Honestly Evaluating Load Accuracy
- Thread starter Joe Texas
- Start date
- Status
I single load every round, close the bolt, and settle in. There is always a lot of changes from shot to shot lol.
Just finished shooting a 75 grain Hornady BTHP ladder. Results look promising.Hornady 75 grain BTHP
23.4 grains Varget
Lapua/FM
2.30 COL
2700 FPS
SD 14
.4375 five-shot group
Average group size across all 10 incremental charges from 23.0 to 24.8 was .745. Can’t hardly go wrong with this combo.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,181
Sounds like you have it covered, I hope you find the problem with your loads.
When I am testing I try and remove myself as much from the equation as possible. If I can do that, I don’t need to settle in, just make sure everything is in place before I let the next shot go, then if the rifle/load can shoot one hole, in that environment, they do.
Trashyshoots
Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2019
- Messages
- 598
This, right here is true. I cannot tell you how many times I've been asked to shoot another guys rifle or pistol at the range to help them evaluate if its them having an off day, or the load being weird.
Last edited:
JMorris “Sounds like you have it covered, I hope you find the problem with your loads.”
Thanks. You might have missed the point of this thread a little though. I don’t believe there was a “problem” with my “loads”. In my original post, I referred to a load that shot a sub half moa 5 shot group while I was conducting a charge test ladder. That same load averaged 1.14” over 5 five-shot groups. Nothing changed. I didn’t shoot bad (at least relative to my ability).That load or my rifle or my shooting just didn’t prove to be sub 1/2 moa when a larger sample size was used for evaluation.
The point of the thread was to discuss how we (I) make accuracy claims based on insufficient data. This is a common practice on internet forums, in product reviews, and when shootin’ the breeze with fellow gun guys.
I solved my “problem” by buying a new barrel and developing loads for it that are turning out to be truly sub moa or better (at 100 yards at least) over a much larger sample size than just one 5-shot group. My marksmanship didn’t improve that much in the last week or so. My barrel did. My brass quality did. I just had to face the truth about my results to see my need for improvement and make necessary changes instead of stubbornly believing what I wanted to believe based on limited data. Moving forward, I will subject my accuracy claims to more demanding evaluation standards so I can believe them.
My challenge to those on The High Road is to truly take the high road regarding accuracy claims. Think your load or gun is sub moa? Great! Can your rifle or load reliably, repeatedly, and consistently produce sub moa groups without excuse? Then it truly lives up to its accuracy claim. If the claim is based on a single 3 or 5 shot group, statistically that just isn’t enough supporting data for validation. This isn’t new information. It just happens to have recently become very apparent to me at this stage of my reloading journey.
My point was that I had a habit of doing just that and it was hindering me from TRULY reaching my accuracy goals. I proclaimed my load super awesome based on a 5 round sample size, wrote it down in my book, and called it a 1/2” load. It wasn’t. I took a picture of my group to brag about but I was only fooling myself.
I don’t want to do that any more. I want to continue to get better at my hobby. I want to raise my standards.I want to be confident that when I make an accuracy claim it’s statistically verifiable and produces my claimed accuracy level virtually every time without excuse. If I need an excuse, my claim might be suspect.
Don’t misunderstand me. I drool over pictures of one ragged hole groups like they are pretty girls. I’m easily convinced that I need that that gun or bullet or powder based on pics like that. I’m just learning that something happening once is no guarantee that it will happen every time. I’m learning that it’s possible that it won’t happen very often at all. I’m learning that pics like that are often exaggerating accuracy by design to sell something or just to brag a little. I get it. I just won’t be so quick to believe that every target pic I see is statistically valid. Unless, of course it is a pic demonstrating something that happened over and over and over and over.
Thanks. You might have missed the point of this thread a little though. I don’t believe there was a “problem” with my “loads”. In my original post, I referred to a load that shot a sub half moa 5 shot group while I was conducting a charge test ladder. That same load averaged 1.14” over 5 five-shot groups. Nothing changed. I didn’t shoot bad (at least relative to my ability).That load or my rifle or my shooting just didn’t prove to be sub 1/2 moa when a larger sample size was used for evaluation.
The point of the thread was to discuss how we (I) make accuracy claims based on insufficient data. This is a common practice on internet forums, in product reviews, and when shootin’ the breeze with fellow gun guys.
I solved my “problem” by buying a new barrel and developing loads for it that are turning out to be truly sub moa or better (at 100 yards at least) over a much larger sample size than just one 5-shot group. My marksmanship didn’t improve that much in the last week or so. My barrel did. My brass quality did. I just had to face the truth about my results to see my need for improvement and make necessary changes instead of stubbornly believing what I wanted to believe based on limited data. Moving forward, I will subject my accuracy claims to more demanding evaluation standards so I can believe them.
My challenge to those on The High Road is to truly take the high road regarding accuracy claims. Think your load or gun is sub moa? Great! Can your rifle or load reliably, repeatedly, and consistently produce sub moa groups without excuse? Then it truly lives up to its accuracy claim. If the claim is based on a single 3 or 5 shot group, statistically that just isn’t enough supporting data for validation. This isn’t new information. It just happens to have recently become very apparent to me at this stage of my reloading journey.
My point was that I had a habit of doing just that and it was hindering me from TRULY reaching my accuracy goals. I proclaimed my load super awesome based on a 5 round sample size, wrote it down in my book, and called it a 1/2” load. It wasn’t. I took a picture of my group to brag about but I was only fooling myself.
I don’t want to do that any more. I want to continue to get better at my hobby. I want to raise my standards.I want to be confident that when I make an accuracy claim it’s statistically verifiable and produces my claimed accuracy level virtually every time without excuse. If I need an excuse, my claim might be suspect.
Don’t misunderstand me. I drool over pictures of one ragged hole groups like they are pretty girls. I’m easily convinced that I need that that gun or bullet or powder based on pics like that. I’m just learning that something happening once is no guarantee that it will happen every time. I’m learning that it’s possible that it won’t happen very often at all. I’m learning that pics like that are often exaggerating accuracy by design to sell something or just to brag a little. I get it. I just won’t be so quick to believe that every target pic I see is statistically valid. Unless, of course it is a pic demonstrating something that happened over and over and over and over.
Last edited:
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,181
I understand that, why scores for smallest group and aggregate exist. One can have the smallest bug hole group but agg in the .3’s
Statistics, shooters, equipment and skill at using it factor into the “even a blind chicken can find a piece of corn” parts. When you total up all of them vs just a single golden BB.
I guess it’s just something people can’t get away from
https://www.accurateshooter.com/competition/rise-of-the-railguns-ibs-benchrest/
even with firearms that agg in the .1’s (notice 8th place was in the .2’s) but what’s the first photo? Yep, a .039...
I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying a rifle “can” or “has” shot x.x group but we all know underlying variables control outcome.
Last edited:
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,254
The last F Class match I shot would say that I do not have an MOA rifle.
I fired 120 shots for record over 2 days (60 each day) and only managed to put 115 out of the 120 inside a 1 MOA circle at 600 yards.
That’s a pretty good sample size over multiple days and it came up short on the the often claimed “MOA all day”. Maybe it’s because I didn’t “do my part”.
(As a matter of fact, I’m sure of it)You see my point. Accuracy claims are arbitrary without some standard. So, I’ll put the challenge back on you. Define the inputs that we should use to validated the outputs in an accuracy test?
The last F Class match I shot would say that I do not have an MOA rifle.
I fired 120 shots for record over 2 days (60 each day) and only managed to put 115 out of the 120 inside a 1 MOA circle at 600 yards.
That’s a pretty good sample size over multiple days and it came up short on the the often claimed “MOA all day”. Maybe it’s because I didn’t “do my part”.
You see my point. Accuracy claims are arbitrary without some standard. So, I’ll put the challenge back on you. Define the inputs that we should use to validated the outputs in an accuracy test?
Yeah, your point is valid (of course) and kinda exposes the douchey way I’m talking as if I am somehow “the decider” for accuracy.
I’m sure it was obvious that the core of my concern was about the veracity of my own claims rather than pointing fingers at any other specific people. It would be especially stupid of me to criticize shooters whose skill level and experience far exceeds my own.
That said, how about this - we all agree that a 3 round group is meaningless on its own? 5 is better, 10 is even mo’ better. More is always better than less. We can also all agree that it’s a free country and each individual is free to set their own standards. Mine will be a minimum of 5 x 5 round groups at 100 yards with a mean spread at or below my accuracy claim. I think that’s been a widely accepted standard long before I started running my trap anyway. Then I’ll see if they can do it at 200.
When we start talking about further than 200 I need to shut up ‘cause that’s further than I have cause, experience, skill, or local opportunity to test my loads. I shot some groups at 200 this morning. My accuracy claims were verified to my satisfaction. I have pics of two of the five groups I shot with my 69 grain load. All were sub moa or smaller. More to the point of the thread, the 1.4 something group isn’t a 3/4” group with one “called flyer”. It is 1.4 something.
Last edited:
JFrank
Member
Load development is fairly straight forward, Staying in tune is an ongoing never ending task,
3 shot test groups are fine, ( if they aren’t touching at 100 yards why shoot more?)
Competition courses of fire are
IBS /NBRSA light guns shoot 5 shots for record at 600 & 1000 yards
NBRSA heavy guns shoot 10 shots etc.
Average groups over 6- 10 targets tell the story and are the most desirable for myself and the fellas I know.
3 shot test groups are fine, ( if they aren’t touching at 100 yards why shoot more?)
Competition courses of fire are
IBS /NBRSA light guns shoot 5 shots for record at 600 & 1000 yards
NBRSA heavy guns shoot 10 shots etc.
Average groups over 6- 10 targets tell the story and are the most desirable for myself and the fellas I know.
@Nature Boy, SPJ, jmorris and all who contributed to this thread:
Thank you all for allowing me to learn from your experience and perspective. Please accept my apology for any appearance of arrogance in my statements.
When ya’ll start talking about long distance matches w/distances of 600-1000 yds, it kind of puts things in perspective and puts me in my place. Thanks for the lesson in humility.
I shoot a 1” group at 200 yards and think I’m Chris Kyle or something. When I imagine shooting further it’s intimidating. It reminds me that I’m just a guy making ammo in his garage to punch holes in paper with. It’s easy to take yourself a little too seriously when you devote so much time, effort, and $ into something.
Maybe one day soon I’ll stretch my shooting distance a bit. The learning curve will be steep I’m sure. I’m also sure I’ll look back on some of the things I think I know now and cringe. Until then, I’ll just try to keep learning and getting better. Thanks again for helping me to do just that.
Thank you all for allowing me to learn from your experience and perspective. Please accept my apology for any appearance of arrogance in my statements.
When ya’ll start talking about long distance matches w/distances of 600-1000 yds, it kind of puts things in perspective and puts me in my place. Thanks for the lesson in humility.
I shoot a 1” group at 200 yards and think I’m Chris Kyle or something. When I imagine shooting further it’s intimidating. It reminds me that I’m just a guy making ammo in his garage to punch holes in paper with. It’s easy to take yourself a little too seriously when you devote so much time, effort, and $ into something.
Maybe one day soon I’ll stretch my shooting distance a bit. The learning curve will be steep I’m sure. I’m also sure I’ll look back on some of the things I think I know now and cringe. Until then, I’ll just try to keep learning and getting better. Thanks again for helping me to do just that.
JFrank
Member
An excellent post, no one has shot beyond 200 yards until they HAVE , a little secret shooting 1000 yards is actually quite easy ( the target is huge)
.I make my ammunition in the garage or dining room with a very small set of hand tools.
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,254
No reason to apologize from my perspective. I certainly took no offense
JFrank
Member
Ditto
- Status
Similar threads
