Found this article by 6.5 Guys while looking for information on OCW - http://www.65guys.com/10-round-load-development-ladder-test/
It got me to thinking, with long range we want low ES because the difference between high ES numbers could mean a miss in the field at longer distances. So loading to find that flat spot "a velocity flat spot where .4-.8 gr of powder doesn’t move the speedometer much" is really determining the best range for minimal differences between a range of charge weights. But help me understand, with OCW you're looking for accuracy variances between the different charge weights, but Scott is saying that he's found this accuracy sweet spot always lies within this velocity flat spot? Or is he saying we should fine the velocity flat spot and then adjust COAL from there to refine accuracy, but getting ES to a minimum is #1 priority? Not even sure I explained that adequately, but I'm always looking for better ways to skin the cat and this sounds like it might be just that.
It got me to thinking, with long range we want low ES because the difference between high ES numbers could mean a miss in the field at longer distances. So loading to find that flat spot "a velocity flat spot where .4-.8 gr of powder doesn’t move the speedometer much" is really determining the best range for minimal differences between a range of charge weights. But help me understand, with OCW you're looking for accuracy variances between the different charge weights, but Scott is saying that he's found this accuracy sweet spot always lies within this velocity flat spot? Or is he saying we should fine the velocity flat spot and then adjust COAL from there to refine accuracy, but getting ES to a minimum is #1 priority? Not even sure I explained that adequately, but I'm always looking for better ways to skin the cat and this sounds like it might be just that.