we need a crying orkan meme

[Taylorbok]

What’s interesting is that I tested varying primer depths myself, and noticed marked difference in precision.
The nice part was, the depth that showed the most repeatable precision was the depth I had already been loading to, and having great success with.

The way I think about it is if you do a proper load work up that load will be tuned to the primer depth you used. If you change that depth the load may fall out of tune. I'd bet it'd be possible to start an entirely new load work up with a different primer depth and come up with a slightly different load that shoots just as well.

 

[supercorndogs]

Bryan Litz for one. Would be hard to find anyone who has done more documented testing.

They have not been able to replicate OCW or any other type of positive compensation with any confidence. As well as have open invitations to anyone who can bring their rifle and ammo and shoot it over their equipment.

Thus far, no one has been able to show them anything that holds up over time.

Also, while not an engineer (or might be, I don’t know), @Ledzep constantly posts data here thar is well beyond what most anyone has published that shows what most people think they are seeing is mostly “noise.” Yet everyone just skips right over his posts as they can’t debate them with any research or data.

Sighting a source is not naming some names. You said there are engineers that say you can find nodes using ES and SD, contrary to the engineers that were consulted when working on OCW.

I will continue assuming the rest of this is your source.

OCW is not positive compensation, so Litz is out unless you can sight a specific source.

Calling OCW positive compensation is like saying no powder charge shoots better than another. Which if your rubbing your brain cells together is not what Ledzep is saying. He is saying the samples are too small. Which is contradicted by people using the small samples and identifying nodes. So I recon the jury {yourself} has to decide on that one.

ITs funny how many people want to argue about OCW but don't even have a basic understanding. Annoyingly the entire write up doesn't seem to available online anymore. It was pretty interesting, and far beyond what anyone on this forum has ever posted.

 

[Gohring65]

It takes a while for some to realize a lot of the shit they’re doing is a complete waste of time.
Cleaning primer pockets along with mapping primer depth is one thing I learned 15 years ago is a big waste of my time. The telling part was a accurate chronograph.
Same with trimming to SAMMI spec. A Sinclair chamber gauge has saved me a lot of time as well.
Turning necks on factory or SAMMI chambers is another lesson learned.
Trying to weigh down to the kernel…
Chasing runout with standard equipment, turns out a properly set up mandrel die saves a lot of time…
I can go on and on.

 

[supercorndogs]

I would rather shoot than dick with it.

 

[Gohring65]

I would rather shoot than dick with it.

Me too!!
Early on I enjoyed the experiment/experience. Now I want to cold bore the mile plate with as little work as possible.
All the knowledge is there in my head still, I guess the knowledge learned allows me to shortcut a lot of the process without fear. So I guess the years of meticulous by the book experimenting has paid off.

 

[supercorndogs]

Not me, I hated reloading from day 1. But you want high quality ammo for bulk ammo prices.

 

[Fig]

One of the Grand Daddy BR fools on accurate shooter posted some sleeping bullet bullshit, and I told him it was a gun myth, and linked to Litz’s detailed testing debunking that myth.

I got attacked in about twenty posts from all the accurateshooter.com poobas who never disputed one fact or test, but were completely incensed that a nobody made a poobah look like the fucking idiot he is.

I banned myself shortly thereafter and started posting here. Fuck BR. They’re a bunch of no shooting, non-marksman retard, machinists. You would be better asking about mathematics from a philosophy professor. They know so much that isn’t so.

 

[Gohring65]

I always say, speculation is not experimenting.
Speculation is not fact.
Bryan will test it and find the answer. His sleeping bullet test put it to rest for me too.

 

[Steel head]

Not me, I hated reloading from day 1. But you want high quality ammo for bulk ammo prices.

Yea
It’s a chore for me.

 

[Govt Mule]

I have too many priming tools accumulated during 40+ years of reloading, but I purchased a CPS in November to see if I could bring my SD/ES numbers down to the low single digits. My testing was done in 20-35 degrees. I started out testing 3 shot groups and narrowed it down to 3 seating depths and than went to 10 shot groups. The seating depth that was decided on has an SD of 1.7 and an ES of 4. All of the final 3 groups were basically one hole groups at100 yards. This was shot off a Rodzilla front rest and a 37 lb rear bag in a 284. The primer depth is a small part of ability to get low SD/ES numbers. Powder charge, neck tension, base to ogive culling and seating depth are more important, but it is a sum of what we do in prep that shows on the score card. We will see how the seating depth plays out next week at Berger SWN when it is 70+ degrees over the course of 5 days and 400+ rounds.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Sighting a source is not naming some names. You said there are engineers that say you can find nodes using ES and SD, contrary to the engineers that were consulted when working on OCW.

I will continue assuming the rest of this is your source.

OCW is not positive compensation, so Litz is out unless you can sight a specific source.

Calling OCW positive compensation is like saying no powder charge shoots better than another. Which if your rubbing your brain cells together is not what Ledzep is saying. He is saying the samples are too small. Which is contradicted by people using the small samples and identifying nodes. So I recon the jury {yourself} has to decide on that one.

ITs funny how many people want to argue about OCW but don't even have a basic understanding. Annoyingly the entire write up doesn't seem to available online anymore. It was pretty interesting, and far beyond what anyone on this forum has ever posted.

Literally the only mention of engineers on the ocw is says “my friend who’s and engineer thinks it works because.” If he had any actual research and data other than theory, he has no reason to not to post it on his site.

I didn’t not say specifically that engineers say you can find nodes with a chrono. I say they say the opposite as in, ocw isn’t repeatable in the long run when put into actual data. And citing Litz is absolutely a source. There’s literally books and videos everywhere of his research.

Ledzep has said way more than sample size. He’s saying once sample size is enough, there is very little, if any repeatable things that show “nodes” and other such stuff.

OCW is absolutely a form of positive compensation. The same basic principle with barrel movement/vibrations is in both. Bullets with different charge weights leave the muzzle during a time in which they have the same POI despite the charges/velocity. Just because positive compensation theory is also used at longer distances for specific things doesn’t mean it’s not from the same DNA.

I’m not saying it doesn’t work. I’m saying you referencing an “engineer” means nothing as there’s plenty of engineers or SME’s in this field who don’t think it works.

 

[supercorndogs]

I imagine most of the stuff was taken down off his sight to make it easier for people to navigate. There has been a constant drone of OCW misinterpretation on forums forever. There used to be quite a bit more than what comes up now.

Bullets do hit the same POI at short range despite velocity changes and powder charge changes. That is very basic stuff. POI shift as you change charge weights is pretty much common knowledge also.

OCW is not positive compensation. You are reaching at best on that one for sure.

 

[Gohring65]

We all are headed the to the same place, just on different short busses.

 

[Tokay444]

Great. You can dispute it with him. Litz happily publishes his data. Show us yours.

I know for a fact that Litz uses scientific method a control and only publishes or makes a claim when it’s repeatable. That’s why he has debunked so many gun myths. Like this one.

Like barrel tuners?

 

[Tokay444]

The way I think about it is if you do a proper load work up that load will be tuned to the primer depth you used. If you change that depth the load may fall out of tune. I'd bet it'd be possible to start an entirely new load work up with a different primer depth and come up with a slightly different load that shoots just as well.

I don’t doubt for a second that’s probable.

 

[Mike Casselton]

This has turned out to be a useful and informative thread even as it has strayed off topic a little

Nothing ever stays on topic.
If it did, I'd wonder if maybe I clicked on the wrong site...

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Well, TBH, Bryan just explained something very very obvious in retrospect that I had not figured out in years of thinking about it: the near wind is more important because the effect on the bullet is "inherited early in the trajectory" and it's carried all the way to the target.

Wow. You learn something every day.

Thanks Bryan and OP.

(Plus I love to imagine Orkan crying himself to sleep, LOL.)

Emil Praslick’s talk on wind down at PRE was excellent. Former AMU coach… works with Berger. Worth the trip right there!!

Sirhr

 

[Barelstroker]

Well, here's what I reckon about the whole thing.
I think OCW may well be a thing from the perspective that POI shift does seem to occur when the load is changed but, I don't believe the cause is the muzzle waving about like they think. OBT explains the situation far better in my opinion.
With regard to primer seating depth, meh......if'n you're a benchrest shooter, perhaps you may see some meaningful difference.
As far as load work ups go in general, I reckon Litz's mate there who explained in one of his vids that rifle & recoil management are far larger pieces of the equation than most all of the load changes. I agree with this from my own experience. I have to admit that, although I've been shooting rifles for over 35 years, I wasn't a good rifleman. It's only in the last 3 years or so that I've endeavoured to seek to learn to manage recoil, breathing, shoulder pressure, trigger follow through & etc, that has shown definite results on target, especially in the last 12 months.
I've no doubt that proper rifle setup in rests & bags makes a tremendous difference & I'm sure the F-class & bench rest boys can vouch for that. If the shooter has all that down Pat & can repeat that rifle control shot after shot then, the load changes may show meaningful results however, I think that situation for the majority of shooters is mostly neglected, poorly understood & generally under-estimated.

 

[Govt Mule]

I've no doubt that proper rifle setup in rests & bags makes a tremendous difference & I'm sure the F-class & bench rest boys can vouch for that. If the shooter has all that down Pat & can repeat that rifle control shot after shot then, the load changes may show meaningful results however, I think that situation for the majority of shooters is mostly neglected, poorly understood & generally under-estimated.

^^^^^ Gun handling is a key component of repeatable results.

 

[MarkyMark007]

...load will be tuned to the primer depth you used. If you change that depth the load may fall out of tune...

do you realy believe this halucinations?

 

[MarkyMark007]

Bryan also believes barrel tuners can’t have an effect on barrel tuning.

most of ppl believe, that with tuners you can NOT get more accurate gun than withouth tuner. this is big difference!

tuner is just faster and easier way to develope a good load. but it does NOT make your gun more accurate than withouth a tuner, if you find that load.

 

[Gohring65]

most of ppl believe, that with tuners you can NOT get more accurate gun than withouth tuner. this is big difference!

tuner is just faster and easier way to develope a good load. but it does NOT make your gun more accurate than withouth a tuner, if you find that load.

I agree, I think Bryan thinks the accuracy is in the gun, the tuner is just a shortcut to load tuning. I could be wrong, but that how I took it.
He thinks you should just keep going in load development instead of a barrel tuner.

 

[MarkyMark007]

If people are ensuring primers are seated the same depth, I do hope they are uniforming primer pockets.

no they are not.

I ask the same question at topic, and noone answered. people are just too stupid to know what they are doing...
they just seat primest with different hight to the bottom, which is totaly wrong...

and when they tuch the bottom of the primer pocket with the primer, this is usualy the best 'primer seating depth', and everybody are happy with their expencive gizmo for nothing

 

[Bigfatcock]

no they are not.

I ask the same question at topic, and noone answered. people are just too stupid to know what they are doing...
they just seat primest with different hight to the bottom, which is totaly wrong...

and when they tuch the bottom of the primer pocket with the primer, this is usualy the best 'primer seating depth', and everybody are happy with their expencive gizmo for nothing

I’m all for expensive gizmos, but I mean you gotta have uniform primer pocket depths to have uniform seating and crush. Just sayin’ lol.

Just wanted to ensure people are doing that part. Now watch primer pocket uniformers sell out online, and someone will come out with a $500 uniforming tool, lol.

Even if your primer pockets are dead flat, and uniform in diameter, the lip of the primer cup could be cattywampus, so now that bitch is still crooked, lol.

 

[kthomas]

^^^^^ Gun handling is a key component of repeatable results.

And the one perhaps the most variable, the least isolated, and rarely discussed in these conversations.

 

[kthomas]

I agree, I think Bryan thinks the accuracy is in the gun, the tuner is just a shortcut to load tuning. I could be wrong, but that how I took it.
He thinks you should just keep going in load development instead of a barrel tuner.

All world class benchrest shooters will say the same thing.

A tuner is not used to make a load more accurate. They all do load workup independent (without the use) of a tuner. However, not even benchrest shooters can agree on how to properly use a tuner. I even saw an argument between a world record holder benchrest shooter and the owner of a popular tuner company, on how to use that specific tuner.

When it comes to tuners, there's a lot more noise to the data then we think or account for. I think it's particularly interesting now that tuners have become popular in our discipline, what some think of how tuners are used, their utility, and the poor data collection that they present that leads them to such conclusions.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I’m all for expensive gizmos, but I mean you gotta have uniform primer pocket depths to have uniform seating and crush. Just sayin’ lol.

Just wanted to ensure people are doing that part. Now watch primer pocket uniformers sell out online, and someone will come out with a $500 uniforming tool, lol.

Even if your primer pockets are dead flat, and uniform in diameter, the lip of the primer cup could be cattywampus, so now that bitch is still crooked, lol.

This also presents a different problem.

Pockets are uniformed from the bottom of the cartridge.

Primers are seated with a shell holder which is now indexed off the top of the rim.


There’s another conversation if this difference is minimal due to the way brass is made. But still, in practice, indexing off a different spot is a flaw in system.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I agree, I think Bryan thinks the accuracy is in the gun, the tuner is just a shortcut to load tuning. I could be wrong, but that how I took it.
He thinks you should just keep going in load development instead of a barrel tuner.

I’m not sure when they will publish more data/books. But AB has been testing tuners. I won’t put out their business except to say it’s not as cut and dry (to say the least) and most think.

 

[Bigfatcock]

I was honestly surprised it took so long for tuners to be mentioned and become popular here. They have been around for a long time.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

And the one perhaps the most variable, the least isolated, and rarely discussed in these conversations.

Which is why I don’t take testing too seriously if I don’t see a neo or better rest being used.

Bipod + rear bag for the very small things people are debating over is absolutely not stable enough to discern.

 

[Gohring65]

I’m not sure when they will publish more data/books. But AB has been testing tuners. I won’t put out their business except to say it’s not as cut and dry (to say the least) and most think.

We all know Bryan, he’s going to test it.
He’ll have us a very good explanation as to why or why not to use them.
It’ll be technical and thorough.

 

[Bigfatcock]

Which is why I don’t take testing too seriously if I don’t see a neo or better rest being used.

Bipod + rear bag for the very small things people are debating over is absolutely not stable enough to discern.

Also, the scientific method died somewhere around the time home internet became available.

 

[MarkyMark007]

Pockets are uniformed from the bottom of the cartridge.

Primers are seated with a shell holder which is now indexed off the top of the rim.

and when firing pin strikes on the primer, at first it push whole cartridge to the headspace...

 

[Feniks Technologies]

and when firing pin strikes on the primer, at first it push whole cartridge to the headspace...

Most actions have a plunger that already does that…..

Swing and a miss for you again. Keep trying buddy, you’ll get something right eventually.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

And here are Orkan tears at 45:30: "We've tried all the primer games." Sorry, Greg. The CPS is a cool expensive gizmo, but....

"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Somehow I don't beleive this was your intention, but the Upton Sinclair quote you referenced actually does more to prove Orkan's position than disprove it.

 

[Gohring65]

If you’re not seeing your heartbeat in the scope and shooting accordingly, then you don’t need to worry about advanced loading techniques.
You’re just not there yet.
A lot of people talk about technicalities, but don’t even use basic fundamentals consistently enough to see a difference in load changes.

 

[MarkyMark007]

Most actions have a plunger that already does that…..

not in every case is like you imagine...

 

[Feniks Technologies]

not in every case is like you imagine...

If the brass is properly sized to the chamber, yea, it is.

If you oversize the brass, that’s another problem altogether.

 

[Mike Casselton]

and when firing pin strikes on the primer, at first it push whole cartridge to the headspace...

Every time I read your posts, I feel like it needs to be with some kind of Eastern European accent...

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

So "if there is no such thing as nodes", then what is the load development process, specifically? Pick a charge that gives you the speed you want and do seating depth test and that's it?

(I'm not on any side of this discussion nor the primer seating depth one, I am still learning the loading aspects and am honestly not sure about several aspects repeatable effects, but have been doing my own testing).

 

[morganlamprecht]

All world class benchrest shooters will say the same thing.

A tuner is not used to make a load more accurate. They all do load workup independent (without the use) of a tuner. However, not even benchrest shooters can agree on how to properly use a tuner. I even saw an argument between a world record holder benchrest shooter and the owner of a popular tuner company, on how to use that specific tuner.

When it comes to tuners, there's a lot more noise to the data then we think or account for. I think it's particularly interesting now that tuners have become popular in our discipline, what some think of how tuners are used, their utility, and the poor data collection that they present that leads them to such conclusions.

one of the really well known tuners was originally sold as "have to do all your normal load work up, then can use the tuner to make small adjustments if you see variations day to day...basically to bring your group back to best potential of the load with shifting conditions..."

then it was realized that "hey screw this on and shoot any ammo great" was more popular among the vast majority of shooters without the skill or equipment (rests, flags, etc) to really do a load work up and see any real variations...so thats the direction business went lol

 

[kthomas]

one of the really well known tuners was originally sold as "have to do all your normal load work up, then can use the tuner to make small adjustments if you see variations day to day...basically to bring your group back to best potential of the load with shifting conditions..."

then it was realized that "hey screw this on and shoot any ammo great" was more popular among the vast majority of shooters without the skill or equipment (rests, flags, etc) to really do a load work up and see any real variations...so thats the direction business went lol

Wherever the money is I guess, lol.

Like they say in the fishing world "this lure is designed to catch more fisherman than fish".

 

[Fig]

Fuck, I buy $400 flashlights! I have a $1,500 fly rod CASE! I would buy the seater if it was more enjoyable to use, period. It doesn’t have to make my bullets strike truer.

 

[kthomas]

Fuck, I buy $400 flashlights! I have a $1,500 fly rod CASE! I would buy the seater if it was more enjoyable to use, period. It doesn’t have to make my bullets strike truer.

It's much more enjoyable to prime on a CPS then a hand primer, that's for sure! It's definitely made priming a lot more enjoyable for me.

Bonus that it seats primers very consistently. But I'm not a good enough shooter (nor have the equipment to test) whether it will make your reloads more precise. But having more precise seating depth certainly won't hurt your reloads.

 

[Steel head]

I’m all for expensive gizmos, but I mean you gotta have uniform primer pocket depths to have uniform seating and crush. Just sayin’ lol.

Just wanted to ensure people are doing that part. Now watch primer pocket uniformers sell out online, and someone will come out with a $500 uniforming tool, lol.

Even if your primer pockets are dead flat, and uniform in diameter, the lip of the primer cup could be cattywampus, so now that bitch is still crooked, lol.

And consistent rims on brass.

Wherever the money is I guess, lol.

Like they say in the fishing world "this lure is designed to catch more fisherman than fish".

I’m in the fishing industry and this is VERY true.

 

[Tokay444]

Bryan in 2015.
"Well put. There's certainly a point of diminishing returns and each person decides where that point is for them based on their application and goals.

Bart,
I'm glad you brought this up. The load development I described using is what I've found success with in F-TR where we shoot 308 Winchesters at targets having a 1/2 MOA X-ring and a 1 MOA 10-ring. We shoot 20-shot strings in 30 minutes with targets marked between every shot. In this application, wind reading and wind strategy are paramount and dwarf the importance of grouping under 1/2 MOA.

For other applications such as contests of pure precision/groups (100 to 1000 yards), I think that you may benefit from exploring the subtleties of harmonics and tune of your barrel and load to get groups as small as possible.

It's always important to give the context and scope along with information and I didn't do that very well above, so thanks for asking the question so I could clarify the scope better.

Tom,
I agree that the tune and harmonics are affected by the rifle set up as well, not just the barrel.

-Bryan"

 

[morganlamprecht]

Fuck, I buy $400 flashlights! I have a $1,500 fly rod CASE! I would buy the seater if it was more enjoyable to use, period. It doesn’t have to make my bullets strike truer.

i dont think this was ever anyones rub...it was the guys slinging bullets from a harris and squeeze sock affirming to everyone that .003 primer depths shot better than .004 lol

originally it was "have to test depths, its crucial for accuracy"....now its just "its really nice to use"

 

[secondofangle2]

Somehow I don't beleive this was your intention, but the Upton Sinclair quote you referenced actually does more to prove Orkan's position than disprove it.

If you can’t afford the CPS yes! Good pick up!

 

[secondofangle2]

i dont think this was ever anyones rub...it was the guys slinging bullets from a harris and squeeze sock affirming to everyone that .003 primer depths shot better than .004 lol

originally it was "have to test depths, its crucial for accuracy"....now its just "its really nice to use"

Yeah and I’m tempted to. My Prazipress Heavy 150 doesn’t make better ammo it’s just beautiful and a pleasure to use. It is also 30+ pounds and made in Germany and $1200 and the math still just doesn’t work out for a $600 priming tool (I do have a $400 M2 precision dedicated 50 BMG priming tool for full disclosure; I blindly accept exorbitant prices for anything BMG LOL). Maybe some day, but money is not unlimited and other things are higher on the list and Orkan can be a first class A-hole and that makes me want to not give him my money. That and his high flying claims seem downright disingenuous; Turban never told me the Prazipress would make my ammo shoot better. Honesty and humility are worth something and if Orkan is selling “feel good” & “pleasure to use” he’s going to have to try harder. Which may be why he’s trying to sell accuracy instead.

 

[kthomas]

i dont think this was ever anyones rub...it was the guys slinging bullets from a harris and squeeze sock affirming to everyone that .003 primer depths shot better than .004 lol

originally it was "have to test depths, its crucial for accuracy"....now its just "its really nice to use"

I believe Alex Wheeler (top notch bench rest gunsmith and shooter) has/had a thread on accurate shooter in regards to testing primer seating depths and precision. In fact, it may have involved a CPS.

He seemed convinced that it makes a difference, and he knows a lot more about that stuff then I do.

It's a different game if you are going for BR world records. But for those of us shooting off of bipods and bags and barricades, I don't think many of us can realize the difference in our shooting.