-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
we need a crying orkan meme
- Thread starter Ndbowhunter
- Start date
Oh, you remember that nonsense too! Ha! He *never* misses a PD and you won't either if you just buy the last missing link to perfection: the CPS
Secrets of the Houston Warehouse – Lessons In Extreme Rifle Accuracy
Back in 1993, Precision Shooting Magazine printed a landmark article about the findings of a group o...
precisionrifleblog.com
Secrets of the Houston Warehouse – Lessons In Extreme Rifle Accuracy
Back in 1993, Precision Shooting Magazine printed a landmark article about the findings of a group o...
precisionrifleblog.com
Myths Busted:
- Powder charges, as long as they were fairly consistent and bracketed within a couple of grains, were not important. He threw all of his charges with a Belding & Mull powder measure, and for one experiment he shot groups using three different powder measure settings (51, 52 & 53) … all three groups were identical.
- Lot variation in powder didn’t seem to have any effect on accuracy, even on when using IMR 4198, which has a reputation for varying considerably from lot to lot. He would just buy powder as he needed instead of laying in a big supply, because he found no evidence to support that powder lot variance affected accuracy in the least.
- He never saw an inaccurate primer, and was unable to detect any accuracy variances resulting from seating pressure.
- Rumors have persisted for years that some rifles shoot proportionally better at 200 yards than 100 yards, or vice versa. Virgil files that one under “occultism.” His experience in the warehouse was, if a rifle was shooting a consistent .100″ at 100 yards, it shot a consistent .200″ at 200 yards.
- He did NOT uniform primer pockets or turn the case bases. He also did NOT size his case necks.
Other Tips:
- They were able to rate the relative accuracy of various benchrest calibers. Under the perfect warehouse conditions, the .22 outshot them all, followed closely by the 6mm.
- Common .22 and 6mm benchrest cartridges are pretty well over the hill at 1,000 rounds, and may noticeable accuracy deterioration may begin at about 700 rounds.
This one depends on the powder type. May hold true for a lot of the popular extruded powders, but I have seen lot-to-lot variation significantly change accuracy and velocity performance with a couple spherical powders I've tested. In fairness, they were non-cannister grade so I can't say the same is as common if you go buy "name brand" CFE 223 or whatever.
I pretty much agree with the rest.
Also, in my previous post I forgot to mention that I've got similar findings to Litz as far as brass prep is concerned. Uniforming, turning, etc... seems to not have a real dramatic effect on much of anything. I'm also looking at practical use ammo, though. Not necessarily concerned with ammo that has to be treated nicely or it doesn't work.
Last edited:
Interesting…. Not on “accuracy” but what about velocity. Was velocity adjusted to maintain accuracy?
Yea when Brian speaks I listen. He comes across to me as having solid testing methodologies. He seems to look at things very scientifically with data driven results, rather than anecdotes.
That said, I don’t agree with everything he comes up with but I respect where he is coming from and give him all due consideration.
I have 2 CPS's, and love how they make priming so much easier on my hands and faster.. I also like the consistent seating each time, now I haven't tried to test primer seating depths yet, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, either way I'm happy with my purchase.. I do wonder about Bryan's comment on neck tension not making a difference, im gonna make an assumption that he's referring to only the amount of neck tension and not neck tension consistency. 
Yes, that would be an important distinction.I do wonder about Bryan's comment on neck tension not making a difference, im gonna make an assumption that he's referring to only the amount of neck tension and not neck tension consistency.
Although I knew what rifles were and had some knowledge of their use, 30 years ago I was "just a pistol" guy. Some good friends at our gun range got me interested in short-range BR, the accuracy game of games. At every match the wind flags outnumbered not only shooters but rounds fired by all during the entire match on some days. As I started watching OTHER SHOOTER'S (very important point) I noticed the very phenomenon Litz mentions on the near wind. I always felt the bullet to be the least stable that first 25 yards or so down range and my feeble reasoning told me wind would do more damage to it during that time. Then I felt the flags closest to the target were next most important due to having more influence on where the bullet was going to impact.
I have 2 CPS's, and love how they make priming so much easier on my hands and faster.. I also like the consistent seating each time, now I haven't tried to test primer seating depths yet, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, either way I'm happy with my purchase.. I do wonder about Bryan's comment on neck tension not making a difference, im gonna make an assumption that he's referring to only the amount of neck tension and not neck tension consistency.
Need to see which part is talking about neck tension.
If he’s seating into/jamming lands, then neck tension and consistency matter far less. As the bullet is already touching steel and that will be what the bullet has to overcome first. Instead of a jump were it overcomes the neck followed by the lands.
Blue label is the cleaning compound and the red label is bore brite which is basically a lapping compound. He may dislike both IDK, but the red is probably the one. The only one I've used is blue, and sparingly.
Oh, and don't forget to buy the latest and greatest from Greg to go with cps:
Surprised Greg hasn't labelled Bryan a troll as he is inclined to do with those who criticize or question.
PrimeWhere Digital Package/ Analog. A measly $900/$500!!
A +/- gauge that is sold by bullettipping.com for a fraction of the cost, for those of you that care about such things.Surprised Greg hasn't labelled Bryan a troll as he is inclined to do with those who criticize or question.
no need he said it before... i dont know why its so hard for guys to just clean a barrel after shooting and avoid all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[IMG alt="Frank Green"]https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/data/avatars/s/9/9746.jpg?1640115959[/IMG]
Frank Green
Sergeant
Full MemberMinuteman
This is what happens when you use a brush with an abrasive cleaner! I've posted this picture several times and it never gets old as to what can happen!
This was a 7mm (284W) F class barrel. At 100 rounds accuracy started to suffer. The picture is at 800 rounds. The bore and groove should measure .277" x .284". It now measures .279" x .2855"! So basically polished a full .002" out of the bore and .0015" out of the grooves. The lands (the bore) sticks up so it will take the brunt of the damage from improper cleaning.
The gouges are from the bristles of the brush and the brush is trying to rotate with the twist of the rifling but there is no way every bristle is going to follow/stay in the grooves. So the bristles will ride up and over the top of the lands and down the trailing side of the land.
Later, Frank
no need he said it before... i dont know why its so hard for guys to just clean a barrel after shooting and avoid all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[IMG alt="Frank Green"]https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/data/avatars/s/9/9746.jpg?1640115959[/IMG]
Frank Green
Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
This is what happens when you use a brush with an abrasive cleaner! I've posted this picture several times and it never gets old as to what can happen!
This was a 7mm (284W) F class barrel. At 100 rounds accuracy started to suffer. The picture is at 800 rounds. The bore and groove should measure .277" x .284". It now measures .279" x .2855"! So basically polished a full .002" out of the bore and .0015" out of the grooves. The lands (the bore) sticks up so it will take the brunt of the damage from improper cleaning.
The gouges are from the bristles of the brush and the brush is trying to rotate with the twist of the rifling but there is no way every bristle is going to follow/stay in the grooves. So the bristles will ride up and over the top of the lands and down the trailing side of the land.
Later, Frank
Exactly. But unfortunetly it seems a lot of people forget or believe some new fly by night source that told them they MUST be doing this and need to hear it from the man himself to be convinced.
I'm ok with the JB bore compound (blue label) not the bore brite (red label).
I'm also o.k. with using Remington 40x cleaner (use to be called Gold Medallion years ago before Remmy bought them out).
Again..... I don't use a brush with any of them.
I’ve had my issues w/ the dude.
Blocked on IG/ had my hand slapped here on the hide for digging a lil to deep into the lore.
But the CPS is 100% worth the cost to me. Not because I think primer depth is super important but because of speed & ease of use.
I’d 100% buy another one if mine were snatched by the Hide hall monitors.
Blocked on IG/ had my hand slapped here on the hide for digging a lil to deep into the lore.
But the CPS is 100% worth the cost to me. Not because I think primer depth is super important but because of speed & ease of use.
I’d 100% buy another one if mine were snatched by the Hide hall monitors.
Anytime I used JB blue it was always with a patch, now with the advent of VFG pellets that is my go-to when I need this type of cleaning.
It'll be the more aggressive variant I'm sure (Bore Bright finishing compound would be my guess).
I imagine Frank sees all kinds of messes / wrecked barrels from people getting carried away with those compounds with abrasives that are designed to remove a fine layer of material.
In moderation it would probably be fine but having said that I would be hesitant to use them knowing I'm taking off a layer of fine layer of metal that I cant get back again (although with some of the more stubborn issues like carbon rings etc it is pretty tempting).
Some of the abrasives and how you use them you can remove material. Every once in a while I get a guy telling me...yeah I can't figure out why the patches keep coming out really black? They think it is carbon but not necessarily. You basically keep polishing. You can be removing material.
Also I do feel you can make the bore way to smooth. This will make the bullet/copper want to stick even more like glue and this ends up turning into a copper fouling issue. Once it usually starts....we have less than a 50/50 shot we can save the barrel for the customer. Usually it never comes back to shooting good.
Seen shooters wreck barrels in as little as a 100+ rounds being fired and cleaning during that time frame. Seen barrels where in that amount of rounds fired and the cleaned it like 4 times....and removed a .001" out of the bore!
C'mon Ledzep, we all know that if you're reducing ammo usage, a 3 shot group is just as good as a 10 shot group.
Get with the program buddy!
On the subject of primer seating depth & the merits or not, I'm not yet willing to dismiss the idea that it does not or cannot make a difference.
Although I don't yet know of a mechanism which would cause a few thousandths difference in primer seating depth to create a measurable difference, I am aware of a number of studies conducted whereby the spit hole/flash hole was reduced & or increased in diameter which caused very significant differences in primer pressures, velocity & IB combustion profiles.
To be fair, IB pressures cannot be fully comprehended by our minds & are simply not intuitive constructs which we can relate to in any meaningful way other than that, we know it creates a shit load of pressure in a poofteenth of a second.
It has been found that seemingly insignificant changes can cause very significant changes in the Internal Ballistics process therefore, I think more substantive studies need to be conducted before we jump to conclusions.
Although I don't yet know of a mechanism which would cause a few thousandths difference in primer seating depth to create a measurable difference, I am aware of a number of studies conducted whereby the spit hole/flash hole was reduced & or increased in diameter which caused very significant differences in primer pressures, velocity & IB combustion profiles.
To be fair, IB pressures cannot be fully comprehended by our minds & are simply not intuitive constructs which we can relate to in any meaningful way other than that, we know it creates a shit load of pressure in a poofteenth of a second.
It has been found that seemingly insignificant changes can cause very significant changes in the Internal Ballistics process therefore, I think more substantive studies need to be conducted before we jump to conclusions.
Everything comes down to testing with proper procedures.
That takes time and money like everything else. And when money is involved there needs to be a ROI, if not it will never be funded.
Issue becomes is the juice worth the squeeze.
Someone does a proper test:
Multiple cartridge designs…45-70 to 6ppc to 375 used in ELR.
Multiple lot numbers of components
Multiple shooters
Multiple rifles with multiple barrels
Then the data not the opinion are pier reviewed
That’s what a real validated testing procedure takes
Anything less is not statistically significant and can not be called validated
Additionally only validated can be used for real decision making, and even then the validated procedures need to be revisited minimum 1 time annually…and documentation accompanies the annual audit of procedures.
The above is how the FDA requires testing and testing protocol for drug potency after manufacturing or R&D. If you try a skate a little they methodically comb through and it becomes obvious that your data and testing are not adequate.
In the shooting world people will shoot 50 shots like the videos above or video 1 group that was not repeated on film.
Even with in that video with the insane group at 1000, one last shot was well outside the group. that alone invalidates any decision made from that result, more testing is needed.
Not dismissing what they had done or their opinion but we can agree that they are by no means considered undisputed fact. They are undisputed specific results but that is very different.
Side note, what truthfully always confuses me is when someone or group say they shoot a very high volume giving them specific results that are “game” changing but they do not supply data or pics at a minimum.
“…the old .3 all day”
Benchrest aggs are in the .2’s for a season
That is .3 all day
We only know that because they turn in every target and group, there is no debate.
With the price of ammunition and components the comparative cost of scope or target camera is insignificant. They are a coule hundred dollars…That’s 100 rounds of ammo
If members of the shooting community who are trying to prove/disprove a product or theory, simply film every shot taken and dump it on YouTube the debate would be over.
“I told you this brass or bullet is better or I told you I never miss etc….Here guys I filmed the last 1000 shots over the last month, heres the YouTube link and here’s my spreadsheet of chrono data”
If shooters are unwilling to post the video at a minimum…we’ll here we are.
Just my opinion but facts are facts and video shuts people up good or bad
Brian
That takes time and money like everything else. And when money is involved there needs to be a ROI, if not it will never be funded.
Issue becomes is the juice worth the squeeze.
Someone does a proper test:
Multiple cartridge designs…45-70 to 6ppc to 375 used in ELR.
Multiple lot numbers of components
Multiple shooters
Multiple rifles with multiple barrels
Then the data not the opinion are pier reviewed
That’s what a real validated testing procedure takes
Anything less is not statistically significant and can not be called validated
Additionally only validated can be used for real decision making, and even then the validated procedures need to be revisited minimum 1 time annually…and documentation accompanies the annual audit of procedures.
The above is how the FDA requires testing and testing protocol for drug potency after manufacturing or R&D. If you try a skate a little they methodically comb through and it becomes obvious that your data and testing are not adequate.
In the shooting world people will shoot 50 shots like the videos above or video 1 group that was not repeated on film.
Even with in that video with the insane group at 1000, one last shot was well outside the group. that alone invalidates any decision made from that result, more testing is needed.
Not dismissing what they had done or their opinion but we can agree that they are by no means considered undisputed fact. They are undisputed specific results but that is very different.
Side note, what truthfully always confuses me is when someone or group say they shoot a very high volume giving them specific results that are “game” changing but they do not supply data or pics at a minimum.
“…the old .3 all day”
Benchrest aggs are in the .2’s for a season
That is .3 all day
We only know that because they turn in every target and group, there is no debate.
With the price of ammunition and components the comparative cost of scope or target camera is insignificant. They are a coule hundred dollars…That’s 100 rounds of ammo
If members of the shooting community who are trying to prove/disprove a product or theory, simply film every shot taken and dump it on YouTube the debate would be over.
“I told you this brass or bullet is better or I told you I never miss etc….Here guys I filmed the last 1000 shots over the last month, heres the YouTube link and here’s my spreadsheet of chrono data”
If shooters are unwilling to post the video at a minimum…we’ll here we are.
Just my opinion but facts are facts and video shuts people up good or bad
Brian
So this is the thread orkan made a video about yesterday.
Oh,,,, I am in fact .3 mil all day!
Oh,,,, I am in fact .3 mil all day!
I think so.So this is the thread orkan made a video about yesterday.
Oh,,,, I am in fact .3 mil all day!
I watched Orkans vid this morning & wondered who he was referring to.
It looks to me that Frank was referring to bronze brushes when using JB bore paste or some other abrasive. Orkan focussed only on the bronze brush with no mention of abrasives that I recall.
Maybe Frank is correct but it would take a shit load of work to get the results he shows.
I agree with Orkan if it just a bronze brush without abrasives.
Haha, 0.3 Mil all day?
Are you sure???
My problem is there's no real meaning to "0.# all day". That factory 108 ammo (Loaded with bulk dropped spherical powder) was .54 MOA avg on 5 shot groups. It was 1.2 MOA for an inclusive cone of fire (which isn't bad, really), and all that saying "This stuff shoots almost 1/2 MOA all day long" does is give me a tendency to over-estimate capabilities for internet E-penis bragging ability. And I guess it depends on where people are coming from and trying to do... My concern is primarily hit probability field-usable ammo for 1st round impacts (hunting)... And the research/testing I've done has been humbling.
i just chimed in with actual process recommendations
hoping to get members to post more valid information so its useful for all firearms enthusiasts along with limiting the off topic tangents
id love to debate how the hypothesis and results can be interpreted in comparison etc, rather than debating the validity of information
would be great to have a "truth" forum of undebated information that can be used by all, for the betterment of the shooting community
then we have the remainder of the site which is what we currently use every day
hoping to get members to post more valid information so its useful for all firearms enthusiasts along with limiting the off topic tangents
id love to debate how the hypothesis and results can be interpreted in comparison etc, rather than debating the validity of information
would be great to have a "truth" forum of undebated information that can be used by all, for the betterment of the shooting community
then we have the remainder of the site which is what we currently use every day
Problem is though Ledzep, with 3 shot strings every now & again, it probably is 0.3 every time which, is bumped up to 0.3 all day.
I agree. I've started poking into what's really happening, and obviously I'm not changing anyone's abilities, but it's certainly changed my perspective on this stuff. Hopefully/maybe that's the path to better understanding and then more focused refinement.
That's why I thought using their 3 shot strings adjusted using Grubbs averaged population SD's to give a range might start the ball rolling on realistic reporting.
You don't need a bathroom household chemical to clean the barrel and you don't need a $600 precision primer seating tool. Not really funny but the exact opposite of the company language at SH.com forums thanks to Primal Rights. “That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”. Brian also took a huge shit on harmonics and the waste of time and resources associated with that sort of load development.
Last edited:
Does the JB/Kroil compound with pellets replace "more traditional" cleaning practices or is it in addition to? I'm currently using Boretech solvent, patches and a nylon brush. Factory barrels (Howa, Noveske, CZ).
There is no possible reason to think that measuring the effect of primer seating depth should include shooters at all. When you are talking about something that will have, at most, a tiny impact, you need to remove shooters, who are the biggest variable, from the equation. You need to remove everything you can't control in order to test a single variable. If you don't have the means to do that, you really aren't able to prove anything at all.
So, from your known population of factory ammo you created x number of random samples. But your population is a sample of the entire lot number and is too small.
Also, I would go a step further. People load 5 rounds and call it a sample. Then they do it several more times. If all the loads are the same than the combined samples is the population. The population is still too small to draw any conclusion with confidence.
Not in this case.
I believe Ledzep used 100 samples which we know from Grubbs & others exhaustive testing is more than enough to show a stable SD however, the graphs he included expressed the natural gaussian spread of the samples from the mean. The sample population was more than enough to show that relationship.
There are so many variables that goes into what makes a rifle precise (or not). It's very, very difficult to isolate all variables to a degree in which you are only truly testing one variable, and very rarely does anyone do such testing with a statistically relevant sample size. Especially when we are testing for smaller variances in outcomes.
Such a test would require thousands of rounds over a few barrels, done in a manner that removes the shooter from the equation in an appropriate manner. And eventually you are going to reach a point where you are only going to shoot as precise as your least consistent variable - whether that's the variance in the projectile you are shooting, your powder, the brass, primers, etc.
I have a CPS, and I absolutely love it. It's definitely a luxury reloading item that makes reloading more fun and painless. Does someone need a CPS to make quality and precise ammo? No. Does the CPS make more consistent and precise rounds? Yes to the first part of that question, but I think the second part of that question is truly harder to answer. Even if it did, I'm not sure if it's by a big enough margin that I could even shoot consistently with a bipod and rear bag. I haven't spent the time rigorously testing out precision, and in fact I don't have the means to properly do so. I have been meaning to test out seating depths in relation to ES/SD - that's something I can easily measure and control, and something that I've been meaning to test out on my 6BRA. What my CPS does that I love and I think makes it superior to other priming methods, is that it makes priming incredibly easy, and in a consistent manner. Hand priming sucks. And it sucks even more when you realize how easy priming can be done when you have a CPS.
I think as reloaders we have a tendency to try and extrapolate big conclusions from flawed and limited data sets. This drives a lot of myth and lore in reloading. In a lot of cases, our limited tests aren't necessarily telling us what we think they are telling us, and if the data sets were to be larger, we would actually see much different conclusions. The "Satterlee method" of reloading with a simple velocity ladder is one great example. Another, that is the current craze right now, is tuners. People are trying to extrapolate big conclusions from data sets that are so small that they are statistically irrelevant, meaning the data is essentially meaningless and not as conclusive as many think.
Such a test would require thousands of rounds over a few barrels, done in a manner that removes the shooter from the equation in an appropriate manner. And eventually you are going to reach a point where you are only going to shoot as precise as your least consistent variable - whether that's the variance in the projectile you are shooting, your powder, the brass, primers, etc.
I have a CPS, and I absolutely love it. It's definitely a luxury reloading item that makes reloading more fun and painless. Does someone need a CPS to make quality and precise ammo? No. Does the CPS make more consistent and precise rounds? Yes to the first part of that question, but I think the second part of that question is truly harder to answer. Even if it did, I'm not sure if it's by a big enough margin that I could even shoot consistently with a bipod and rear bag. I haven't spent the time rigorously testing out precision, and in fact I don't have the means to properly do so. I have been meaning to test out seating depths in relation to ES/SD - that's something I can easily measure and control, and something that I've been meaning to test out on my 6BRA. What my CPS does that I love and I think makes it superior to other priming methods, is that it makes priming incredibly easy, and in a consistent manner. Hand priming sucks. And it sucks even more when you realize how easy priming can be done when you have a CPS.
I think as reloaders we have a tendency to try and extrapolate big conclusions from flawed and limited data sets. This drives a lot of myth and lore in reloading. In a lot of cases, our limited tests aren't necessarily telling us what we think they are telling us, and if the data sets were to be larger, we would actually see much different conclusions. The "Satterlee method" of reloading with a simple velocity ladder is one great example. Another, that is the current craze right now, is tuners. People are trying to extrapolate big conclusions from data sets that are so small that they are statistically irrelevant, meaning the data is essentially meaningless and not as conclusive as many think.
There is no such thing as a sample population. It is either one or the other. I think the logic is for a statistical batch to reach 90% confidence you start getting in that ballpark at over 30 rounds. It is simple stastics with an acceptable error rate more than it is sampling.
Well it would be had he used a smaller number in his data set but, as I understand his explanation, he used the entire set which constitutes 100% of the samples which in this case is the population.
In any case, you do not need a huge sample number to show a gaussian distribution because it presents as a 1st order postulate & is not inferred.
More data is always better... That's an unfortunate fact that I'm growing to understand. It comes down to "believable resolution", and I used to think 20 shots was enough to get a guy to a practical-use level of resolution... However, after doing more testing and looking at the 20 shot data sets there's still more variability there than a guy would like and it makes interpretation muddy. 30-50 levels things out considerably better. Your histograms/distributions start looking a lot more consistent from data set to data set. I don't know that there's much point going past 50-100, but I could be wrong. Depending on caliber you also have to consider barrel wear. I've specifically targeted mostly "mild" cartridges for that reason. You have to define the graduations you'd like to grade the results to, and that ultimately is going to drive the sample size.
Well 100 certainly produces stable SD's & 40 to 50 is close to 95% interval. If you're concerned, you need only turn to Grubbs tables & use his predetermined factors to rationalize to his 10000 population SD's.
As I stated previously, Gaussian distribution can be evaluated as a 1st order postulate which requires no inference & can be taken directly at face value. It is what it is which, is what you have shown.
Addendum:
A gaussian distribution can be taken at face value at any point along the curve where data is available.
Inference is only necessary when the sample number is inadequate & the entire distribution must be inferred notwithstanding an adequate confidence interval.
Last edited:
Serious question for those of you with this gizmo or similar: why? I guarantee I can prime faster and with fewer steps using my frankford arsenal hand primer. I hear of bench priming being faster and such, but you have to load them one by one into a tube before the rest of the operation. You're also stuck to one place on the bench whereas with a hand primer you do it wherever you want. For me, I hand prime and drop powder at the same time and its super fast.
Not finishing up with carpal tunnel springs to mind.
Why would I buy that nice, shiny Snap-On Rachet and socket set when I have a perfectly good pair of Vise Grips?
Good point. I see that as a valid reason for bench/press priming. I should have been more specific about how these gizmos are faster? Just seems more complicated/expensive as well as slower.
Well, my view is that he has far more experience with this subject of barrel damage from cleaning than pretty much anybody on the Hide so I accord him a great deal of credibility, personally.
On the subject of ".3 all day long", etc....I'm pretty sure that I read one of Cal's Precision Rifle Blog posts where he stated that a 10 fps SD would result in a 1 MOA dispersion or distribution (circular error probability???).
Now, I hated statistics in college, I'm old and don't remember a single bit of it, but my impression of Cal's articles is that he is either proficient in statistics or consults with those who are on these subjects.
Any comments about this?
Similar threads
