of large primers of the same weights...and doing that, the large velocity numbers performed right with my small primers numbers

from what i could tell in that case...my conclusion was it had nothing to do with my reloading/process, it was just a variation between different lots of components...and i also dont think that every batch of small rifles primers will be more consistent than large, id bet its just luck of the manufacturing draw

anddddd i never weight sorted primers again, because F that time suck lol but at least i had a decent hint as to some "why"

Ya, ya, ya, but you see.....10rd strings is too small of.a sample size. If you tried it again with a 30rd string of each you'd see it doesn't repeat.

 

[morganlamprecht]

Ya, ya, ya, but you see.....10rd strings is too small of.a sample size. If you tried it again with a 30rd string of each you'd see it doesn't repeat.

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

 

[JR1200W3]

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

Oh, no need to virtue signal to the high sample size crowd. The genie is out of the bottle. You already outed yourself as a 10rd string one and done, call it evidence kinda guy. That simply won't do on the Hide my friend

 

[supercorndogs]

I agree that a low SD is important but what is a low SD? That becomes subjective. If you’re shooting something like F Class then 10 to 15 fps might be unacceptable, but if you’re shooting PRS it might be fine.

I suppose the point really is that a lot of the methods used to get those low numbers simply don’t work like people think they do. Ladder tests, node tests, ocw tests, bullet seating, etc. These all rely on 3 to 5 shot groups and you simply can’t get enough information with that to tell anything more than maybe your average velocity.

I personally believe velocity testing is a complete waste of time. I have no personal data on bullet seating depth but I have a suspicion that it’s also a waste of time.

How I work on lower SD’s? I work on it through perfecting my process as much as I can. But I’m not gonna bust my ass trying to squeeze out every single inch of perfection that I can. I’m not going to sort brass by weight or volume, I’m not going to sort bullets by weight, I’m not going to point bullets, I’m not going to tweak concentricity, I’m not going to sort primers, etc…

I also don’t think you have to shoot 100-500 rounds to get an idea of what your load is going to do. I think 20 rounds is going to give you a really good idea if it’s going to shoot well or not. It might not be the whole story but it’s enough to tell if it’s a promising load or not. At that point if it’s crap I’m going to change bullets or powder. That’s it. Not gonna chase my tail when there is no tail to chase. I’m going to find an acceptable level of accuracy and that’s it. But I also understand that group dispersion happens and understand circular error probability enough not to get upset if all of a sudden I shoot a 3/4 moa group.

OCW is not looking for any kind of SD numbers.

 

[morganlamprecht]

Oh, no need to virtue signal to the high sample size crowd. The genie is out of the bottle. You already outed yourself as a 10rd string one and done, call it evidence kinda guy. That simply won't do on the Hide my friend

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...