Scott satterlee

[Slappythesparky]

So I have been tooling around with the Scott Satterlee load development method with a few different rifles. I have noticed while working up to my maximum load I have had a few loads shoot lower ft per sec. than the previous load or even the previous two loads. It seems to be close to a plateau on two or thee loads. Watching Scott on YouTube he mentioned that seeing this always sparks his interest but didn’t get into detail. Is this normal when your close to a OCW. I know some people people say this type of development is BS but I willing to give it a shot to find out what actually works for me. Using a LabRadar and working up in .3 of a gr.
Thanks in advance.

 

[spife7980]

 

[tnichols]

So I have been tooling around with the Scott Satterlee load development method with a few different rifles. I have noticed while working up to my maximum load I have had a few loads shoot lower ft per sec. than the previous load or even the previous two loads. It seems to be close to a plateau on two or thee loads. Watching Scott on YouTube he mentioned that seeing this always sparks his interest but didn’t get into detail. Is this normal when your close to a OCW. I know some people people say this type of development is BS but I willing to give it a shot to find out what actually works for me. Using a LabRadar and working up in .3 of a gr.
Thanks in advance.

In my humble experience, your foot is on the carpet and she won’t go any faster. I don’t know much about OCW, but when it plateaus or goes over the top, you’ve found the speed limit and then some. Find an accuracy node within a comfortable and reasonable MV and live happy.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Good listen, 41 minutes in Scott starts to talk his current method.
MDS Episode #0014: Scott Satterlee and Hand Loading on Podbean, check it out!

 

[Feniks Technologies]

There’s a reason a “test” like this is almost always with one round per charge weight…..

 

[ubettcha]

The barrel hit a harmonic node is what is happening. Load up at .1 intervals through the node looking at the es/sd or pick the middle and play with seating again with your Chrono of choice. This is the speed the barrel wants to shoot. If you have a powder that is temp sensitive you will have to adjust the charge weight to keep it in that speed range.
For example my 308 runs 168smk best @43 grns of Rl15 @ 40 degrees. My ES is 6 my sd is 1.7 over 10 shots. Accuracy runs .3-.4 @ 5100ish rounds. It shot better back when it was fresh. To keep it shooting like this every 15 degrees of temp is .3 grains of powder in the direction of the temp. If it falls more powder if it warms less. It works in a similar fashion with every other rifle I own. The difference is the amount with the temp.
To determine the amount look at how much the change in speed was with the powder charge difference before the node. It should be a consistent fps difference until you hit that node. Then look at what the change in fps per degree of temp change for the powder is. There are many sources for this.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

The barrel hit a harmonic node is what is happening. Load up at .1 intervals through the node looking at the es/sd or pick the middle and play with seating again with your Chrono of choice. This is the speed the barrel wants to shoot. If you have a powder that is temp sensitive you will have to adjust the charge weight to keep it in that speed range.
For example my 308 runs 168smk best @43 grns of Rl15 @ 40 degrees. My ES is 6 my sd is 1.7 over 10 shots. Accuracy runs .3-.4 @ 5100ish rounds. It shot better back when it was fresh. To keep it shooting like this every 15 degrees of temp is .3 grains of powder in the direction of the temp. If it falls more powder if it warms less. It works in a similar fashion with every other rifle I own. The difference is the amount with the temp.
To determine the amount look at how much the change in speed was with the powder charge difference before the node. It should be a consistent fps difference until you hit that node. Then look at what the change in fps per degree of temp change for the powder is. There are many sources for this.

Are you suggesting he saw less speed with more powder due to a “harmonic node”?

 

[ubettcha]

Are you suggesting he saw less speed with more powder due to a “harmonic node”?

Yes that happens

 

[padom]

Here we go....

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Yes that happens

LOL…..

 

[kthomas]

God help us...

 

[Slappythesparky]

The barrel hit a harmonic node is what is happening. Load up at .1 intervals through the node looking at the es/sd or pick the middle and play with seating again with your Chrono of choice. This is the speed the barrel wants to shoot. If you have a powder that is temp sensitive you will have to adjust the charge weight to keep it in that speed range.
For example my 308 runs 168smk best @43 grns of Rl15 @ 40 degrees. My ES is 6 my sd is 1.7 over 10 shots. Accuracy runs .3-.4 @ 5100ish rounds. It shot better back when it was fresh. To keep it shooting like this every 15 degrees of temp is .3 grains of powder in the direction of the temp. If it falls more powder if it warms less. It works in a similar fashion with every other rifle I own. The difference is the amount with the temp.
To determine the amount look at how much the change in speed was with the powder charge difference before the node. It should be a consistent fps difference until you hit that node. Then look at what the change in fps per degree of temp change for the powder is. There are many sources for this.

The barrel hit a harmonic node is what is happening. Load up at .1 intervals through the node looking at the es/sd or pick the middle and play with seating again with your Chrono of choice. This is the speed the barrel wants to shoot. If you have a powder that is temp sensitive you will have to adjust the charge weight to keep it in that speed range.
For example my 308 runs 168smk best @43 grns of Rl15 @ 40 degrees. My ES is 6 my sd is 1.7 over 10 shots. Accuracy runs .3-.4 @ 5100ish rounds. It shot better back when it was fresh. To keep it shooting like this every 15 degrees of temp is .3 grains of powder in the direction of the temp. If it falls more powder if it warms less. It works in a similar fashion with every other rifle I own. The difference is the amount with the temp.
To determine the amount look at how much the change in speed was with the powder charge difference before the node. It should be a consistent fps difference until you hit that node. Then look at what the change in fps per degree of temp change for the powder is. There are many sources for this.

 

[dirthead1]

Is your barrel fluted?

 

[Slappythesparky]

So I realized I was working up in .2g increments
Looking at 41.6-42.2 where would you say the accuracy node would be?
Thanks.

 

[Slappythesparky]

Is your barrel fluted?

No it’s my son hunting gun Savage Axis.

 

[Doom]

I'm hoping that this thread can be the 2nd version of the "Are Velocity Flat Spots a Myth" thread

All I know is flat spots exist! Every 30 degree morning on a 68 Firebird with Goodyear Polyglas tires.

 

[whatsupdoc]

What were you shooting at when you shot the 20 rounds? Paper? Steel?

 

[Tokay444]

So I realized I was working up in .2g increments
Looking at 41.6-42.2 where would you say the accuracy node would be?
Thanks.

You didn’t show a target.

 

[Newbie2020]

Shoot your one shot series again. You’ll find new flat spots to chase. Then shoot it again and you’ll have even more flat spots to chase. It’ll be fun.

Or you can accept the fact that flat spots are a myth (not to mention a waste of time and precious components) and listen to @Hoplite Ammo and Training and choose a powder charge that approximately matches your desired velocity and rock on.

 

[Slappythesparky]

Shoot your one shot series again. You’ll find new flat spots to chase. Then shoot it again and you’ll have even more flat spots to chase. It’ll be fun.

Or you can accept the fact that flat spots are a myth (not to mention a waste of time and precious components) and listen to @Hoplite Ammo and Training and choose a powder charge that approximately matches your desired velocity and rock on.

Would you suggest Dan Newberrys OCW method? Or do I need to go back to three to five shot groups? Thanks

 

[Newbie2020]

Or simply pick a safe powder charge that matches your desired MV, then tune group size by varying seating depth.

Good components and consistent powder throws through a quality barrel will result in consistent barrel harmonics, resulting in consistent POI. Regardless of powder charge (within safe limits). If you cannot get sd for MV below 15 then that’s where you should focus.

You can tighten groups slightly (0.1-0.25 moa?…) by varying seating depth.

A guy here on the hide who’s really accomplished loader and shooter had someone else pick a random powder charge and a random seating depth for him without pre testing and he shot a match with it. I think he took third. The ammo shot under half moa.

Berger factory 109 gr ammo and Hornady ELDM 108 gr and Hornady Black 105 gr all shoot roughly half moa in my rifle. I’ve never checked seating depth because they all shoot consistently from my rifle. But I’m guessing they’re not the same distance off my lands. Same for my 6.5cm.

It’s possible I could squeeze another 0.1-0.2 moa out of this factory ammo by changing seating depth, but half moa is satisfactory for my purposes.

Point is, if you don’t need <half moa precision, then good components, consistent powder throw, and a quality barrel should get you there.

I’ll let the experts speak to getting down to quarter moa if that’s your goal or need. That’s what some guys want. I struggle to hit 2 moa steel so that’s on me not my half moa ammo.

 

[Slappythesparky]

Thank you.

 

[Doom]

Would you suggest Dan Newberrys OCW method? Or do I need to go back to three to five shot groups? Thanks

Dan’s method uses 3 shot groups and will normally yield a very consistent, accurate load based on actual target results. I have used it for 10 years and I have 223 bolt gun loads that shoot < ,4 MOA for 5 shot group and 308 loads that are similar from factory Rem 700s.

Your chronograph data doesn’t tell you anything about accuracy. It tells you velocity, and in your case for one shot, and nothing about standard deviation or extreme spread for any particular load.

 

[Ledzep]

Interpreting a single 1-shot, 3-shot, or 5-shot group as a quantitative evaluation on precision potential vs. other 1, 3, or 5-shot groups is the statistical equivalent of sitting backwards in front of your TV and watching the light change on the walls to interpret the plot of whatever is playing on the screen.

The floor is somewhere around 18-20 shots per variable. 30-35 is much better.

 

[Slappythesparky]

I think I’m going to find something that’s works and save my time and brain power on shooting. I feel like I’ve been chasing my tail finding the perfect load when I should have spent that time practicing. I think I’m finally at that point where loading is no longer a hobby. I just want to shot and be decent at it. Thanks for the replies.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I think I’m going to find something that’s works and save my time and brain power on shooting. I feel like I’ve been chasing my tail finding the perfect load when I should have spent that time practicing. I think I’m finally at that point where loading is no longer a hobby. I just want to shot and be decent at it. Thanks for the replies.

Once you figure what actually does and doesn’t work, making ammo isn’t that difficult or time consuming.

What makes it hard is unless you test what doesn’t work, you don’t actually know what does. If that makes sense. What should make you very suspicious of any part is if everyone does it differently, but all get good results.

For example: barrel break in methods. Have you ever heard someone say their barrel didn’t break in properly or they ruin a barrel? Of course not. The reason being, there is no right or wrong way to break in a barrel. Everyone’s method “works” because none of them matter.

So, the same logic applies in loading. If you see a lot of people arguing over a process and no one can post (meaningful) data showing something doesn’t work….guess what? That step probably doesn’t actually matter and people are just arguing over nothing without any actual data.

Case in point…..no one on the entire internet has been able to post long term meaningful data showing you can add powder and not gain speed (barring being at the top end of safe pressure or not using the correct burn rate and such).

But, they still insist their “flat spot” that occurs in small sample sizes has “worked for years.”

The reality is it worked in spite of that “test” not because of it. They didn’t go back and test what didn’t work. So they have no actual idea what does.


Now, if you see almost universal agreement on something, that typically matters. For example, people usually see a very noticeable drop in SD/ES when they either:

Use a mandrel instead of the die sizing button
Or
They neck turn and use a bushing without the button or a mandrel.

So, that’s what you want to focus on. Most universally agree those two processes are the best for setting your interference fit. That matters because people have found things that don’t work, or don’t work as well.

 

[Ledzep]

^^^ Pretty much nailed it. Test-to-test variation on small sample size "tests" meets or exceeds the difference between loads you think you're seeing. In most cases unless you're changing over a grain of powder charge at a time, there is VERY marginal difference between powder ladder or seating depth ladder 20-30 or even 100 shot groups.

Beyond that, group size is a horrible metric. Regardless of if you shoot 2 or 100 shots, you're only measuring 2 of them. Even worse, there is no correlation back to the weapon system. No correlation to POA, nor bore axis, nor large sample MPOI... It's just the 2 shots with the biggest distance between them, ignoring the distribution of the others in the group. HOWEVER, using tools like mean radius and radial SD (which fairly accurately quantify the dispersion characteristics of a group) requires sample sizes that most people find austere. Data sets start telling the story around 20 shots, and become pretty "practically" repeatable around 30-35.

Some things I've learned from a few thousand rounds worth of 20-100 shot group data sets:

Bear in mind this is for producing ammo that can handle use. Enough neck tension I'd take it hunting, hiking, load in an AR, etc... You may see some slight performance benefit from ammo you have to BR-style baby handle, but in the practical realm, IMO, it's largely a waste of time/effort. In other words, that ammo probably wouldn't survive feeding out of a magazine.

-Brass prep beyond using same mfg/same lot is mostly a waste of time. I've taken virgin unsorted brass vs. once fired, volume sorted, neck turned annealed, mandrel died, neck ID honed, graphite necks, trimmed/deburred, deburred flash hole cases and the results were statistically identical... You can even do 20-25 virgin cases vs. the same case loaded 20-25 times (AMP + trim every firing) and the results are nearly identical. This isn't to say you or a brass mfg. can't fuck it up. If things are way out of whack you can see problems from brass, but within the realm of someone who has half a clue what they're doing it's largely a non-issue. My personal take on the subject is that the variation in chemical potential -> kinetic energy transfer, and the corresponding changes to the shape of the Pressure vs. time curve vastly out weigh whatever neck tension and volume variation exists at the start of the firing event (within reason, like I said you can fuck it up if you try). Once the bullet starts moving, the delta in volume is orders of magnitude larger than the volume difference case-to-case. YMMV.

- Powder type and lot# is the biggest influence on both dispersion and MV spreads

- Powder charge is the next biggest influence. With the exception of Varget, the trend in my testing has always been more powder = more dispersion. Varget, for whatever reason, seems to be pretty flat on a charge weight vs. dispersion graph. I have found to date, with extruded temp-stable powders, NO significant change in ES/SD as you bump up or down charge weights (Velocity flat spots DON'T EXIST). I have seen a small handful of spherical powders that will get super bad ES/SD (and dispersion) as you push the pressure envelope. Unfortunately powders have the potential to behave very differently from cartridge to cartridge so it's not like "<insert ball powder> sucks!" because it could just suck in the cartridge I tested, and may be fine in another...

ETA: By the way, powder charge weight consistency matters. You won't often see it for ES/SD if you're loading on a .1gr scale, but the bump to the .02 or .01gr resolution scales will bring in the dispersion a teeny tiny bit.

- Seating depth can have an effect on dispersion. It seems like there are "happy spots", but I'd test them in no finer than .01-.015" increments, and the "Best case" to "worst case" that I've seen is pretty marginal. I typically set jump at ~35-50 thousandths and forget that my seater die has adjustments, personally.


Personal advice: Throw loads together with different powders, 1-2 gr under book max charge, at 10x each and "feel around" with those 10-shot groups to rule out results that are poopoo. Then if you REALLY care, go back and do 20-shot dot drills with the best of those 10-shot feelers, measure X and Y of each shot vs. the POA, put it in Excel, find the MPOI, find the mean radius, and radial SD, and have a quantitative look at which powder is working best for your setup. Expect to shoot a couple hundred rounds doing load dev.

If you don't care, pick the best 10-shotter and rock and roll. Don't chase velocity, your ballistic calculator doesn't care. Mild loads shoot better (in general) and don't pop primers in the rain.

 

[Holliday]

^^^ Pretty much nailed it. Test-to-test variation on small sample size "tests" meets or exceeds the difference between loads you think you're seeing. In most cases unless you're changing over a grain of powder charge at a time, there is VERY marginal difference between powder ladder or seating depth ladder 20-30 or even 100 shot groups.

Beyond that, group size is a horrible metric. Regardless of if you shoot 2 or 100 shots, you're only measuring 2 of them. Even worse, there is no correlation back to the weapon system. No correlation to POA, nor bore axis, nor large sample MPOI... It's just the 2 shots with the biggest distance between them, ignoring the distribution of the others in the group. HOWEVER, using tools like mean radius and radial SD (which fairly accurately quantify the dispersion characteristics of a group) requires sample sizes that most people find austere. Data sets start telling the story around 20 shots, and become pretty "practically" repeatable around 30-35.

Some things I've learned from a few thousand rounds worth of 20-100 shot group data sets:

Bear in mind this is for producing ammo that can handle use. Enough neck tension I'd take it hunting, hiking, load in an AR, etc... You may see some slight performance benefit from ammo you have to BR-style baby handle, but in the practical realm, IMO, it's largely a waste of time/effort. In other words, that ammo probably wouldn't survive feeding out of a magazine.

-Brass prep beyond using same mfg/same lot is mostly a waste of time. I've taken virgin unsorted brass vs. once fired, volume sorted, neck turned annealed, mandrel died, neck ID honed, graphite necks, trimmed/deburred, deburred flash hole cases and the results were statistically identical... You can even do 20-25 virgin cases vs. the same case loaded 20-25 times (AMP + trim every firing) and the results are nearly identical. This isn't to say you or a brass mfg. can't fuck it up. If things are way out of whack you can see problems from brass, but within the realm of someone who has half a clue what they're doing it's largely a non-issue. My personal take on the subject is that the variation in chemical potential -> kinetic energy transfer, and the corresponding changes to the shape of the Pressure vs. time curve vastly out weigh whatever neck tension and volume variation exists at the start of the firing event (within reason, like I said you can fuck it up if you try). Once the bullet starts moving, the delta in volume is orders of magnitude larger than the volume difference case-to-case. YMMV.

- Powder type and lot# is the biggest influence on both dispersion and MV spreads

- Powder charge is the next biggest influence. With the exception of Varget, the trend in my testing has always been more powder = more dispersion. Varget, for whatever reason, seems to be pretty flat on a charge weight vs. dispersion graph. I have found to date, with extruded temp-stable powders, NO significant change in ES/SD as you bump up or down charge weights (Velocity flat spots DON'T EXIST). I have seen a small handful of spherical powders that will get super bad ES/SD (and dispersion) as you push the pressure envelope. Unfortunately powders have the potential to behave very differently from cartridge to cartridge so it's not like "<insert ball powder> sucks!" because it could just suck in the cartridge I tested, and may be fine in another...

ETA: By the way, powder charge weight consistency matters. You won't often see it for ES/SD if you're loading on a .1gr scale, but the bump to the .02 or .01gr resolution scales will bring in the dispersion a teeny tiny bit.

- Seating depth can have an effect on dispersion. It seems like there are "happy spots", but I'd test them in no finer than .01-.015" increments, and the "Best case" to "worst case" that I've seen is pretty marginal. I typically set jump at ~35-50 thousandths and forget that my seater die has adjustments, personally.


Personal advice: Throw loads together with different powders, 1-2 gr under book max charge, at 10x each and "feel around" with those 10-shot groups to rule out results that are poopoo. Then if you REALLY care, go back and do 20-shot dot drills with the best of those 10-shot feelers, measure X and Y of each shot vs. the POA, put it in Excel, find the MPOI, find the mean radius, and radial SD, and have a quantitative look at which powder is working best for your setup. Expect to shoot a couple hundred rounds doing load dev.

If you don't care, pick the best 10-shotter and rock and roll. Don't chase velocity, your ballistic calculator doesn't care. Mild loads shoot better (in general) and don't pop primers in the rain.

Great write-up. So it’s your assertion that annealing is a waist of time?

 

[Ledzep]

No it has a very important use, but that use isn't to magically shrink ES/SD numbers. The only way annealing is going to help ES/SD numbers is if you're mixing like 1x fired and 5x fired un-annealed cases. That's one of the ways you can screw things up. Each firing/sizing cycle will make the necks harder, which in turn changes how much they spring-back after sizing, as well as how hard they hold the bullet. If you don't anneal at all, you can expect Avg. velocity to walk (a little bit, nothing crazy) with each firing cycle, and can expect ES/SD to grow if you mix different firing count cases together. ES/SD can also grow when cases get upwards of 4-5 firings on them without annealing, and before they split.

Annealing every 1-3 firings is a good strategy to keep neck hardness/tension consistent and to keep from splitting necks to get the most brass life possible. I don't necessarily suggest mixing batches of cases with different firing counts on them, but if you anneal every firing, the impact of doing so will be largely mitigated.

Virgin brass vs. 1x fired an annealed will likely have different Avg velocity (1x fired usually bumps velocity up 10-20fps from what I've seen), but the ES/SD of both will be about the same in the long run.

Hopefully that's clear as mud. It's more about keeping the cases at a more consistent hardness throughout their lifetime to give more consistent results from one firing cycle to the next than it is about a particular group having lower ES/SD numbers just because you annealed those cases.

 

[Holliday]

No it has a very important use, but that use isn't to magically shrink ES/SD numbers. The only way annealing is going to help ES/SD numbers is if you're mixing like 1x fired and 5x fired un-annealed cases. That's one of the ways you can screw things up. Each firing/sizing cycle will make the necks harder, which in turn changes how much they spring-back after sizing, as well as how hard they hold the bullet. If you don't anneal at all, you can expect Avg. velocity to walk (a little bit, nothing crazy) with each firing cycle, and can expect ES/SD to grow if you mix different firing count cases together. ES/SD can also grow when cases get upwards of 4-5 firings on them without annealing, and before they split.

Annealing every 1-3 firings is a good strategy to keep neck hardness/tension consistent and to keep from splitting necks to get the most brass life possible. I don't necessarily suggest mixing batches of cases with different firing counts on them, but if you anneal every firing, the impact of doing so will be largely mitigated.

Virgin brass vs. 1x fired an annealed will likely have different Avg velocity (1x fired usually bumps velocity up 10-20fps from what I've seen), but the ES/SD of both will be about the same in the long run.

Hopefully that's clear as mud. It's more about keeping the cases at a more consistent hardness throughout their lifetime to give more consistent results from one firing cycle to the next than it is about a particular group having lower ES/SD numbers just because you annealed those cases.

Thanks

 

[Doom]

Interpreting a single 1-shot, 3-shot, or 5-shot group as a quantitative evaluation on precision potential vs. other 1, 3, or 5-shot groups is the statistical equivalent of sitting backwards in front of your TV and watching the light change on the walls to interpret the plot of whatever is playing on the screen.

The floor is somewhere around 18-20 shots per variable. 30-35 is much better.

A group in and of itself can have great variation. However a 3 shot group shot by a competent rifle will have a representative POI. When two or three groups have similar POI you have a qualitative indication from 9 shoots that the loading is consistent. In Dan’s system it’s the POI that matters not the group size in itself. It yields a consistent repeatable load.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

That "accomplished loader" started reloading in October 2018, but then again you're a newbie from last year so what the fuck would you know?

You are the classic example of someone who just repeats what he read on the internet with confidence.

Actually, that “accomplished loader” has been loading ammo since he was about 10 years old.

He just happened to pick it back up seriously with better equipment in 2018. He also has 90+
matches on practiscore. Shoots to the tune of 8k or more rounds a year, instructor at Rifles Only, member of Team Vudoo, and has an ammunition business, just to name a few things off the top of my head.

But you’re probably right. The time someone starts posting and/or asking for advice on the Hide is probably the day they started doing anything in this industry.

Or, maybe don’t make assumptions you have zero knowledge about.

 

[Newbie2020]

No it has a very important use, but that use isn't to magically shrink ES/SD numbers. The only way annealing is going to help ES/SD numbers is if you're mixing like 1x fired and 5x fired un-annealed cases. That's one of the ways you can screw things up. Each firing/sizing cycle will make the necks harder, which in turn changes how much they spring-back after sizing, as well as how hard they hold the bullet. If you don't anneal at all, you can expect Avg. velocity to walk (a little bit, nothing crazy) with each firing cycle, and can expect ES/SD to grow if you mix different firing count cases together. ES/SD can also grow when cases get upwards of 4-5 firings on them without annealing, and before they split.

Annealing every 1-3 firings is a good strategy to keep neck hardness/tension consistent and to keep from splitting necks to get the most brass life possible. I don't necessarily suggest mixing batches of cases with different firing counts on them, but if you anneal every firing, the impact of doing so will be largely mitigated.

Virgin brass vs. 1x fired an annealed will likely have different Avg velocity (1x fired usually bumps velocity up 10-20fps from what I've seen), but the ES/SD of both will be about the same in the long run.

Hopefully that's clear as mud. It's more about keeping the cases at a more consistent hardness throughout their lifetime to give more consistent results from one firing cycle to the next than it is about a particular group having lower ES/SD numbers just because you annealed those cases.

This might be the best summary of the value of annealing I’ve read. Thanks @Ledzep

 

[Ledzep]

A group in and of itself can have great variation. However a 3 shot group shot by a competent rifle will have a representative POI. When two or three groups have similar POI you have a qualitative indication from 9 shoots that the loading is consistent. In Dan’s system it’s the POI that matters not the group size in itself. It yields a consistent repeatable load.

If a 10-shot group (or 9) is .65 MOA, and I bump powder charge .3gr and that 10-shot group is .8 MOA, you can't tell me that one is better than the other if that's all the data you have. Repetition of that test could just as easily have the results flip-flop as it could have them stay the same.

20 is the FLOOR, and still has noise to it (~.15 MOA window, test to test for groups size, but usually less). 30-50 is pretty repeatable <.1 MOA pretty much every time. Again, group size is a bad metric but it's what people are used to. When you do a 30 shot sample and break it into mean radius and radial SD you get very solid data to compare 1 thing vs. another. What is especially telling is plotting data "by the shot". SD as shot count increases, MV as shot count increases, mean radius as shot count increases etc... OVER AND OVER EVERY SINGLE TIME you watch noisy stuff happen for the first 20-30 shots, then everything flat-lines and stops changing, or the changes at a slow crawl around the "true" value.

Most people are playing in the noise, and are saved by the quality of the components they're using.

ETA: More to the point of consistent POI... Again, if you plot MPOI (mean point of impact) by the shot as a group increases round count, you will watch some things happen you never thought was possible. I'm talking differences from a 5-shot group to a 100 shot group of over .3-.4 MOA (think about how your zero "check" affects your performance at a match where you shoot 100-200 rounds...). From a 10 shot group to a 100 shot group of ~.2-.25 MOA. The same principles from before apply, and 9 shots is not enough to tell much with certainty.

The dispersion pattern of a rifle is not like a hose of uber-precise groups that walks around to produce the total end-game 100+ shot dispersion. The order in which shots produce a large sample size dispersion is RANDOM. I need graphics I don't have to describe this with much more detail...

 

[Newbie2020]

As I’ve posted elsewhere in other threads I’m afraid there’s some long-held “best practices” that need to go away, either due to drastically better equipment or simply due to a modern understanding of statistical variation.

As a newbie One needs a robust filter reading the Hide to figure out who knows what they’re doing and who knows what works for them.

Also, as a newbie I’m trying to direct other newbies to good information and away from some of the “lore” that is a waste of time and components. There’s some really sharp cats on the hide who cut through the flotsam of conventional thinking.

Why I love the hide.

 

[kthomas]

As I’ve posted elsewhere in other threads I’m afraid there’s some long-held “best practices” that need to go away, either due to drastically better equipment or simply due to a modern understanding of statistical variation.

As a newbie One needs a robust filter reading the Hide to figure out who knows what they’re doing and who knows what works for them.

Also, as a newbie I’m trying to direct other newbies to good information and away from some of the “lore” that is a waste of time and components. There’s some really sharp cats on the hide who cut through the flotsam of conventional thinking.

Why I love the hide.

So much myth and lore when it comes to reloading.

Everybody's chasing unicorns and everyone has a different map to find that unicorn.

Even world class benchrest shooters, who rely on having the most precise rifle + ammo (and shooter) to win any match, can't agree on how to reload. And they are way more anal about it then our group.

Example: a lot of benchrest shooters will swear by turning necks. Even some on here. However, Sam Hall and Bart Sauter, two world class benchrest shooters with numerous records to their names, have extensively tested this and found this to be a myth. There's a lot more nuance to it then this simple paragraph of course, but neither turn necks and still set records.

There's so many variables to reloading, and to test all of them is exhaustive and takes a lot of resources, more then any individual can undertake on their own in a lifetime.

A good way to produce good ammo is to do so on good quality equipment with good components, in a consistent manner. Keep your process simple at first, don't overcomplicate things.

Some good resources are the applied ballistics episodes on the Every Day Sniper podcast - they dispell a lot of myths. Erik Corrina's podcast on The Just F'in Send It podcast is great as well. Speaking of myths and lore, read up on the Houston Warehouse - very interesting.

 

[BLKWLFK9]

I just got through with the Modern Day Sniper course and we recorded 2 podcasts for their podcast channel. The 2nd one, me and Caylen talk about our reloading practices and how they greatly differ but both produce amazing ammunition. The 1st episode should be released next week then the 2nd one the week after.

I, myself load very similar to how Erik Cortina reloads. I can shoot my powder charge tests into a berm with no target just to record speeds. Find the charge weight I like, then tune seating depth for group size. Done.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Nah, I'm going to hold what I got. Just because you're uncle Dave takes you out and helps you get a deer when your 12 doesn't mean you get to tell your buddies that you've been hunting your entire life when they take you out for your first time as an adult. Especially when you're asking basic questions. That's not 30 years of experience brought to bear. That's just you acting real righteous on Snipers Hide repeating what Erik Cortina said.

k.

One of the two people in this conversation produced the “talk of the show” ammo at the expo a few weeks ago.

The other, well…..he’s you.

 

[1moaoff]

Actually, that “accomplished loader” has been loading ammo since he was about 10 years old.

He just happened to pick it back up seriously with better equipment in 2018. He also has 90+
matches on practiscore. Shoots to the tune of 8k or more rounds a year, instructor at Rifles Only, member of Team Vudoo, and has an ammunition business, just to name a few things off the top of my head.

But you’re probably right. The time someone starts posting and/or asking for advice on the Hide is probably the day they started doing anything in this industry.

Or, maybe don’t make assumptions you have zero knowledge about.

I was so waiting for this!!!!
I think the user name is a mask many can't see past.

And by the way.... that post has @THEIS all over it!!! I like the consistency within the organization

 

[Steel head]

I, myself load very similar to how Erik Cortina reloads. I can shoot my powder charge tests into a berm with no target just to record speeds. Find the charge weight I like, then tune seating depth for group size. Done.

This is basically what I do now.

I’ve had good results with many methods of load development (once I had a solid reloading base that is) from OCD, old Satterlee and a few more.

Now I really like simple and fast and cortina methods are just that.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Is he.....you?

 

[Long Range 338]

I’ve tried the Satterlee method and it seems to work for me. My loads are strictly mine and shoot well enough to get hits at a mile with a 6.5 CM. Anecdotal yes but very good results for the minimal amount of load development that was needed.

That doesn’t mean even better results aren’t being achieved by others with their methods. If their method is too time or resource consuming my imitation might be half assed if I can’t put in the same amount of effort. I believe most of us get to “good enough” and move on to the more fun task of pulling the trigger…

I would love to see a thread authored by the experts laying out their full procedure from start to finish and disable all comments so the rest of us can consume it for what it is, one person’s opinion of the best way to reload.

There is such a heated environment concerning others “old school” and “outdated” reloading processes that a true sharing of ideas isn’t truly occurring.

My humble $0.02

 

[Doom]

If a 10-shot group (or 9) is .65 MOA, and I bump powder charge .3gr and that 10-shot group is .8 MOA, you can't tell me that one is better than the other if that's all the data you have. Repetition of that test could just as easily have the results flip-flop as it could have them stay the same.

20 is the FLOOR, and still has noise to it (~.15 MOA window, test to test for groups size, but usually less). 30-50 is pretty repeatable <.1 MOA pretty much every time. Again, group size is a bad metric but it's what people are used to. When you do a 30 shot sample and break it into mean radius and radial SD you get very solid data to compare 1 thing vs. another. What is especially telling is plotting data "by the shot". SD as shot count increases, MV as shot count increases, mean radius as shot count increases etc... OVER AND OVER EVERY SINGLE TIME you watch noisy stuff happen for the first 20-30 shots, then everything flat-lines and stops changing, or the changes at a slow crawl around the "true" value.

Most people are playing in the noise, and are saved by the quality of the components they're using.

ETA: More to the point of consistent POI... Again, if you plot MPOI (mean point of impact) by the shot as a group increases round count, you will watch some things happen you never thought was possible. I'm talking differences from a 5-shot group to a 100 shot group of over .3-.4 MOA (think about how your zero "check" affects your performance at a match where you shoot 100-200 rounds...). From a 10 shot group to a 100 shot group of ~.2-.25 MOA. The same principles from before apply, and 9 shots is not enough to tell much with certainty.

The dispersion pattern of a rifle is not like a hose of uber-precise groups that walks around to produce the total end-game 100+ shot dispersion. The order in which shots produce a large sample size dispersion is RANDOM. I need graphics I don't have to describe this with much more detail...

Whoa!

I am not in disagreement with you! From a statistical stand point we have the same general opinions. I have posted often about the use of minimal shot data and making decisions based on that data.

Newberry’s OCW has been shown to produce accurate repeatable loads. by shooting round robin and looking at loads that have similar POI, it attempts to identify aa load that is insensitive to minor changes primers, charge weight and case vol/prep. It is quantitative in nature. Once a node is found, as you state, it must be verified as stable by additional shooting. It tries to minimize outside factors that effect accuracy in testing such as wind. Unfortunately, the primary source of error in the method is the shooters ability. This is true with any method that relies on a human for operation and a target for analysis.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Whoa!

I am not in disagreement with you! From a statistical stand point we have the same general opinions. I have posted often about the use of minimal shot data and making decisions based on that data.

Newberry’s OCW has been shown to produce accurate repeatable loads. by shooting round robin and looking at loads that have similar POI, it attempts to identify aa load that is insensitive to minor changes primers, charge weight and case vol/prep. It is quantitative in nature. Once a node is found, as you state, it must be verified as stable by additional shooting. It tries to minimize outside factors that effect accuracy in testing such as wind. Unfortunately, the primary source of error in the method is the shooters ability. This is true with any method that relies on a human for operation and a target for analysis.

The real test wouldn’t be what they method produces.

It would be testing the loads the method says don’t work or aren’t optimal. If you don’t test these, then you have no idea if the method works or not.

You rarely if ever see any testing like this.



For example, anytime someone mentions say positive compensation, and someone says they don’t believe in the theory, the absolute first thing people say is “well, how do you explain shooters who shoot smaller groups at distance that have a larger ES and should be mathematically impossible given the velocity of each round?”

Which, on its face is a logical question. However, it has a huge flaw. It only takes into account and he groups smaller than what velocity allows for.

There’s is never any recording of groups larger than velocity says is possible.



Without recording the negative or undesired outcomes, you will never have results that show anything but good things. Which is where the “always worked for me” comes from.


If you cannot post research that shows either something not working, or the negative results, your data is all but worthless and proves nothing.

 

[kthomas]

The real test wouldn’t be what they method produces.

It would be testing the loads the method says don’t work or aren’t optimal. If you don’t test these, then you have no idea if the method works or not.

You rarely if ever see any testing like this.



For example, anytime someone mentions say positive compensation, and someone says they don’t believe in the theory, the absolute first thing people say is “well, how do you explain shooters who shoot smaller groups at distance that have a larger ES and should be mathematically impossible given the velocity of each round?”

Which, on its face is a logical question. However, it has a huge flaw. It only takes into account and he groups smaller than what velocity allows for.

There’s is never any recording of groups larger than velocity says is possible.



Without recording the negative or undesired outcomes, you will never have results that show anything but good things. Which is where the “always worked for me” comes from.


If you cannot post research that shows either something not working, or the negative results, your data is all but worthless and proves nothing.

And this is where all the myth and lore in reloading stems from.

There are so many factors that can influence precision, that it would take a lot of resources to go through the rigorous process of isolating variables one at a time and testing them. And whatever results are found have to be repeatable - so the process is not just a couple of tests. Such testing would take numerous barrels and thousands and thousands of rounds to properly conduct.

Even just controlling each variable to a high degree of precision will be hugely resource intensive on its own. Projectile dimensions and mass, brass mass/dimensions/geometry, variability between primers, powders and lot #'s, etc. would all have to be controlled to a high degree in order to adequately isolate those variables.

Individuals just don't have the time nor resources to conduct a truly scientific test on this, there are just so many factors at play. So instead, people (and I'm including myself in this), rely on their own perceptions and biases, through pseudo-testing and information passed along the way through others. Right, wrong or indifferent, this is what we currently have to make such judgements.

It would be really interesting for a true scientific level of testing applied to the reloading process, to exactly determine what does and doesn't effect precision and to what degree. The closest I know of anyone doing this is Applied Ballistics, some of which they've discussed on the Every Day Sniper podcast over multiple episodes. How rigorously that testing was conducted I don't know.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

And this is where all the myth and lore in reloading stems from.

There are so many factors that can influence precision, that it would take a lot of resources to go through the rigorous process of isolating variables one at a time and testing them. And whatever results are found have to be repeatable - so the process is not just a couple of tests. Such testing would take numerous barrels and thousands and thousands of rounds to properly conduct.

Even just controlling each variable to a high degree of precision will be hugely resource intensive on its own. Projectile dimensions and mass, brass mass/dimensions/geometry, variability between primers, powders and lot #'s, etc. would all have to be controlled to a high degree in order to adequately isolate those variables.

Individuals just don't have the time nor resources to conduct a truly scientific test on this, there are just so many factors at play. So instead, people (and I'm including myself in this), rely on their own perceptions and biases, through pseudo-testing and information passed along the way through others. Right, wrong or indifferent, this is what we currently have to make such judgements.

It would be really interesting for a true scientific level of testing applied to the reloading process, to exactly determine what does and doesn't effect precision and to what degree. The closest I know of anyone doing this is Applied Ballistics, some of which they've discussed on the Every Day Sniper podcast over multiple episodes. How rigorously that testing was conducted I don't know.

Agreed.

I’ve have several conversations with AB. They have done a very good amount of testing.

Most of their testing shows things similar to what @Ledzep says. That most of what we think we are doing is in the noise area.

Much of the testing AB and others have done don’t get published for several reasons. One of the big ones being all it will do is start a shit storm online when everyone’s foundation they believe in is out and out not how it works.

 

[kthomas]

Agreed.

I’ve have several conversations with AB. They have done a very good amount of testing.

Most of their testing shows things similar to what @Ledzep says. That most of what we think we are doing is in the noise area.

Much of the testing AB and others have done don’t get published for several reasons. One of the big ones being all it will do is start a shit storm online when everyone’s foundation they believe in is out and out not how it works.

Which is a shame, because there's so much we can learn from such published data.

But yes, people are pretty tribal and don't like their long held beliefs to be challenged. People are very dogmatic about their reloading process.

I would kill to see all of that data.

 

[Ledzep]

It's slowly coming around. From a couple years ago to now people are generally more receptive. I think as more and more people get curious and find out the same or mostly the same trends we'll start seeing changes in verbage and routines. Which is nice because I think most are looking in the wrong places to improve performance. Attacking the right problems improves things much quicker.

 

[BLKWLFK9]

And this is where all the myth and lore in reloading stems from.

There are so many factors that can influence precision, that it would take a lot of resources to go through the rigorous process of isolating variables one at a time and testing them. And whatever results are found have to be repeatable - so the process is not just a couple of tests. Such testing would take numerous barrels and thousands and thousands of rounds to properly conduct.

Even just controlling each variable to a high degree of precision will be hugely resource intensive on its own. Projectile dimensions and mass, brass mass/dimensions/geometry, variability between primers, powders and lot #'s, etc. would all have to be controlled to a high degree in order to adequately isolate those variables.

Individuals just don't have the time nor resources to conduct a truly scientific test on this, there are just so many factors at play. So instead, people (and I'm including myself in this), rely on their own perceptions and biases, through pseudo-testing and information passed along the way through others. Right, wrong or indifferent, this is what we currently have to make such judgements.

It would be really interesting for a true scientific level of testing applied to the reloading process, to exactly determine what does and doesn't effect precision and to what degree. The closest I know of anyone doing this is Applied Ballistics, some of which they've discussed on the Every Day Sniper podcast over multiple episodes. How rigorously that testing was conducted I don't know.

In the podcast I mentioned earlier, Me, Owen, @velayo_0317 and @CaylenW talked about heuristic bias. Heuristic bias isn't wrong but isn't the most scientific method. Whenever they drop that episode, ill post the link in here.

 

[kthomas]

In the podcast I mentioned earlier, Me, Owen, @velayo_0317 and @CaylenW talked about heuristic bias. Heuristic bias isn't wrong but isn't the most scientific method. Whenever they drop that episode, ill post the link in here.

I'm definitely going to check that out, looking forward to it!