Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!
Create a channel Learn moreIt's much easier to see when the series of shots are all along a linier line. Given what we're looking at here, I'd test some loads between 41.6 and 42.0 to see.Hi guys....
For your experienced shooters. Where's the node on my 8 differents loads ?
6mm Creed
Berger 105 hybrid
H4350
.030 from lands
100 yards
Lapua brass
Thanks
This. 41.6 there abouts in thinner brass, like hornady. Around 40.6 in thicker brass like Lapua. Your POI looks quite stable across all charge weights. What's your barrel contour?40.9 is what I would verify with a larger sample size at distance
Interesting, isn't it, how a tuner can change the POI using the same powder charge?The ideas that all charge weights shoot the same is provabley false. The idea that all charges shoot to the same POI is proveably false. What some people are referring to as a node is an area where a small change in powder weight doesnt change POI.
Then how do you explain this?I can only speak for myself, but I’m not misunderstanding or missing anything.
Guys who believe in “nodes”, believe tuners actually do anything (they don’t), and who still shoot ladders for any reason besides seeing what speed a given charge yields, are just refusing to accept the truth: it’s all BS and their sample-size is too small to prove shit.
Speed affects trajectory (which can have an effect on POI), that’s all it is.
You're gonna have to expand on that one for me. "Speed effects trajectory which can effect POI." I.E. How does speed effect trajectory and how does that effect POI.Speed affects trajectory (which can have an effect on POI), that’s all it is.
Here we go.Then how do you explain this?
Same load and virtually identical velocities, only changes in tuner setting (and it's repeatable):
View attachment 8468750
Don't waste band width. Explain it. So far we have.Here we go.
Then how do you explain this?
Same load and virtually identical velocities, only changes in tuner setting (and it's repeatable):
View attachment 8468750
Not hardly.
Then how do you explain this?
Same load and virtually identical velocities, only changes in tuner setting (and it's repeatable):
View attachment 8468750
Your post is pure projection. Just a short time ago you were telling us the amp was the magic sauce that shrinks groups. Now youre the resident statistics expert crucified.Look, the problem here is that whenever any kind of shit like this pops up around here, inevitably a handful of true believers come out with knives and torches and line up to yell some form of: you don't know shit/I've been doing this longer than you've been peeing standing up/that's the way I've always done it/look at my less than statistically useful number of pieces of cardboard with holes in it/etc..........
Except, those guys are the ones that don't know shit, because they believe they already have it figured out and can no longer learn. So who gives a shit that none of what they cite as proof is statistically relevant? It's a Rorschach test, and they will see what they wanna see, period. And, for some reason, they need other people to believe too... So they keep preaching their BS on forums like this over and over so the myth never dies and they can recruit morecult-members shooters to agree with them.
Well-thought-out brass prep and dropping every charge to the kernel is really all it takes. There's no magic load, if you can make every round come out the same as the next and it doesn't shoot, you're the problem.
That would be nice if anyone want to shoot that many rounds out of a gun that shoots in the .1's. There are many different examples that have shown the same sine wave pattern (e.g. https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/tuner-test-results-confusing.4085273/page-4#post-38561382; https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/tuner-test-results-confusing.4085273/page-5#post-38563333). If one isn't able to shoot such small groups where the pattern is easy to see, it can be a little difficult to see it. . . unless one uses software like OnTarget to get the Mean Radius of the groups and see those centers and how they relate.It would be interesting to see the following done:
Step 1. Shoot 15 groups with the tuner in one static position. [Control Group]
Step 2. Shoot 15 groups, each group at a different tuner position (like what you have posted here) [Variable testing]
Step 3. Repeat Step #2. [Variable testing repeated]
And then compare the control group to the groups in which the variable is introduced. The control group should establish a baseline for much POI changes without changing a tuner. Step 2 and Step 3, when compared to the control group, would show how much the tuner settings affect POI, and if those POI changes are repeatable.
That would be nice if anyone want to shoot that many rounds out of a gun that shoots in the .1's. There are many different examples that have shown the same sine wave pattern (e.g. https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/tuner-test-results-confusing.4085273/page-4#post-38561382; https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/tuner-test-results-confusing.4085273/page-5#post-38562235). If one isn't able to shoot such small groups where the pattern is easy to see, it can be a little difficult to see it. . . unless one uses software like OnTarget to get the Mean Radius of the groups and see those centers and how they relate.
View attachment 8469026
I understand this statistical issue you're talking about. It's particularly true when trying to determine how much or how little dispersion one can depend on.You can't draw the conclusions you and others are drawing without shooting more.
Testing with such limited sample sizes are incredibly limited in which conclusions can be drawn. There's no way around that, except to shoot more.
I understand this statistical issue you're talking about. It's particularly true when trying to determine how much or how little dispersion one can depend on.
I can tell you for sure, it doesn't take much to see how a tuner can move the POI. Just a few weeks ago I was shooting my favorite .308 loads that I usually get around .4" (some a little higher, some lower). This was a hot morning and my POI was not where it usually is. I decided to change my tuner setting by a couple increments. The first shot POI with that setting went way high and left. I looked over to my shooting buddy and shrugged my shoulders thinking I just somehow pulled a bad shot. Focusing on my best mechanics, the next two shot went right up where that first one went. I was so surprised that particular tuner adjustment moved the shot so far. So, I moved the tuner setting back to where it was, and voila, POI went right back to where it was.
Seeing my POI move when I'm working up a load is easy to see. . . all the time. It's just like those pics I posted above.
I've tried the Positive Compensation Method and couldn't see or determine anything useful. . . but I only did it at 100 yds. I have to try it 300 yds or more when I can find a day when the atmospherics are suitable. Maybe at distance, it'll be easier to see what's going on.I'm not so much in disagreement about tuners changing POI.
However, I do find the hypothesis of using positive compensation to increase precision to be highly dubious and undertested.
So people are just throwing powder charges til we hit the speed we want and run with it? Is that what the other side of the argument is saying?
That's how I do it these days .. tweak seating depth a bit maybe
I heard Bryan Litz say on a podcast that he does pretty much that. Find max, back off a bit, maybe seating depth, but mostly focusing on consistency of reloading. I did it on my 300nm and it works great.
Not many shooters will really benefit in going after "nodes" due to the typical shooting that's done. Companies build for and market to the masses.Hornady same thing.
There's an interesting trend amongst companies that do extensive testing on ballistics. You'll typically find that they don't search for "nodes".
Not many shooters will really benefit in going after "nodes" due to the typical shooting that's done. Companies build for and market to the masses.
Me personally I do a ladder test to just basically find the velocity I’m looking for. But I do seating depth test at 500yds and go with whichever one gives me the best groups along with good SD’s. Right or wrong it’s worked for me
Then how do you explain this?
Same load and virtually identical velocities, only changes in tuner setting (and it's repeatable):
View attachment 8468750
It has more like 0-30 "settings". . . though there's not a stop at each setting, so it can be set in-between numbers if one chooses. And it's not a full revolution.Any chance that test represents a little over 1 full revolution of the tuner? Like there are 10-12 settings per rev?
edited after a closer look.
Yes, velocity affects trajectory (ask Siri). IDK what’s so funny?You still squawking Mr velocity effects trajectory and that can effect POI? How many shots do you use to zero your rifle? How many shots do you need to determine your rifle is not zeroed? How many shots you think you need to see s POI shift....
Because the POI shifts at 100y are bigger than the velocity swings could cause. And because you never answered how that explanation could cause a POI shift at 100 yards. You just threw a fit and stapled yourself to a cross.Yes, velocity affects trajectory (ask Siri). IDK what’s so funny?
And it usually takes me 1 round to zero my rifle, any more beyond that is to confirm zero.