OCW vs Ladder vs Plain FPS

[Kristian_Jensen]

I was thinking about this.... The OCW and Ladder tests both seem logical and good, but isn't a steady FPS what we're looking for? I mean, if I can make a load that doesn't vary more then 5 FPS, wouldn't that load be the most precise load?


...or is there something I'm missing?

 

[Darkside-Six]

In a sense.....yes. What you’re actually looking for is a very low ES and SD. Scott Satterlee kind of developed his own method where he loads 2 rounds each in .2 grain increments and fires them over a magneedospeed and looks for the flat spot where a few of the loads are basically the same speed. It’s a great idea and method because it really saves on the amount of ammo used in load. Development. I know it’s worked for some. I tried it myself and couldn’t get it to work right for my rifle but it’s a great concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sweetyzfd]

I’ve always started making loads and kinda get lost in the mix and never see them all the way through (I just wanna shoot). Last month I finally worked up a load start to finish using ladder test and finished with seating depth tests. Long process but my 260 is shooting 2” groups at 500 pretty consistently. Haven’t chrono’ it yet. Doing the same right now with my 308 and the results are great so far. I did buy the fx scale with powder drop though. That helps!!!!

 

[predatornut]

What I like about a ladder test is that it focuses on down range results, not expecting results based on other data. True, low SD/ES usually translates to good results down range, but why not make your decisions based on what is actually happening at the ranges you will be shooting.

I can see the appeal of going off of chronograph numbers if you only have easy access to a range with limited distance.

 

[Sheldon N]

I was thinking about this.... The OCW and Ladder tests both seem logical and good, but isn't a steady FPS what we're looking for? I mean, if I can make a load that doesn't vary more then 5 FPS, wouldn't that load be the most precise load?


...or is there something I'm missing?

What we are looking for in load development is the smallest group at distance with the least amount of vertical. A true ladder test at 1000 yards to find the ideal powder charge followed by additional refining testing at 1000 yards is the only way you're going to get the absolute truth as to which load is best since the target doesn't lie. All the other methods such as OCW, velocity ladders, looking at ES/SD are just estimates so that we can do load development at closer distances without having to set up paper targets at 1000 yards and wait for calm conditions.

Chasing ES or SD alone isn't necessarily a guarantee that you've found the best load, since there are other factors beyond just velocity that affect vertical at distance. The whole rifle functions as a system so things like barrel harmonics start to come into play. Some benchrest guys are even getting groups smaller than the ES and ballistics math would say is possible just because of how the barrel harmonics work. There is however pretty strong correlation between the indicators found in the OCW, velocity ladder, and ES/SD tests and getting good results downrange.

I don't have an easy way to do load development at distance so I use a combination of the above to do it at 100 yards. I shoot a series of 3 shot groups at 0.2gr increments in the powder range where I expect my final load to be. Record velocity data for each of the three shot groups. Then when reviewing the data I look for 3 things. First, does the velocity flatten off at any point in the series as powder charge weight increases? (the flat spot is a good place to load to). Second, what is the point of impact of the groups doing as charge weight increases? (looking for an area with consistent POI) Third, does velocity look consistent within each given three shot series? (It's a small sample, but lower SD/ES is better). Finally, I just look at how small the group is. Smaller is better, though you can refine that in subsequent seating depth testing so don't let it dictate the powder charge weight to the detriment of the other factors.

If you can find the charge weight that is in the flat spot of the velocity curve, shows a consistent point of impact on target, that has good ES/SD, and shoots small groups then you've got a load that will do well. It may not be the absolute best load that rifle could shoot since you are using estimating tools rather than looking at direct results on target at distance, but it will get you to a good result.

 

[Supersubes]

What simple velocity readings wont tell you is what the barrel is doing at the muzzle. The ladder test, and to a greater degree the ocw test, show nodes where a range of velocities cluster on target. These nodes are a forgiving place to load in. You can have tiny sd’s, but temp changes will change your average velocity, and with that your placement in or out of an accuracy node. I do my ocw’s at a minimum of 500 yards. So much more graphic than doing them in close.

 

[Kristian_Jensen]

If you have two loads like this:

Load 1: 5fps difference : 2.2" group at 500
Load 2: 10fps difference : 2" group at 500

Which would you chose and why?

 

[predatornut]

If you have two loads like this:

Load 1: 5fps difference : 2.2" group at 500
Load 2: 10fps difference : 2" group at 500

Which would you chose and why?

If 500 yards is the farthest you expect to shoot and the results are consistent, then I would use load 2. Velocity spread makes a greater difference the farther out you go. I do ladder tests at the farthest I expect to shoot that particular rifle.

 

[308pirate]

If you have two loads like this:

Load 1: 5fps difference : 2.2" group at 500
Load 2: 10fps difference : 2" group at 500

Which would you chose and why?

Not enough information

 

[Sendit6.5]

If you have two loads like this:

Load 1: 5fps difference : 2.2" group at 500
Load 2: 10fps difference : 2" group at 500

Which would you chose and why?

With ES that low on both, I'd need more info, like 308Pirate said. I understand your point and it's something that Scott Saterlee pointed out. He said, given these 2 groups:

Load 1: ES=25 Group size= .5moa
Load 2: ES=5 Group size=1moa

...he'd choose Load 2 for shooting distance.

I'm about to apply his method to try and find the nodes for a new custom 6.5cm I have. However, I'm going to use .3 increments and, if I can identify a flat spot in velocity I'll probably do an abbreviated OCW around that node. This should (theoretically) speed up the process and eliminate some wasted components. We'll see. I like the idea and can't see why it wouldn't work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Milo 2.5]

If you have two loads like this:

Load 1: 5fps difference : 2.2" group at 500
Load 2: 10fps difference : 2" group at 500

Which would you chose and why?

Not that easy, need pics of groups, if one group is horizontal dispersion, the other vertical. it's 2 diff worlds. The horizontal can be brought in with some seat depth and neck tension tweaking, the vertical needs to go back to the reloading bench.
Going back to the op, theoretically you can develop off just numbers, but failing to verify the load downrange would not be wise. I probably have more stories about LR load dev than 95% of guys on here, a load that will not hold vertical at distance is worthless, because now you've added an element to your wind hold.

 

[Kopfjager1]

Want to explain how neck tension and seating depth affects drift?

 

[Kristian_Jensen]

My group / fps was just an example

I have no idea or preference since I haven't done any real load development, so I'm not questioning your replies, I'm just trying to dig deeper and get a more specific analysis of when one would chose one over the other

 

[Kristian_Jensen]

a load that will not hold vertical at distance is worthless, because now you've added an element to your wind hold.

So you'd prefer a three leaf clover group over a three on a row group ?

I probably would too.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Want to explain how neck tension and seating depth affects drift?

If you're asking me, never said it affects drift, it would effect group size.

 

[Milo 2.5]

So you'd prefer a three leaf clover group over a three on a row group ?

I probably would too.

Ok, most likely yes, but if you have 2" of vertical dispersion at 500 yards, what will it grow to by the time it gets to 1K, because it is by no means linear, it will be far greater than 4".

 

[Marksman10x]

All three methods will get you to roughly the same place, IF done correctly. Just your choice of which vehicle to drive to get there.

 

[Kopfjager1]

If you're asking me, never said it affects drift, it would effect group size.

Yes, I am asking you, drift is horizontal deviation, so how would those two affect horizontal deviation, all things being the same (atmospherics, fundamentals, etc).

 

[Milo 2.5]

Yes, I am asking you, drift is horizontal deviation, so how would those two affect horizontal deviation, all things being the same (atmospherics, fundamentals, etc).

Revisit what I posted, I said vertical stringing coupled with drift way tougher to combat than drift alone.

 

[Kopfjager1]

Not that easy, need pics of groups, if one group is horizontal dispersion, the other vertical. it's 2 diff worlds. The horizontal can be brought in with some seat depth and neck tension tweaking, the vertical needs to go back to the reloading bench.

 

[Milo 2.5]

So what you're implying here is any sideways movement at distance has to be drift?

 

[steve123]

Take load development as far you want but I look at this subject differently theses days.

There's so much to consider in working up a load that it can get ridiculously overwhelming and time consuming, not to mention every round you shoot is wearing the barrel out. Story coming...Way back when I worked up a fantastic load for my first long range rifle, a 6.5-284. Two memorable things happened, I shot high score by a large margin at our local annual 1000Y match and the other was it took 300+ rounds to find that load using 3 different powders, 3 brands of primers and 2 brands of bullets. The barrel only lasted 1200 rounds including a set back at 900 rounds and taking many hours to do it all. Lesson learned, LOL don't be like the old me. The win was cool but knowing what I know now there's a good chance I could have won anyway in as little as 30 rounds of load work instead of 300 rounds. Besides that, it was who guessed the wind the best that day, not the most accurate load on the line, that determined the high score.

Since I'm not a benchrest shooter I don't need to attempt sub 1" groups at 600Y. 3 inch at that distance is fine for me off a bipod.

Greatly simplifying the process of load work is when I ran across the ladder testing method.

I pick a good match bullet with high BC that is not jump sensitive. One powder that is as appropriate to the case as possible and that is not temp sensitive, and a good primer for the case. This all vs my old way as described above.

I don't put ultimate trust in getting the lowest extreme spreads because the best ES might not be centered in a node. If it is then that's wonderful but as the barrel wears, components run out and replaced, temps change, the ES you once had is compromised. Furthermore I'm not sure I can even shoot inside the best ES.

I don't care "to a point" how accurate my 100Y groups will be, I know if in the node they'll be good enough. Though through trial and error what shoots best at 100Y doesn't necessarily mean that will happen at distance all the time. I care how well the groups will be at distance and I'm looking for how tight the vertical is.

I did an experiment once with OCW and with Dan involved on a post concerning the subject. I did a ladder test at 400Y and a OCW at 100Y. I found the high node to be right on for both methods but the low node didn't coincide with what he estimated it would be so I decided to stay with the ladder method because I have easy access to long range spots all over the place where I live and most of the time the nodes are more obvious. If I have doubt I run two ladders, which happened recently. Nothing against OCW but I chose ladder, a node is a node and if "confirmed" each method is fine.

Here's my strangest ladder test out of many that I've done. I'd show you some of my others done over the years that came out normal but photobucket has them in jail. Usually in a ladder test the shots will rise and stop at the low node then rise again and stop on the high node. I have my own 6x47l reamer used for the last 7 barrels so I knew approximately where the nodes would be with this bullet, powder and primer combo. Low node wasn't so obvious on this test but as you can see the rifle is very accurate at 323Y. So at the high node, which rose higher, the vertical and horizontal tightened up. I picked shot 12 as my powder charge. It's hard to see but shots 11,12 and 13 are a tiny group. BTW this ladder test was in .1 grain increments, not .2 or .5 grain like normally done.

Load found in 13 shots, I didn't bother with a seating depth test, why would I. This load shoots very good at distance often touching splats, has reasonably low SD at 6-7, and shoots well at 100Y though it could be better. The group I was most proud of was 4 shots at 900Y into 3" with maybe 1" of vertical. I have a few very similar to that at other distances. I blame me for misses because it's for sure not the rifle's fault do to inaccuracy.

The high shot was the one sighter. The other was from a friend that wanted to shoot my rifle, though I hoped he'd shoot at his own target instead of mine, lol. I didn't even see it till I got home and took a good look.

BTW, I started doing what I call running the barrel in before I start load work. I run the barrel in by shooting steel for at least 100 rounds(fun, right?!) with a lighter charge and by then the velocity will have picked up 100 fps or so.

 

[Kopfjager1]

So what you're implying here is any sideways movement at distance has to be drift?

Whatever you want to call it, youre saying that by adjusting seating depth and neck tension, you can tighten the horizontal spread in a group. Stop avoiding the question.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Take load development as far you want but I look at this subject differently theses days.

There's so much to consider in working up a load that it can get ridiculously overwhelming and time consuming, not to mention every round you shoot is wearing the barrel out. Story coming...Way back when I worked up a fantastic load for my first long range rifle, a 6.5-284. Two memorable things happened, I shot high score by a large margin at our local annual 1000Y match and the other was it took 300+ rounds to find that load using 3 different powders, 3 brands of primers and 2 brands of bullets. The barrel only lasted 1200 rounds including a set back at 900 rounds and taking many hours to do it all. Lesson learned, LOL don't be like the old me. The win was cool but knowing what I know now there's a good chance I could have won anyway in as little as 30 rounds of load work instead of 300 rounds. Besides that, it was who guessed the wind the best that day, not the most accurate load on the line, that determined the high score.

Since I'm not a benchrest shooter I don't need to attempt sub 1" groups at 600Y. 3 inch at that distance is fine for me off a bipod.

Greatly simplifying the process of load work is when I ran across the ladder testing method.

I pick a good match bullet with high BC that is not jump sensitive. One powder that is as appropriate to the case as possible and that is not temp sensitive, and a good primer for the case. This all vs my old way as described above.

I don't put ultimate trust in getting the lowest extreme spreads because the best ES might not be centered in a node. If it is then that's wonderful but as the barrel wears, components run out and replaced, temps change, the ES you once had is compromised. Furthermore I'm not sure I can even shoot inside the best ES.

I don't care "to a point" how accurate my 100Y groups will be, I know if in the node they'll be good enough. Though through trial and error what shoots best at 100Y doesn't necessarily mean that will happen at distance all the time. I care how well the groups will be at distance and I'm looking for how tight the vertical is.

I did an experiment once with OCW and with Dan involved on a post concerning the subject. I did a ladder test at 400Y and a OCW at 100Y. I found the high node to be right on for both methods but the low node didn't coincide with what he estimated it would be so I decided to stay with the ladder method because I have easy access to long range spots all over the place where I live and most of the time the nodes are more obvious. If I have doubt I run two ladders, which happened recently. Nothing against OCW but I chose ladder, a node is a node and if "confirmed" each method is fine.

Here's my strangest ladder test out of many that I've done. I'd show you some of my others done over the years that came out normal but photobucket has them in jail. Usually in a ladder test the shots will rise and stop at the low node then rise again and stop on the high node. I have my own 6x47l reamer used for the last 7 barrels so I knew approximately where the nodes would be with this bullet, powder and primer combo. Low node wasn't so obvious on this test but as you can see the rifle is very accurate at 323Y. So at the high node, which rose higher, the vertical and horizontal tightened up. I picked shot 12 as my powder charge. It's hard to see but shots 11,12 and 13 are a tiny group. BTW this ladder test was in .1 grain increments, not .2 or .5 grain like normally done.

Load found in 13 shots, I didn't bother with a seating depth test, why would I. This load shoots very good at distance often touching splats, has reasonably low SD at 6-7, and shoots well at 100Y though it could be better. The group I was most proud of was 4 shots at 900Y into 3" with maybe 1" of vertical. I have a few very similar to that at other distances. I blame me for misses because it's for sure not the rifle's fault do to inaccuracy.

The high shot was the one sighter. The other was from a friend that wanted to shoot my rifle, though I hoped he'd shoot at his own target instead of mine, lol. I didn't even see it till I got home and took a good look.

BTW, I started doing what I call running the barrel in before I start load work. I run the barrel in by shooting steel for at least 100 rounds(fun, right?!) with a lighter charge and by then the velocity will have picked up 100 fps or so.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, it will work, but finding a load for a cartridge you're on your 8th chamber of, it gets simple. If it takes 20-40 more shots when the end product is knowing you can hit what you're aiming at to thinking you can hit it, I'll shoot more rds in development.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Whatever you want to call it, youre saying that by adjusting seating depth and neck tension, you can tighten the horizontal spread in a group. Stop avoiding the question.

Can you not tighten group size by adj seat depth and neck tension? I'm done trying to prove I'm right, you prove that I am wrong.

 

[Kopfjager1]

Can you not tighten group size by adj seat depth and neck tension? I'm done trying to prove I'm right, you prove that I am wrong.

Yeah you can tighten group size by manipulating those two, but to specifically tighten horizontal deviation alone, all other variables aside. I say your full of shit, you say you have more stories of LR load development than 90% of the people on here, but this is the second time Ive gotten in an argument on here because you never can explain yourself fully, especially since I asked you a simple question, and you avoided it by trying to turn the question around for me to prove you wrong. Haha. Stories for days. All bullshit.

 

[steve123]

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, it will work, but finding a load for a cartridge you're on your 8th chamber of, it gets simple. If it takes 20-40 more shots when the end product is knowing you can hit what you're aiming at to thinking you can hit it, I'll shoot more rds in development.

True, yep, it doesn't always go perfectly so either redoing the ladder and/or seating depth needs done.

I had mentioned in my post I had to do a second ladder, it was for my 30-375R using the Hornady 225's. One of those days where even though I got out early the wind kicked up and also my bipod worked it's way loose, me not realizing that until I picked my rifle off the ground. The whole ladder was into 3.5" at 400Y but they were scattered all over leading no conclusion and I didn't load high enough to hit the high node either. The second time the ladder went very well with 3 consecutive shots almost touching but was in .2 increments since the case is large at 78 grains of powder. Those three shots were the last three before the very last shot which went way high.

 

[steve123]

From what I've seen with my ladder tests, when in the middle of a node, both the vertical and the horizontal will tighten. I try to go out at sunrize and try to pick a day with low winds forecasted, otherwise it's hard to see/tell differences.

I wish I could show my old photos. The most pronounced ladder test was with my old 6mmART40 AR single loading. 330Y, calm, .1 grain increments. Out of node gave 3-4" for however many shots, then hits low node netting smallish group. Scatters again with same outcome until high node was hit, BAM! a little 1/2" group comes from 3 conseq shots, then out of node again so scatters for a few shots.

The other thing I do which is a total "pain" is I drive down each shot which lets the barrel cool the same amount of time.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Yeah you can tighten group size by manipulating those two, but to specifically tighten horizontal deviation alone, all other variables aside. I say your full of shit, you say you have more stories of LR load development than 90% of the people on here, but this is the second time Ive gotten in an argument on here because you never can explain yourself fully, especially since I asked you a simple question, and you avoided it by trying to turn the question around for me to prove you wrong. Haha. Stories for days. All bullshit.

For fucks sake, if you have a range of charges that are holding vertical at distance, and the only piece of the puzzle is horizontal stringing, by manipulating it, why should the vertical now be disrupted?
As for arguing, did your mom not make you some chocolate milk with your hot pocket while you watched the raiders game, GFY

 

[Darkside-Six]

The problem I see with Ladder tests is that you’re only firing 1 round of each charge weight at distance. I use to like OCW and still think it’s a great way to find an accurate load, but if you think about it, what is the purpose of doing an OCW? To see where you’re barrel harmonics are. Anything can Group well at 100 and just because you have a low SD/ES doesn’t mean it may necessarily Group really tight but it will still be consistent over distance. You can still play with seating depth to tighten up grouping once you’ve found your velocity flat spot where you still have a low SD/ES. Recently over the last few years I’ve been trying to find my own personal way of finding my loads in a more easier way without having to spend so much time and ammo doing so. I started doing exactly what Sheldon is doing and shooting 3 round groups over my magnedospeed in .3 grain increments and looking for where it flattens out over a few charges. Usually I can pick the middle of that node and roll with it and have a great load over distance. The last load I developed though had really great numbers but wasn’t grouping as tight as I’d like so I adjusted seating depth a bit and they tightened right up and still have the same numbers. Load development all boils down to being consistent and find something that YOU are comfortable with and works for YOU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

I tried the 6.5 Guys method with es/sd and it is my new go to. Tried ocw, ladder, modified ocw, winging it but their method got me a 1/4" and better load in less than 50 rds. I did the charts too and its cool to see the correlations.

 

[morganlamprecht]

18-24 rounds of OCW (round robin groups of 3 @ 100 yds), im usually done here
if the above sweet spot doesnt group 1/2" or so, add another 15 rounds of jump tests
chrono 5 rounds, good to go

 

[Kopfjager1]

For fucks sake, if you have a range of charges that are holding vertical at distance, and the only piece of the puzzle is horizontal stringing, by manipulating it, why should the vertical now be disrupted?
As for arguing, did your mom not make you some chocolate milk with your hot pocket while you watched the raiders game, GFY

The fact that you think that manipulating seating depth and neck tension will affect horizontal without affecting vertical is absurd. Both seating depth and neck tension are directly related to pressure, pressure equals velocity in the general scheme; therefore if a group is holding vertical but not horizontal and you manipulate the seating depth and/or neck tension its going to directly affect your vertical dispersion because youre increasing or decreasing the amount of pressure therefore increasing or decreasing velocity respectively. If you have horizontal stringing, its either sensitivity to crosswind thats not being accounted for, or slight variances in your hold.

You may have a deep understanding of the basics of reloading, but when it comes to the actual internal and external ballistics you make shit up. Youre the kind of guy that goes to the range with an already developed load, and when theres a flyer, you blame it on axial error or epicyclic swerve, or better yet, the coriollis effect.

 

[Milo 2.5]

The fact that you think that manipulating seating depth and neck tension will affect horizontal without affecting vertical is absurd. Both seating depth and neck tension are directly related to pressure, pressure equals velocity in the general scheme; therefore if a group is holding vertical but not horizontal and you manipulate the seating depth and/or neck tension its going to directly affect your vertical dispersion because youre increasing or decreasing the amount of pressure therefore increasing or decreasing velocity respectively. If you have horizontal stringing, its either sensitivity to crosswind thats not being accounted for, or slight variances in your hold.

You may have a deep understanding of the basics of reloading, but when it comes to the actual internal and external ballistics you make shit up. Youre the kind of guy that goes to the range with an already developed load, and when theres a flyer, you blame it on axial error or epicyclic swerve, or better yet, the coriollis effect.

So if a guy goes up or down a bushing size, say .269 to .268(6mm), or seats your bullet .005" further into the case, just what pressure increases are we looking at? What if you did both at the same time and now your load is say 10-15fps faster, could a guy pull .1gr of powder and maybe be back where you started?

 

[nexusfire]

I tried the chrono method after I developed the load using OCW. I did change seating depth and pick up about about 25 fps with an SD of 4. I am convinced that the chrono method will save you a lot of time and take the human error out of the initial starting point.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

If you have two loads like this:

Load 1: 5fps difference : 2.2" group at 500
Load 2: 10fps difference : 2" group at 500

Which would you chose and why?

Since you are using inches there is no difference between the two other than it is less difference than the caliber of the bullet. Your example is showing an immaterial difference.

 

[Supersubes]

I shot this two days ago testing the 147 eld in my AW with a 23â€￾ broughton in 6.5 Creedmoor. Never shot this bullet before, so chose a .020 jump. No sorting of the components. Groups are measured in MOA for size and vertical, separately.

Load:
147 eld
H4350
450 primer
Lapua brass


The distance was at 531 yards, shot prone/bipod/rear bag. Interesting to note that velocity increments are pretty constant. A bit of a velocity flat spot in the middle, but vertical isn’t consistent there, as the node forms up above that. Also interesting is the load with the highest ES had the lowest vertical, and the load with the most vertical had one of the lowest ES. This was shot pretty quick from a cool barrel to smokin hot.

 

[GhengisAhn175]

I’d load up the green load and do seat depth testing

 

[Milo 2.5]

I’d load up the green load and do seat depth testing

The blue is better by far IMO, why do you say green?

 

[Milo 2.5]

I shot this two days ago testing the 147 eld in my AW with a 23â€￾ broughton in 6.5 Creedmoor. Never shot this bullet before, so chose a .020 jump. No sorting of the components. Groups are measured in MOA for size and vertical, separately.

Load:
147 eld
H4350
450 primer
Lapua brass


The distance was at 531 yards, shot prone/bipod/rear bag. Interesting to note that velocity increments are pretty constant. A bit of a velocity flat spot in the middle, but vertical isn’t consistent there, as the node forms up above that. Also interesting is the load with the highest ES had the lowest vertical, and the load with the most vertical had one of the lowest ES. This was shot pretty quick from a cool barrel to smokin hot.

I realize we have to develop a load to mimic our styles of shooting, but after your barrel becomes so warm, what is the point of continuing?

 

[Supersubes]

I realize we have to develop a load to mimic our styles of shooting, but after your barrel becomes so warm, what is the point of continuing?

I think you summarized it in your first sentence. If it isnt detrimental to accuracy, why stop? In day to day shooting, my barrels dont get all that warm, but proving they work (or not) warm is just another benifit of an OCW.

Ghengis, although I’ll probably lean slightly higher towards blue, its a wide node and loading at the bottom (green) would work too.


I just rememebred I have some other pics of some loads shot the same morning. With virgin brass and 39.5, 40, and 40.5 gr.

 

[Supersubes]

While I was prepping some virgin brass the night before for the OCW the next morning, I wasnt feeling that well and i knew the sizing felt not so good. Out of expedience, I was dry lubing the necks and managed to gall up the mandrel. So I ended up loading them in three charge weights, 39.5, 40, and 40.5. I figured I could use them to test drops after the ocw. I ended up loaing the OCW on some 5x fired lapua.


The rounds with the scored necks were all fired at 640 yards, on two separate targets. All 5 shot groups.

This is 39.5 gr. There are three impacts on the right in a .5 inch group, one left, and one low. Not terrible, not great.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com\/20171202\/6a970b0bdc7cab25caa390381c76a180.jpg"}[/IMG2]


Bottom group is 40 gr . Just a shade under 2” inches wide, and less than 1 inch tall. Top is 40.5. Kinda ragged, but not bad.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com\/20171202\/8df3adddd596142e86b8bed0c370fd67.jpg"}[/IMG2]


The node shown in the OCW I had shot minutes before, is certainly holding up here.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk