we need a crying orkan meme

[Ledzep]

Well, here's what I got today. I've got some more work I'd like to do and I'll see if I can get the Excel sheet uploaded here-- if nothing else I'll try to get it in a google doc or something.

Each dot represents a 5 round group MPOI (Scale is inches at 200yd). Each color represents a charge weight. I will be further breaking these into subsets of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th group of each charge weight. I'm about half way through that and I'll spoil it for you-- they don't repeat. These are less messy to look at, too.

This data set has the most resolution, but the gun was moved between some of the sets, so each set of 35 is referenced off of its own MPOI. Some 'global' position could be lost, but in my experience with other powder ladders, even over 3-4gr spreads the MPOI of the large data sets is within about a .08 MOA window in the worst cases.

Nevertheless, if you look at this below, you'll see 5 shot group MPOI of the same ammo varies in a .35ish MOA window... so even if my 'global' 35 shot group is .04 or .06 or .08 MOA in error, it's completely swallowed up by the randomness of 5 shot samples-- which has been my point all along. There are not many viable conclusions to draw from 5-shot groups, and the difference in dispersion performance or MPOI between two varied powder charges is not among them. These patterns repeat over and over. Noisy data until 15-30 rounds in... It's the same thing you learn in probability and statistics, it's the same rule of thumbs that every statistical process control/analysis people use... Somehow people think shooting is different I guess?

Sorry if I'm short, but I've had this play out already. I started with shoulder fired rifles & contoured barrels with me aiming them and had people claim I wasn't steady enough to have valid data. I switched to an accuracy fixture and 1.25" barrels and get told that it's too rigid to show OCW results. My data came to the same conclusion both ways... I've burned out barrels doing this and have people tell me I'm wrong with no supporting data, or refute large sample data with more small sample data. It gets old.

 

[Choid]

Your dedication to this and willingness to test our silly beliefs is impressive. Thank you.

 

[brianf]

@Ledzep

Witchcraft…I tell ya witchcraft

Your data means nothing to good old wives tales around here.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Not in the smallest amount. Is Ledzep the worlds foremost authority on reloading? Is he the worlds most knowledgeable reloader and shooter? Has he gathered more data and ran more tests than I someone like, I don't know, say Dan Newberry? Is he another guy with hypotheses? Seems to me like some of you forgot we are talking about reloading here.

I would be willing to bet that yes, he has more archived properly recorded data than newberry.

The OCW website has almost zero data. Which if there was somewhere you were going to at least post some data, would be the place to do it.

The usual defense for OCW is “it’s newberry, are you questioning him” (and is actually newberry’s defense when he’s questioned publicly) and not actual data. Same with the “saterlee” method, which is universally rejected now. Just because a name is attached and a lot of people use it, doesn’t actually mean anything.

 

[spife7980]

@Ledzep

Witchcraft…I tell ya witchcraft

Your data means nothing to good old wives tales around here.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Well, here's what I got today. I've got some more work I'd like to do and I'll see if I can get the Excel sheet uploaded here-- if nothing else I'll try to get it in a google doc or something.

Each dot represents a 5 round group MPOI (Scale is inches at 200yd). Each color represents a charge weight. I will be further breaking these into subsets of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th group of each charge weight. I'm about half way through that and I'll spoil it for you-- they don't repeat. These are less messy to look at, too.

This data set has the most resolution, but the gun was moved between some of the sets, so each set of 35 is referenced off of its own MPOI. Some 'global' position could be lost, but in my experience with other powder ladders, even over 3-4gr spreads the MPOI of the large data sets is within about a .08 MOA window in the worst cases.

Nevertheless, if you look at this below, you'll see 5 shot group MPOI of the same ammo varies in a .35ish MOA window... so even if my 'global' 35 shot group is .04 or .06 or .08 MOA in error, it's completely swallowed up by the randomness of 5 shot samples-- which has been my point all along. There are not many viable conclusions to draw from 5-shot groups, and the difference in dispersion performance or MPOI between two varied powder charges is not among them. These patterns repeat over and over. Noisy data until 15-30 rounds in... It's the same thing you learn in probability and statistics, it's the same rule of thumbs that every statistical process control/analysis people use... Somehow people think shooting is different I guess?
View attachment 7803062

Sorry if I'm short, but I've had this play out already. I started with shoulder fired rifles & contoured barrels with me aiming them and had people claim I wasn't steady enough to have valid data. I switched to an accuracy fixture and 1.25" barrels and get told that it's too rigid to show OCW results. My data came to the same conclusion both ways... I've burned out barrels doing this and have people tell me I'm wrong with no supporting data, or refute large sample data with more small sample data. It gets old.

Thank you for taking the time, and expense, to produce this information.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Depending on your varied life experiences, everybody on the internet has 6% bodyfat, a 13 inch cock, is a managing director at their bank, drives the ball 300 yards and shoots quarter inch groups all day.

You say that like you dont???

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Well, here's what I got today. I've got some more work I'd like to do and I'll see if I can get the Excel sheet uploaded here-- if nothing else I'll try to get it in a google doc or something.

Each dot represents a 5 round group MPOI (Scale is inches at 200yd). Each color represents a charge weight. I will be further breaking these into subsets of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th group of each charge weight. I'm about half way through that and I'll spoil it for you-- they don't repeat. These are less messy to look at, too.

This data set has the most resolution, but the gun was moved between some of the sets, so each set of 35 is referenced off of its own MPOI. Some 'global' position could be lost, but in my experience with other powder ladders, even over 3-4gr spreads the MPOI of the large data sets is within about a .08 MOA window in the worst cases.

Nevertheless, if you look at this below, you'll see 5 shot group MPOI of the same ammo varies in a .35ish MOA window... so even if my 'global' 35 shot group is .04 or .06 or .08 MOA in error, it's completely swallowed up by the randomness of 5 shot samples-- which has been my point all along. There are not many viable conclusions to draw from 5-shot groups, and the difference in dispersion performance or MPOI between two varied powder charges is not among them. These patterns repeat over and over. Noisy data until 15-30 rounds in... It's the same thing you learn in probability and statistics, it's the same rule of thumbs that every statistical process control/analysis people use... Somehow people think shooting is different I guess?
View attachment 7803062

Sorry if I'm short, but I've had this play out already. I started with shoulder fired rifles & contoured barrels with me aiming them and had people claim I wasn't steady enough to have valid data. I switched to an accuracy fixture and 1.25" barrels and get told that it's too rigid to show OCW results. My data came to the same conclusion both ways... I've burned out barrels doing this and have people tell me I'm wrong with no supporting data, or refute large sample data with more small sample data. It gets old.

So, let’s pose another question.

If someone were to fire 30 rounds per charge weight without shooter induced error….

Do you believe Newberry OCW has merit?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Also, just for ease of reading example, here is one of the powder charges in that image. Just made easier to see how much the POI changed across groups.

So, regardless if OCW is a valid method with a large enough sample size, the instructions supplied by the inventor of said method will not provide repeatable results.

As if you shot any of those groups individually, the variance is too much to provide anything meaningful.

 

[MarkyMark007]

...6.5 Creedmoor...

caliber with extremly bad internal ballistics...

 

[Feniks Technologies]

caliber with extremly bad internal ballistics...

Oh ya, terrible I tell you, terrible.

 

[Ledzep]

So, let’s pose another question.

If someone were to fire 30 rounds per charge weight without shooter induced error….

Do you believe Newberry OCW has merit?

I haven't tested everything to exhaustion so it may end up having merit in some situations. As much as I have tested I don't want to come off like a know-it-all dickhead. My personal suspicion is that it's not likely but I don't know that for a fact. You can walk into a lot of variables really quickly with this stuff so I'm leery to make too bold of claims. The variability of 1-5 shot groups are low hanging fruit, though.

That being said, what I've seen in nearly every case so far is that higher charge weights give worse dispersion. 41.3gr in the above test shot the best. I went back and tested 40.0gr after the fact and it shot slightly better yet. Mean radius got progressively worse up to 42.5gr. Could it be different in a super thin profile barrel? Sure-- my testing is far from 100% inclusive, but in medium and heavy contours, if I see a change in dispersion related to charge weight, it's almost always more powder=more dispersion.

I've seen that barrels have attitude, too. They're not all the same and loads that work AMAZING in one, don't necessarily behave the same in other barrels. But, a lot of the popular combinations (140gr bullet, 6.5 Creed, and H4350 or RL-16 for example) are popular for good reason, and are more forgiving. Varget (unicorn poop) is popular for a reason. They tend to work extremely well, and have flatter "dispersion vs. charge weight" trends. Bumping .3-.5gr, or even a full grain in some cases produces less change than most would suspect when you run the sample size out.

At this point, I look at it like "quality component lot & combination lottery". Not so much an "optimal charge weight" as it is an optimal combination of components that makes the biggest differences, and then stuff like charge weight and seating depth are kind of auxiliary. I can make the same cases, bullets, and primers shoot 0.5 MOA for 20 shots, or 3 MOA for 20 shots by selecting two different powders at roughly the same pressure and velocity.

 

[Barelstroker]

I haven't tested everything to exhaustion so it may end up having merit in some situations. As much as I have tested I don't want to come off like a know-it-all dickhead. My personal suspicion is that it's not likely but I don't know that for a fact. You can walk into a lot of variables really quickly with this stuff so I'm leery to make too bold of claims. The variability of 1-5 shot groups are low hanging fruit, though.

That being said, what I've seen in nearly every case so far is that higher charge weights give worse dispersion. 41.3gr in the above test shot the best. I went back and tested 40.0gr after the fact and it shot slightly better yet. Mean radius got progressively worse up to 42.5gr. Could it be different in a super thin profile barrel? Sure-- my testing is far from 100% inclusive, but in medium and heavy contours, if I see a change in dispersion related to charge weight, it's almost always more powder=more dispersion.

I've seen that barrels have attitude, too. They're not all the same and loads that work AMAZING in one, don't necessarily behave the same in other barrels. But, a lot of the popular combinations (140gr bullet, 6.5 Creed, and H4350 or RL-16 for example) are popular for good reason, and are more forgiving. Varget (unicorn poop) is popular for a reason. They tend to work extremely well, and have flatter "dispersion vs. charge weight" trends. Bumping .3-.5gr, or even a full grain in some cases produces less change than most would suspect when you run the sample size out.

At this point, I look at it like "quality component lot & combination lottery". Not so much an "optimal charge weight" as it is an optimal combination of components that makes the biggest differences, and then stuff like charge weight and seating depth are kind of auxiliary. I can make the same cases, bullets, and primers shoot 0.5 MOA for 20 shots, or 3 MOA for 20 shots by selecting two different powders at roughly the same pressure and velocity.

Anyhow Zepster, even if the OCW method had some statistical validity with 30+ shots/charge weight, it simply isn't realistic because the vast majority of hand loaders wouldn't test that many samples &, it defeats the purpose of the entire theory which was originally to find the "G" spot of the barrel with as few shots as possible.
By the way, thank you for the considerable time & effort you continue to benefit us with.
Fucking GOLDEN.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Here’s some more easier to illustrate pics.

Each charge weight’s POI highlighted for each test.

As you can see, you’d have a *minumum* of three different results using OCW inside of these seven tests. Possibly up to seven different results depending how each POI laid out.

So, at the very best, less than 50% success rate if the “optimal” result was one of those three.

(This is from a quick look. I’m sure I could take and hour and it would be closer to seven different results. Which would be less than 20% to get the right optimal charge if in fact optimal exists)

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Here’s some more easier to illustrate pics.

Each charge weight’s POI highlighted for each test.

As you can see, you’d have a *minumum* of three different results using OCW inside of these seven tests. Possibly up to seven different results depending how each POI laid out.

So, at the very best, less than 50% success rate if the “optimal” result was one of those three.

(This is from a quick look. I’m sure I could take and hour and it would be closer to seven different results. Which would be less than 20% to get the right optimal charge if in fact optimal exists)


View attachment 7803391

While these results are hard to argue with, it's equally hard for me to grasp the idea that 7 different charges produces 3 or 4 with the same general poi, amd 3 or 4 with different poi that are much mess defined, when shot as the inventor calls it "round robin". I tried the ocw method this past weekend to see and it seemed to produce usable results. That said, it was still only 28 rounds total.

I guess the inference here is that "the conditions of when I shot it produced those results, and if I went and shot it again, it would not produce the same results?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

While these results are hard to argue with, it's equally hard for me to grasp the idea that 7 different charges produces 3 or 4 with the same general poi, amd 3 or 4 with different poi that are much mess defined, when shot as the inventor calls it "round robin". I tried the ocw method this past weekend to see and it seemed to produce usable results. That said, it was still only 28 rounds total.

I guess the inference here is that "the conditions of when I shot it produced those results, and if I went and shot it again, it would not produce the same results?

Those were shot inside with a rail gun.

So, not sure how much more controlled and repeatable we can get?

And not being a smart ass here. But that’s why *real* long term testing is done. It often times shows us what we would otherwise have a hard time believing.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

While these results are hard to argue with, it's equally hard for me to grasp the idea that 7 different charges produces 3 or 4 with the same general poi, amd 3 or 4 with different poi that are much mess defined, when shot as the inventor calls it "round robin". I tried the ocw method this past weekend to see and it seemed to produce usable results. That said, it was still only 28 rounds total.

I guess the inference here is that "the conditions of when I shot it produced those results, and if I went and shot it again, it would not produce the same results?

If you want to test it, take a buddy to the range and do 5 of the exact same OCW tests.

But, let him decide which target you shoot which round at. He keeps track of each target.

Still shoot it round robin, but target 1 might be 40.0 upper left and target 5 might have 40.0 bottom right.



Point being, you have absolutely no idea what charge weight you’re shooting.

Then, take the targets for each OCW test and see if you get the same results.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Then go back next week and do 5 again.

Then the next week and do it again.


If at any point you would have come up with a different charge weight as “optimal” in a blind test, you take that number and divide to find a %.

That will give you the amount of error or odds to find the correct charge.

IMO, anything less than about 90% is considered rolling the dice.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

If you want to test it, take a buddy to the range and do 5 of the exact same OCW tests.

But, let him decide which target you shoot which round at. He keeps track of each target.

Still shoot it round robin, but target 1 might be 40.0 upper left and target 5 might have 40.0 bottom right.



Point being, you have absolutely no idea what charge weight you’re shooting.

Then, take the targets for each OCW test and see if you get the same results.

Yeah that's a good way to try it.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Yeah that's a good way to try it.

I’m all for OCW to be rock solid. But my experience mirrors the above.

Once you test it over and over as well as test what didn’t work, the results either become skewed or they all shoot close enough to same dispersion to not matter.

And thus far, data show OCW (and almost every other load development method) to be valid are always very low round count tests.

And all the data disproving them are much larger and long term data sets.

That’s doesn’t build a strong case for it. Though I’m always ready to see data to the contrary.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Then go back next week and do 5 again.

Then the next week and do it again.


If at any point you would have come up with a different charge weight as “optimal” in a blind test, you take that number and divide to find a %.

That will give you the amount of error or odds to find the correct charge.

IMO, anything less than about 90% is considered rolling the dice.

I wouldn't do that much of the testing because it would be a lot of wear on my barrel and I barely have time to do anything so that much would take me a year to do. I can see what the results on the tests above are also and I have no reason to doubt the validity of it. I'm just wondering what causes my test to produce the results it did? If it isn't powder charge induced, what did cause it? Dumb luck seems even harder to believe, which is why I said originally "the conditions" produced the results. Of course if it's simply the conditions then it isn't a worthwhile test because we would be attempting to find repeatable information and results, not results that are dependant on conditions.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Also worth noting, the OCW inventor has stated several times it should be done at 100yds because he looks at the horizontal and wind doesn’t matter at 100.

Here’s what a short range benchrest match looks like:

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I wouldn't do that much of the testing because it would be a lot of wear on my barrel and I barely have time to do anything so that much would take me a year to do. I can see what the results on the tests above are also and I have no reason to doubt the validity of it. I'm just wondering what causes my test to produce the results it did? If it isn't powder charge induced, what did cause it? Dumb luck seems even harder to believe, which is why I said originally "the conditions" produced the results. Of course if it's simply the conditions then it isn't a worthwhile test because we would be attempting to find repeatable information and results, not results that are dependant on conditions.

“Luck” is just the layman term for statistical variance.

Just like a saterlee 10 shot flat spot test. You increased your round count to 3, 4, or 5 shots. When it’s just basic stats dictating that about 30 rounds are needed for proper confidence.

So, while you may have increased you confidence from smaller sample size, you are still worlds away from a high degree of confidence.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Also worth noting, the OCW inventor has stated several times it should be done at 100yds because he looks at the horizontal and wind doesn’t matter at 100.

Here’s what a short range benchrest match looks like:


View attachment 7803397

Well if we have all learned ANYTHING over the last few years it's that

ALL WIND MATTERS

 

[Tokay444]

caliber with extremly bad internal ballistics...

Show your work.

 

[Barelstroker]

Although Ledzep's results are to be taken for what they represent in his testing, there may be the possibility that a heavy barreled rail gun is of a construction which completely inhibits the barrel movement which may indeed be the mechanism of bullet redirection from the previous bullet POI in longer thinner barrels.
Since rifle recoil can & does influence barrel vibration to a greater or lesser amount depending on rifle mass & initial stability, I do not believe OCW is, or can be as effective as many guys believe however, this does not preclude the anecdotal evidence which supports some kind of muzzle movement at the time of bullet exit.
At the moment &, after careful consideration, I'm not yet prepared to dismiss the phenomenon that charge weight variations may indeed influence muzzle exit conditions.
More work has to be done.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Although Ledzep's results are to be taken for what they represent in his testing, there may be the possibility that a heavy barreled rail gun is of a construction which completely inhibits the barrel movement which may indeed be the mechanism of bullet redirection from the previous bullet POI in longer thinner barrels.
Since rifle recoil can & does influence barrel vibration to a greater or lesser amount depending on rifle mass & initial stability, I do not believe OCW is, or can be as effective as many guys believe however, this does not preclude the anecdotal evidence which supports some kind of muzzle movement at the time of bullet exit.
At the moment &, after careful consideration, I'm not yet prepared to dismiss the phenomenon that charge weight variations may indeed influence muzzle exit conditions.
More work has to be done.

I believe he said his testing with non rail showed the same results. But people discredited it as shooter error.

 

[Barelstroker]

I believe he said his testing with non rail showed the same results. But people discredited it as shooter error.

Yes, I recall him stating this.
Until Ledzep can shed some more light on the differences between the tests, my assumption is that the rail gun would have provided considerably smaller groups than the other rifle he used in the 1st tests. Although the OCW theory was still discredited, the larger groups could be explained by increased muzzle variation at bullet exit.

 

[supercorndogs]

Also worth noting, the OCW inventor has stated several times it should be done at 100yds because he looks at the horizontal and wind doesn’t matter at 100.

Here’s what a short range benchrest match looks like:


View attachment 7803397

When groups are only slightly larger than the bullet diameter, yes it matters.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

When groups are only slightly larger than the bullet diameter, yes it matters.

You can easily get .1 or .2 movement from wind on bullet alone.

And then there’s target movement.

Mr. Newberry is on videos saying he can look at a target and tell if it’s shooter or wind and other such stuff……..

Without knowing anything about the conditions or the shooter.

 

[MarkyMark007]

Show your work.

read the books and learn from the best. and don't reinvent the wheel !

 

[Feniks Technologies]

read the books and learn from the best. and don't reinvent the wheel !

I just posted a video of the best with a 6.5cm.

He literally helped write the Berger book.

 

[Tokay444]

read the books and learn from the best. and don't reinvent the wheel !

Name a cartridge more overdeveloped than 6.5CM.

 

[Haney]

Oh ya, terrible I tell you, terrible.

Wow, you really are star struck by other shooters . In a very strange way . Do you ever get to the range ?

 

[cas6969]

Here’s what a short range benchrest match looks like:

To be fair, it wouldn't make much sense to put flags way behind the targets.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Wow, you really are star struck by other shooters . In a very strange way . Do you ever get to the range ?

4/10 troll. Do better next time.

But for shits and giggles, here’s what will fit on a phone screen without scrolling. So, I get to the range from time to time.

 

[brianf]

Wow, you really are star struck by other shooters . In a very strange way . Do you ever get to the range ?

ill admit it, i get a little star struck when i see skills and results that impress me

BUT i also want to learn from a perennial winner

no one asks a homeless guy for financial advice, we look for a proven financial planner


im a Jets fan, so we know my feelings about tom brady and the partriots

yet if i was taking a quarterback clinic ...whos first on my list... Tom Brady

thats not being starts truck, that is called common sense


this isnt taking a shot at you as i dont know you or know your abilities or history

but if you can post results/ record that mimic Lou's...id start listening to you as well

My company does R&D fulltime and tons of info and data comes across my desk, created by some pretty smart people...lab people.. but smart LOL

one should never stop learning and questioning

but there has to be a reason comprised of validated data to make the switch


thanks

 

[Fig]

I did, and I get what your saying.
You want to eliminate all dynamic variables so the shooter is the denominator of error.
I feel the same way. But benchrest accuracy won’t be achieved in a prs gun, so it’s not a good comparison or example.
A bench rest gun can be used in bencrest to determine shooter error in that particular field. Prs? would a gun that shoots in the .3s” be used to determine prs shouter error? but when? When you shoot a half inch group, a 3” group? What caused you to shoot a 1” group? How big does the group have to be when you can finally determine the cause.
If you’re shooting half moa and throw a 1 moa group, do you really stop shooting and start diagnostics? Or do you keep rolling?

View attachment 7801895IBS-600 yard LG agg (199) and HG group size (.311”) record holder Bart Sauter running a barrel tuner.
Wonder what he thinks about primer depth.

There are plenty of "marksmen" here who claim bench rest, record winning sized groups regularly (when they do their part), because they don't shoot bench rest, don't know what a winners circle score looks like in the various divisions, much less what the world records are. They see so many people posting hole punched targets on the internet and making wild claims that it seems normal to them.

It's not just chat room, internet pussies either. There are rifle builders who advertise .3 or .25 moa groups. Guess what, they have the three shot targets to PROOOOOOOOVE it!

Clint Smith, about fifty working snipers who are literate, and many, many champions, in all sorts of rifle disciplines, consider a rifle that will shoot consistently under 1moa an "accurate" rifle, and one that doesn't an inaccurate rifle. As far as pass fail this is where you need to be unless you are a machinist and not a marksman. When I get a new rifle to shoot under a minute when I'm sighting it in or confirming zero, I'm done with screwing with the cartridges right there. Maybe I would do more if I had more top ten finishes, but lets be realistic. I am a middle of the pack shooter, and it's because I shoot more rounds in two day matches than I do outside of them. That's just a reflection of what limited time I have to practice for a demanding and competitive hobby. Trying to buy a better position with anything other than clinics and more pills downrange is silly, and probably actually counter productive. Who misses and starts motherfucking their seating depth?

When I see someone go from mediocre one year to consistently in the winners circle the next it is not because they did anything different on their bench. It's because they did dry fire drills every day and got a lot more range time practicing positional off barricades and creating PRS type drills. They actually practiced, and practiced consistently, and virtually everyone who I've seen actually commit and do this has made vast improvements year over year, so there's nothing exceptional about them other than a desire to do what it takes to win.

Honestly, threads like this are the dominant threads over at accurate shooter, and I don't for a second diminish that BR has done all the work of blazing the trail to the super accurate guns we're shooting today, but those guys are fucking stuck up, faggots, who cannot shoot to save their lives. They do BR because they can't hold a gun and and they fucking suck at shooting, but they want to be good, so instead of learning and practicing they spend gobs of money on equipment and literally take themselves out of the equation to pretend they can shoot. That only belongs there.

The people who do it in my town are biggest fucks I've ever met, and it's funny how they're like a bunch of HS girls backstabbing and fucking each other all the time. You can bitch about the PRS and other leagues, but compared to them we're as cohesive as a deployed Marines.

When NRL .22 was taking off at their club here they got butt hurt because there were 10 times the people that as shooting BR, so they canceled the whole league and kicked them all out because of sheer spite and jealousy. Lol. Seriously, they're the worst of the worst of the gun world. They're like super fudds who think they're special because they pay to have someone make them a huge unlimited class machine that will shoot small groups. They remind me of the guys who buy ocean going vessels and put them on lakes to show what big shots they are.

Yep, I hate 'em.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Name a cartridge more overdeveloped than 6.5CM.

I've been busy for the last few hours and haven't been keeping up past your post that I quoted, so please consider this a drive by...

223/5.56 and the 308 immediately come to mind.

Sorry for the interruption, I'll go back out to the garage as soon as I pee.


Edited because I left stuff on the bottom that belonged to the second paragraph.
Are they really paragraphs? Do they have the required number of words and sentences?

Should I just go back out to the garage?

 

[Tokay444]

There are plenty of "marksmen" here who claim bench rest, record winning sized groups regularly (when they do their part), because they don't shoot bench rest, don't know what a winners circle score looks like in the various divisions, much less what the world records are. They see so many people posting hole punched targets on the internet and making wild claims that it seems normal to them.

It's not just chat room, internet pussies either. There are rifle builders who advertise .3 or .25 moa groups. Guess what, they have the three shot targets to PROOOOOOOOVE it!

Clint Smith, about fifty working snipers who are literate, and many, many champions, in all sorts of rifle disciplines, consider a rifle that will shoot consistently under 1moa an "accurate" rifle, and one that doesn't an inaccurate rifle. As far as pass fail this is where you need to be unless you are a machinist and not a marksman. When I get a new rifle to shoot under a minute when I'm sighting it in or confirming zero, I'm done with screwing with the cartridges right there. Maybe I would do more if I had more top ten finishes, but lets be realistic. I am a middle of the pack shooter, and it's because I shoot more rounds in two day matches than I do outside of them. That's just a reflection of what limited time I have to practice for a demanding and competitive hobby. Trying to buy a better position with anything other than clinics and more pills downrange is silly, and probably actually counter productive. Who misses and starts motherfucking their seating depth?

When I see someone go from mediocre one year to consistently in the winners circle the next it is not because they did anything different on their bench. It's because they did dry fire drills every day and got a lot more range time practicing positional off barricades and creating PRS type drills. They actually practiced, and practiced consistently, and virtually everyone who I've seen actually commit and do this has made vast improvements year over year, so there's nothing exceptional about them other than a desire to do what it takes to win.

Honestly, threads like this are the dominant threads over at accurate shooter, and I don't for a second diminish that BR has done all the work of blazing the trail to the super accurate guns we're shooting today, but those guys are fucking stuck up, faggots, who cannot shoot to save their lives. They do BR because they can't hold a gun and and they fucking suck at shooting, but they want to be good, so instead of learning and practicing they spend gobs of money on equipment and literally take themselves out of the equation to pretend they can shoot. That only belongs there.

The people who do it in my town are biggest fucks I've ever met, and it's funny how they're like a bunch of HS girls backstabbing and fucking each other all the time. You can bitch about the PRS and other leagues, but compared to them we're as cohesive as a deployed Marines.

When NRL .22 was taking off at their club here they got butt hurt because there were 10 times the people that as shooting BR, so they canceled the whole league and kicked them all out because of sheer spite and jealousy. Lol. Seriously, they're the worst of the worst of the gun world. They're like super fudds who think they're special because they pay to have someone make them a huge unlimited class machine that will shoot small groups. They remind me of the guys who buy ocean going vessels and put them on lakes to show what big shots they are.

Yep, I hate 'em.

Oddly enough, I AM a machinist…

 

[Ledzep]

...
When I see someone go from mediocre one year to consistently in the winners circle the next it is not because they did anything different on their bench. It's because they did dry fire drills every day and got a lot more range time practicing positional off barricades and creating PRS type drills. They actually practiced, and practiced consistently, and virtually everyone who I've seen actually commit and do this has made vast improvements year over year, so there's nothing exceptional about them other than a desire to do what it takes to win.

...

Yup.

I've had these same conversations with plenty of top level PRS/NRL shooters and it's a mixed bag of responses to it. Some agree, some don't care, and some disagree. I've even had them tell me something to the extent of, "Stop-- I don't want to believe my rifle does anything other than throw laser beams". The confidence they get from printing consistent 3 shot groups helps them (or they believe it does anyway). They don't care to understand the inner workings in depth, and they don't have to. They practice the game more and play better.

At the end of the day I can lab it to death but the gains from doing so are pretty minimal on a pass/fail (hit/miss) target. FWIW when I can make time I'm in the top 25, often enough in the top 10-15 at the 2 day matches. The reason I'm not consistently top 10 has almost nothing to do with ammunition.

 

[kthomas]

Yup.

I've had these same conversations with plenty of top level PRS/NRL shooters and it's a mixed bag of responses to it. Some agree, some don't care, and some disagree. I've even had them tell me something to the extent of, "Stop-- I don't want to believe my rifle does anything other than throw laser beams". The confidence they get from printing consistent 3 shot groups helps them (or they believe it does anyway). They don't care to understand the inner workings in depth, and they don't have to. They practice the game more and play better.

At the end of the day I can lab it to death but the gains from doing so are pretty minimal on a pass/fail (hit/miss) target. FWIW when I can make time I'm in the top 25, often enough in the top 10-15 at the 2 day matches. The reason I'm not consistently top 10 has almost nothing to do with ammunition.

Just let the top PRS shooters live in their ignorant bliss, where they continue to post on social media their cherry picked 3 shot chronograph data for their idiot followers to drool over.

 

[Choid]

So what is the eventual takeaway? That components and machining have gotten really good, and basically what matters is to be within +-.1 grains of powder, somewhere in the "normal range" of pressure for the cartridge with a powder in the correct burn rate range, with good controls over neck tension and seating depth? And to shoot a shit ton so as to learn to take out whatever wildness you add to the equation, which, absent specialized gear, is likely to be greater than the benefit of one of these magic wand acts?

I mean it makes sense, but it is depressingly pedestrian when you think about it.

 

[lumberjack78]

So what is the eventual takeaway? That components and machining have gotten really good, and basically what matters is to be within +-.1 grains of powder, somewhere in the "normal range" of pressure for the cartridge with a powder in the correct burn rate range, with good controls over neck tension and seating depth? And to shoot a shit ton so as to learn to take out whatever wildness you add to the equation, which, absent specialized gear, is likely to be greater than the benefit of one of these magic wand acts?

I mean it makes sense, but it is depressingly pedestrian when you think about it.

Especially in the PRS/NRL game when there has been podium finishes with that shitty factory ammo.

 

[Ledzep]

That's about the same place I'm at. You either really give a shit and go hard in the paint, or you spot check and load ammo. It's certainly less exciting. No doubt it's been sad/frustrating on my end. "What the $@$# did I do all of that for?", because prior to about 2 years ago I had been doing the same ladders, satterlee, and OCW tests that everyone else is/was.

Changing powder types is the biggest thing, then powder charge and seating depth will give you different results but it may take a few rounds to accurately distinguish what they are.

 

[kthomas]

That's about the same place I'm at. You either really give a shit and go hard in the paint, or you spot check and load ammo. It's certainly less exciting. No doubt it's been sad/frustrating on my end. "What the $@$# did I do all of that for?", because prior to about 2 years ago I had been doing the same ladders, satterlee, and OCW tests that everyone else is/was.

Changing powder types is the biggest thing, then powder charge and seating depth will give you different results but it may take a few rounds to accurately distinguish what they are.

I haven't done as in depth of testing as you, but what I've found from all my load tests with my 6BRA, is that there is no one proverbial "unicorn" load. Lots of different loads shoot similarly well in my 6BRA.

At this point, I feel confident with H4895 that I can load up almost any charge, and it will shoot well out of my 6BRA.

 

[supercorndogs]

Here’s some more easier to illustrate pics.

Each charge weight’s POI highlighted for each test.

As you can see, you’d have a *minumum* of three different results using OCW inside of these seven tests. Possibly up to seven different results depending how each POI laid out.

So, at the very best, less than 50% success rate if the “optimal” result was one of those three.

(This is from a quick look. I’m sure I could take and hour and it would be closer to seven different results. Which would be less than 20% to get the right optimal charge if in fact optimal exists)


View attachment 7803391

Its probably notable that OCW is looking for a range of powder charge weight, and not pinpointing some charge weight that will give you super groups. ITs an area with relatively stable POI. Its probably also notable 41.3-41.9 is in an area that people commonly claim to find a node. The 42.2 area, if we are looking at through the lens of OCW, is where the POI should be different, and looking at the data the dispersion of the groups increases with the 42.5 area being least likely to show the same POI shot for shot. So at best it works and at worst it doesn't work. Right back where we started.

What I am surprised to see is the dispersion of nearly 1 MOA between the samples of the same charge weight with a straight contour rail gun in a what I assume is fairly stable environment. I wonder if it would be better with 1x fired brass. I wonder what 100y would change.

There are too many variables to ever test them all out. I say it and get witchcraft shit posting, Ledzep says it and everyone stands up and cheers. This is same group speak that had some of us taking shit for saying the chrono ladders were not repeatable. Its always fun to think how many different conclusions one can come up with using one set of data.

I could swear there used to be a lot more stuff on the OCW site. It could be I am mistaking it for something else I read a long time ago. Maybe OBT, or something on Varmint Al's sight. Who knows. In general if I am loading an OCW its because I am using a combo I can't find published data for, or not wanting to shoot a 280 below 50k psi. I can get an idea of velocity, where to stop, get some brass ready and get an idea of how its shooting.

 

[Choid]

OMFG.

 

[Barelstroker]

I have to admit that sometimes I look at the information as a whole & I get disconcerted at times.
I'm not sure there is a holy grail to reloading or barrel length or contour or cartridge type but, a lot of guys want to find it & I'm one of em.
We're all egotistical assholes who want everyone around us think we know WTF we're talking about. That's just a guy thing & we're all tarred with that same brush. It's why we all start our own family, with our own woman, our own house, kids & etc. We strive through the world doing everything our own way or, at least with our own particular twist &, that's the way The Good Lord made us.
As we get older though, we begin to see how much we don't know &, so begins the journey of agreeing with our wives more & learning to be less judgemental & more accommodating to other ideas.
As someone famous must have said; "It takes all sorts & all sorts of ways to get to where you think you want to go"

 

[Mike Casselton]

So what is the eventual takeaway? That components and machining have gotten really good, and basically what matters is to be within +-.1 grains of powder, somewhere in the "normal range" of pressure for the cartridge with a powder in the correct burn rate range, with good controls over neck tension and seating depth? And to shoot a shit ton so as to learn to take out whatever wildness you add to the equation, which, absent specialized gear, is likely to be greater than the benefit of one of these magic wand acts?

I mean it makes sense, but it is depressingly pedestrian when you think about it.

Nope, that's not it.