we need a crying orkan meme

[BuildingConceptsllc]

No, actually it is.

This is why people talk about primer crush with his system.

Again, you are way out of your depth here with knowledge.

Do you even know what the average variance is for primer pocket depth?

Do you know what the average variance is for primer height?

Do you know how much any of that changes things?



The answer is no. You’ve self admitted before you shoot 1500 rounds a year or less. And you’re bashing a product you haven’t used.

I’m not saying it’s going to make better ammo for people shooting steel. But I’m absolutely saying you don’t have any data to show.

Didn't the witch doctors testing confirm that primer seating depth does matter as well? That's a different question than "is it relevant to my shooting?" Just like other more tedious parts of reloading, each person decides how far they want to go to achieve meaningful improvement in accuracy.

There are two different main things being argued here. 1. Does primer seating depth make a difference in accuracy? 2. Does any difference that primer seating depth may effect, make it worthwhile to pursue in my shooting?

 

[BLKWLFK9]

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 can name 1 engineer that says nodes are bullshit and move from day to day. Says OCW AND ladder testing aren't repeatable.
Scott Whitehead. Hes a member here but I forgot his sn. We had a lengthy phone convo about it last year.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Didn't the witch doctors testing confirm that primer seating depth does matter as well? That's a different question than "is it relevant to my shooting?" Just like other more tedious parts of reloading, each person decides how far they want to go to achieve meaningful improvement in accuracy.

There are two different main things being argued here. 1. Does primer seating depth make a difference in accuracy? 2. Does any difference that primer seating depth may effect, make it worthwhile to pursue in my shooting?

He showed it could matter. Obviously more testing would be needed.

Also, he using equipment far beyond what most people posting here use. So there’s that.

 

[supercorndogs]

I can name 1 engineer that says nodes are bullshit and move from day to day. Says OCW AND ladder testing aren't repeatable.
Scott Whitehead. Hes a member here but I forgot his sn. We had a lengthy phone convo about it last year.

Which part of OCW does he think is not re-peatbale? POI shift between powder charges? If I have learned one thing about OCW online, its that I can't trust anyone to actually know what it is, or how to set up the test. I have seen multiple people refer to their velocity tests over a chronograph as "OCW testing." Even more looking at group size.

I would want to see someone's tests who says OCW isn't repeatable, because I have found it to be repeatable, personally reshooting with the same results, and I have also seen other people's OCW tests with the same results. I have seen a lot of OCW tests showing a node around 41.5 of h4350 with a 140g bullet. Same with 43.2 of Varget and a 175. Same with 23.2 of 8208 and a 77smk. {these are of course dependent on what brass you have. Different brass will need different charge weights. That was probably the best part about only having 1 kind of brass for the 6.5 Creed for a long time. It really shined a light on the idea that there are nodes and they are repeatable from gun to gun.

IT seems to me we have moved into a realm where some people are saying harmonics don't effect accuracy, which is false. Some also seem to be under the impression that any powder charge will shoot just as good as any other, which is also false. What has been presented to the class, is that a bad load might night be much worse than a good one, so why waste your time if you can't shoot the difference. A lot of the class, took that to mean there is no such thing as good and bad loads, which is patently false.

 

[BLKWLFK9]

Which part of OCW does he think is not re-peatbale? POI shift between powder charges? If I have learned one thing about OCW online, its that I can't trust anyone to actually know what it is, or how to set up the test. I have seen multiple people refer to their velocity tests over a chronograph as "OCW testing." Even more looking at group size.

I would want to see someone's tests who says OCW isn't repeatable, because I have found it to be repeatable, personally reshooting with the same results, and I have also seen other people's OCW tests with the same results. I have seen a lot of OCW tests showing a node around 41.5 of h4350 with a 140g bullet. Same with 43.2 of Varget and a 175. Same with 23.2 of 8208 and a 77smk.


IT seems to me we have moved into a realm where some people are saying harmonics don't effect accuracy, which is false. Some also seem to be under the impression that any powder charge will shoot just as good as any other, which is also false. What has been presented to the class, is that a bad load might night be much worse than a good one, so why waste your time if you can't shoot the difference. A lot of the class, took that to mean there is no such thing as good and bad loads, which is patently false.

Man.. don't get me lying to you. Lol. I can't really remember the details. I do remember that one of his points was finding flat spots is folly bc those flat spots in velocity move from day to day. As far as poi and OCW, i forgot the details of his opinions on it. He was pretty much in lock step with Litz. I don't use either and have never tried thr OCW method myself so I don't have an opinion on its validity.

 

[supercorndogs]

Man.. don't get me lying to you. Lol. I can't really remember the details. I do remember that one of his points was finding flat spots is folly bc those flat spots in velocity move from day to day. As far as poi and OCW, i forgot the details of his opinions on it. He was pretty much in lock step with Litz. I don't use either and have never tried thr OCW method myself so I don't have an opinion on its validity.

Yea, velocity flat spots have nothing to do with OCW. That is the internet lore that some mis-applied and named the abomination the "Saterlee test."

 

[BLKWLFK9]

Yea, velocity flat spots have nothing to do with OCW. That is the internet lore that some mis-applied and named the abomination the "Saterlee test."

Right. I think I remember him saying both were not repeatable. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth though.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Didn't the witch doctors testing confirm that primer seating depth does matter as well? That's a different question than "is it relevant to my shooting?" Just like other more tedious parts of reloading, each person decides how far they want to go to achieve meaningful improvement in accuracy.

There are two different main things being argued here. 1. Does primer seating depth make a difference in accuracy? 2. Does any difference that primer seating depth may effect, make it worthwhile to pursue in my shooting?

That's the secret sauce.
How many can actually shoot the difference?
I'm not gonna see it lying on my ever growing gut.


I like the idea of the CPS because my hands hurt all the time.
I don't wear ill fitting shoes and boots because that would make my feet hurt.
Why then, do I use tools that cause me to wake in the middle of the night with hand pain?

 

[MarkyMark007]

No, actually it is.

This is why people talk about primer crush with his system.

Again, you are way out of your depth here with knowledge.

Do you even know what the average variance is for primer pocket depth?

Do you know what the average variance is for primer height?

Do you know how much any of that changes things?



The answer is no. You’ve self admitted before you shoot 1500 rounds a year or less. And you’re bashing a product you haven’t used.

I’m not saying it’s going to make better ammo for people shooting steel. But I’m absolutely saying you don’t have any data to show.

you are all wrong!

nobody is controling those parameters, but there are people who claim that some 0.001'' difference in primer pocket depth is changing everything.

and the statement ''He showed it could matter''? he showed only that he does not control variances and claim that 0.001'' matter.

when he will control those parameters than he can say ''it could matter''

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Which part of OCW does he think is not re-peatbale? POI shift between powder charges? If I have learned one thing about OCW online, its that I can't trust anyone to actually know what it is, or how to set up the test. I have seen multiple people refer to their velocity tests over a chronograph as "OCW testing." Even more looking at group size.

I would want to see someone's tests who says OCW isn't repeatable, because I have found it to be repeatable, personally reshooting with the same results, and I have also seen other people's OCW tests with the same results. I have seen a lot of OCW tests showing a node around 41.5 of h4350 with a 140g bullet. Same with 43.2 of Varget and a 175. Same with 23.2 of 8208 and a 77smk. {these are of course dependent on what brass you have. Different brass will need different charge weights. That was probably the best part about only having 1 kind of brass for the 6.5 Creed for a long time. It really shined a light on the idea that there are nodes and they are repeatable from gun to gun.

IT seems to me we have moved into a realm where some people are saying harmonics don't effect accuracy, which is false. Some also seem to be under the impression that any powder charge will shoot just as good as any other, which is also false. What has been presented to the class, is that a bad load might night be much worse than a good one, so why waste your time if you can't shoot the difference. A lot of the class, took that to mean there is no such thing as good and bad loads, which is patently false.

@Ledzep

I don’t want to misquote anyone. So just tagging him here.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

you are all wrong!

nobody is controling those parameters, but there are people who claim that some 0.001'' difference in primer pocket depth is changing everything.

and the statement ''He showed it could matter''? he showed only that he does not control variances and claim that 0.001'' matter.

when he will control those parameters than he can say ''it could matter''

Again, you’re just making things up.

 

[MarkyMark007]

i am showing the mistakes. you and orkan are making things up.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

i am showing the mistakes. you and orkan are making things up.

I haven’t defended his claims at all.

I’m saying his tool works as designed can account for the variances you are suggesting.

Which by the way, you can’t even tell me if those variances exist. Here’s a hint, the rim and pocket of quality brass are the most consistent part of the case. The variances are extremely small.

And when this variances are that small, you are able to set up the crush which now accounts for the primer height variances.

You would know this if you ever measured any amount of primer pockets or primers.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Which part of OCW does he think is not re-peatbale? POI shift between powder charges? If I have learned one thing about OCW online, its that I can't trust anyone to actually know what it is, or how to set up the test. I have seen multiple people refer to their velocity tests over a chronograph as "OCW testing." Even more looking at group size.

I would want to see someone's tests who says OCW isn't repeatable, because I have found it to be repeatable, personally reshooting with the same results, and I have also seen other people's OCW tests with the same results. I have seen a lot of OCW tests showing a node around 41.5 of h4350 with a 140g bullet. Same with 43.2 of Varget and a 175. Same with 23.2 of 8208 and a 77smk. {these are of course dependent on what brass you have. Different brass will need different charge weights. That was probably the best part about only having 1 kind of brass for the 6.5 Creed for a long time. It really shined a light on the idea that there are nodes and they are repeatable from gun to gun.

IT seems to me we have moved into a realm where some people are saying harmonics don't effect accuracy, which is false. Some also seem to be under the impression that any powder charge will shoot just as good as any other, which is also false. What has been presented to the class, is that a bad load might night be much worse than a good one, so why waste your time if you can't shoot the difference. A lot of the class, took that to mean there is no such thing as good and bad loads, which is patently false.

RE: POI movement with different powder charges.

Based on my limited experience actually looking at and for this, I have exactly one photograph that says it does occur.
Since that photo was taken, I haven't seen it in other rifles, but they have heavier barrels and it may not be as pronounced.

Here's the photo. The rifle is a Remington 700 with a factory threaded 6.5 CM varmint weight barrel. It was in a MacMillan stock.

The two positions that don't have the pink numbers are a different rifle and load.

The targets were shot on a nearly wind free day.


Chronograph data is here.

What does this tell us?
For me, it says that with the 147 ELDM and Staball, AND that particular rifle, it happened.

I suppose I should take one of my other rifles and test it to see if it occurs with it too...

 

[Bigfatcock]

I wasn't making an argument against your statement, in fact I somewhat agree with it.




What we can safely assume though, is that ignition of the primer is ignition. Detonation is actually correct, like you pointed out.

What we can't assume is that an off center hit on the primer detonates it in the same manner as a center hit.
Due to the nature of having a three legged anvil, we could safely assume that the compound might ignite off center, therefore causing the compound to swirl slightly as it fights its way to the flash hole.

Just an assumption.

Does this cause energy loss of the priming compound because it can't go straight into the flash hole?
Maybe, maybe not...

I'm not aware of any tests performed to verify or nullify this.
Again, it's just an assumption.

We know of the testing performed to determine proper flash hole diameter.
It matters.

When it comes to the energy NEEDED to reliably detonate a primer, it's understood.

Determining the exact amount of energy needed to give consistent and repeatable detonation requires four parts:
1. Firing pin weight.
2. Firing pin speed.
3. Firing pin travel.
4. Firing pin spring energy.

We could also add in pin tip diameter, spring drag, sear drag and a host of other items to actually include the simple act of having the primer touching the bottom of the primer pocket. Crush would now come into play because some of the energy used to detonate the primer is being used to fully seat it into the crush zone.


Fuck, fuck, fuck!!
I just want to shoot!

Back in the 90s there were tests done on primer energy to include flame length and duration.
They used high speed cameras to record time and distance of the flame along with temperature.

Part of the test included seating to touch vs crush.

What I don't recall is which action they used or the firing pin system specifics.

What they did determine is that primer seating matters.
They also found that some of the magnum primers weren't hotter. They just had a longer flame duration.

IIRC, the hottest was the WLRM. The most consistent was the 205M.



With that big mouthful said, I'm gonna step over this big ol' worm pile and pour myself another cup of coffee.

I’ll have to dig in my stash of reloading manuals, but I remember Lyman, or maybe RCBS actually had still shots of the primers as you described of the testing to show the difference in flame length of Magnum primers vs standard primers.

I hope I did not come off as argumentative in my last response, as I am enjoying this discussion.

I will put my 2 cents/opinion in and say once you’ve crushed, you’ve crushed and I don’t see primer seating as an accuracy enhancing path that’s worth MY time to pursue. Just too many variables to even begin to draw a conclusion.

 

[spife7980]

you are all wrong!

nobody is controling those parameters, but there are people who claim that some 0.001'' difference in primer pocket depth is changing everything.

and the statement ''He showed it could matter''? he showed only that he does not control variances and claim that 0.001'' matter.

when he will control those parameters than he can say ''it could matter''

Dude, you misinterpret everything you read so please just do us all a favor and shut the fuck up for once

 

[morganlamprecht]

RE: POI movement with different powder charges.

Based on my limited experience actually looking at and for this, I have exactly one photograph that says it does occur.
Since that photo was taken, I haven't seen it in other rifles, but they have heavier barrels and it may not be as pronounced.

Here's the photo. The rifle is a Remington 700 with a factory threaded 6.5 CM varmint weight barrel. It was in a MacMillan stock.

View attachment 7800585

The two positions that don't have the pink numbers are a different rifle and load.

The targets were shot on a nearly wind free day.


Chronograph data is here.

View attachment 7800587

What does this tell us?
For me, it says that with the 147 ELDM and Staball, AND that particular rifle, it happened.

I suppose I should take one of my other rifles and test it to see if it occurs with it too...

ive seen similar a few times

also seen a bunch of barrels that seem to shoot every charge in the same spot over 3-5 grain spans...none of my rifles i shoot for accuracy are factory rifles though

i have seen a factory rem700 sps varmint 308win rifle that would stack 3-5 rounds, then as we kept shooting the POI would walk .3-.5 higher and groups would double to triple in size...the barrel wouldnt even be smoking hot, just warm...let it completely cool, and then it was back to normal, for 3-5 rounds, then walk and spread again...we confirmed it with 2 different shooters 2-3x that day

also seen a carbon barrel that would shift after 3-5 rounds...same situation, we repeated the .2-.3 shift multiple times with 2 shooters at 100 yds and 1000 yds

 

[kthomas]

ive seen similar a few times

also seen a bunch of barrels that seem to shoot every charge in the same spot over 3-5 grain spans...none of my rifles i shoot for accuracy are factory rifles though

i have seen a factory rem700 sps varmint 308win rifle that would stack 3-5 rounds, then as we kept shooting the POI would walk .3-.5 higher and groups would double to triple in size...the barrel wouldnt even be smoking hot, just warm...let it completely cool, and then it was back to normal, for 3-5 rounds, then walk and spread again...we confirmed it with 2 different shooters 2-3x that day

also seen a carbon barrel that would shift after 3-5 rounds...same situation, we repeated the .2-.3 shift multiple times with 2 shooters at 100 yds and 1000 yds

Sounds like an improperly stress relieved barrel.

 

[supercorndogs]

A pee shooter with an MTU barrel is not going to have near the amplitude in its barrel as a pencil profiled 300wm. I have seen OCW tests with the Dasher or BR where the POI didn't change for the entire range of charge weights. Those are rounds that are known to be easy to load for, possibly for that reason.

Here are two for a #5 contour x-Caliber barrel in 280, one is H4350 and one is H4831SC. I was hoping to find some from 6.5 Creed, 308, 300wm, and 243AI, but I can't find any pictures.

The big group on the second one was the entire work up fired over a magneto speed to get some velocity numbers. POI started low and moved up there too.

Groups doubling in size and walking around as barrel got hot was what made me re-barrel my factory Remington 308 and 300wm. My 308 and 243AI were Kriger barrels built by LRI, and are stupid accurate. The 300wm and 6.5 Creed are Criterion remage barrels, they are pretty darn accurate hot or cold, and don't walk. Same goes for my #5 X-caliber barrel in 280.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

That's the secret sauce.
How many can actually shoot the difference?
I'm not gonna see it lying on my ever growing gut.


I like the idea of the CPS because my hands hurt all the time.
I don't wear ill fitting shoes and boots because that would make my feet hurt.
Why then, do I use tools that cause me to wake in the middle of the night with hand pain?

That makes very good sense to me, and orkan would have been better off using that ease of use and speed of use for the cps only, as a selling point vs accuracy if he doesn't have real proof of accuracy improvement.

That said, it appears to me that some sort of latched on to the accuracy portion of what he said and gave it much more weight than he himself gave it. From what I saw (admittedly not all of it nor all of the diacussion by him and others on the subject) of orkans videos, he touched on accuracy improvements and he clearly believes that the cps will improve accuracy, but, he didn't hammer down on the accuracy angle to the level that warrants such a huge pushback against him by some. Jmho

 

[Bigfatcock]

There is nothing new under the sun.

I mean, as we talk precision reloading, Scott Parker was tuning beam scales to measure a kernel of powder wayyyy back.

 

[Nik H]

"Bryan Litz has spent the majority of his shooting career in the Palma discipline where he’s won numerous regional, national and international level matches in addition to holding many national records. Most notable was winning the Queens Prize in Australia, 2010. As a firing member on 3 winning America’s Match US Palma Teams, Bryan is a seasoned team member and knows how a team needs to work in order to win at the highest levels."​

​

Bryan Litz — US Rifle Team

www.usrifleteam.com

​

Just saying...he shoots far better than I! haha​

That is not all that high a bar....LOL

 

[Tokay444]

I know that you understand that this is not a point of Orkans priming sistem. He just say: 'try different seating depths and you will tune your primer''. but if you don't control primer pocket depth AND primer height this is bollocks.

for seating primer to the bottom with some crush I don't need 600$+ CPS that tells me some numbers, which have no meaning... this I do with RCBS universal hand priming tool for the press or with lee bench prime just as accurate as CPS.

Primer pocket depth and primer height are controlled by their respective manufacturers. Measure them. You'll see.

 

[Bigfatcock]

Some good reading on primer power is the use of Speer plastic bullets with primed brass in revolvers.

Also, on a cast bullet forum, there is a lot of primer pressure information in the topics about hot glue bullets fired from revolvers.

Flash holes had to be opened up because the minimal case neck tension on the bullet, and lack of charge, didn’t create enough juice to push the base of the case against the recoil shield. This lead to primers backing out. Open the firing pin hole to let more energy through a larger opening and no more issues.

Science, no. Informational, yes.

 

[spife7980]

That makes very good sense to me, and orkan would have been better off using that ease of use and speed of use for the cps only, as a selling point vs accuracy if he doesn't have real proof of accuracy improvement.

Ive proved it makes a difference to myself in my own limited testing.

Its not ever going to be enough to convince anyone on here so I wont bother ever sharing it (which is the same conclusion most have arrived at after enough time on these forums, what you do provide people bitch about so fuck em)

 

[Mike Casselton]

ive seen similar a few times

also seen a bunch of barrels that seem to shoot every charge in the same spot over 3-5 grain spans...none of my rifles i shoot for accuracy are factory rifles though

i have seen a factory rem700 sps varmint 308win rifle that would stack 3-5 rounds, then as we kept shooting the POI would walk .3-.5 higher and groups would double to triple in size...the barrel wouldnt even be smoking hot, just warm...let it completely cool, and then it was back to normal, for 3-5 rounds, then walk and spread again...we confirmed it with 2 different shooters 2-3x that day

also seen a carbon barrel that would shift after 3-5 rounds...same situation, we repeated the .2-.3 shift multiple times with 2 shooters at 100 yds and 1000 yds

300° Cryo should fix that
Actually, I had a buddy in Idaho with a 280 Rem mountain rifle. 3-4 shots and all was fine. The barrel would walk after that.
Same experience as yours.
He had the 300° people treat his barrel and it actually did help. I would still walk a little, but it was straight up and only about 1/2". Could have easily just been caused by the heat in the barrel.

Either way, he was pleased with the results.

 

[Gohring65]

So when we see differences in groups and other external ballistics when switching primers, is it the primer depth or the chemical make up of the compound changing things?
How is this all going to be measured without other factors possibly influencing the results. When making a standard, is it rail gun without human influence?
This rabbit hole is deep, but I’m thinking not that important. Most important would be consistent sizing and neck tension, my reasoning is, there’s guys out there winning matches by seating primers on the press.

 

[Bigfatcock]

So when we see differences in groups and other external ballistics when switching primers, is it the primer depth or the chemical make up of the compound changing things?
How is this all going to be measured without other factors possibly influencing the results. When making a standard, is it rail gun without human influence?
This rabbit hole is deep, but I’m thinking not that important. Most important would be consistent sizing and neck tension, my reasoning is, there’s guys out there winning matches by seating primers on the press.

It’s the chemical make up, cup thickness. You really need an explosives engineer to elaborate on the priming compound, detonation, etc.

When a primer is seated, it’s seated.

Whether seated on a Lee challenger, CPS,RCBS, hand primer, or with a punch like the old Lee whack-a-mole sets.

All you get from further seating is further crush. Does that crush aid in anything? I can’t prove it does or does not, but logical thinking makes me want to say no.

Now, if you have a tuned gun with a set firing pin travel and strike, then consistent seating is a tad more important, but only to the effect that it has to be fully seated to let the anvil do its thing.

To me, there are too many variables in the primer itself (mix, distribution, anvil placement, cup thickness, cup lip uniform) for me to be even remotely interested in chasing it. It’s a place where I truly do not see a benefit.

 

[Gohring65]

It’s the chemical make up, cup thickness. You really need an explosives engineer to elaborate on the priming compound, detonation, etc.

When a primer is seated, it’s seated.

Whether seated on a Lee challenger, CPS,RCBS, hand primer, or with a punch like the old Lee whack-a-mole sets.

All you get from further seating is further crush. Does that crush aid in anything? I can’t prove it does or does not, but logical thinking makes me want to say no.

Now, if you have a tuned gun with a set firing pin travel and strike, then consistent seating is a tad more important, but only to the effect that it has to be fully seated to let the anvil do its thing.

To me, there are too many variables in the primer itself (mix, distribution, anvil placement, cup thickness, cup lip uniform) for me to be even remotely interested in chasing it. It’s a place where I truly do not see a benefit.

I totally agree, all along the way there’s human influence. I just don’t see a way to measure the affect without violating a standard. Which no one has come of with a standard of measurement in the theory.
Is the flash holes uniform, same diameter? No burrs? Is there a kernel of powder in the flash hole resting on top of the anvil, is the next shot, no powder in there?
Where is the measurable standard.?
Is it a compressed load? Or is the powder allowed to slosh around in the case?

 

[Cascade Hemi]

What stands out in this discussion is the anecdotal nature of it and absence of fact. I have yet to see any fact, only anecdote concealed as fact.

 

[kthomas]

What stands out in this discussion is the anecdotal nature of it and absence of fact. I have yet to see any fact, only anecdote concealed as fact.

Which unfortunately is the case for pretty much all conversations that revolve around topics such as reloading and tuners.

 

[Mike Casselton]

IF, all my primer pockets were exactly the same depth and diameter.

IF, all my rim thickness' were EXACTLY the same.

IF, all my flash holes were burr free with the same diameter and length.

IF, all my primers were the same cup thickness, diameter and depth.

IF, all the anvils were set to the same depth.

IF, all the priming compound was identical in weight and energy.

IF, my priming tool had a set stop.

With all those IFs covered,
The CPS could probably prove its ability to make more accurate loads.

With all the IFs covered, it'll surely set each and every primer to the same exact depth. It doesn't have a choice since the stop is set at the end of its travel.

Sure, you can set it to completely crush your primer. You can set it to leave them flush or proud if you really want that.

Part of the issue is that Greg was saying it lowers ES/SD when used PROPERLY.

That is what many people have overlooked.

I don't recall if he said it makes for more accurate loads or that it can HELP in making more accurate ammunition.

For LR shooting, lowering ES/SD counts. Not so much in short range BR.

The key to any tool is using it properly.
Too many people don't commit to learning to use their tools. They just want to buy their game, like our golfer a few pages back.

If you're not a great shooter, the tool surely won't make worse ammunition.
It just might not help you until you learn to be a better driver...

For me, I fall back on its ability to consistently seat primers without making my hands hurt.

No, I still haven't ordered one.
It'll take a few more nightly wake-ups before I say, "screw this."

 

[kthomas]

Lowering ES/SD with primer seating and the CPS is one thing that I plan on testing further in my 6BRA.

My very cursory testing shows that there is certainly a possibility that it may do this - however, I need to do a lot more testing before I can be confident in such a statement.

ES/SD is an easy enough thing to test for. But I would like to have large sample sizes over multiple days of shooting (different environmentals) before I come to any conclusions for myself. And I have a lot of data from hand priming that I will be able to compare to.

 

[Baron23]

That is not all that high a bar....LOL

Haha….but better than you or I, right. Lol

 

[Gohring65]

Consistency definitely lowers SD, but how much would a hypothetical SD of 6 lowered to 4 make a difference.
I don’t see primer seating taking a SD of 15 and lower it to 5. But I’m also not going to dismiss the fact that every little bit of improvement adds up. But to buy a 600$ seater or what ever it cost to get my single digit es/sd a point or two lower seems silly. Especially if I took that money and put it into something else like a good reamer for matched barrel and dies. Or countless other things. I get that people might already have everything, so they could buy one to truly have everything.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

I know that you understand that this is not a point of Orkans priming sistem. He just say: 'try different seating depths and you will tune your primer''. but if you don't control primer pocket depth AND primer height this is bollocks.

You are trying to make claims based on assumptions that cannot be made. And you can't make the claim that pocket depth and primer height must be controlled or neither means anything. These are two variables that possess both some dependence AND some independence on each other.

EXAMPLE: How the firing pin interacts with the primer at impact has little to nothing to do with the primer pocket. This single aspect alone debunks your above claim.

for seating primer to the bottom with some crush I don't need 600$+ CPS that tells me some numbers, which have no meaning... this I do with RCBS universal hand priming tool for the press or with lee bench prime just as accurate as CPS.

Impossible.

This is simply a ridiculous claim. The other tools you claim to be able to use lack the precision to attain the level of repeatability the CPS will attain. Trying to claim otherwise just makes you look uninformed.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

I can name 1 engineer that says nodes are bullshit and move from day to day. Says OCW AND ladder testing aren't repeatable.
Scott Whitehead. Hes a member here but I forgot his sn. We had a lengthy phone convo about it last year.

Just because someone is an engineer does not mean they have any clue what they are talking about.

And this statement is coming from an engineer.

I have worked with complete idiots with PhDs, and absolute wizards that could barely write their name. A piece of paper on the wall has only limited bearing in the likelihood that someone is a true expert on a subject.

 

[Gohring65]

Nodes and anti-nodes can be tracked with slow motion cameras and correlated with results on paper. It’s easy to see course nodes. It’s hard to distinguish minute changes in those nodes with small things like primer pocket methodology, due to shortcomings in the platform and shooter.

 

[Bigfatcock]

At the end of the day if you shoot better with a potato in your pocket, then put a potato in your pocket.

 

[Ledzep]

Which part of OCW does he think is not re-peatbale? POI shift between powder charges? If I have learned one thing about OCW online, its that I can't trust anyone to actually know what it is, or how to set up the test. I have seen multiple people refer to their velocity tests over a chronograph as "OCW testing." Even more looking at group size.

I would want to see someone's tests who says OCW isn't repeatable, because I have found it to be repeatable, personally reshooting with the same results, and I have also seen other people's OCW tests with the same results. I have seen a lot of OCW tests showing a node around 41.5 of h4350 with a 140g bullet. Same with 43.2 of Varget and a 175. Same with 23.2 of 8208 and a 77smk. {these are of course dependent on what brass you have. Different brass will need different charge weights. That was probably the best part about only having 1 kind of brass for the 6.5 Creed for a long time. It really shined a light on the idea that there are nodes and they are repeatable from gun to gun.

IT seems to me we have moved into a realm where some people are saying harmonics don't effect accuracy, which is false. Some also seem to be under the impression that any powder charge will shoot just as good as any other, which is also false. What has been presented to the class, is that a bad load might night be much worse than a good one, so why waste your time if you can't shoot the difference. A lot of the class, took that to mean there is no such thing as good and bad loads, which is patently false.

If I take a powder ladder with 35 shots each... And I run 7x OCW tests, and they don't all achieve the same results.. okay...

What was the point?

It's the same story over and over again. Individual offers a 1, 3, or 5 shot method of load development to narrow down the best shooting load. I shoot 20x or 35x or 50x at each variation that the method suggests, and the method does not reliably give the best results. Even if the repetition of the method eventually AVERAGES to the best results, running the method a single time is a gamble.

You've been using the method for years and you're happy with it. How much does it matter then?

Don't get me wrong, a better shooting load is a better shooting load. Harmonics are real and it's blatantly apparent that changing mass distribution and rigidity of a barrel changes how it shoots.... Gotcha. MY beef is with how people "test" and believe the results of wishy-washy data sets. 5 shot groups are not repeatable, and do not reliably accurately represent anything of the population of shots of THAT load from THAT barrel without multiple repeats of the same "test" and then math applied to the averages...

 

[Bigfatcock]

I will say that I’m thankful when people experiment and take the time and effort to post their results. Whether anecdotal or empirical.

I’ll also add that if someone posts results, anyone refuting it should be doing the same test to see if they can repeat the results of the original experiment.

Until then, just about 90% of anything posted on all gun forums since the invention of the internet is anecdotal. Anecdotal is fine with me for these discussions.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Ive proved it makes a difference to myself in my own limited testing.

Its not ever going to be enough to convince anyone on here so I wont bother ever sharing it (which is the same conclusion most have arrived at after enough time on these forums, what you do provide people bitch about so fuck em)

Yeah, obviously that's the case....and it's really unfortunate because others naturally, also take that position which limits what the rest of us can learn from those like yourself who have a lot of real knowledge in reloading and shooting that we could benefit from. I don't blame you or anyone else for taking that position , that's what I do too in my area of expertise. It's just not worth all the Johnny know-it-alls or just shit stirring that follows.

While I do understand it, don't lose sight of the fact that there are also many many here who really appreciate the knowledge and real discussion , they just don't comment because they don't want to get piled on too. We generally know who actually knows what they are talking about and who just likes to stir the pot so, I hope that everyone who really does have good information to share will do so, for the rest of our benefit, and just ignore the wannabes.

 

[Baron23]

At the end of the day if you shoot better with a potato in your pocket, then put a potato in your pocket.

How about a kielbasi. I need to boost my visible profile! hahaha

Fire Sign Theatre (for old folks like me): "is that a gun in your pocket or are you glad to see me?" haha

 

[Gohring65]

The most positive thing out of this troll thread is civil informative discussion.
It’s funny how sometimes the simplest question about a product or method can turn into a flame fest shit storm, then other times it’s a sharing of over century of combined knowledge. It’s all dependent on the topic I guess.
Orkan won this round because he sparked discussion of methodologies.

 

[Choid]

View attachment 7800686

I will say that I’m thankful when people experiment and take the time and effort to post their results. Whether anecdotal or empirical.

I’ll also add that if someone posts results, anyone refuting it should be doing the same test to see if they can repeat the results of the original experiment.

Until then, just about 90% of anything posted on all gun forums since the invention of the internet is anecdotal. Anecdotal is fine with me for these discussions.

I'd only add that the scientific method should be about trying to test your hypothesis so stringently that you give yourself the best shot to falsify it, while most consumer products people tend to test their hypothesis as gently as possible so that they can claim to have proved it. Any time I hear the word "proved" red warning lights go off for me.

 

[MarkyMark007]

The most positive thing out of this troll thread is civil informative discussion.
It’s funny how sometimes the simplest question about a product or method can turn into a flame fest shit storm, then other times it’s a sharing of over century of combined knowledge. It’s all dependent on the topic I guess.
Orkan won this round because he sparked discussion of methodologies.

yeah look, people stoped neck sizing, stoped neck turning.
this decade is time for primer seating depth...

 

[Mike Casselton]

At the end of the day if you shoot better with a potato in your pocket, then put a potato in your pocket.

 

[cas6969]

The only thing I learned from this thread is people are still cleaning with Kroil.
I thought people swore that off in the late 80's. early 90s. Huh.

I mean, I already knew I hate seating primers, but I also knew I wasn't going to spend $650 on a tool to do it. $650? Are you kidding me? I could buy almost 600 primers for that!

 

[supercorndogs]

If I take a powder ladder with 35 shots each... And I run 7x OCW tests, and they don't all achieve the same results.. okay...

What was the point?

It's the same story over and over again. Individual offers a 1, 3, or 5 shot method of load development to narrow down the best shooting load. I shoot 20x or 35x or 50x at each variation that the method suggests, and the method does not reliably give the best results. Even if the repetition of the method eventually AVERAGES to the best results, running the method a single time is a gamble.

You've been using the method for years and you're happy with it. How much does it matter then?

Don't get me wrong, a better shooting load is a better shooting load. Harmonics are real and it's blatantly apparent that changing mass distribution and rigidity of a barrel changes how it shoots.... Gotcha. MY beef is with how people "test" and believe the results of wishy-washy data sets. 5 shot groups are not repeatable, and do not reliably accurately represent anything of the population of shots of THAT load from THAT barrel without multiple repeats of the same "test" and then math applied to the averages...

I guess first off I would want to see your tests.

Next I would ask you if you ran the same experiment 10 times, do you think you could get identical results each time? If you don't does that mean the hypothesis is disproven?

Do you remember doing labs in science class? How many peoples experiments failed? Did they disprove the science because they performed the expememnt wrong?

Last I am staring to wonder what you think OCW is. I am not even sure we are all the same page there. You aren't shooting 7 OCW tests with 35 rounds. And "powder ladders" don't have anything to do with OCW.

 

[Macht]

I guess first off I would want to see your tests.

Next I would ask you if you ran the same experiment 10 times, do you think you could get identical results each time? If you don't does that mean the hypothesis is disproven?

Do you remember doing labs in science class? How many peoples experiments failed? Did they disprove the science because they performed the expememnt wrong?

Last I am staring to wonder what you think OCW is. I am not even sure we are all the same page there. You aren't shooting 7 OCW tests with 35 rounds. And "powder ladders" don't have anything to do with OCW.

Ledzep has posted lots of his results if you're willing to go through his post history.

Are you implying that he is running his tests incorrectly? Because if you run an experiment 10 times (correctly) and get results that are different in a statistically significant sense, you absolutely should be rejecting your hypothesis that they should be the same.

OCW absolutely uses "powder ladders". What else do you call a series of uniformly increasing charge weights? It's clear that Ledzep means 35 rounds at each charge weight, which is exactly enough to run 7 OCW tests using 5 shot groups.