So, hornady is saving us components by telling us load development needs larger samples....
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
One-Day Range Load Development
- Thread starter zerosystem310
- Start date
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.
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.
There has to be a practical aspect to it though. It's fine for some statistician to make a mathematically sound argument about sample sizes but some of what you're saying is also impractical. It's like renewable wind energy. You can pontificate all day long but if there's no practical way forward it's just as useless as following some of the reloading myths out there. I'm picking on you because there's a trend of people doing exactly what you're doing. They jump on and basically heckle. No useful takeaway. Just: YOuresAMPleSiZEisntBIGenOUGH! Like stfu. No one is going to shoot 30rd groups x 10. These podcasts armed "you people" with enough information to be negative but not enough to be productive.
Gross oversimplification completely lacking detail or specificity = nothing burger
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.
I feel like I post this over and over. Hornady said you probably can't shoot the diffrence. Not that there isn't one.
Go back to grade school and work on your comprehension skills
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.
Using someone else's load data isn't proof that load development is unnecessary since you're using that persons development.
And the conversation I'm having on another thread shows how short sided that is.
Post in thread '.375 Raptor Recipe' https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/375-raptor-recipe.7044749/post-11859507
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. People that think load development doesn't exist, only random plots of MPI over large data sets viewed in short 5rd glimpses are thinking in the context of 6 Dashers, BR, Creedmoors, etc. That shit goes out the window when you leave the realm of easy cartridges and get into the wierd stuff. You will absolutely see drastic changes based on charge weights, neck tension, and seating depth. That aren't just misleading 5rd strings of a larger 30rd data set you're choosing not to shoot and see.
Trust me, I get it. When I lot tested Lapua Center X for my RimX I bought about 7 different lots and shot one entire 50rd box at 100yds. 5 x 10rd groups. I evaluated the entire box and the lot that I chose to buy was the lot that had the best ES and the fewest dropped impacts at 6 o'clock out of the group. For all intent and purpose a 50rd group eval. I just broke it into 5 x 10 because shooter fatigue from one 50rd string is really unpleasant. I was recently testing a custom barrel I had a really good gunsmith fit for my 2011. We shot it out of a ransom rest. Tested several different ammos. The best was Atlanta Arms 115gr Elite. It's what the AMU uses to test their guns. I ended shooting and chronographing the entire box. But in 5 and 10rd groups. The first 30rds looked really good with SDs around 10. Not the best SDs, my loads are usually around 5 - 8. On the back half of the box, I got ES's of 90 and flyers. I could have taken the first couple of 5 and 10rd groups and cheered at how good the barrel shot and that 115gr Elite was. The entire box told the true story.
It's not that the people who are disagreeing with the core of your premise and just don't understand..it's that they might be considering other scenarios outside of your experience.
