Load development

[Dogleg]

A group is a sample; one which we try to predict the precision of the whole.
If you shot a 3 shot group, would you bet much that you could put the rest of the box into that group without making it bigger? Not a chance. 5 shot groups are typically 50 % larger than 3s. There’s 10 possible 3 shot groups in a single 5 by the way, so think about that while you’re saving ammo Then there’s 10s, with 120 unique 3 shot possibilities. Now you’re getting pretty close to knowing what that load actually does; and if it makes you feel better you can sort through and pick out all the random bragging groups you want. There’s bound to be some in the 2’s “when you do your part” , your part being to pick what you want to see,

 

[Dogleg]

Numbers are fun. With the mathematical certainty of 120 possible 3 shot in in a 10 its tempting to think that the odds of a single 3 representing the 10 are 120 to 1. Its not that bad; because as long as 2 of your shots in your 3 are the farthest apart the third doesn’t matter. That gives 8 possible right answers and drops the odds to 15 to 1. Thats bad enough when trying to decide how your gun shoots; but if comparing one load against just one other with 3s the odds against being right are 225 to one. Compares 3 different loads has you at 3375 to one, 4 loads are 50,625 to one.

I take it back, numbers aren’t fun at all

 

[adamg]

Are we all ignoring the fact some store bought ammo shoots better than others.
Get your favorite.22 lr rifle and shoot 10 rounds each from various brands at 100 yards on a calm day. Then shoot 100 round groups with the worst and best picks.

Calm day, eh? We have three of those a year in these parts.

Another factor on the large quantity of groups shot on paper is that they start blowing out and hiding other shots. 100 shots on one bullseye is losing most of the data. So now you have to shoot like 10 bullseyes with 10 each, and someone combine the data.

 

[Dogleg]

Calm day, eh? We have three of those a year in these parts.

Another factor on the large quantity of groups shot on paper is that they start blowing out and hiding other shots. 100 shots on one bullseye is losing most of the data. So now you have to shoot like 10 bullseyes with 10 each, and someone combine the data.

Stack your ten targets and the light will shine through the holes and show you the aggragate.

 

[Weatherby Fan]

I think that's just small sample size noise, they're going to vary from group to group to group. If you can fire 1/4" 3 shot groups very consistently with no impact variation, we are likely looking at the most accurate sporter/hunting rifle ever put together. I have zero doubts in your ability to shoot small groups WF, we have seen the proof on CGN for years.

I'd love to see ten 3 shot groups on a grid style target (easier to plot all the impacts into one combined group) of 57.7grs, and same with 56.8grs, which was your worst performing tested load. If the results prove that 56.8grs is 2-3x larger in group size / mean radius than 57.7, I will reimburse you the costs of the bullets and powder. I find this stuff really interesting and I do feel very fortunate that I can see detailed process/results done by others, as it only betters my understanding of handload development and the journey of finding repeatable results on target

Variation in ones ability to hand load consistently confirms your suspicion many times over, you are correct, my 7-6.5 PRCW is amazingly consistent but yes every so often a group will open up, so is it me or my handloads, but again I’m not sure I have ever loaded for a more consistent cartridge
I’m patiently waiting for my target rifle to be built.

I will do that test for you no problem.

When I go to the range to test rifles out I go to great lengths to have a very stable platform to shoot from so it I can see what the rifle can do with the least amount of human interference,

Since I have been using good brass, bushing dies and mandrels, the consistency has amazed me, but again every so often I can tell when I’m seating bullets I’m going to have a variation,

I have also noticed barrel to barrel differences, some barrels are finicky some not so much,

I’ll use the 7mm PRC cartridges for example

Same contour, length, twist, barrel maker,
I’ll use factory ammo for example as well as I usually break in barrels with it so lots of experience with different brands, I just buy it by the case to have on hand,

I have had 9 different 7mm PRCs built since its introduction, 3 steel barrels 2 Benchmark 1 KS Arms, the very first one built with a benchmark 1-8 twist loved any of the 3 factory Hornady ammo, the next Benchmark didn’t like any of it,

6 carbon fiber barrels 3 IBI 8.5 twist button rifled,,3 Benchmark 1-8 twist cut rifled,

Gary just built a 7mm PRC for a donation rifle with IBI barrel,
From the very first groups I shot with it it loved 180gr ELDM ammo shooting several cloverleaf and one hole groups, 175gr ELDX would shoot 3/4”
160gr CX would shoot 1 1/4”-1.5” two other rifles with the same IBI barrels one of them also loves the 180gr ELDM, the third one is exactly the opposite loving the 160gr CX but neither the ELDX/ELDM, same twist rate barrel lengths 1-8.5 at 22” length
Same thing with 6.5 PRC and the 300 PRC

There are so many variables just in the make up of the steel in a barrel let alone the rest of the elements of handloading to add to the picture.

 

[NMO]

Variation in ones ability to hand load consistently confirms your suspicion many times over, you are correct, my 7-6.5 PRCW is amazingly consistent but yes every so often a group will open up, so is it me or my handloads, but again I’m not sure I have ever loaded for a more consistent cartridge
I’m patiently waiting for my target rifle to be built.

I will do that test for you no problem.

WF, I think something overlooked here is POI. You could hypothetically shoot seven separate 3 shot groups that are all 1/4" as you say, but if you overlay them on the same POA they will not be a 1/4" 21 shot aggregate group. More likely closer to 1MOA.

 

[Weatherby Fan]

WF, I think something overlooked here is POI. You could hypothetically shoot seven separate 3 shot groups that are all 1/4" as you say, but if you overlay them on the same POA they will not be a 1/4" 21 shot aggregate group. More likely closer to 1MOA.

yes you are correct, I have seen small POI shift for no apparent reason, especially in larger volume cases

 

[Dogleg]

Question.
For those who shoot a few groups of three with each load for comparison, without overlaying the groups, do you use the best group or average or what?
The best group is just the best of random dispersion, and the average is just the average of random, so although its better than the best it still doesn’t mean much A guy would be farther ahead comparing his worst groups with each load, the odds of it being representative of the whole are considerably better. Still not great but better.
Human nature makes that a hard thing to do, shooters tend to make everything too personal and would rather find a way to dismiss the bigger ones

 

[Lead hammer]

When doing 3 shot, early load development, I only focus on finding multiple charge weights that impact on the same location. I never pick the super duper group if its neighbors are not impacting in the same area. In fact, if loads 21.0, 21.2and 21.4 impact the same location, and you were going to be shooting in hotter weather ( or as the day gets hotter ) at a match or whatever, you would choose the 21.0. If your load was made in average temperatures for your area, you could load 21.2.

 

[Dogleg]

When doing 3 shot, early load development, I only focus on finding multiple charge weights that impact on the same location. I never pick the super duper group if its neighbors are not impacting in the same area. In fact, if loads 21.0, 21.2and 21.4 impact the same location, and you were going to be shooting in hotter weather ( or as the day gets hotter ) at a match or whatever, you would choose the 21.0. If your load was made in average temperatures for your area, you could load 21.2.

Thats OCW in a nutshell.

 

[todbartell]

Question.
For those who shoot a few groups of three with each load for comparison, without overlaying the groups, do you use the best group or average or what?
The best group is just the best of random dispersion, and the average is just the average of random, so although its better than the best it still doesn’t mean much A guy would be farther ahead comparing his worst groups with each load, the odds of it being representative of the whole are considerably better. Still not great but better.
Human nature makes that a hard thing to do, shooters tend to make everything too personal and would rather find a way to dismiss the bigger ones

I used to average my results if I shot a few groups.

I'm guessing there aren't too many shooters out there recording the worst groups lmao

 

[Dogleg]

I’ve met a few guy’s at the range over the years that when we examining targets would consider their worst group and say something like “well if I tell the guys about this 1” one I’m pretty safe I’m not BSing. Could have got lucky that1/2” one”. Contrast that to the more normal behavior of claiming the cloverleaf is what the rifle does and blame themselves, the wind or wearing the wrong socks for everything else. I like my lucky socks as much the next guy but luck is a fickle mistress. Some of my friends are getting used to me asking what their worst group was when they call me to fill me in on their new load

People tend to “prove” what they want to believe. If I wanted to prove that groups are triangle shaped I can shoot those all day long as long as I stick to 3’s.. With 5 I have doubts because those groups are starting to look round much of the time. At 10 or 20 for sure it starts looking like the groups are round with most of the shots closer to the center. Plotted distance from center it could make the beginning of a real nice bell curve

 

[Lead hammer]

I have changed my reloading lots since I started. First was by fps, second was random, third was a one shot ladder at 200, now I use OCW at 100 then straight to 3 shot sharpie colored bullets at 300 with a single aiming point. I am following what pro shooters do, they know more than me and I have never shot better. Having said that, if I find another way, why not try. Shooting is supposed to be fun.
People do want to prove what they want to believe,” use your illusion. “ I’m just sharing what has helped me.

I mean really, sometimes folks have to switch bullets or powder because the rifle won’t shoot, and it helps immediately. That is in itself tuning. My 270 win, for whatever reason, did not do well with H 4831, and Barnes XLC’s. I switched powder to RL22 and it was a whole new rifle. Maybe now I could do better with H4831 with it. Currently is shoots Stabal 6.5. It’s a bit temperamental but does ok.

 

[bearhunter]

How loads are developed should depend on what the rifle is going to be used for and of course the rifle itself.

Sometimes a rifle which is going to be used for multiple shots needs to be wrung out and loads developed for ten or even twenty shot strings, from ambient temperature, all the way to hot enough not to touch the barrel.

That's not required for the average hunting rifle, unless you're shooting out a field of ground squirrels.

Most hunting rifles will be shot in the field, at ambient temperatures and seldom more than 3-4 shots. That's how they should be sighted in and how the loads should be worked up for them. IMHO of course.

For ground squirrel rifles, I will work up loads which will give me decent groups up to the point I'm not willing to heat things up further.

Some competition rifles needed to be shot at least 15-20 shots in a string, over a ten minute period to determine which load was best.

Now, I'm only shooting hunting rifles or fun rifles.

Nothing more than five shots, from ambient temperature. Then let things cool down again.

I see people shooting "until the barrel settles down" regularly. That isn't going to show where the rifle will shoot when it's at ambient temperature on the first shot on an animal, which is the most important shot to be able to call.

 

[L.Parratt]

• Satterlee flat spot velocity nodes
• Optimal Charge weight / OCW
• Optimal Barrel time / OBT
• Ladder loads
• Seating depth tests
• 3 shot groups, 5 shot groups, right up to 30 shot groups

What's your belief.

Velocity nodes aren't real

OCW testing is a waste of time and money

OBT isn't real

Ladder loads is a waste of time and money

Seating depth testing is largely a waste of time when using the right bullets.

3 and 5 shot groups are a waste of time and money


Group sizes are largely a function of Weight/Energy. Most people are finding statistical irrelevant noise and giving themselves confirmation bias. Good bullets matter aswell. Bryan litz has lots on that

RAD Method just works, in LARGE sample testing. 100+ rounds.

 

[Weatherby Fan]

• Satterlee flat spot velocity nodes
• Optimal Charge weight / OCW
• Optimal Barrel time / OBT
• Ladder loads
• Seating depth tests
• 3 shot groups, 5 shot groups, right up to 30 shot groups

What's your beliefs?

A combined SATERLEE method but more than a ten shot string used in conjunction with 3 or even 5 shot groups going up until you see pressure will let you see OCW and define OBT so yes ladder loads work and then you can fine tune with seating depth
In my humble opinion there are many ways to get to the ultimate goal and with the amount of excellent information around today it certainly makes it easier.

 

[Budweiser360]

Velocity nodes aren't real

OCW testing is a waste of time and money

OBT isn't real

Ladder loads is a waste of time and money

Seating depth testing is largely a waste of time when using the right bullets.

3 and 5 shot groups are a waste of time and money


Group sizes are largely a function of Weight/Energy. Most people are finding statistical irrelevant noise and giving themselves confirmation bias. Good bullets matter aswell. Bryan litz has lots on that

RAD Method just works, in LARGE sample testing. 100+ rounds.

So what is your method and what shooting discipline are your reloading for?

 

[Weatherby Fan]

 

[saskgunowner101]

How loads are developed should depend on what the rifle is going to be used for and of course the rifle itself.



Most hunting rifles will be shot in the field, at ambient temperatures and seldom more than 3-4 shots. That's how they should be sighted in and how the loads should be worked up for them. IMHO of course.

.

That's the great thing about reloading, and I wholeheartedly agree with the quote above. Your own personal standards for your own needs trumps all. Chase your tail with load development as little as or much as you want, and be happy with that.

 

[bearhunter]

Very few rifles will shoot 1/4 moa out of the box, no matter how much load development is done.

WF, if you want to talk about "specialized" shooting and load development, where cost isn't an issue then fly at it.

I've done the extreme accuracy thing and it's "expensive" to say the least.

Depending on what you're shooting at, it's also all done from the bench with often massive rifles. Not always huge rifles, but mostly.

I believe, the OP was referring to regular, off the shelf or maybe even custom rifles, meant for carrying in the field for practical hunting purposes.

Going off on a long range tangent to answer his question doesn't help.

The one thing which came from that video, which is very important, no matter which rifle you're shooting is the reference to Extreme Spreads being related to Combustion. That is a basic truth in any accurate load and why folks purchasing commercial loads are often surprised in a negative fashion.

Neck tension in such rifles is controlled in three ways, the first is the reamer used to cut the chamber. The next is to measure the bullet diameter, neck wall thickness and the neck diameter of the chamber, figure out how much clearance you desire, turn the neck, on a mandrel to achieve that clearance and set up a sizing die with interchangeable neck bushings to custom size your necks to your rifle. Trimming to consistent lengths helps a bit.

Some folks swear uniform neck diameters from cartridge to cartridge makes a huge difference. Maybe, in some rifles with tight chambers.

Maybe I missed the OP's question? I went back and looked but I don't see anything about "extreme accuracy" or competitive accuracy.

Many bullets aren't constructed well enough to be capable of such accuracy extremes, no matter how good the harmonics or lack of wear, bedding, etc.

It wasn't until the Juenke Gage was developed to electronically measure jacket thicknesses for consistency from bullet to bullet as well as all the way around its circumference that bullet manufacturers started developing manufacturing techniques which would repeatably produce consistent bullet jackets and cores, that such accuracy became doable. Those looking for such accuracy, pay for it in many ways.

Shooting a lot isn't a bad thing. Shooting a lot, under the conditions you're using the rifle for is a good thing.