Load development

Dogleg said:
You probably wouldn’t be happy with a single 3 shot group either. What’s the right number of three shot groups before you say good I’m gonna load out a couple hundred because this load is proven? Would it be 3? At that point there isn’t much difference between you and me; except I shot them all at the same target or stacked the targets and looked at them all at the same tme😂
Click to expand...
Of course I wouldn’t rely on one 3 shot group, maybe only to check a zero
In the end you all get to the same place regardless of how you do it.
 
Weatherby Fan said:
I see so a 3 shot group is just as good as a 10 shot group, you finally admit it 🤣
Click to expand...

Sorry I thought we were talking about barrel wear :)

mddat said:
I like to use larger sample sizes to find what load I’ll use, less mental gymnastics but this is exactly right, and all that matters at the end of the day
Click to expand...

Do we all end up at the same place though? Or is that just a thing handloaders say to play nice lol
 
My latest, and seemingly the most efficient way to find a load, is to start midway in powder dose, load 10 batches of 2 rounds going up in 0.2 or 0.3gr increments, and shoot at simple sticky dots on white paper. On a 11x16" paper, i have 10 dots, two rows of 5. 200yds distance. Obviously stop if pressure signs.
After shooting, i look for multiple successive groups where the shots tighten up, and use the middle of the tight two-shot groups as my starting point. Then load 4 of each dose, going up and down from that with powder doses at 0.2 or 0.1 gr, say 2 loads each direction.
Take the best group, and then play with seating depth (Berger method) - 3 shot. Once i verify these, take the best one, its 5 shots at 400yds to verify
Done.
I have noticed these are usually, but not always, the best numbers on the Garmin chrony.

Another way i played with, kinda fun to see, is to load 3 of each varying doses same length, find load with the lowest es/sd - then load 20 of that load, and slap a tuner on and do the tuner tune (google it) - usually works just as good if not better in some cases.

Of course it goes without saying that proper reloading practise (case prep, same components (no mixing! & separate brass for each rifle), precise powder measuring, etc) prior to any testing can make a substantial difference for the ultra precision groups.
 
Last edited:
todbartell said:
Sorry I thought we were talking about barrel wear :)



Do we all end up at the same place though? Or is that just a thing handloaders say to play nice lol
Click to expand...
That's my point with hunting rifles about a 3 shot group being representative and as you said a shot is a shot, weather you pile 30 rounds in the same spot on a target or you shoot several 3 shot groups you are still getting the same data, if Im using an F-Class rifle where you will be shooting 20 shot strings then you would want to see how the barrel reacts with larger sample size,

lets take my 7-6.5 PRCW, there was no company data anywhere so I used F-Class Johns recommendation of 55.5grs of N555 as starting point with a new barrel, after the first range trip I worked up in .3gr 3 shot groups using 175gr Berger Elite Hunters from a 26" barrel

56.1 avg vel 2812- 1/2" group
56.4 AV- 2832- 1/2" group
56.7 AV- 2850- 7/8" group
57.0 AV- 2864- 7/8" group
57.3 AV- 2866- 3/8" group

2nd trip I continued from 57.3grs in .2gr increments as I was being cautious without having data,

57.3- 2880- 5/8'
57.5- 2890- 1/2"
57.7- 2898- 1/4"
57.9- 2911- 5/8"
58.1- 2917- 7/8"

so I picked the 57.7 load and played around there 57.6/57.7/57.8 and settled with 57.7 which has been extremely consistent with velocity/accuracy, played with the seating depth a little and settled on 3.082" or 2.333" ogive
If I do my part its shoots a consistent 1/4" 3 shot group at 100 yards and an inch or less at 292 yards, after about 200 round my ES has never exceeded 12fps with that load

I also use the same load in my other 7-6.5 with a 23" barrel and it prefers 2.995 so a lot more jump to get the same accuracy velocity has settled at 2855.

so looking at it you would know better Mark is that OCW or OBT as the groups start at 1/2" then increase then decrease then increase,

Im sure there's an easier/quicker way to get there but I like to see the bullet holes on the target.
 
Weatherby Fan said:
That's my point with hunting rifles about a 3 shot group being representative and as you said a shot is a shot, weather you pile 30 rounds in the same spot on a target or you shoot several 3 shot groups you are still getting the same data, if Im using an F-Class rifle where you will be shooting 20 shot strings then you would want to see how the barrel reacts with larger sample size,

lets take my 7-6.5 PRCW, there was no company data anywhere so I used F-Class Johns recommendation of 55.5grs of N555 as starting point with a new barrel, after the first range trip I worked up in .3gr 3 shot groups using 175gr Berger Elite Hunters from a 26" barrel

56.1 avg vel 2812- 1/2" group
56.4 AV- 2832- 1/2" group
56.7 AV- 2850- 7/8" group
57.0 AV- 2864- 7/8" group
57.3 AV- 2866- 3/8" group

2nd trip I continued from 57.3grs in .2gr increments as I was being cautious without having data,

57.3- 2880- 5/8'
57.5- 2890- 1/2"
57.7- 2898- 1/4"
57.9- 2911- 5/8"
58.1- 2917- 7/8"

so I picked the 57.7 load and played around there 57.6/57.7/57.8 and settled with 57.7 which has been extremely consistent with velocity/accuracy, played with the seating depth a little and settled on 3.082" or 2.333" ogive
If I do my part its shoots a consistent 1/4" 3 shot group at 100 yards and an inch or less at 292 yards, after about 200 round my ES has never exceeded 12fps with that load

I also use the same load in my other 7-6.5 with a 23" barrel and it prefers 2.995 so a lot more jump to get the same accuracy velocity has settled at 2855.

so looking at it you would know better Mark is that OCW or OBT as the groups start at 1/2" then increase then decrease then increase,

Im sure there's an easier/quicker way to get there but I like to see the bullet holes on the target.
Click to expand...
Perfect method. This is how it should be done. By the way, you had a velocity and accuracy node between 57.5 and 57.9 (for those who doubt of its existence, LOL). With velocity calculation, load development can be perfected easily.
 
Weatherby Fan said:
so looking at it you would know better Mark is that OCW or OBT as the groups start at 1/2" then increase then decrease then increase
Click to expand...

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
 
todbartell said:
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
Click to expand...
I like your thinking here.
It has occurred to me that people pick a "promising" load and shoot higher round counts, measure the results, and claim they found an especially good one. But what they don't do is pick a "terrible" load and shoot it enough to really validate that it is worse than their "promising" load.

If you want me to believe your carefully discovered load is so special, then show me how much better it is than the worst load you could have picked.
 
As I am loading for hunting rifles, I too have used 3 shot groups, working up in half grain increments to max published data (or now incl/ QuickLoad data for pressure limits and recommended powders).

When I determine which is performing the best, I fine tune in smaller increments around the one that shows the most accuracy potential. And then may play with seating depth if it looks like there may still be room for improvement. (Must say again, that I believe my best investment yet has been the acquisition of the Garmin chronograph! So easy to use! Love it!):cool:

While I am admittedly not the best shot around, I have been able to develop loads for various rifles that will produce groups consistently of MOA or better (my own benchmark). If I get groups closer to 1/2 MOA or better, I am even happier! Velocity is nice, but I am looking for accuracy first. If I get both, I am even happier still! I have been fortunate in acquiring or having custom guns built, that have proven accurate over the years! I subscribe to the saying, "the only interesting rifle is an accurate rifle"; unless of course it has pretty wood, or is lefthanded!) ;)

Over the years, I have found the Nosler AccuBond bullets the quickest and easiest to work up loads with, and that they provide excellent on-game performance, so have become my favourite hunting bullet overall. Luckily, I was able to acquire decent amounts of these over the years to keep me in a decent supply in my preferred bullet weights fir each caliber I use, for the foreseeable future!:D

I still use and like Sierra SGK's, Speer Hot Cor's, Hornady Interlock's, and Nosler Partitions and Ballistic Tips. Still need to do more work with Swift A Frames, but like their design too.
 
adamg said:
I like your thinking here.
It has occurred to me that people pick a "promising" load and shoot higher round counts, measure the results, and claim they found an especially good one. But what they don't do is pick a "terrible" load and shoot it enough to really validate that it is worse than their "promising" load.

If you want me to believe your carefully discovered load is so special, then show me how much better it is than the worst load you could have picked.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I started reloading not long ago. I only load for hunting purposes. My "need" for accuracy is 10-shot groups at or below 1.5 MOA. I shoot animals under 400 yards.

I've been using the Rokslide/Form method of load development, but slightly altered. I don't need crazy velocity or to push for pressure. I shoot ELDMs or ELDXs and they will open/kill effectively at 1800fps which is well beyond 400 yards. So I am for 2600-2700fps muzzle velocity. I checked a couple of manuals and find generally what charge weight of that specific powder will give me that range of velocity. I use good components. I load 10 rounds at that charge weight, then I load 10 rounds at a grain below. I shoot two 10-shot groups. If one of them shoots 1.5 MOA, I'm done and good to go.

I've really enjoyed listening to the Hornady podcasts about load development and how important it is to identify SMALL SAMPLE SIZE BIAS. This method works good for my needs. I did recently get very lucky with my new Tikka 223 Rem where my first 10-shot group of 22 grs of VV N135 shot .78 MOA.

Also, I see the value of judging group sizes, but it's looking at the extreme spread. If I convert those numbers to the mean radius of the group, then 1.5 MOA is damn accurate and I will shoot approximately .4-.6 inches of my point of aim at 100 yards.
 
adamg said:
I like your thinking here.
It has occurred to me that people pick a "promising" load and shoot higher round counts, measure the results, and claim they found an especially good one. But what they don't do is pick a "terrible" load and shoot it enough to really validate that it is worse than their "promising" load.

If you want me to believe your carefully discovered load is so special, then show me how much better it is than the worst load you could have picked.
Click to expand...
Lead hammer said:
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.
Click to expand...

AdamG : It's the confirmation bias funnel. You find best powder node, seating node, etc - funneling the results down to the best of the best...nobody retests the bad stuff

Lead hammer : No doubt, some ammo performs better than others. But within a "load", let's say H4350 & 130 ELDm as Creed components, does Seating depth / charge weight combo A, actually shoot better than combo B, C, D or E in larger sample testing?

leo.sun said:
Also, I see the value of judging group sizes, but it's looking at the extreme spread. If I convert those numbers to the mean radius of the group, then 1.5 MOA is damn accurate and I will shoot approximately .4-.6 inches of my point of aim at 100 yards.
Click to expand...

Mean radius is a much stronger way to measure precision. Group size extreme spread factors in only the two worst shots. Mean radius takes every impact into consideration. Think of it as the holes in paper version as Standard Deviation on the chronograph screen

W7NUaXH.jpeg


Mean radius 0.31moa , the small white X 1.4" above aiming point is the average impact location of the 12 round group. If you only looked at group size records, you may never load that combo up in the future

bcsteve said:
Anyone who’s interested in this thread needs to listen to Hornady’ podcast episodes #50 “Your groups are too small” and #52 “Your groups are still too small”.
Click to expand...

And also Episode #57 - One hole groups | Dispersion |
& #99 Let's Talk Mean Radius
 
Mean radius is good. That’s just it. Sometimes you can have the same size group, after 10, 20, 30 or whatever rounds but with way more closer to where you want them. That alone gives you better odds of a center hit and within reason can be a better load.
This target after getting it home is a 10 shot, the bullet hole at 3:00 from center is two into one. ( I was confused with the target as my empty brass was adding up correctly lol )
The two high shots were either me or the load, the left one was my fault, but regardless I had lots where I wanted them even though the overall group was less than stellar. 7 of 10 into 1” at 300M
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6459.jpeg
    IMG_6459.jpeg
    121.1 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom