OCW Results (Confirm nodes)

[thepatchcable]

Hello all,

I've attached a photo of my OWC results and it looks like my charge range is 44.5-45.0?

These are 175SMKs using N550. I have velocity details as well but was able to work up to 45.5 (max charge is 45.7) with no pressure signs. Obviously, recoil was noticeable at 45.5. Also, I accidentally wrote 40.0-40.5 which is actually 44.0-44.5. Sorry.

 

[Cfshooter]

Hello all,

I've attached a photo of my OWC results and it looks like my charge range is 44.5-45.0?

These are 175SMKs using N550. I have velocity details as well but was able to work up to 45.5 (max charge is 45.7) with no pressure signs. Obviously, recoil was noticeable at 45.5. Also, I accidentally wrote 40.0-40.5 which is actually 44.0-44.5. Sorry.

I would load up 44.7 and start depth testing.

 

[Doom]

I would load 44.5 44.8 and 45.1 and reshoot but tying 44.7 is an option. Both 44.5 and 45 have similar average points of impact.

I am going to make a couple of comments on the method you are using. You appear to be shooting a 308 and for cartridges in that load range the increment to use is 0.3 grains. Usually with that increment you will see three charges with similar points of impact. Also, it helps to use a target that has more clearly defined increments for measurement as well as intersecting Lines at the point of aim to improve alignment. You didn't mention if this was shot round robin or not but having that info can be important.

 

[straightshooter1]

I would load 44.5 44.8 and 45.1 and reshoot but tying 44.7 is an option. Both 44.5 and 45 have similar average points of impact.

I am going to make a couple of comments on the method you are using. You appear to be shooting a 308 and for cartridges in that load range the increment to use is 0.3 grains. Usually with that increment you will see three charges with similar points of impact. Also, it helps to use a target that has more clearly defined increments for measurement as well as intersecting Lines at the point of aim to improve alignment. You didn't mention if this was shot round robin or not but having that info can be important.

^^^^^ DITTO

.5 gr increments makes it difficult to find the sweet spot for this cartridge. .3 gr works much better.

And I might add, there plenty of room above 44.7, so I would probably go further.

 

[thepatchcable]

I would load 44.5 44.8 and 45.1 and reshoot but tying 44.7 is an option. Both 44.5 and 45 have similar average points of impact.

I am going to make a couple of comments on the method you are using. You appear to be shooting a 308 and for cartridges in that load range the increment to use is 0.3 grains. Usually with that increment you will see three charges with similar points of impact. Also, it helps to use a target that has more clearly defined increments for measurement as well as intersecting Lines at the point of aim to improve alignment. You didn't mention if this was shot round robin or not but having that info can be important.

Thanks. Yes, this was round robin at .5 incs. I was told to stop wasting my time with .3 incs. However, I do plan to reshoot now that it's narrowed down. I will follow your suggestion of 44.5 44.8 and 45.1.

I will also use a "real" target when I shoot next. Thanks for your help.

 

[Evintos]

Just draw intersecting lines on your grid paper.

 

[Doom]

For what it's worth, to save on components I will load 1 cartridge at min, then up .5 grains until I get to about 95% of maximum then switch to 0..3 gr. If I'm dealing with any new components then I may run a charge test at 0.5 grains up to max to check for pressure.

 

[RegionRat]

I’ll be the dissenting opinion…. Sorry but since you asked…


To clearly interpret the group centroid shift from an OCW test at short range, you need a better ratio between the group center uncertainty versus the shift size. Yours is inverted, meaning your groups are so scattered and large, that it swamps the center shift uncertainty.

If we drew a circle diameter that represented the group probability with any level of confidence, even one with a low confidence and accepted a high risk that we were wrong…., the diameter of that probability would be so large that trying to repeat a center shift would look random on the next test.

Based on this target, without even entering the data, I can say your probability of repeating the test or finding an OCW is near zero.

My money would be on the bet that A) something is wrong with the rig or shooting, or B) this recipe is a punt and this rig won’t shoot it tight. Look for a different combination if this is supposed to be a 1 MOA or better rig.
YMMV

 

[CK1.0]

You're wasting your time and components with this, there's no such thing as nodes and OCW is a bunch of BS.

Jump to ~8:00 minutes...

 

[Doom]

You're wasting your time and components with this, there's no such thing as nodes and OCW is a bunch of BS.

Jump to ~8:00 minutes...

Two comments. First to the #50 comment. OCW typically will be based on 9 shot with similar paints of impact at 100yds. The smaller calibers and cartridges don't always follow that rule as the "nodes" if they exist are close together. The system works. It is important to note that the data being discussed in the video was associated with a rifle with a 1.25" bull barrel. This can be drastically different than thinner barrels.

To @RegionRat's point, the advice is correct. In reviewing the target I noted that the target may be part of the issue. Something, including possibly the shooter is causing a lot of dispersion. The system works much better with targets with intersecting lines or diamonds to aid in alignment. That said, it is my experience that the process can reliable if it isn't hardware. At least it was for me. It would only take in this case probably between 3 and 9 rounds to determine if the suspected load is viable.

 

[CK1.0]

I'm not looking to get in a back and forth here, peeps can do whatever they want...

That said, science > "that's the way we've always done it", and as that pertains to reloading, there are a lot of guys who can't handle the truth.

All this nodes and OCW stuff is all nonsense... just like the barrel break-in nonsense (which most fudds wouldn't accept before they saw it come up in an Erik Cortina video lol).

More fuel = more speed, always, period. That's just science, like gravity. If one doesn't see that, they're not in a "node" or have found the mythical "optimum charge weight"... they just haven't shot enough rounds to know better, period.

I do believe there's such a thing as a better or worse load, mostly due to all the components working in concert with one another and finding a good seating depth range. But, more or less, the only thing certain is that: the closer we can become to being an awesome "ammo factory" with low tolerances, making every single round a clone of its brethren, the same as the last one and just like the next one, the better off we are.

I don't think it's so much about a "good load" vs a "bad load" anymore, it's more about "no surprises" and consistency/repeatability.

Watching guys chase fairy tales is almost painful sometimes... if one wants smaller groups, instead of wasting hundreds of dollars burning up components, maybe start with buying a TT Diamond or Bix and setting the sucker to 1lb or less, maybe buy a better bipod/bag, ya know, shit that actually works lol..!

 

[supercorndogs]

I am not looking to get into a back and forth, I just want to say my piece and everyone else shut up.

Barrel break in depends on how smooth the chambering job is.

OCW has nothing to do with more powder making less speed,

OCW is about POI, saying different loads don't have different POI is like saying the sun doesn't come up in the morning.

If you can't shoot with a 1 pound trigger, learn to shoot. Trying to cover your suckyness with a crutch is stupid.

Go win an F-class match without dong load development.

 

[Cfshooter]

I am not looking to get into a back and forth, I just want to say my piece and everyone else shut up.

Barrel break in depends on how smooth the chambering job is.

OCW has nothing to do with more powder making less speed,

OCW is about POI, saying different loads don't have different POI is like saying the sun doesn't come up in the morning.

If you can't shoot with a 1 pound trigger, learn to shoot. Trying to cover your suckyness with a crutch is stupid.

Go win an F-class match without dong load development.

All this! (but I do prefer 1lb trigger )

 

[Baron23]

I have never heard an explanation of what laws of physics and/or chemistry support increased propellant resulting in same or less MV. And yes, POI is what is being looked at here but we have also seen many people plot their MV looking for a flat spot that doesn’t really exist.

And even with OCW, is not the goal of it that one would hopefully find a range of adjacent charges that result in same POI resulting from where in the barrel’s vibration arc the bullet exits the muzzle..... so MV is indeed in play. Right??

I have also never heard a cogent explanation for why we look at vertical stringing only when there is nothing that I know of that would dictate that vibration harmonics will sum into a vertical vector when it may sum into muzzle movement any direction

Just my addled thoughts of the day! Haha.

@thepatchcable - what size is the grid on your target?

 

[CK1.0]

I really don't want to get too crazy going back and forth about this, but since @Baron23 pretty much hit the nail on the head...

I am sorry if I didn't satisfy the minutia before by not mentioning POI (only mentioning MV), but yeah, that part of the OCW nonsense is BS too.

This is as simple as: cause = effect. We're talking combustion... more fuel (powder) = more something.

More fuel = more MV. More fuel = POI shift too. If you don't see a change in POI, it just means you haven't shot enough rounds to see what you think you see.

I think it's ridiculous to keep acting like the laws of physics don't apply to reloading ammo, even when, besides it obviously makes no common sense whatsoever, people with degrees in this shit tell you why (statistics per Hornady engineer).

Telling others to keep working on the same fool's errand when components are so expensive and scarce is damn near mean.

 

[Doom]

I really don't want to get too crazy going back and forth about this, but since @Baron23 pretty much hit the nail on the head...

I am sorry if I didn't satisfy the minutia before by not mentioning POI (only mentioning MV), but yeah, that part of the OCW nonsense is BS too.

This is as simple as: cause = effect. We're talking combustion... more fuel (powder) = more something.

More fuel = more MV. More fuel = POI shift too. If you don't see a change in POI, it just means you haven't shot enough rounds to see what you think you see.

I think it's ridiculous to keep acting like the laws of physics don't apply to reloading ammo, even when, besides it obviously makes no common sense whatsoever, people with degrees in this shit tell you why (statistics per Hornady engineer).

Telling others to keep working on the same fool's errand when components are so expensive and scarce is damn near mean.

You obviously don't understand OCW. It is not about finding a charge with no change in muzzle velocity or point of impact. It is about finding a range of loads that have very similar points of impact. Plain and simple.

 

[CK1.0]

You obviously don't understand OCW. It is not about finding a charge with no change in muzzle velocity or point of impact. It is about finding a range of loads that have very similar points of impact. Plain and simple.

ANY load, near the same charge weight, will have nearly the same MV and nearly the same POI, because science.

If you don't see that result on target, it does not mean you haven't found the mythical "optimum charge weight"... it just means you need to keep shooting... because we live in a world that is obsequious to things like space and time and that's not how shit works, your sample size is just pathetically small.

One doesn't need to load a single round to find their "OCW", they just need to keep their powder charges consistent, and VOILA!

OCW every time.

 

[straightshooter1]

ANY load, near the same charge weight, will have nearly the same MV and nearly the same POI, because science.

If you don't see that result on target, it does not mean you haven't found the mythical "optimum charge weight"... it just means you need to keep shooting... because we live in a world that is obsequious to things like space and time and that's not how shit works, your sample size is just pathetically small.

One doesn't need to load a single round to find their "OCW", they just need to keep their powder charges consistent, and VOILA!

OCW every time.

Apparently you're ignoring several things about internal ballistics. For example, there can be a very different MV's with the same powder if that powder occupies a different volume resulting in a pressure difference. Additionally, there's the difference in primer ignition, which has an effect on how a powder charge burns through the ignition cycle. There's a lot of things effecting the MV other than just having the same charge weight or not.

 

[paulo_santos]

ANY load, near the same charge weight, will have nearly the same MV and nearly the same POI, because science.

If you don't see that result on target, it does not mean you haven't found the mythical "optimum charge weight"... it just means you need to keep shooting... because we live in a world that is obsequious to things like space and time and that's not how shit works, your sample size is just pathetically small.

One doesn't need to load a single round to find their "OCW", they just need to keep their powder charges consistent, and VOILA!

OCW every time.

The more and more I mess with reloading the more I agree with @CK1.0 . I am also realizing that all this sweet spot, node, etc is all crap. IMHO, quality components and consistent loads are what makes good ammo. And sometimes for whatever reason, your barrel may just not like a certain combination. Either way, I’m done chasing all these nodes and sweet spots and just picking a velocity that I want and use that load.

 

[CK1.0]

Apparently you're ignoring several things about internal ballistics. For example, there can be a very different MV's with the same powder if that powder occupies a different volume resulting in a pressure difference. Additionally, there's the difference in primer ignition, which has an effect on how a powder charge burns through the ignition cycle. There's a lot of things affecting the MV other than just having the same charge weight or not.

I'm not ignoring internal ballistics, just fudd nonsense.

If you're talking case fill, I agree that is an often overlooked aspect of loading ammo, case fill ratio does indeed have a greater effect on some powders versus others, and there are better ratios than others as far as the performance we're looking for is concerned.

But again, there is a correlation between fuel volume versus empty space, that can be measured, repeated, and predicted using math (science again). The effect can be tracked because it is linear in so far as how it corresponds to the fuel/space ratio.

It's not about whether the MV is staying near the same or not staying near the same, the POI shifting or not shifting, we already have everything we need to know the answer to that question without loading a single round: if we're using different amounts of fuel, shit is changing, period, whether or not one has shot enough groups/rounds to see that doesn't make it less true.

The OCW theory ignores this because it's a bunch of bullshit. It's a Rorschach test, guys see what they want to see.

 

[CK1.0]

The more and more I mess with reloading the more I agree with @CK1.0 . I am also realizing that all this sweet spot, node, etc is all crap. IMHO, quality components and consistent loads are what makes good ammo. And sometimes for whatever reason, your barrel may just not like a certain combination. Either way, I’m done chasing all these nodes and sweet spots and just picking a velocity that I want and use that load.

Exactly.

One could come up with the worst load ever for a given gun/barrel, but if they were a really good reloader, and made really consistent/repeatable ammo, where every round came out nearly the exact same... they'd get a low ES and SD and would be able to win matches with it.

 

[Doom]

The more and more I mess with reloading the more I agree with @CK1.0 . I am also realizing that all this sweet spot, node, etc is all crap. IMHO, quality components and consistent loads are what makes good ammo. And sometimes for whatever reason, your barrel may just not like a certain combination. Either way, I’m done chasing all these nodes and sweet spots and just picking a velocity that I want and use that load.

I am not here saying that picking a load may not work, I've seen and read of people doing it and it appears to work. I do believe that seating depth is a factor an that there is an interaction between seating depth and powder charge and barrel harmonics.

ANY load, near the same charge weight, will have nearly the same MV and nearly the same POI, because science.

If you don't see that result on target, it does not mean you haven't found the mythical "optimum charge weight"... it just means you need to keep shooting... because we live in a world that is obsequious to things like space and time and that's not how shit works, your sample size is just pathetically small.

One doesn't need to load a single round to find their "OCW", they just need to keep their powder charges consistent, and VOILA!

OCW every time.

@CK1.0 seems obsessed with OCW and targets. OCW as conceived is only about targets and has nothing to do with measuring velocity or velocity ladders. Whether nodes exist or not is certainly open to discussion. All my testing over the last eleven years that I have used it has resulted in accurate loads that are easy to load and not sensitive to minor variations in powder lot, bullet lot, and primer lot.

 

[straightshooter1]

I'm not ignoring internal ballistics, just fudd nonsense.

If you're talking case fill, I agree that is an often overlooked aspect of loading ammo, case fill ratio does indeed have a greater effect on some powders versus others, and there are better ratios than others as far as the performance we're looking for is concerned.

But again, there is a correlation between fuel volume versus empty space, that can be measured, repeated, and predicted using math (science again). The effect can be tracked because it is linear in so far as how it corresponds to the fuel/space ratio.

It's not about whether the MV is staying near the same or not staying near the same, the POI shifting or not shifting, we already have everything we need to know the answer to that question without loading a single round: if we're using different amounts of fuel, shit is changing, period, whether or not one has shot enough groups/rounds to see that doesn't make it less true.

The OCW theory ignores this because it's a bunch of bullshit. It's a Rorschach test, guys see what they want to see.

Since you're emphasizing science, you should read and study the attached regarding charges weights and how they can relate to POI's.

 

[Doom]

That is a very nice piece of work. Back when Chris White was working on his paper he conferred with Dan Newberry (OCW) and Dan became convinced that Chris was on to something as I recall. I believe Chris credited Dan in his work.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Exactly.

One could come up with the worst load ever for a given gun/barrel, but if they were a really good reloader, and made really consistent/repeatable ammo, where every round came out nearly the exact same... they'd get a low ES and SD and would be able to win matches with it.

This is simply untrue. If it were, it wouldn't matter what combination of components you used, only that every controllable variable were the same over a statistically relevant sample. Whether you believe in OCW and nodes, or not, there is generally a range of charge weights, in relation to specific component combinations, that work in a specific gun, and produce more consistent (lower ES/SD) firing samples. No amount of variable reductions change that fact and we can demonstrate it at will, every single day of the year, in every single conceivable atmospheric condition.

Despite what you've convinced yourself, you're really only saying that you can take proven data, for a range of components (charge weight), and produce consistent ammunition so long as you control minor variables such as seating force, primer depth, etc. Your statement relies entirely on the condition that someone else discovered the component combination ranges before you.

 

[scissorhands]

FWIW, Here is an OCW test with 175SMK and Varget loaded in .3 grain increments. Definitely a node from 43.7-44.6

 

[Cfshooter]

FWIW, Here is an OCW test with 175SMK and Varget loaded in .3 grain increments. Definitely a node from 43.7-44.6
View attachment 8046247

did you park it at 44.3?
or 44.5?

 

[scissorhands]

I actually ended up going with 44. I don't think you can choose wrong with any 4 of the loads. Biggest group out of the 43.7-44.6 loads went .45x and 2 of the loads went into the .35x range.

 

[howler]

FWIW, Here is an OCW test with 175SMK and Varget loaded in .3 grain increments. Definitely a node from 43.7-44.6
View attachment 8046247

Go recreate that exact target, guarantee you’ll see completely different “nodes”

 

[Cfshooter]

Go recreate that exact target, guarantee you’ll see completely different “nodes”

you know, I never tried that, but also never had to.

 

[howler]

Since you're emphasizing science, you should read and study the attached regarding charges weights and how they can relate to POI's.

That’s not science, that’s some pictures and opinions compiled by a random person on the internet into a pdf. They literally have a YouTube video as a reference lol.

 

[howler]

you know, I never tried that, but also never had to.

It’s confirmation bias paired with random dispersion. Keep shooting 5 shots groups (which are meaningless) with the exact same load and you’ll see all kinds of different groups. That’s not to say that over a statistically significant amount of samples every hand load shoots the same. Just that people like to take meaningless minute samples with 3 shot or 5 shot groups and try to infer something from them that is a waste of time and components.

 

[Cfshooter]

It’s confirmation bias paired with random dispersion. Keep shooting 5 shots groups (which are meaningless) with the exact same load and you’ll see all kinds of different groups. That’s not to say that over a statistically significant amount of samples every hand load shoots the same. Just that people like to take meaningless minute samples with 3 shot or 5 shot groups and try to infer something from them that is a waste of time and components.

You have to have some kind of system to develop loads, how do you do it?

 

[howler]

You have to have some kind of system to develop loads, how do you do it?

It’s pretty much the same as many others at this level, I just skip the “charge node” stuff.

Highly simplified version:
1) research the bullet/cartridge combination and what other people have experienced that has worked well for them. Once I find a jump that seems to match the best crowd sourced on census, I start with that.

2) work up powder in .25 gn increments (one shot) from minimum to max until I find the approximate charge I need to safely achieve my target velocity (as I have a speed I’m looking for depending on the intended use of the load). This is with the searing depth I started with through research and my specific chamber (freebore, etc.)

3) load 5 rounds per a 0.002” increment in seating depth from baseline towards jam for approximately 12 thousandths of overall change between shortest and longest test cartridges.

4) look for approximately 6 thousandths wide spans within that sample that shoot noticeably better compared with the 6 thousandths gaps in between them (this can vary either way a few thousandths).

5) pick the longest bullet seating depth in that 6 thou window and load 25-50 rounds and shoot them in succession in 5 shot groups. Sometimes I’ll shoot 10 round or more for the group, it doesn’t matter because the last step I overlay all these groups and look at the mean dispersion diameter. If it works for what I’m trying to achieve with that load, then I’m done.

Of note: if your SD/ES is not acceptable for your intended use, look at your brass resizing process as that has the most impact.

This is just my process and should not be taken as gospel. I am however a firm believer through experience and shared experience with others that’s “ocw” is a waste of time.

 

[CK1.0]

Look, talking about this shit always degrades into something almost like talking about religion... and some people are going to just believe what they want to believe.

I choose to form my opinion based on my experience and the available facts and science, but as we all know, that doesn't mean anything at all lol.

To be clear, I wasn't saying anyone can just throw any old charge into a case and be all set... @Cascade Hemi, I agree with what you said about other people who came before doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to finding loads that work for the most part. Every different cartridge seems to have a fuel/capacity zone where it really starts to work, but short of finding that out (if one can't already find it in some published load data or from previous experience), I just don't think there's much point in a lot of these "legacy theories" about load development.

 

[Emerson0311]

Sometimes I think back to when I thought all that OCW stuff was bullshit. Then, I realized as I improved my shooting and gear, I became consistent enough to see the predictable results. Like the clowns who say some shit quality Rimfire ammo makes their rifle accurate as a top end rifle. Their standards are lower. When someone consistently places near the top of F class matches, they are worth listening to about reloading tips.

 

[Cfshooter]

It’s pretty much the same as many others at this level, I just skip the “charge node” stuff.

Highly simplified version:
1) research the bullet/cartridge combination and what other people have experienced that has worked well for them. Once I find a jump that seems to match the best crowd sourced on census, I start with that.

2) work up powder in .25 gn increments (one shot) from minimum to max until I find the approximate charge I need to safely achieve my target velocity (as I have a speed I’m looking for depending on the intended use of the load). This is with the searing depth I started with through research and my specific chamber (freebore, etc.)

3) load 5 rounds per a 0.002” increment in seating depth from baseline towards jam for approximately 12 thousandths of overall change between shortest and longest test cartridges.

4) look for approximately 6 thousandths wide spans within that sample that shoot noticeably better compared with the 6 thousandths gaps in between them (this can vary either way a few thousandths).

5) pick the longest bullet seating depth in that 6 thou window and load 25-50 rounds and shoot them in succession in 5 shot groups. Sometimes I’ll shoot 10 round or more for the group, it doesn’t matter because the last step I overlay all these groups and look at the mean dispersion diameter. If it works for what I’m trying to achieve with that load, then I’m done.

Of note: if your SD/ES is not acceptable for your intended use, look at your brass resizing process as that has the most impact.

So very similar to my "OCW" style. Difference being:

1) I load in .2 increments most times (223,6mm) and usually go a few charges back, and a few forward from what most are at, or book max.

2) I start with a seating depth about .020 from lands. I load 3-5 (depending on mood) per charge and shoot them in a round robin style.

3) I then pic a charge where the POI seems like it has the biggest window and load up for seating depth testing. Sometimes I load 30 all at .005 longer than my load test and seat deeper at range while I shoot, sometimes I load up 5 different depths working back in .004 increments.

4) I then pic the best area and load up 20-30 and confirm them with 10 shot groups and groups to 300 yards.

I don't care too much about ES/SD if groups are tight at 300.
There are many ways that work, I guess it is what way you like to utilize.

 

[howler]

So very similar to my "OCW" style. Difference being:

1) I load in .2 increments most times (223,6mm) and usually go a few charges back, and a few forward from what most are at, or book max.

2) I start with a seating depth about .020 from lands. I load 3-5 (depending on mood) per charge and shoot them in a round robin style.

3) I then pic a charge where the POI seems like it has the biggest window and load up for seating depth testing. Sometimes I load 30 all at .005 longer than my load test and seat deeper at range while I shoot, sometimes I load up 5 different depths working back in .004 increments.

4) I then pic the best area and load up 20-30 and confirm them with 10 shot groups and groups to 300 yards.

I don't care too much about ES/SD if groups are tight at 300.
There are many ways that work, I guess it is what way you like to utilize.

Yea, it’s very much a mix of art and science and I think everyone’s intended uses are different so what works for one may not transfer to others.

 

[CK1.0]

Sometimes I think back to when I thought all that OCW stuff was bullshit. Then, I realized as I improved my shooting and gear, I became consistent enough to see the predictable results. Like the clowns who say some shit quality Rimfire ammo makes their rifle accurate as a top end rifle. Their standards are lower. When someone consistently places near the top of F class matches, they are worth listening to about reloading tips.

Umm, how's about second at F-Class Nationals multiple times lol

 

[scissorhands]

Umm, how's about second at F-Class Nationals multiple times lol

Is that you in the video?

 

[scissorhands]

Go recreate that exact target, guarantee you’ll see completely different “nodes”

I can agree with that. Had a lower "node" years ago (was it because of the powder lot, bullet lot, or xxx?) years ago I remember the load being lower but my seating depth was .006" deeper than that of the target above.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Look, talking about this shit always degrades into something almost like talking about religion... and some people are going to just believe what they want to believe.

I choose to form my opinion based on my experience and the available facts and science, but as we all know, that doesn't mean anything at all lol.

To be clear, I wasn't saying anyone can just throw any old charge into a case and be all set... @Cascade Hemi, I agree with what you said about other people who came before doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to finding loads that work for the most part. Every different cartridge seems to have a fuel/capacity zone where it really starts to work, but short of finding that out (if one can't already find it in some published load data or from previous experience), I just don't think there's much point in a lot of these "legacy theories" about load development.

I see your point, admittedly I cherry picked your statement. There have been plenty of people that have claimed they could make a bad load into a good load by controlling variables such as brass hardness, seating pressure, primer depth, distance from lands, etc. I attempted to prove that out with a load that had an ES of around 100. It never got better. I was able to prove that I can make a decent load better though. I think you are saying the later (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).

I'm not a believer in OCW or nodes. Much like was discussed in the Hornady video, it never proves out once the sample becomes significant. It is, however, fairly easy to see that a range of charge weights and components will work in a rifle without even shooting significant samples. It isn't always true but generally it is. Over the years I have made test targets so I could see the wave pattern of groups (shocker, it's bullshit). I've attempted to use the time method too (also bullshit). I've literally chronographed every round I've fired for an entire year. The only correlations I've ever found are specific components work well with ranges of charge weights of specific powders.

The reason people think nodes exist is because they don't measure significant samples and the difference is inside of their margin or error. The range of charge weights shoot and it doesn't show up on paper. I've shot large sample groups of charge weights and the velocity always reflects the change in charge weight. Nodes just don't exist in the way that people who believe in them think they do.

 

[CK1.0]

Is that you in the video?

Nope.

He's just some guy saying pretty much the same thing I've been saying... who also happens to have some finishes at the top of some big F-Class matches, and who seems to also have a pretty cool channel (that I just came across recently, after I'd already made up my mind about this stuff).

 

[Cfshooter]

I see your point, admittedly I cherry picked your statement. There have been plenty of people that have claimed they could make a bad load into a good load by controlling variables such as brass hardness, seating pressure, primer depth, distance from lands, etc. I attempted to prove that out with a load that had an ES of around 100. It never got better. I was able to prove that I can make a decent load better though. I think you are saying the later (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).

I'm not a believer in OCW or nodes. Much like was discussed in the Hornady video, it never proves out once the sample becomes significant. It is, however, fairly easy to see that a range of charge weights and components will work in a rifle without even shooting significant samples. It isn't always true but generally it is. Over the years I have made test targets so I could see the wave pattern of groups (shocker, it's bullshit). I've attempted to use the time method too (also bullshit). I've literally chronographed every round I've fired for an entire year. The only correlations I've ever found are specific components work well with ranges of charge weights of specific powders.

The reason people think nodes exist is because they don't measure significant samples and the difference is inside of their margin or error. The range of charge weights shoot and it doesn't show up on paper. I've shot large sample groups of charge weights and the velocity always reflects the change in charge weight. Nodes just don't exist in the way that people who believe in them think they do.

I mean correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this about the same thing you figure out from the results of an OCW test?

“”””The only correlations I've ever found are specific components work well with ranges of charge weights of specific powders.””””

 

[Emerson0311]

Umm, how's about second at F-Class Nationals multiple times lol

Sounds like you have it figured.

 

[Baron23]

Umm, how's about second at F-Class Nationals multiple times lol

And I really like this guy's presentations as they are objective data presented in a very clear and unambiguous manner.

Do you know his name?

And, you say that this gent has been 2nd at F-Class Nationals multiple times? Wow, didn't know that...he doesn't seem to brag about his shooting accomplishments very much...or at all, really. I respect that level of humility.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I mean correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this about the same thing you figure out from the results of an OCW test?

“”””The only correlations I've ever found are specific components work well with ranges of charge weights of specific powders.””””

No, Optimal Charge Weight suggests there is a small range of charge weights that have identical velocities (pressure) or an insensitivity to variation in charge weight. It is based on measuring small samples.

 

[Evintos]

No, Optimal Charge Weight suggests there is a small range of charge weights that have identical velocities (pressure) or an insensitivity to variation in charge weight. It is based on measuring small samples.

Are you confusing a Dan Newberry OCW test vs a Audette Ladder test? OCW was never about chronographs and velocities.

http://www.ocwreloading.com/

 

[CK1.0]

And I really like this guy's presentations as they are objective data presented in a very clear and unambiguous manner.

Do you know his name?

And, you say that this gent has been 2nd at F-Class Nationals multiple times? Wow, didn't know that...he doesn't seem to brag about his shooting accomplishments very much...or at all, really. I respect that level of humility.

A quick google search of "winning in the wind + f-class" yielded this:

Saturday at the Movies: Great Tech Advice from Keith Glasscock « Daily Bulletin

Keith Glasscock is one of America's greatest F-Class shooters, as well as a highly respected wind coach. A High Master, Keith finished second overall at the 2021 NRA F-Class Long Range Championship in F-Open division. He also finished second at the <a href=http://bulletin.accurateshooter.

bulletin.accurateshooter.com

Yeah, he seems really humble, I like his approach, more analytical, less tribal, refreshing.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Are you confusing a Dan Newberry OCW test vs a Audette Ladder test? OCW was never about chronographs and velocities.

http://www.ocwreloading.com/

View attachment 8046844


View attachment 8046838

Arguably none of the mentioned methods are about chronographs and measured velocities. Inevitably velocity gets measured but if they were based on any data at all they wouldn't stop at three or five rounds, regardless if it's waveforms or velocities. Weather they're looking for POI wave forms on poster board or velocity nodes, they still rely on small samples and charge weight tolerance. Find the flat spot in velocity or the charge weight range where bullets hit in same poi on a target, and then load in the center of the charge weight range. Throw in some magic time calculations and it's a real party.

Statistically it's all bullshit.