Rifle Nodes: How You’ve Been Wasting Your Time and Money on Load Development
- Thread starter CanMike
- Start date
I do think that the referenced Hornady podcast, along with some of Bryan Litz's books, will go down in history as the moment an entire community changed their opinions on and approach to load development.
This article adds substantial water to the tide of shifting opinions.
My one complaint with this article is that he used three poor-shooting rifles to do the testing. He mentions the possibility that if the old-school load development techniques were ever going to work, it would be on these poor-shooting rifles. And then he proves they don't work on these rifles: his 3 MOA rifle is still 3 MOA after his best efforts to find a special load.
However he really left uncharted the possibility that the techniques work on well-shooting rifles. It's very possible that any kind of load development classified as "fine-tuning" would require a fine-shooting rifle to expose the effect.
This article adds substantial water to the tide of shifting opinions.
My one complaint with this article is that he used three poor-shooting rifles to do the testing. He mentions the possibility that if the old-school load development techniques were ever going to work, it would be on these poor-shooting rifles. And then he proves they don't work on these rifles: his 3 MOA rifle is still 3 MOA after his best efforts to find a special load.
However he really left uncharted the possibility that the techniques work on well-shooting rifles. It's very possible that any kind of load development classified as "fine-tuning" would require a fine-shooting rifle to expose the effect.
Litz, Hornady, Tyler Freel and most of the rest are the biggest idiots I’ve seen in 55 years of shooting.
Litz has never posted impressive 100 yard groups and written how many books? Hornady is in the same boat and yap incessantly. If you suggest groups are too small you not recognizing what is causing the difference. Here we go.
They have no clue about maintaining a firm hold to simulate the effect of flat bottomed stocks to minimize POA change between trigger break and bullet exit. If you keep your eye open after the trigger breaks until muzzle flash you be able to recognize the shooter error on display as reticle movement/point of aim error, it happens fast, pay attention. The feel of recoil and torque must also be duplicated.
“MAINTAINING POINT OF AIM UNTIL BULLET EXIT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ACCURACY REGARDLESS OF EQUIPMENT AND AMMO QUALITY”
There’s a $5 Billion/year firearms accessory industry $selling accuracy remedies while ignoring point of aim control.
It’s so ####ed up.
POA control can be refined into the .1’s of moa with DIY premium prefits and sometimes a factory stock, most definitely available from your DIY mailbox stocks. No waiting on a smith or messing with bedding.
Factory barrels are impossible to truly tune or find a node (which means timing the bullet exit when the barrel is motionless) because the inconsistent barrrel diameter causes multiple vibrations and echoes of vibrations since steel vibrates at roughly 19,000fps.
Custom barrels like a starting point of bullets jammed in the rifling. How much you seat the bullet on bolt close is often the fine tune. Somewhere there will be a similarly accurate mag feedable jump point but it’s more work to find.
The 100 yard target below demonstrates what adjustments to powder charge accomplishes. I let the rear bag turn causing drift to the left. A clear 36x allowed me to see every impact.
Rounds16-27 in new a IBI prefit in 6BR. testing 29-29.6 grains. There is four bullets in the hole at the top causing tears in the paper when it was hitting the edge the previous impact. The gap at the bottom was from not properly packing the rear bag.
Climbing until it reached vertical overlap with two 29.4 shooting a fraction of a bullet lower than two 29.6. 29.8 would likely shoot the very same as 29.6 or slightly lower but pressure was too high, pressuring out is the term. 28.5 is working post barrel break-in.
Then cool mornings and warm afternoons will shoot very much the same.
Now rear bag position matters. Fore/aft bag placement error is sometimes not visible in the scope. After #2 noticed I had crept the gun foreward to aim lower because I didn’t pack the bag before I started, rear bag further back on the stock will reduce muzzle rise causing lower poi. Moved back to where I thought it was for 3. Decided to abandon this mess and go for two more after moving the bag back a full inch for 4,5 without moving the well packed bag between shots.
There was horizontal reticle movement from pulse as well. Strong muscles and tight hold reduces the effect. Measuring a group’s horizontal as gun or load dependant is dishonest unless you are high mileage on a flat bottom stock and $2000+ of front rest and rear bag. Adjust loads or test different factory ammo for vertical.
IME factory barrel 1.5 inch vertical at 100 is two feet at 1000. A custom 0.1’s at 100 stay under 2.0 at 1000.
Good enough for Bart Sauter to like the 12 shot and for Matt Kline to give rear bag advice on the 5. Both world record Benchrest shooters. The posers mentioned above will NEVER receive such praise, unless they get their #### together.
Now applied to the less stable standing BogDG. A little wind and I threw the last fkr way to the right. Tripod horizontal control is a dirty #####. After adding an inch of elevation for the drop two yards to the 4x8 that’s well under 3inches vertical at 1000.
Cold bore kneeling BogDG at the center six inch circle. Vertical zero within a hockey puck at 1000yds.
This is the realm of case design, hand lapped barrels, seating depth discerned to .001 inch, powder charge in vertical overlap(positive compensation), and POA control until bullet exit(long duration follow through).
And Zero fks given about ES or SD.
Litz has never posted impressive 100 yard groups and written how many books? Hornady is in the same boat and yap incessantly. If you suggest groups are too small you not recognizing what is causing the difference. Here we go.
They have no clue about maintaining a firm hold to simulate the effect of flat bottomed stocks to minimize POA change between trigger break and bullet exit. If you keep your eye open after the trigger breaks until muzzle flash you be able to recognize the shooter error on display as reticle movement/point of aim error, it happens fast, pay attention. The feel of recoil and torque must also be duplicated.
“MAINTAINING POINT OF AIM UNTIL BULLET EXIT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ACCURACY REGARDLESS OF EQUIPMENT AND AMMO QUALITY”
There’s a $5 Billion/year firearms accessory industry $selling accuracy remedies while ignoring point of aim control.
It’s so ####ed up.
POA control can be refined into the .1’s of moa with DIY premium prefits and sometimes a factory stock, most definitely available from your DIY mailbox stocks. No waiting on a smith or messing with bedding.
Factory barrels are impossible to truly tune or find a node (which means timing the bullet exit when the barrel is motionless) because the inconsistent barrrel diameter causes multiple vibrations and echoes of vibrations since steel vibrates at roughly 19,000fps.
Custom barrels like a starting point of bullets jammed in the rifling. How much you seat the bullet on bolt close is often the fine tune. Somewhere there will be a similarly accurate mag feedable jump point but it’s more work to find.
The 100 yard target below demonstrates what adjustments to powder charge accomplishes. I let the rear bag turn causing drift to the left. A clear 36x allowed me to see every impact.
Rounds16-27 in new a IBI prefit in 6BR. testing 29-29.6 grains. There is four bullets in the hole at the top causing tears in the paper when it was hitting the edge the previous impact. The gap at the bottom was from not properly packing the rear bag.
Climbing until it reached vertical overlap with two 29.4 shooting a fraction of a bullet lower than two 29.6. 29.8 would likely shoot the very same as 29.6 or slightly lower but pressure was too high, pressuring out is the term. 28.5 is working post barrel break-in.
Then cool mornings and warm afternoons will shoot very much the same.
Now rear bag position matters. Fore/aft bag placement error is sometimes not visible in the scope. After #2 noticed I had crept the gun foreward to aim lower because I didn’t pack the bag before I started, rear bag further back on the stock will reduce muzzle rise causing lower poi. Moved back to where I thought it was for 3. Decided to abandon this mess and go for two more after moving the bag back a full inch for 4,5 without moving the well packed bag between shots.
There was horizontal reticle movement from pulse as well. Strong muscles and tight hold reduces the effect. Measuring a group’s horizontal as gun or load dependant is dishonest unless you are high mileage on a flat bottom stock and $2000+ of front rest and rear bag. Adjust loads or test different factory ammo for vertical.
IME factory barrel 1.5 inch vertical at 100 is two feet at 1000. A custom 0.1’s at 100 stay under 2.0 at 1000.
Good enough for Bart Sauter to like the 12 shot and for Matt Kline to give rear bag advice on the 5. Both world record Benchrest shooters. The posers mentioned above will NEVER receive such praise, unless they get their #### together.
Now applied to the less stable standing BogDG. A little wind and I threw the last fkr way to the right. Tripod horizontal control is a dirty #####. After adding an inch of elevation for the drop two yards to the 4x8 that’s well under 3inches vertical at 1000.
Cold bore kneeling BogDG at the center six inch circle. Vertical zero within a hockey puck at 1000yds.
This is the realm of case design, hand lapped barrels, seating depth discerned to .001 inch, powder charge in vertical overlap(positive compensation), and POA control until bullet exit(long duration follow through).
And Zero fks given about ES or SD.
Last edited:
Powder / Bullet relationship is a thing with regards to how the bullets disperse on target. H4350 may shoot tighter than IMR 4350 under ____ bullet in your particular rifle. Or vice versa
I've put about 5000 rounds downrange in the last year and a half, doing load development for about 2 dozen rifles and the nodes are gone when you do a 15 to 30 round sample of powder charge A vs B, seating depth A vs B
all I can say is, try doing some of these larger sample sized tests for yourself and let us know if the nodes go away
I've put about 5000 rounds downrange in the last year and a half, doing load development for about 2 dozen rifles and the nodes are gone when you do a 15 to 30 round sample of powder charge A vs B, seating depth A vs B
all I can say is, try doing some of these larger sample sized tests for yourself and let us know if the nodes go away
Hornady isn't lying about the dispersion factor, it exists, if they were, the benchresters would be able to shoot in the 1's all day long, every day. No matter how tight the gun will shoot consistently on a good day, it can shoot different 4 hrs later or a day later and different again a week later. Powders will usually produce the most variance, get the odd batch of bullets that does too, and some days the nut at the butt is at fault. Equipt is a factor, I would not expect most factory varmint gun or barrels to shoot with a built for comps gun. Not to mention that no matter how good it shoots, if you can't read wind, you can't shoot those tiny grps. I thought Little Crow did a pretty decent job of his 7mm comparison and the "reloading" vid after that with the 308 as far as powder selection, interpreting targets went, and dispelling some krap about ballistics. I don't see the node stuff being really reliable at less than about 25 shots to confirm, may take 50-75 shots to get to that point, by the time you go thru powder/pressure, finding powder chg or powder, seating depth. You can get to "good enough" quicker, but, that depends on your version of good enough some people's versions take more, some take less, some never really prove the load out all the way.
