Wondering how much time we’re wasting?

[Gunmack]

After reading the three volumes of Bryan Litz’s series on “Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting” I’m starting to wonder if there’s an intentional effort among component makers to make reloading more complicated than it needs to be(major profit motive). From a statistical perspective there doesn’t seem to be a truly efficient way to arrive at an ideal load for a chambered barrel without exhausting a significant portion of it’s effective lifespan.

My takeaway is that you should load for desired muzzle velocity with best practices in mind. Test a series of loads for an indication of ideal barrel harmonics and then go about shooting your rifle. Learn to read the wind and practice for positional shooting.

Are we wasting far to much on chasing something that isn’t obtainable? That being the, “ideal load”?

All thoughts welcome.

 

[Matches Malone]

After reading the three volumes of Bryan Litz’s series on “Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting” I’m starting to wonder if there’s an intentional effort among component makers to make reloading more complicated than it needs to be(major profit motive). From a statistical perspective there doesn’t seem to be a truly efficient way to arrive at an ideal load for a chambered barrel without exhausting a significant portion of it’s effective lifespan.

My takeaway is that you should load for desired muzzle velocity with best practices in mind. Test a series of loads for an indication of ideal barrel harmonics and then go about shooting your rifle. Learn to read the wind and practice for positional shooting.

Are we wasting far to much on chasing something that isn’t obtainable? That being the, “ideal load”?

All thoughts welcome.

If you’re a beginner, amateur, or generally can operate within the accuracy of say, factory ammo, which isn’t all THAT bad these days…then yes. You’re wasting you’re time probably.

That said, this forum is crawling with competitors and otherwise over achievers that want to push their accuracy to the next level. There’s nothing wrong with that if you have the time and money.

In the various disciplines of long range shooting, I don’t reckon not one of them is cheap. Precision handloads in single digit ES’s is often the next logical step.

 

[secondofangle2]

The smartest thing to do is to find a caliber with a certain bullet and velocity that is well tested and broadly effective in terms of accuracy based on prior reports. A 338 Lapua magnum with a 285ELD and 92 grains of RETUMBO is one such load. There are similar loads w 140 grain bullets and a 6.5 with approximately 40 or 41 grains of H4350. For 50 BMG it’s an AMAX and 235 grains of RL50. Such loads - that have outstanding performance in a large percentage of guns/barrels/shooters - exist for many calibers/cartridges. But everybody always wants to get exotic and chase the latest unicorn and push it to Mach 3.1 and that’s where the trouble starts.

 

[OREGUN]

You are absolutely correct.

 

[John Glidewell]

Quick load and barrel times, easy button. Bryan says to find safe max and back off 1.5 to 2 grains and find the sweet spot in there. Using QL there is always a barrel time right in that area.

 

[ITR_98_111]

I’ve found noslers “most accurate” load to be really close in most cases, not sure how many people use their info, but it’s very good and it’s free

 

[longrange772]

Hear! Hear! I started reloading with a Lee Breech Lock kit for basic reloading but got interested in precision shooting later. That is where the rabbit hole started. Neck sizing, don't neck size, seating depth but don't chase lands, barrel break in, no barrel break in, velocity nodes, OWC, ladder testing, neck tension, primer seating depth, clean barrel every range trip, let your barrel tell when it needs cleaning. Dizzying. After reading some of the threads, you start to think why even bother shooting if you don't have an Area 419 reloading press, AutoTrickler, AMP Annealer, etc. Those are all bad ass tools and on a wish list but I found with decent powder, bullets and brass I can get single digit SD still using my Lee Breech Lock. My only upgrade has been getting a Chargemaster to speed up my dispensing time. No doubt nicer tools can make life easier but don't always make groups smaller.

 

[Mainer]

I agree to a point, but some enjoy the chase as much as the kill.

So many different components to play with!

 

[Aftermath]

My takeaway is that you should load for desired muzzle velocity with best practices in mind. Test a series of loads for an indication of ideal barrel harmonics and then go about shooting your rifle. Learn to read the wind and practice for positional shooting.

This is pretty much what I do. I want the fastest I can safely fire but I do want accuracy. I find max charge with the bullet on the lands. Then I back away looking for a tighter group. I then check for max charge again at this new CBTO. Often the charge doesn't change or a change is detrimental to accuracy. I'm generally dialed in with about 100 rounds down the new tube.

 

[Haney]

Searching for that perfect load is part of the fun . I don't see it as a waste of time at all .

 

[supercorndogs]

The caveat to that is probably the "ideal load" part of it. It doesn't take long to find a good enough load. In the field you aren't going to shoot the difference between, optimum and good, depending on the rifle and shooter one might not even be able to outshoot a bad load in the field. I look for a decent range of charge weight with a stable POI, then tune seating depth if necessary. If nothing looks good, I change bullets.

 

[DellaDog]

Thinking I’d find *the* ideal loads for each caliber I shoot, I’ve spent a lot of time playing the OCW game.

Turns out they all led to common loads (over several barrels within a tenth or two grain difference):

223 : 77 - 80 SMK, 24.0 Varget
6 BRA : 105 Hybrid, 30.5 H4895 (add a grain for Varget)
6.5 CM : 140 Hybrid, 41.5 H4350
300 PRC : 230 Hybrid, 76.0 RL 26

Every barrel revealed the same.
I don’t play the game anymore - I believe every combination has an ideal load already discovered.

 

[Twinsen]

All powders are temp sensitive. All steels behave differently at different temperatures.

On different days, in different amounts of shade on the barrel and ammo, the ammo will perform differently. So if you do intense load development, you are determining what load is best for your barrel on that day in that location in that much sun. So for benchrest shooting, loading day-of on the firing line, the load development obsession is legit.

The stuff we do is an absolute waste of time. I'm loading so my ammo is hot, but safe in the extreme heat of Arizona summer. I will obsess over consistency, but not powder charge load development stuff.

 

[Kfive73]

I can understand the benchrest guys always chasing the perfect load. Trying to shoot the smallest group possible as your hobby requires a more obsessive approach to reloading. But I think most guys on here are having fun plinking steel at matches, which I don’t think requires the perfect load. I’ll spend a max of 3 range trips to find a load and just shoot it until it doesn’t work anymore. If you start having a lot of misses, then make your tweaks

 

[Gunmack]

Thanks All for the replies. Lots of good perspectives.

I find the process of searching for the perfect load to be a satisfying process and enjoy doing it when components are plentiful and I have the time. I know enough at this point however, that good enough works really well for the club PRS and 600 yard F-class shooting that I do. Time to focus more on my wind reading and positional technique.

 

[atepointer]

Hear! Hear! I started reloading with a Lee Breech Lock kit for basic reloading but got interested in precision shooting later. That is where the rabbit hole started. Neck sizing, don't neck size, seating depth but don't chase lands, barrel break in, no barrel break in, velocity nodes, OWC, ladder testing, neck tension, primer seating depth, clean barrel every range trip, let your barrel tell when it needs cleaning. Dizzying. After reading some of the threads, you start to think why even bother shooting if you don't have an Area 419 reloading press, AutoTrickler, AMP Annealer, etc. Those are all bad ass tools and on a wish list but I found with decent powder, bullets and brass I can get single digit SD still using my Lee Breech Lock. My only upgrade has been getting a Chargemaster to speed up my dispensing time. No doubt nicer tools can make life easier but don't always make groups smaller.

My shooting buddy learnted me how to rElode.....I say that tongue in cheek b/c I'm still learning only a couple of years in. Having said that it's all on hand me down equipment...press is about 30 years old at least if memory serves. Uniflow maybe the same age....same for beam scale. The newest thing I have is a set of Redding dies....shockingly I'm able to produce a box of pills that do really well for me on stuff that was made long b/f al goar invented the interwebs.

 

[England]

Good point and I think you're partially correct. Reloading manuals should really start off with a basic primer on statistical analysis. If you actually want to "know" your expected MOA group size, muzzle velocity and SD, and the like, you need to measure about 25-30 rounds. Doing load workups with 30 rounds of each potential component/change means that you'll have a good answer about the time you burn out your barrel and have to start over again.

BUT, you can test with 5-7 round groups and use that to exclude poorly performing combinations. If your goal is a consistent 3/4 MOA group and the test load deliver a 1 MOA group, it is statistically likely that it would fail your criteria. Once you think you've found a good, accurate load with acceptable safe velocity, you could shoot three 7-shot groups, or a 25 shot mega-group and be relatively sure of your accuracy standard, muzzle velocity, and SD. But rest assured, larger samples WILL produce larger groups.

Shooters generally ONLY test with small sample sizes and then think they are finding "data" in the statistical noise. Ladder tests and OCW using 3-4 shot groups are a prime example, and as Litz demonstrates with that remarkable repeated 150-round series, those "flat spots" are just the statistical noise. Dozens of forum posters will shout in anger and proclaim that this is heresy, but repeat that OCW ladder using 10-15 round groups and prove it. I'm skeptical that barrel harmonics are significant and would welcome a Litzian test of barrel tuners and the like with that 150-round repeated series! Show me the numbers from a well-done study, not your opinion.

One should endeavor to load rounds carefully and consistently. It's important for safety, and for precision long-range shooting, weighing powder charges accurately does reduce muzzle velocity SD. Doesn't matter for 100-300 yard benchrest, but will make a difference at 1000 yd and further. But when your test with three-round groups demonstrates the benefits of demagnetizing primer pockets, I will not be convinced.

Modern precision rifles are remarkably good, so it's unsurprising that OCW will generate a good-shooting load. But shooting a 20-round group at that "node" and at 3/4 to one grain over or under (excluding over-pressure loads) are very unlikely to show a statistically significant change. We would indeed be better off spending that time at the range improving our technique and learning to call the wind, especially now that H4350 isn't as rare as unicorn tears.

Rest assured, plenty of shooters, including high-level competitors, will continue to proclaim the merits of these silly 3-4 round ladders. But several generations of production process engineers will glance at their copies of Box's "Statistics for Experimenters" and chuckle.

 

[lash]

Perhaps the biggest mistake I see with OCW workups is not understanding the purpose of the test itself. 9 times out of 10 people here are looking for the best group. That is not the purpose of that test. But that is not what this thread is about.

I agree with the OP. His comments and others are spot on that most of the time, the excessive testing time, while surely more statistically significant, is time and components better spent learning the finer points of shooting at distance. This is especially true when dealing with known calibers and components.

On the other hand, I am very aware that some people derive their pleasure from the process of load development. I have a friend who is that way. He will find a load that prints beautiful groups at 100 yards, then try something else to maybe make it better. It’s not me, but each to their own.

 

[kthomas]

IMO, I don't think there is a "perfect load".

I've done so much iterative testing with my 6BRA - testing bullet seating depths, primer seating depths, neck tension, powder charges, etc. And through it all, I've found that most anything will shoot. There's variances day to day as environmental conditions change, but averaged out they all perform very similarly. There's no real road to a "perfect load" IMO, I think that's a fanciful dream that's fun to chase.

The biggest caveat to the above is to use quality components, quality reloading gear (where it matters - you don't need a Zero press to make good ammo), and using a repeatable reloading process.

There's so much noise in reloading "theory" its unbelievable. Myth and lore abound. My own testing has allowed me to develop a really simple process, there's no secrets to reloading.

 

[NiteQwill]

The "perfect" load to me is the one I can just whip up in a few minutes, go to the range/match, and hit what I intend to hit.

People are completely over obsessed with groups, SD, ES, velocity, tuners, etc. Barrels are not cheap. And spending money on components are not, either. I'm not wasting my time finding an unachievable standard.

Just load and go is my philosophy.

 

[Haney]

I have always liked making it to the summit , some folks turn around when they feel like they went far enough . Like those golfers that never put it in the hole , get within a couple feet and call it good . If not a competition every range trip for me is some form of a test . Loading up a pile of the same round and shooting at the same damn thing is not a challenge for me .

 

[cas6969]

From a statistical perspective there doesn’t seem to be a truly efficient way to arrive at an ideal load for a chambered barrel without exhausting a significant portion of it’s effective lifespan.

It depends on it's intended use. For some, that's it's whole purpose.

I have some guns that "good enough" is good enough. Good enough to hit the targets in this type match, good enough to hit a deer inside x distance, and others that will never be good enough unless they could put all the shots into a one caliber hole every time. It's only real purpose is being something to try to make shoot better.
I always say, the most disappointing rifle I ever owned was one I had built and the very first load I tried shot 1/2" groups at 200 yards. "Well now what do I do with it?"