I can't believe I got a Creedmore

Lead hammer said:
I found it interesting, that in the Eric Cortina video where he shoots a tiny group at 1000, he reads off his ES and is surprised at how large it was for his string......................
Click to expand...

Whenever someone can do a decent volume test of various rifles, cartridges and bullets and show that small/single digit ES/SD equals itty bitty groups at distance EVERY SINGLE TIME, that might change my opinion.

But since we continue to see example after example that contradicts this theory, I will continue to not bother putting much value on this metric.

And yes, many F class shooters back in the day did use ES/SD as a way to predict results at distance. Where do you think this concept started?

But when you get contradictions based on real world shooting on targets with shots marked, you discount the value of this metric and move onto what actually puts hits inside the X rings.

And the load I took to the Worlds in 2013 would be considered crap by 'todays' standards based on ES/SD. Seemed to work ok in Raton....

Jerry
 
The concept didn't start with F-Class. I'll tell you that. It's simply just a logical concept. If every projectile travels at the exact same speed, vertical dispersion can be mitigated. If you're still seeing vertical on target, it's something else. Likely OBT.
 
Tokay444 said:
The concept didn't start with F-Class. I'll tell you that. It's simply just a logical concept. If every projectile travels at the exact same speed, vertical dispersion can be mitigated. If you're still seeing vertical on target, it's something else. Likely OBT.
Click to expand...

It is definitely a simple to understand concept... unfortunately, the system it is applied to is anything but simple. And that understanding is very old... like early 1900's type old.

The interest in trying to tune using ES/SD definitely grew with the growth in LR F class AND the improvements in chronographs. Unfortunately, these chronographs were no where near as good as what you can get easily today but things like the Oehlers were available to a few.

Going from large double digits ES/SD values to small double digits saw a massive improvement in LR precision... so much so, F class cut their target sizes in half.

That started the quest to see if even lower values would gain even more precision. Outside neck turning, annealing, milligram scales... and of course, better understanding of ignition, case volumes, powders and charges, etc, etc.

SR primer brass... old concept, rebooted in F TR a number of years back.

The improvements continued to increase especially when better quality higher BC bullets started to become the norm. Things got better and better and then they plateaued a number of years back.

Some of us started seeing problems with the absolute lowest ES/SD's when applied to targets downrange... in fact, some of the WORST performing loads had the smallest numbers.

As a reloading and LR techie, I am all over any concept that can improve my performance but any process has to be 100% reliable and repeatable.

So back to my last challenge.... demonstrate that single digit ES/SD will ALWAYS produce the best results on target downrange.

Spoiler alert, we already have posts where shooters are wondering why this isn't working.... and one even has some really nice data and documentation proving my point.

A theory is only good until you run into an exception... maybe one is no biggie but when you start to see a decent percentage contradicting the theory, maybe the theory isn't so good?

But don't let this stop you using any method you see fit. If the performance downrange is what you want and expect, it is all good.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Mystic Precision said:
Whenever someone can do a decent volume test of various rifles, cartridges and bullets and show that small/single digit ES/SD equals itty bitty groups at distance EVERY SINGLE TIME, that might change my opinion.

But since we continue to see example after example that contradicts this theory, I will continue to not bother putting much value on this metric.

And yes, many F class shooters back in the day did use ES/SD as a way to predict results at distance. Where do you think this concept started?

But when you get contradictions based on real world shooting on targets with shots marked, you discount the value of this metric and move onto what actually puts hits inside the X rings.

And the load I took to the Worlds in 2013 would be considered crap by 'todays' standards based on ES/SD. Seemed to work ok in Raton....

Jerry
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, low double digits are fine, or can be fine. Probably shooter skill, environmental conditions, or being able to read them, shooting equipment quality, setup and longevity trump the single digit ES anyway.
 
Lead hammer said:
I would agree with you, low double digits are fine, or can be fine. Probably shooter skill, environmental conditions, or being able to read them, shooting equipment quality, setup and longevity trump the single digit ES anyway.
Click to expand...

In my final stages of load tuning, I will have a series of ammo with my final load tweaks and I will shoot them side by side on target at distance. Plot where the shots go vs what you expect and it will be very obvious what works and what doesn't. The goal is to shoot INSIDE the X ring which is 1/2 MOA.

With F class, every shot is marked so there is no doubt what went where and when. Thousands of rds later and collaborating with a number of shooters, it gets real obvious what is helping us and what isn't. The vast majority of my F class testing is at 800 to 1000yds... with the 90% of that at 1000yds.

I understand that many cannot get large amounts of time on LR targets so there is an urge to use short range results to predict what can happen down range. And often when they are shooting LR, they are not on paper where the shots are scored and tracked.

I wish the process typically discussed was 100% reliable... it would make my life a whole lot easier as well.

But it isn't and anyone can prove this for themself.

Jerry
 
Hitzy said:
No 22 cal centerfire has enough recoil in a 14lb rifle to for anyone to say yah or nay difference, and since you were basically saying "why choose the 22CM when it has more recoil" makes no sense...just pointing that out.
The other point I was making was single digit ES is not dependent on case design or caliber like you seem to think, it's easily achieved in every bore size I've loaded more or less, straight wall cartridges are not quite as friendly.
The 6mm's and 22cal's still seem to dominate long range shooting, so you seem to have drank the 6.5CM koolaid so to speak as far as being the ideal cartridge for powder/weight/accuracy.
But you are a serious "target shooter" that doesn't go through barrels...that screams like more nonsense.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you seem to be missing the point that I'm actually trying to make and re-directing it toward the absurd.

I drink no koolaid, just speak from logic, not emotion and objective evidence based upon past experience or just plain physics.

I'm actually a huge fan of 22 cal, just not with 40 + grains of powder behind it. I don't even have a 6.5 but a few shooting buddies do and I'm very familiar. I'm a fan of the 6.5 Creed for technical reasons pertaining to the intelligent balance in all respects. Deviating from that balance and choking down to ever smaller calibers is simply a drift away from that sensible balance.

I've ran other calibers in my time, but my current favorite rifle is just a humble 223 running 88s at 2900 FPS. I get real good barrel life and despite the uneducated assumptions regarding 223, my ballistics are on par with the small 6mms.

I've just learned not to chase the high cost of speed to compensate for wind reading weakness or to gain some sort of slight wind drift edge. Recoil reduction is far more important especially when shooting at places like Meaford where missed shots must be spotted in flight as grass is too tall to see impacts on the ground.

Even with good barrel life, I've blown through plenty of barrels in my time and spent more than enough money doing it, I just dont want to continue to do it any faster than I already am.

I feel its irresponsible to minimize the cost of short barrel life in a forum where guys who are not wealthy may be looking for sound guidance.

As for recoil, the weight of the powder is added to the bullet when calculating recoil... so the added powder weight is not free in terms of recoil. You do not add powder and not add recoil.

In terms of chasing speed, bullets drop from 3100 to 3000 faster than they do from 3000 to 2900... so the speed payoff is one of diminishing returns. Yes, a ballistic advantage, but increasingly less so as a cost of recoil associated with that speed increase and as stated earlier... barrel life is sacrificed.

This is all simply the reality of physics... not opinion. Theres a ying and a yang, and shooting is about choosing a balance you are comfortable with for your application.
 
Last edited:
What a sh*t show of a thread, reminds me why I'm not too active in the precision rifle sections on CGN, to much self congratulatory #### beating :p But like a moth drawn to a flame, can't help but resist to make one post in this thread.

First off to the OP, congrats on the new rifle! 6.5 Creedmoor is a hell of a cartridge, it's ballistically very capable and there's lot's of manufacturing support for the cartridge, with high quality ammo and components available at a very reasonable price. If you want to reload, Snipers Hide as a thread with over 2,000 posts in it, with people sharing their 6.5 Creedmoor reload recipes and their results. Personally, I've had really good luck with Berger 140 hybrids, Lapua brass, CCI BR4 primers and 42.5 grains of H4350. ~1/3 MOA or better, with an ES of 15 or less. Shoot's very well from under 100 yards to 1,400+ yards.

There's many different approaches to reloading, and reloading more often then not seems to be more mired in myth and superstition then a scientific and qualitative approach. Applied Ballistics is a really good resource when it comes to reloading, they do a metric sh*t ton of scientific driven tests to confirm or disprove different reloading myths and superstitious habits. The Applied Ballistics team has been doing a series of podcasts with Frank Galli on his Every Day Sniper podcast lately, (and perhaps elsewhere, that I don't know). It would behoove any reloader to listen to these. They dispel some myths that are being propagated in this very thread, and go over a lot of what is being talked about here. Spoiler alert, ES/SD is important (but you have to test for it in a qualitive way with a big enough sample size), and positive compensation is more or less a myth of the past, with how good our equipment is and with free floating of barrels.

Rather then joining in the #### beating and trying to convince people why their method is not the holy grail they may think it is, I'm going to exit out the backdoor on this thread. If you want to help separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to reloading rather then trying to figure out who has the biggest #### in this thread, checking out the Applied Ballistics resources, such as the podcast episodes I've mentioned above (they are free). Lot's of great myth busting done by a company with the resources and know how to do it in a scientifically driven qualitative way, which is much more reliable then any one individuals anecdotal experience.
 
Oh come on Kthomas, this thread is not that bad. Seriously. You post has some helpful info in it, thanks.
So we see that an ES of 15 or less is suitable to 1,400 yards, thats what I was thinking.
 
Lead hammer said:
Oh come on Kthomas, this thread is not that bad. Seriously. You post has some helpful info in it, thanks.
So we see that an ES of 15 or less is suitable to 1,400 yards, thats what I was thinking.
Click to expand...

I generally aim for an ES of 20 or less, 15 is desirable. That is over a large string of fire, not just ~3-5 shots. Sample size is important in statistics.

There's no reason that you can't make a precise load with a low ES/SD. My process involves finding a bullet seating depth that produces good precision, and a charge weight that produces a stable velocity.
 
kthomas said:
I generally aim for an ES of 20 or less, 15 is desirable. That is over a large string of fire, not just ~3-5 shots. Sample size is important in statistics.

There's no reason that you can't make a precise load with a low ES/SD. My process involves finding a bullet seating depth that produces good precision, and a charge weight that produces a stable velocity.
Click to expand...

With my current tools and equipment, Im in the 14-18 range normally, but have never been past a string of 5. I need to go up to 10 to see. Actually I remember doing strings of ten with my handguns.............

Edit: nope it was strings of 5,
 
Lead hammer said:
With my current tools and equipment, Im in the 14-18 range normally, but have never been past a string of 5. I need to go up to 10 to see. Actually I remember doing strings of ten with my handguns.............

Edit: nope it was strings of 5,
Click to expand...

Listen to those podcasts I mentioned, and see what process works for you. The Applied Ballistics guys are full of knowledge, and actually testing different parameters with reloading. Their scientific style methodology is much more meaningful then any individuals anecdotal experience. They will tell you what actually works, and what doesn't (like positive compensation reloading methodology).

The world of reloading needs more truth injected into it, because right now it's full of myth and lore, based on anecdotal experience.
 
Last edited:
I guess no one is willing to do this test then... :)

And apparently, we don't need single digit ES/SDs... in fact, "low" double digits seem to be working from some shooters

Makes me smile when my statements are supported by those who suggest I am wrong.... or when numbers are made up to justify their point of view.

Have a great weekend everyone...

Jerry
 
You are not doing anything wrong, pretty sure ladder tests at 300 are accepted practice. 300 will tell you just about everything you need to know to shoot farther, along with a chrony and ballistics program of course lol.
 
Mystic Precision said:
I guess no one is willing to do this test then... :)

And apparently, we don't need single digit ES/SDs... in fact, "low" double digits seem to be working from some shooters

Makes me smile when my statements are supported by those who suggest I am wrong.... or when numbers are made up to justify their point of view.

Have a great weekend everyone...

Jerry
Click to expand...

People need to decide for themselves what ES/SD is acceptable for their shooting applications. Your innuendos get tiring.

I'm personally not suggesting that anybody does anything, besides listen to the podcasts I referenced.
 
Ruger007 said:
As the title says. I can't believe I got a 6.5 Creedmore. I actually had buyers remorse and felt sick to the stomach on the drive home.
Was in Cabela's today and they had a 783 heavy threaded barrel in 6.5.
Click to expand...
Hahaha same exact thing happened to me last week during the Cabela's 1-day sale
Picked up a Model 700 SPS Tactical AAC 22" in 6.5CM for $799 plus a $50 rebate. (regular price $1049)
Seemed like a good deal at the time but I see online a lot of people poo poo the current production Remingtons and yea the ammo is a bit pricey but...
Still a nice rifle IMO (and I've always wanted a 700)
Haven't tried it out yet, but I may just knock it apart and get everything cleaned and squared up first
WOT

EDIT: Wow, took the time to read this entire thread (after essentially answering to the OP) I may need some TUMS to digest it all !LOL
 
Last edited:
Interesting read...

I do find the point about keeping the velocity spread low and how certain calibers do that better interesting.

Pointing that out and saying it was a weak spot of the 22CM seems legit.

Jerry, sorry you never could back up a counter to that by what I read (sorry bud) your best counter was just a sidetrack with unreasonable request (always produce the same result, who knows every result for every rifle?!) but no one would produce real world numbers..

“ So back to my last challenge.... demonstrate that single digit ES/SD will ALWAYS produce the best results on target downrange.”

Sorry to give you a hard time, I think there is a point to both perspectives, but being dynamic and identifying (or admitting) potential weak spots in a mechanism or function will always produce better results than sticking to your beliefs simply because you (or any of us) just need to be correct and win an argument.

Your impressive group at 300 yards may have potential to get even ever so slightly smaller... or not, but at least you’d know and could properly back it up or just move on to some other small advantage or technique if the debates are futile.

Looking forward to more insightful debates though.
 
how about podium finishes? To me, that is the best proof of concept anyone can offer

But maybe that isn't much evidence of results either. No matter, I think those who want to challenge a method should really do the work to prove it doesn't work. All we see is a wave of a hand and alot of opinions and theory.

I continue to find it amusing that some will dismiss real world results because, in their opinion, it doesn't 'work'.

As I have said many many times, it is there for anyone to try... If you disagree, I am totally cool with that.

But if you want to suggest something doesn't work, prove it. There is so much that shooters can learn when they actually put lead down range... and how many concepts they hold near and dear don't really work. Holes in targets don't lie.... I think more shooters should try that... and maybe put that target at say 600yds.

why not, go out and demonstrate what your process does in the real world? I look forward to your real world results debunking what I suggest. I am always willing to learn....

Jerry
 
Mystic Precision said:
how about podium finishes? To me, that is the best proof of concept anyone can offer

But maybe that isn't much evidence of results either. No matter, I think those who want to challenge a method should really do the work to prove it doesn't work. All we see is a wave of a hand and alot of opinions and theory.

I continue to find it amusing that some will dismiss real world results because, in their opinion, it doesn't 'work'.

As I have said many many times, it is there for anyone to try... If you disagree, I am totally cool with that.

But if you want to suggest something doesn't work, prove it. There is so much that shooters can learn when they actually put lead down range... and how many concepts they hold near and dear don't really work. Holes in targets don't lie.... I think more shooters should try that... and maybe put that target at say 600yds.

why not, go out and demonstrate what your process does in the real world? I look forward to your real world results debunking what I suggest. I am always willing to learn....

Jerry
Click to expand...

The work is already being done, and in an actual qualitative and repeatable way, by a company that has the time, expertise and resources to do so. This company and it's current and former team members have been involved in many podium finishes in many different disciplines, and while I know you love to bring up your podiums and trophy case every chance you get, I'm fairly certain these guys have you beat. This company being Applied Ballistics.

The Chief Ballistician is the leading ballistician of the modern day shooting era, Bryan Litz. And the other members have pretty impressive resumes themselves. They are performing experiments in a scientific manner, to dispel any reloading myths that are prominent in reloading culture, and to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to reloading. The world of reloading is full of myths, which seem to get perpetuated through individuals anecdotal experience, which isn't being done in accordance to any scientific methods (sound familiar?).

Their knowledge on what they have been uncovering through their own extensive qualitative testing is being shared freely in the public domain, they have been doing a podcast series with Frank Galli on his Every Day Sniper podcast to go over all things reloading, talking about what's been proven up during their testing and what myths have been dispelled. It would behoove anyone that reloads for precision rifle to listen to their podcasts, there's lots of good factual information and they dispel a lot of myths that are being propagated in this very thread.

If people listen to these podcasts, they would start seeing that a lot of what is being presented as "reloading truths" in this thread, including what you are presenting, is based more in reloading myth and lore then actual facts. But I don't expect anyone here to take my word for it, listen to the podcasts. Seriously. It's much more productive then listening to a couple of guys comparing #### size and talking about their podiums and trophy cases and their unscientific anecdotal experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom