Limited Component Load Development

[Varminterror]

Top row right connects to bottom row left. 41.0 to 42.4, every 0.2. The top row drops from 1 to 3, then rises again at 4, and is relatively flat 4-6, then falls again from 6 to 8. So that tells me there is more vertical consistency for 6-8 than anywhere else. Crossreferencing this with the velocity data, there was only a few fps difference between all shots for 4 and 5, then a marked jump for 6, so the node is really within 4-5, with 6 outside of the edge.

This is a 100yrd target, which isn't ideal, but that's what was available during that day, and this was a repeat of tests done many times before. If I were doing this for a new barrel, I'd shoot this test at 500-600yrds, or at LEAST 300yrds, to help ensure those slight vertical shifts are dominated by the load, not by mechanical errors at the rifle.

 

[DMW1116]

Interesting. Is there a name for this method or something you’ve developed over the years?

 

[Varminterror]

Interesting. Is there a name for this method or something you’ve developed over the years?

As I mentioned a few posts above, that iteration I use the most is the Newberry OCW method, which is effectively a reimagination of the same Ladder Test by Creighton Audette decades earlier (depicted by @South Prairie Jim on page 1, and which I mentioned being too lazy to mark bullets to do in most outings), combined with what is NOW called a Satterlee Velocity Curve, after Scott Satterlee, which is ALSO derived from Creighton Audette's ladder method, but now popularized due to the ready availability of chronographs.

Here are a couple other examples of analysis I did for other threads on this forum in 2020 and another forum several years ago:

This was the target array provided:


Laying these out side by side and analyzing the vertical displacements, we can see there's some up and down until 5-7, then up again by 8.


Superimposing all of these onto ONE point of aim, we see the same result: 5-7 cluster together, with up and down between neighbors for charges outside of the node, so loading at #6 should be a very forgiving load, even though it's not the smallest group on the page.


Here's another charge ladder by a user here in 2020. aligned as a Newberry test. We see stability in the early few charges, then some wobble.


Again, superimposing these onto ONE point of aim, we first see why this version of the test is difficult at short range, since there simply isn't enough dispersion to really make the results legible, but we see clustering of the group centers between 42.4-43.0grn... Red goes up to orange, then yellow, green, blue, and purple kind of bobble together, before falling steeply to pink and grey...


If we look at the velocity curve for each of these, we see a flat spot 42.4-42.6, and conveniently, 42.4 also has a very small spread between the few shots of the group compared to the rest of the groups. So combining the information from the targets and the curve, it looks like we're in a pretty safe spot around 42.4.

 

[JerkyFreak]

What everyone seems to forget is that the barrel doesn't just whip up and down. The axial movement by the muzzle is a complicated squiggle due to a number of factors. The offset off the bore axis of the centre of gravity due to the stock, bolt handle and various attachments to the rifle and barrel. You also have to acount for the torque generated trying to spin the bullet. Then there is also the method used for restraining the rifle during firing.

Groups can be diagonal, horizontal and vertical with small changes in load. This is also why any change to the rifle can invalidate your load development.

 

[DMW1116]

Top row right connects to bottom row left. 41.0 to 42.4, every 0.2. The top row drops from 1 to 3, then rises again at 4, and is relatively flat 4-6, then falls again from 6 to 8. So that tells me there is more vertical consistency for 6-8 than anywhere else. Crossreferencing this with the velocity data, there was only a few fps difference between all shots for 4 and 5, then a marked jump for 6, so the node is really within 4-5, with 6 outside of the edge.

This is a 100yrd target, which isn't ideal, but that's what was available during that day, and this was a repeat of tests done many times before. If I were doing this for a new barrel, I'd shoot this test at 500-600yrds, or at LEAST 300yrds, to help ensure those slight vertical shifts are dominated by the load, not by mechanical errors at the rifle.

I’m revisiting this thread as I plan to start the Barnes test soon. However for something like a 30-30, would 100 yards work? With its relatively low velocity and quick deceleration for most bullets, can shorter ranges be used with the same benefit?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I read a lot of this thread but not all of it.
IMO if this load is being developed as a hunting load you are done.
If you can shoot within 2 MOA you are just fine. Competition is totally different but for hunting you are fine.
Remember, unless you are testing off of a Ransom Rest it's extremely possible the ammo is fine and the slight opening of the groups is shooter induced.
I'm well over 60 and my grandfather put a lot of meat on the table using rifles of the time that were considered good if they shot 4 MOA.
Stop obsessing and go hunting, you already found a good load. Well done...

 

[JFrank]

Well if a fella is shooting off hand or semi stable in the field , 2 moa plus a wobble is going to make it tougher than it should be to place a good shot on an animal. I would prefer a bit more accuracy.

 

[Varminterror]

I’m revisiting this thread as I plan to start the Barnes test soon. However for something like a 30-30, would 100 yards work? With its relatively low velocity and quick deceleration for most bullets, can shorter ranges be used with the same benefit?

Yes and no. Using the Satterlee curve (Chronograph) results as the dominating arbiter in the analysis (as I depicted in my own results above), then 100yrds can work - frankly, the test can be done without any target at all.

But since you do not own a Chronograph, 100yrds doesn’t work when doing POI comparisons alone. Even for a .30-30. It’s just not far enough for trajectory and harmonic compensation influences to become the dominating influences over mechanical error influences in the POI. Yes, a 30-30 is slow and has low BC, but it’s not slow enough nor with a BC low enough - the gravitational drop on the .30-30 at 100 is still only ~1/2”, there simply isn’t enough vertical dispersion influence at 100yrds to be differentiatable in a POI based test. I prefer to shoot these tests at 600+ yards, but consider 300 a minimum distance for valid results, which means ~1mil of gravitational drop for most high velocity bottleneck cartridges. A minimum distance under the same standard for .30-30 would be roughly ~225yrds, but not 100.

 

[DMW1116]

That is unfortunate. The longest range I generally have access to is 200 yards. I may try it anyway just to see what happens.

 

[AJC1]

That is unfortunate. The longest range I generally have access to is 200 yards. I may try it anyway just to see what happens.

For that round 200 would be reasonable based on application. One has to tailor their testing based on what they have available. Would more be better, sure. Can't use what you don't have. One thing nagging in the back of my mind is bullet bc consistency. Not sure if 30-30 bullets are near the same game as match bullets, and will add dispersion to your test, making results harder to interpret.

 

[kmw1954]

This is a target I just posted the other day in another topic.
This is a bullet I have not shot before and part of what I am looking to do is to see if this would be a viable replacement and improvement over the bullet and load I am already shooting. Of this bullet I only have 100 pcs to work with like you. Only I have 3 separate powders I want to try it with.

Like Varminterror this is shot in 3 shot groups, in .3gr powder increments. Biggest difference is I shot one load at a time in round robin to create my 3 shot group. I do not want to shoot 3 shots at the same target and then move to the next load. Also as you comment I an restricted to just 300yds max distance.

By the shot groupings in this target I will be looking at 22.4 to 22.7 as the best node. As I believe the one errant shot at 22.4 was the shooter and not the load or the rifle. Also that load at 23.3 I believe is an anomaly even though it is the smallest group.. I am in the process of now loading this at 22.4, 22.5, 22.6, 22.7 and 22.8 to try and verify the node. From there I will go to 300yds and see how it holds up. Oh and BTW this was all shot with the same scope setting after the final setting on the sight-in target.

 

[DMW1116]

I skimmed the procedure from the Newberry OCW website. I’ll read it in more detail and try it for the Barnes Match Burner load test with TAC powder.

 

[AJC1]

I skimmed the procedure from the Newberry OCW website. I’ll read it in more detail and try it for the Barnes Match Burner load test with TAC powder.

Are you loading pointy bullets in 30-30? I haven't got that far in testing but I have those bullets and power so results are highly desired. I single load so saftey is not a legit concern.

 

[Varminterror]

Like Varminterror this is shot in 3 shot groups, in .3gr powder increments. Biggest difference is I shot one load at a time in round robin to create my 3 shot group.

This isn’t different from how I shot my tests. Round Robin is how I explained to you over a year ago how this test is fired.

 

[kmw1954]

I thought so but then the memory isn't as sharp as it once was! Credit you you once again!

 

[JFrank]

This is a target I just posted the other day in another topic.
This is a bullet I have not shot before and part of what I am looking to do is to see if this would be a viable replacement and improvement over the bullet and load I am already shooting. Of this bullet I only have 100 pcs to work with like you. Only I have 3 separate powders I want to try it with.

Like Varminterror this is shot in 3 shot groups, in .3gr powder increments. Biggest difference is I shot one load at a time in round robin to create my 3 shot group. I do not want to shoot 3 shots at the same target and then move to the next load. Also as you comment I an restricted to just 300yds max distance.

By the shot groupings in this target I will be looking at 22.4 to 22.7 as the best node. As I believe the one errant shot at 22.4 was the shooter and not the load or the rifle. Also that load at 23.3 I believe is an anomaly even though it is the smallest group.. I am in the process of now loading this at 22.4, 22.5, 22.6, 22.7 and 22.8 to try and verify the node. From there I will go to 300yds and see how it holds up. Oh and BTW this was all shot with the same scope setting after the final setting on the sight-in target.
View attachment 1167974

Why don’t you just load 24.0 and be done ?

Loading/testing in a round robin format isn’t about the smallest group the emphasis is on point of impact as shots fall where they should in theory but we also shoot at one point of aim looking for overlap ( stability) before moving away or shifting.

 

[DMW1116]

Are you loading pointy bullets in 30-30? I haven't got that far in testing but I have those bullets and power so results are highly desired. I single load so saftey is not a legit concern.

No not yet. I’m still working on those 165 grain cast loads. I’m still planning on the minimum charge of H335 for now. I don’t think I can push them much faster without leading.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Well if a fella is shooting off hand or semi stable in the field , 2 moa plus a wobble is going to make it tougher than it should be to place a good shot on an animal. I would prefer a bit more accuracy.

So you're saying a 2 MOA gun even with the human factor can't hit the 8" kill zone of a deer?
I'm fairly sure most hunters can successfully take game with a gun like that.
Remember, the OP said his 3 shot groups are tight, only the larger strings open up a bit.
Most times 1 shot does it but even a second will still probably be fine.

 

[AJC1]

No not yet. I’m still working on those 165 grain cast loads. I’m still planning on the minimum charge of H335 for now. I don’t think I can push them much faster without leading.

Just for kicks try that 26 grain load of tac... I'm pushing 170s but close enough.

 

[JFrank]

So you're saying a 2 MOA gun even with the human factor can't hit the 8" kill zone of a deer?
I'm fairly sure most hunters can successfully take game with a gun like that.
Remember, the OP said his 3 shot groups are tight, only the larger strings open up a bit.
Most times 1 shot does it but even a second will still probably be fine.

I said it’s tougher than it should be.

Just to share a couple of experiences, shooting off hand at a lion from a mere 30-40 yards with a 1 minute load my round went just over her back.
Shooting my Bear from about 80-90 yards uphill, I missed with the first two shots and finally braced myself for the third shot that did the job.
While practicing off hand from about 50 yards my shots on a silhouette were very wild and probably would gut shoot at best.
I’m much better with a stable rest of some kind.

 

[kmw1954]

Why don’t you just load 24.0 and be done ?

So why 24.0, when there are 3 other examples there that are more consistent neither 23.9 of 24.2 were as close to the same hole/ POA/POI? Seriously I would like to know your reasoning. The black dots are about the size of the scoring bull we shoot for league. So why should I look at a load that doesn't shoot as small as possible?

 

[JFrank]

Because 23.9 and 24.2 are impacting a near identical location on the target and that is the most important part of an incremental charge ladder.
Added; the problem with chasing small groups while charge testing instead of stability is that they may not be small the next time nor impact the same spot meaning flyers. There are many ways to improve size through bullet hold or seating depth variances also primer testing etc.

 

[DMW1116]

I read a lot of this thread but not all of it.
IMO if this load is being developed as a hunting load you are done.
If you can shoot within 2 MOA you are just fine. Competition is totally different but for hunting you are fine.
Remember, unless you are testing off of a Ransom Rest it's extremely possible the ammo is fine and the slight opening of the groups is shooter induced.
I'm well over 60 and my grandfather put a lot of meat on the table using rifles of the time that were considered good if they shot 4 MOA.
Stop obsessing and go hunting, you already found a good load. Well done...

I’m not sure where the notion came from that this is a hunting load. The first post references testing Barnes Match bullets.

 

[kmw1954]

Because 23.9 and 24.2 are impacting a near identical location on the target and that is the most important part of an incremental charge ladder.
Added; the problem with chasing small groups while charge testing instead of stability is that they may not be small the next time nor impact the same spot meaning flyers. There are many ways to improve size through bullet hold or seating depth variances also primer testing etc.

Well I guess we can disagree then because I see 22.4 and 22.7 impacting at the same position 5 of 6 shot with the one outlier being shooter error. All black dot targets are centered to the same level as the red center target when they were placed which I can place a straightedge line to if you wish and then another across 224 and 22.7.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I’m not sure where the notion came from that this is a hunting load. The first post references testing Barnes Match bullets.

In my first post, Post #31, I said I wasn't sure if you were hunting or shooting matches. I didn't get a reply so I thought I was helping. Pardon me for not being sure.