If someone is experiencing noticeable POI shifts at 100 yards, then they’d be better off double checking that nothing on their rifle system is loose, making sure their parallax isn’t off, and/or maybe looking in the mirror (poor NPA).
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Where's the node ?
- Thread starter Az4z3L
- Start date
If someone is experiencing noticeable POI shifts at 100 yards, then they’d be better off double checking that nothing on their rifle system is loose, making sure their parallax isn’t off, and/or maybe looking in the mirror (poor NPA).
except no one has won yet. Watching intently lol.
Im an idiot who wants to learn. Why did you choose 40.9? Is that based on the location of the center of groups not moving between the charges higher and lower than it? In other words, with OCW tests you look for consistent POI across a range of loads and settle near the middle of the range? And the point of this is to have maximum consistency in POI at long range., do I have that right?
What if, in this scenario, the group for 40.9 wasn't a ragged hole, but instead had the same POI but had opened up to 1.5". Now what do you do? Is the current thinking that charge weight has no bearing on precision? I think thats the part everybody struggles with because we've all seen a rifle that shoots meh groups until you hit a charge weight where things tighten up suddenly.
I would pretty much guarantee that if you loaded up a bunch of rounds of 40.9 and a bunch of rounds of any of the other charge weights (even the worse ones), and shot some 5x5's - that the groups would start to look very similar.
Yes, above and below hit the same relative locations (not a whole lot of drift even at the extremes shown) and it shot nice and did so at a lower pressure load than the higher charge weight that made a nice hole as well.
If it ballooned up to 1.5" next time out you would need to revaluate your loading technique or your shooting position/platform. Because based on all targets shot being a long ways off you would have something else going on to make that drastic of a difference.
So, why would anyone need to rezero at 100 yards for a diffrent load? Why do some loads shoot better than others at 100 yards? For that matter if that's the only thing at play. Why would two bullets need a diffrent zero? Why would a certain powder shoot better than another?
If we define “zeroing our rifle” as adjusting our scopes so that POA = POI, then obviously a different load would need its own zero if POA no longer matched POI (completely normal).
What is not completely normal is expecting a different load that uses more/less fuel (powder) to somehow defy the laws of physics and shoot the same as another that uses a different amount of fuel.
More/less fuel = different velocity = different trajectory… I mean, that’s just how NASA does it, but what do they know?
What is not completely normal is expecting a different load that uses more/less fuel (powder) to somehow defy the laws of physics and shoot the same as another that uses a different amount of fuel.
More/less fuel = different velocity = different trajectory… I mean, that’s just how NASA does it, but what do they know?
If we define “zeroing our rifle” as adjusting our scopes so that POA = POI, then obviously a different load would need its own zero if POA no longer matched POI (completely normal).
What is not completely normal is expecting a different load that uses more/less fuel (powder) to somehow defy the laws of physics and shoot the same as another that uses a different amount of fuel.
More/less fuel = different velocity = different trajectory… I mean, that’s just how NASA does it, but what do they know?
"If we define our zero as..." We know what a zero is. 
Resident statistics expert turned nasa rocket scientist. We know diffrent loads shoot to diffrent poi. We know diffrent charges of the same powder shoot to a diffrent poi. I asked why based your explantion of ballistics would they? You tell me it's the shooters fault if a diffrent charge weight produces a diffrent POI. Then tell me it's the laws of physics two loads shoot to a diffent poi because the amount of feul is diffrent.
then compare it all to rockets giving me further inclination to think you have no idea what you are talking about. Hell you might even be so confused you're not purposely dancing around the questions. 100 yards is not enough distance for several hundred fps to cause the diffrence. If it was just an airspeed thing, your 100y zero would only move up and down due to bullet drop. But if your barrel was pointing somewhere diffrent at bullet exit based on things. That would explain it. I tried to walk you into it but you were like deaf kid playing Marko Pollo.
But how much of that is the “truth” of the matter exposing itself vs being the end result of all the other variables like shooter hold, wind, barrel fouling, recoil management, etc etc adding up to bury real trends with noise?
You’d have to be shooting in the Houston Warehouse with a bench rifle in a machine rest to see the truth on load development. Aren’t the BR guys constantly tweaking charge weight to win? They load the rounds right at the match. If load development is as simple as pick a velocity and make quality ammo then why do they bother with that?
That's a fair question - but then, how can you trust anything?
If 3-5 shots per variable can't statistically provide the conclusions you seek, and if you can't consistently shoot statistically relevant sample sizes, where does that leave you as a shooter? What conclusions can you draw? If you can't shoot the difference, does it even matter?
In regards to BR shooters, just because they (or anyone else for that matter) has a specific process, that doesn't mean that process works. BR is plagued with as much superstition, myth and lore as any other discipline. Probably more.
Yeah but they shoot in the 1s. So their process does work. Hard to ignore that.
The facts are:
-2 different load recipes can have dramatically different POI, like 3+MOA different.
-2 different load recipes can have dramatically different grouping precision
-yet we’re now told that varying just the powder charge of a single powder/bullet combo can’t possibly effect our precision or POI and all our 0.5 moa groups are statistically insignificant because we didn’t include the effects of 7 fliers over the course of 75 additional rounds to see and recognize that we suck lol.
I absolutely could be wrong about all of this. I would have discounted this as bullshit from the beginning if it came from anyone but Hornady. But for them to say it gets my attention, because they BENEFIT from people doing load development!! By claiming there isn’t anything to it, they slit their own throat somewhat. But I’ve seen too many load development successes to sign off on it all being a statistical anomaly or confirmation bias. So now I’m completely lost in a wilderness of the unknown.
"They" also don't shoot with sample sizes large enough to draw the conclusions they are drawing.
It doesn't matter how good you or your gun shoots if you don't have a test that has a large enough sample size to draw the conclusions you want to draw.
And yes, POI changes with loads. However, just because a POI changes, that doesn't mean precision does or doesn't. There's a lot of variables at play, and determining how internal ballistics affects external ballistics is much more complicated and difficult to test than the majority of shooters give it credit for.
But for those that think there's a magical powder charge or "node", that shoots much better than the load that's 0.2 grains different - I have a vaccine to sell you.
correlation is not causation.
The BR guys have guns that shoot amazing. IMO basically due to natural dispersion they get some groups that are bigger and some that are smaller.
You wouldn’t know you’ve never shot benchrest. Easy to dismiss something you’ve never done or tried.
We know diffrent loads shoot to diffrent poi. We know diffrent charges of the same powder shoot to a diffrent poi. I asked why based your explantion of ballistics would they? You tell me it's the shooters fault if a diffrent charge weight produces a diffrent POI. Then tell me it's the laws of physics two loads shoot to a diffent poi because the amount of feul is diffrent.
100 yards is not enough distance for several hundred fps to cause the diffrence. If it was just an airspeed thing, your 100y zero would only move up and down due to bullet drop. But if your barrel was pointing somewhere diffrent at bullet exit based on things. That would explain it. I tried to walk you into it but you were like deaf kid playing Marko Pollo.
If you haven’t heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect before, you might want to look into it… because it’s used to explain people like you who believe everything they think.
If you haven’t heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect before, you might want to look into it… because it’s used to explain people like you who believe everything they think.
Nah he’s right. You’re being an idiot trying to blame velocity at 100 yards.
IDK what you’re talking about? Velocity is just ONE variable out of myriad possibilities…
You guys who believe in myth and lore over fact and science are the ones who should be doing the explaining, and none of you have proven shit.
It's true I haven't shot BR. But that doesn't negate the facts. BR groups are scored in aggregate so that means they shot some big some small any charge will produce some large and some small. BR shooters correlate the powder charge to group size based on one group even though the groups stay with in the natural dispersion of the system.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about a group you’ve spent zero time around. And a sport you have zero experience with.
You should go to a benchrest match sometime you’ll learn a lot and be impressed by what some of the guys are doing. Hell, show up and compete and watch those statistics stack up against you b
Oh fuckin ay. Now you you guys are experts in bench rest too.
And all the OP did was ask for help with his OCW.
O.P Sorry I highjacked your thread for two pages trying to walk another memeber to a simple fact. You can see why many of us ask questions via PM. To people with knowledge and experience.
And all the OP did was ask for help with his OCW.
O.P Sorry I highjacked your thread for two pages trying to walk another memeber to a simple fact. You can see why many of us ask questions via PM. To people with knowledge and experience.
I still say the OP loads up 25 rounds of two different loads here.
Load up 25 rounds of the "worst" looking group (40.6) and load up 25 rounds of the "best" group (41.8).
Shoot a couple of 5x5's, and see how the averages of each charge weight compares. Shoot one group of each back to back, until the 5x5's are completed.
I bet that the answer becomes a lot less clear, and any "nodes" suddenly vanish.
Load up 25 rounds of the "worst" looking group (40.6) and load up 25 rounds of the "best" group (41.8).
Shoot a couple of 5x5's, and see how the averages of each charge weight compares. Shoot one group of each back to back, until the 5x5's are completed.
I bet that the answer becomes a lot less clear, and any "nodes" suddenly vanish.
The logical, though farcical, conclusion to the "charge weights don't affect group size' argument is that any combination of reloading components will produce the same results in the same gun; so long as the finished ammunition is held to the same QC standards.
The TL
R argument...
"OK, so charge weight affects velocity?"
"Yes."
"And, velocity affects point of impact?"
"Yeah."
"So, charge weight affects point of impact."
"No."
"WTF."
The TL
R argument..."OK, so charge weight affects velocity?"
"Yes."
"And, velocity affects point of impact?"
"Yeah."
"So, charge weight affects point of impact."
"No."
"WTF."
The logical, though farcical, conclusion to the "charge weights don't affect group size' argument is that any combination of reloading components will produce the same results in the same gun; so long as the finished ammunition is held to the same QC standards.
The TL
"OK, so charge weight affects velocity?"
"Yes."
"And, velocity affects point of impact?"
"Yeah."
"So, charge weight affects point of impact."
"No."
"WTF."
The argument is much more nuanced than that.
But if you think you have some charge weight "node", you should load up 25 rounds of your so-called "node" and compare it to 25 rounds of a random charge weight.
If a "node" exists, you aren't finding it with a simple 3 round test. I promise you that.
I don't believe in the "node" hypothesis, as championed by those that shoot 1 round at several charges and look for a flat spot in the curve. That's some high test bull shit.
If 25 rounds at 1 weight and 25 at another weight will print the same groups when shot against each other, then 25 of mixed charge weight will print the same groups as well. And if that is the case, why use a scale capable of 3 decimal place accuracy? A Lee powder dipper (no affiliation) is more than sufficient...
If you're only shooting at 100 yards, then yeah, SD/ES doesn't matter. You can have a spread of 100 fps and still put bullets in the same hole.
If you are shooting at varying distances, including 1,000+ yards, then having a digital scale capable of 3 decimal place accuracy would start to show some benefits.
@hlee also IME powder charge can affect POI, not sure if it's barrel timing or what but it does have an affect so large variance in powder charge will affect group size
D if
I can not believe you are spewing the same garbage you were a while back , you make ammo and your supposed to be the be all on internal ballistics .Most of you guns don’t change tune guys really have never shot the discipline that you have all your BS about . Your just a bunch of kids who want to sound relevant . By your posts all over the boards you claim to know everything about everything. What a joke , you are all about views , not real info . You are not fooling anybody. We know guns go out of tune, we know there are nodes , and I have explained why in great detail , but yet you ignore and keep spewing your bullshit . Grow up and get a life .
Last edited:
Actual scientists: "Nodes don't exist and here are the tests we conducted to prove it along with the results"
Tuner/ Node people: "It's 100% real and I can prove it"
Internet: "Ok show us your tests and results"
Tuner/ Node people: "here is some 3-5 shot groups, maybe 20 rounds"
Internet & scientists "That isn't statistically significant"
Tuner/ Node people: "Fuck you, you’re dumb"
Tuner/ Node people: "It's 100% real and I can prove it"
Internet: "Ok show us your tests and results"
Tuner/ Node people: "here is some 3-5 shot groups, maybe 20 rounds"
Internet & scientists "That isn't statistically significant"
Tuner/ Node people: "Fuck you, you’re dumb"
Last edited:
Man, I've gone full circle on the "node" stuff. It exists, it doesn't exist, why am I doing load development...oh shit - that's the one etc...
I've come to realize that there are multiple camps, across multiple disciplines. Some dudes favor statistics*, some dudes listen strictly to the guys who win... The only for sure facts that I know are: 1) *Shooter skill plays a huge role, and all of us suck more than we think. 2) Everyone who thinks that anyone who does it differently is an idiot.
At this point, I have too much anecdotal evidence in my personal reloading venture to believe that powder charge weight and seating depth are irrelevant to accuracy. But I will say that their impact is less significant than component selection, reloading consistency, and marksmanship fundamentals.
I hate the word "node", and found it bothersome when everyone (who is now a statistician) was regurgitating the Saterlee method. Give it another decade, and I bet we have another new trend that allows us to 'motherfuck' each other in the forums and question everyone else's intelligence.
For now, I'm back to doing what I was years ago and it seems to be working out somehow. *With the exception that I have now started annealing first, before resizing, and my last 250 cases have felt much more uniform going over the mandrel.
I've come to realize that there are multiple camps, across multiple disciplines. Some dudes favor statistics*, some dudes listen strictly to the guys who win... The only for sure facts that I know are: 1) *Shooter skill plays a huge role, and all of us suck more than we think. 2) Everyone who thinks that anyone who does it differently is an idiot.
At this point, I have too much anecdotal evidence in my personal reloading venture to believe that powder charge weight and seating depth are irrelevant to accuracy. But I will say that their impact is less significant than component selection, reloading consistency, and marksmanship fundamentals.
I hate the word "node", and found it bothersome when everyone (who is now a statistician) was regurgitating the Saterlee method. Give it another decade, and I bet we have another new trend that allows us to 'motherfuck' each other in the forums and question everyone else's intelligence.
For now, I'm back to doing what I was years ago and it seems to be working out somehow. *With the exception that I have now started annealing first, before resizing, and my last 250 cases have felt much more uniform going over the mandrel.
Good points , some of these posters feel the need to insult and stupify any posters that try to help without even shooting the discipline and while demanding date have yet to post any data themselves. None of them have even posted a singe shred of data . Then there are the statistical guys that start out by saying you COULD be wrong and are now saying you ARE wrong when shooting less than 20 shot groups and melting down your barrel . Just ridiculous . Then you have a actual scientist who has admittedly never used a tuner and does not have a clue what a tuner effects saying there are no changes from a turn of a tuner so the do not work as a absolute because he shot a lot of groups and it its science . Does not mean they don’t work , it just means there is no bending to adjust on these particular exit times on those particular guns .Same with nodes . A node is simply a intersection .. There are many nodes going on in a single firing sequence . When a group shoots tight ,that is a node at the target meaning no bending or random dispersion . When a node is at the muzzle , that is a intersection of frequencies meaning the least lateral movement but has the highest angular movement . Then there is the node in which velocities vary the least with powder charge change . Then there is a node in a frequency that is at the mid point of a movement and when it is above or below the spot is the anti
node . To say that none of these exist is physically impossible . As to the original poster if your groups are hitting the same height the barrel is not bending and the is nothing to do with nodes . It means it will shoot good with any charge . If your groups grow with powder charge then that is high frequency at the muzzle meaning is has a extremely high lateral movement at the muzzle when the bullet is released causing it to wobble . Nothing to do with nodes . Good luck to all of the shooters who want to learn but watch out for the trolls as these forums are full of them . They live for starting arguments .
The issue behind the term "node" is that it implies a point of specificity in which a load shoots its absolute best.
IMO, people get fooled into seeking out this singularity in powder charge in which a load is at its absolute optimum, which doesn't necessarily exist.
Internal ballistics is complicated, and our control of the variables is very limited. You can't control all of the variables to the level required to find this singularity, but even if you could, I don't believe this singularity exists.
You can be fooled into thinking you've found this singularity with small sample sizes, but open up that sample size and things all of a sudden get a lot more complicated.
Some combinations certainly work better than others. But I don't think it's as simple as one singularity of charge weight shooting better than others.
And if anyone wants to test this, load up 25 rounds of any so-called "node" you've found in your 3 round testing, and load up 25 rounds of an anti-node. Shoot some 5x5's and see if that "node" is still a node.
I'm still looking for someone here to explain why changes in a tuner on a barrel produces a sine wave like this, which tuners can reproduced:
Barrels vibrate in a sinusoidal fashion much like a tuning fork or more precisely like a cantilevered beam (for a free floated barrel). The tuner in theory changes the frequency of the vibration so the bullet leaves the barrel when it is pointed in a different direction as the weight of the tuner is moved either towards or away from a given point. A similar response is often seen when changing powder charge. The flatter portions of the graph are the points where the barrel is moving slower and changing directions. In this case the barrel time is being held essentially constant but the direction the barrel is pointed in is changing with the tuner setting.
The above explanation is one explanation of the pattern seen. Whether or not it is what is actually happening on this test is not obvious. The degree to which a tuner is going to affect the barrel harmonics is going to be a function of the barrel itself (weight & length) and also the stock/chassis it is mounted in.
I will make a comment based on the assumption that the response shown above is repeatable. If a shooter found and shot a load combination that based on group size corresponded to Point 5 then the tuner would allow him to adjust the rifle for changes in velocity due to temperature changes. On the other hand, if he chose Points 3 or 9 the tuner will not have much effect for a consistent load (basically an OCW load).
Hope this helps. I personally have no experience with tuners. My personal opinion is they may work, more so on lighter barrels then heavy barrels and that separating the actual effect from the background noise (variations in POI) is probably going to be difficult, especially for the heavier barrels used in most LR disciplines.
Last edited:
Hi, I’m Holliday and I’m a reload-oholic….
I have been loading since 2012 and tried most of the “fads”. I have had excellent loads, and utter frustration. I have about 1000000x more information than I did in 2012 with respect to load development, but frankly, I find it all conflicting.
I find it hard to feel that I have really progressed much at all in anything other than my reloading procedures. But even there, my annealing often leaves me feeling like I might be annealing too much or not enough. My SD and ES are never where I think they should be, though I am crossing all my Ts and dotting all my i s.
I have Quick Load & Litz’s books. I have looked seriously at “barrel time” and sometimes it lines up on “good loads” and sometimes it doesn’t. I really enjoy Brian’s scientific take on all of this.
Most of the time I’ve left to feel like a bumbling idiot, that’s just hoping it one day it will all come together.
One thing I am sure about is that this is a science NOT mysticism. I think one day we will come to something more solid and predictable. Only question is, will I still be alive? We’re burning daylight here……
Do it every day and the nodes are there , they do not disappear . No one only counts 3 shot groups or only fires one or two groups . 5x5 has worked well and all of the shooters already do this .but you say they don’t. But you are preaching 20 -30 shot groups and now you change you posture . I am not surprised . You can cover up any improvements with enough mistakes and according to you no one can control variables or test properly. Pure BS.
Dude you need a Xanax or something.
I'm not talking about you or your tuners. I'm talking to the OP about his charge weights and potential "nodes".
Well said. It is about science and not mysticism. One of the frustrations that we have is when we test we violate one of the basic rules of testing, that is change only one variable at a time. Unfortunately we change everything on each succesive shot. We try to eliminate those things but the fact remains we cannot duplicate each item so there are variations that show up due to those that we call noise. The result is that often times what we observe is noise or is due to sampling size probabilities. One of the things that has happened recently is that more attention is paid on these aspects in the small arms realm than in the past as the ability of equipment and shooters extending the use of these arms at extended ranges. I would recommend you read Ammunition Demystified by Jeff Siewert. He dives deeply into the various aspects of internal ballistics that affect overall precision.Hi, I’m Holliday and I’m a reload-oholic….
I have been loading since 2012 and tried most of the “fads”. I have had excellent loads, and utter frustration. I have about 1000000x more information than I did in 2012 with respect to load development, but frankly, I find it all conflicting.
I find it hard to feel that I have really progressed much at all in anything other than my reloading procedures. But even there, my annealing often leaves me feeling like I might be annealing too much or not enough. My SD and ES are never where I think they should be, though I am crossing all my Ts and dotting all my i s.
I have Quick Load & Litz’s books. I have looked seriously at “barrel time” and sometimes it lines up on “good loads” and sometimes it doesn’t. I really enjoy Brian’s scientific take on all of this.
Most of the time I’ve left to feel like a bumbling idiot, that’s just hoping it one day it will all come together.
One thing I am sure about is that this is a science NOT mysticism. I think one day we will come to something more solid and predictable. Only question is, will I still be alive? We’re burning daylight here……
One thing that aggravates the whole situation is the increased difficulty and cost of getting reloading components. Then there is the wait for things like new barrels, having moved to calibers that burn barrels quicker.
Always looking to use the “your weakness, is your superpower” philosophy, I had hoped the upside would be refinements in terms of getting from point A to shooting a solid accurate load quicker and with the use of less components. I really haven’t seen a consensus on this. So we all too often feel the need to change more than one variable to save components. But alas, this in turn, likely causes us to use even more components.
This. Changing POI is irrelevant, as long as the shooter knows what the POI is. Group size with a statistically sound number of data points is the goal. Hell, I can crank my turrets and make the POI go anywhere I want.
In my experience if you get poi change especially if the slower groups are trending down that is never good. What that means is if you have a slow shot it will be aimed lower and you will be fighting vertical unless you have perfectly level velocities. What I want to see is all groups hitting level so when a fast or slow shot happens it dies not leave the group. If the barrel is not bending the shots even with 250 fps difference should not be hitting lower to any noticeable degree . That is known as a parallel node. Just my experience.
I don’t think anyone’s said changing a weight on the end won’t potentially change POI, at least no one with any clue.
The argument said is that changing that weight isn’t changing the group as much as small sample sizes indicates, if someone were to shoot larger samples
That if someone were to take that rifle and shoot setting 0, 7, 8, 10, 14 for larger samples, all the settings would look very similar on average over time…some 3 hole clovers and some ragged single holes, and a bunch in between
also, where most of my stance lies…all those groups are from what .3s to .1s?
There ain’t nothin in that whole set magically moving from 1 moa to 1/4 moa or 3/4 moa to single hole….it shifts the POI notably more than the group size. It was likely shot with a ridiculously accurate BR rifle setup, with a great shooter handling the rifle. Not someone off a bipod with a squeeze bag. That being repeatable is believable, in my opinion.
whats not believable is the typical tuner on a field rifle with a guy shooting a bunch of 1/4 to 1.5 moa 3-5 shot groups and claiming moving the tuner 3 ticks shrunk his groups to ragged hole BR accuracy territory, all day long.
Also to note… that test looks similar to what my testing of tuners looked like
Yes the POI moved, but the group sizes were so similar it was irrelevant.
I dont care if the POI moves up or down if the precision stays similar…once I zero the scope and start dialing it to hit things at various distances, that’s not particularly useful.
Yes the POI moved, but the group sizes were so similar it was irrelevant.
I dont care if the POI moves up or down if the precision stays similar…once I zero the scope and start dialing it to hit things at various distances, that’s not particularly useful.
I've seen similar changes in POI by placing/moving mass on the barrel. Also no discernable impact on dispersion.
I do routinely see changes in dispersion by swapping muzzle devices, though. Brakes/suppressors/bore diameters etc... I tend to think it's more of a muzzle exit gas flow thing than a harmonic thing but I could be wrong.
I do routinely see changes in dispersion by swapping muzzle devices, though. Brakes/suppressors/bore diameters etc... I tend to think it's more of a muzzle exit gas flow thing than a harmonic thing but I could be wrong.
If you are interested in the gas flow at the exit of the aperture, I believe Mac Bros has done a lot of their own testing on the subject. They may be worth reaching out to.
