One-Day Range Load Development

[Gentleman4561]

They're not saying the same thing. Hornady's take is annihlistic. "Load development is pointless". Different message. You're just trying to paint with a brush mile wide.

Not at all, the organizations I have listed have just taken a scientific approach to load development and found that 99% of it is a waste of time.

 

[Gentleman4561]

Is that 99% also scientifically quantified? Or did you just apply a gross hyperbole yourself?

The problem with people like you parroting what you think you read or heard is that no one agrees what qualifies as "load development". Working up a powder ladder to see where velocity and pressures are? Is that load development? Seating depth ladder? Is that load development? Or are you only referring to OCW, round robins, and POI tests? Or is seating depth ladder okay as long as you don't think you're tuning accuracy and shooting 300rd sample sizes?

I'm pretty sure the AB team still performs their own version of LD and there's nuance to the types of LD their referring to.

Yes by many, sounds like I am not going to change your mind, and that is ok.

Load development is pretty simple, developing the most accurate load for a rifle/barrel combination that meets velocity needs. You can do all of the tests you want, but unless they are done with a large enough sample size (with as many variables as can be eliminated as possible) you are wasting time and components.

 

[Bevan]

the takeaway is - stop trying to optimise with invalid tests. Decide what you require, test if you have it, move on and use it.

 

[supercorndogs]

Agrred with above. I dont think thats the take away at all. The take away according to one of guys at hornady who posts here. Was do course adjustments first then refine if needed. People can harp on sample size and ignore probability to their own detriment. People will call a method of LD ineffective without defining what it's was supposed to produce, or what it failed to produce.

I feel like I post this over and over. Hornady said you probably can't shoot the diffrence. Not that there isn't one.

 

[Seymour Fish]

Not at all, the organizations I have listed have just taken a scientific approach to load development and found that 99% of it is a waste of time.

Believe the “science” says dr falsi

 

[Csafisher]

They're not saying the same thing. Hornady's take is annihlistic. "Load development is pointless". Different message. You're just trying to paint with a brush mile wide.

Tell us where hornady touched you…..

 

[Csafisher]

Go back to Reddit

Go back to grade school and work on your comprehension skills

 

[Taylorbok]

You can probably just not do load development at all. Look around and find a popular load that lots of people use. Load 'em there and go.

 

[Seymour Fish]

Not at all, the organizations I have listed have just taken a scientific approach to load development and found that 99% of it is a waste of time.

Jack Neary at Capstone might be willing to counter your ignorance with some hard facts. Oh wait, he has done so multiple times. Heard of YouTube ? Bother to wonder why so many people see you as a C- marketing puke ? And you presume to “speak for organizations”.

 

[Gentleman4561]

Jack Neary at Capstone might be willing to counter your ignorance with some hard facts. Oh wait, he has done so multiple times. Heard of YouTube ? Bother to wonder why so many people see you as a C- marketing puke ? And you presume to “speak for organizations”.

Link? Please do share. I’ve yet to see any legitimate data that supports OCW, ladder testing etc.

If that data exists my mind could certainly be changed.

 

[Seymour Fish]

Link? Please do share. I’ve yet to see any legitimate data that supports OCW, ladder testing etc.

If that data exists my mind could certainly be changed.

Since you demonstrate zero intellectual curiosity, no I’ll not bother. If you have a hair on your ass, perhaps you might study Creighton Audette. You mention “data” to the extent that some might suggest you are not a human shill, but instead, an AI shill. Yet your data-base is so damn limited.

 

[Seymour Fish]

Your POI shift is not repeatable.

Others have already loaded 300 rounds and shot OCW tests to prove that they don’t work, no reason for you to do it too.

Name these “others”, and show all the Data.

 

[Seymour Fish]

Not at all, the organizations I have listed have just taken a scientific approach to load development and found that 99% of it is a waste of time.

Poor Litz “proved” tuners don’t work, without any knowledge of how they are properly used. A joke masquerading as “tha Science”. So much for your appeal to authority.

 

[Taylorbok]

Using someone else's load data isn't proof that load development is unnecessary since you're using that persons development.

That's basically what I was saying. There's definitely a possibility to influence group size with the load. But obviously OP doesn't care about having the tiniest group just one that will shoot decently well. I'd guess he can get to where he needs to be by stealing someone else's load.

 

[Taylorbok]

Poor Litz “proved” tuners don’t work, without any knowledge of how they are properly used. A joke masquerading as “tha Science”. So much for your appeal to authority.

The conclusion to that experiment was more along the lines of "In our testing tuner setting had no meaningful affect on group size"

Also let's not turn this into a tuner thread

 

[Csafisher]

Since you demonstrate zero intellectual curiosity, no I’ll not bother. If you have a hair on your ass, perhaps you might study Creighton Audette. You mention “data” to the extent that some might suggest you are not a human shill, but instead, an AI shill. Yet your data-base is so damn limited.

So you have any links or data? The guy literally said he mind could be changed….

 

[cas6969]

My first outing with that rifle at 100 yards was shooting 400gr solids into a 14" group. My second outing I got to a 1.7" group at 100 with 400gr subs. I had to tweak neck tension, shoulder setback, and seating depth.

Nope, it's invalid.

If you shot 3k groups with each they'd average out.

 

[Taylorbok]

I think there's two tangential schools of thought that have to be modified if you're going to believe 99% of load development isn't beneficial and a person must use samples of greater than 30rds.

1. If this is the case, then all factory ammo should shoot the same. And we know that's not true. Even make and models using the same bullets produce different accuracy and different POI.

2. If you believe a person needs to shoot minimum 30rd groups to honestly evaluate accuracy how many rounds do you fire into a group to zero? Do you apply this idea to precision but not accuracy? Raise your hand if you fire 30 round zero groups.

There seems to be some loads that shoot well in almost every rifle, then some rifle's don't like that load and you'll have to find something else. I'm not saying it's a catch all but it can work really well.

The last 4 barrels I have changed have shot the same load well enough to entirely skip load dev.

Lot's of the top PRS guys also just toss on a new tube, same load and go.

I shoot 10rds for zero, seems to fade out the noise.

I think if more people started shooting 10rd groups they'd realize their rifle shoots bigger than they think, and 10rds is pretty standard for a string of fire.

 

[Taylorbok]

I don't think anyone considers 10 rounds to be a large sample size. I think there's some bandwagoning going on in the internets, but what those same people do in practice is something entirely different. I don't disagree that a higher sample size is going to give you more fidelity, but I think there is a point of diminishing returns. So I think to throw it out there in a cavalier manner on a podcast is slightly disingenuous. There has to be a practical nature to it and shooting 30 round groups to confirm zero at the beginning of a match is impractical. And there's no logic that supports high sample sizes for precision but not being necessary for accuracy. It's just the demonstrated rubber meeting the road on where people cut off the diminishing returns in favor of practical application.

10 is not a large sample size but I found it to be a fairly typical point of where the group would essentially stop getting larger, plus it's a typical string of fire. If you had an E-target those next 20 rounds would provide you with useable data but shooting at paper it's pointless to just send them all through an existing hole.

I think the typical load dev allows us to weed out a lot of junk but doesn't really set us up with the best possible load like most people think/ thought it does, Larger shot groups and sample sizes are required for that. My point still stands some google searching is likely gonna get him just as close as a one trip load development.