Limited Component Load Development

[ArchAngelCD]

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.

Sorry to say this but if you're telling us you were shooting a 1 MOA load and missed that badly, well.... I don't think anything would help.that.

 

[DMW1116]

I’m doing neither really. I haven’t hunted in a long time though this might be considered a hunting load for something like coyote. This is for target use from a 20” M16A4 clone using iron sights. The flatter trajectory of a 52 grain bullet is handy for the relatively short distances I can see we’ll enough to use the carry handle sights. I’ll be using a scope for testing but back to the irons for practice.

 

[JFrank]

Sorry to say this but if you're telling us you were shooting a 1 MOA load and missed that badly, well.... I don't think anything would help.that.

Maybe, or maybe you are over estimating your abilities.
How about you focus on positive input ? We’ve all had our good shots and ones we would like to do over, it just goes with the territory.

 

[Varminterror]

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?

What is “more consistent” about the 3 other examples? You did not share velocity data for these groups/shots, are you saying the velocity nodes are revealed at 3 other charge windows? How is that possible with only 8 charge weights - that’s not enough steps to define 3 nodes?

That test CANNOT be properly analyzed based on group size, and must ONLY be considered for centroid RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT. There seems to be a lot going on from one group to the next until 23.9 and 24.2, which have the same vertical aspect relative to POA.

Very plainly - the answer to “so why should I look at a load that doesn’t shoot as small as possible?” is the very foundation of the existence of these methods, and the driving force behind the discussion which spurred this thread: 3 shot groups simply do not ACTUALLY tell you whether a load is really shooting as small as possible, or if that one group COINCIDENTALLY struck the smallest group on the page. It is VERY common for the smallest group in these tests to not actually be within a node. So chasing group size is the mistake new shooters and new reloaders like yourself will make, time and time again, negating the value of the test you just did.

But… with that said, this target is a good example of why these POI based methods don’t work at 100yrds. We have to be measuring to closer than 1/10th of an inch to determine relative vertical displacements for these groups - and these target dots do not offer a center aiming reference, so it’s quite possible that even the slightest mirage may drive a POA mechanical error which is larger than the harmonic offset in vertical placement of these groups. To my eye, 23.9 and 24.2 are the most consistent vertical position, so with no other information, I would test a node there again. BUT… knowing what I know after firing literally hundreds of these tests, I wouldn’t trust these 100yrd results to be independently meaningful, so I would move to at least 300yrds - it is quite likely the results would completely change.

 

[kmw1954]

Varminterror, I do not dispute anything you stated. Still remains that there must be a starting point.. In most cases a test such as this provides a pretty clear starting point, which as you point out this target does not. Though it does provide at least to me that this bullet will shoot very well in this gun and could possibly be a better choice than the one I was using.

There are no chrono numbers taken as has been stated from testing before I find it hard to get a velocity read when the ES has been generally in the 50FPS range with the same loads. Which is something else I have asked about over the years with no real answers provided.

Then you guys keep referring to picking the smallest target size, which I have not, 23.3 is the smallest yet the load each side of it is 3 to 4 times larger. Also the top two rows of targets are all 3 shot while the bottom two which everyone keeps picking is only TWO, because that is all I had left of those as I tried to run this test previously but was interrupted.

So I think I have hijacked this poor thread enough already, but what is surprising is that I've had more response and feedback to this thread than to my own thread that was exactly about this same issue.

 

[JFrank]

^^^Then you guys keep referring to picking the smallest target size…

Again~ load development isn’t about chasing the smallest group, small groups are the results of a completed process.
Here’s some work put in by one of the best at their craft.

Rifle load development methods compared

I’ve been curious how load development performed at 100 yards would stack up compared to the traditional ladder test shot at distance. Time and weather finally allowed me a window to get it done this morning. Bottom line: both methods compared favorably to each other. First, here’s the...

www.thehighroad.org

 

[Varminterror]

I asked specifically for what you found to be more “consistent” about the 3 other groups on the page, but you didn’t really answer. Reminding, of course, the question I’m asking: “what did you find to be more consistent about the 3 other examples, within the context of the experimental design you’re using?

To be blunt, the answer to why we keep pointing out that you are referring to the smallest group sizes is because you ARE doing so, which is NOT part of your experimental design of the OCW test you are shooting:

Then you guys keep referring to picking the smallest target size

These quotes are why - we’re observing that you are making decisions based on group size, NOT based on the proper principles of your test method:

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?

why should I look at a load that doesn't shoot as small as possible?

YOU bring up twice in these quotes that you’re favoring group size rather than the relative vertical displacement from one group to the next, so that is why we keep circling back there.

 

[Varminterror]

There are no chrono numbers taken as has been stated from testing before I find it hard to get a velocity read when the ES has been generally in the 50FPS range with the same loads. Which is something else I have asked about over the years with no real answers provided.

What are your specific questions regarding ES? Where have you asked them which has not garnered answers? I know many of us have discussed proven methods to reduce ES on this forum, so I’m a little surprised you feel you’ve been unable to get answers to your questions.

But if you have 50fps ES for your loads, something is sideways. Loading with the attention and intention you’re giving, your ES should always be south of 30fps - big ES like that is very indicative of a breakdown in fundamentals. Bad powder choice, bad fill ratio, bad primary ignition, or bad neck tension - the contributors to velocity disparity are limited and finite in number.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Maybe, or maybe you are over estimating your abilities.
How about you focus on positive input ? We’ve all had our good shots and ones we would like to do over, it just goes with the territory.

I was focusing on positive input. I gave my opinion the OP was doing well and gave him encouragement. You are the one who said I was wrong and I answered you. First you say a 2 MOA guns is bad and then tell us you shot completely over some game with a 1 MOA gun. How is that my fault? My mistake, I forgot these days many are easily hurt by words they don't like but think nothing of doing the same.

Don't worry, I'm done here because I have no time to play games with anyone on the NET.

 

[JFrank]

Good for you ‘
I will add that snap shots on moving animals isn’t as easy as it looks in the movies.

 

[JFrank]

I’ll post this example of some recent load work shot at one point of aim at 500 yards, I think I’ve covered two node’s pretty well. ( with only 16 shots ) One around the BL 30.4 another around the 30.9 where it’s stable and just before it starts to go away.
Added; this test was run on a super calm morning where my flag was hanging still throughout the entire test.. that rarely happens.

 

[DMW1116]

Does this work with pistols too? Maybe move to 50 yards? I think I foooled myself pretty good there too.

 

[AJC1]

Does this work with pistols too? Maybe move to 50 yards? I think I foooled myself pretty good there too.

I don't believe you could effectively determine barrel timing over noise in a pistol, and full lug, vs semi auto would make a test regimen highly variable.

 

[JFrank]

Does this work with pistols too? Maybe move to 50 yards? I think I foooled myself pretty good there too.

I’ve never tried tuning a pistol.

 

[DMW1116]

I did an incremental test months ago with a 125 grain bullet and W231 for 357 Magnum. I thought I had a good combo but today showed otherwise.

This is my Blackhawk with the questionable load, shot 25 yards off hand.


This is my Canik and SW22 shot the same way.


This one is labeled. It’s my Blackhawk with a proven load at 50 yards.

 

[AJC1]

I did an incremental test months ago with a 125 grain bullet and W231 for 357 Magnum. I thought I had a good combo but today showed otherwise.

This is my Blackhawk with the questionable load, shot 25 yards off hand.
View attachment 1168557

This is my Canik and SW22 shot the same way.
View attachment 1168558

This one is labeled. It’s my Blackhawk with a proven load at 50 yards.
View attachment 1168559

I can't test at 50 because I'm not that consistent of a shot. Most say a mechanical rest is required for legitimate testing. I test at 10 yards and do comparative evaluation.

 

[DMW1116]

I’ve never tried tuning a pistol.

I didn’t think it was worth it until I tried in my Blackhawk. It Salem’s to prefer fast powders with minimum charges like W231 and slower powders at near max charge, like 2400.

 

[DMW1116]

I can't test at 50 because I'm not that consistent of a shot. Most say a mechanical rest is required for legitimate testing. I test at 10 yards and do comparative evaluation.

At 10 yards my Blackhawk basically shoots one hole off a rest with several different loads. I have to shoot them at 25 to tell a difference. For that gun, a good load is under 1.5”. The suspect load here shot three into 3/4” and one off to the side that I discounted as a flier. Apparently those three were just lucky and the flier was the real thing.

 

[DMW1116]

A mechanical rest might be helpful to guarantee a certain group size but I feel confident some thing is off here even though I’m using off hand shooting.

 

[JFrank]

Does this work with pistols too? Maybe move to 50 yards? I think I foooled myself pretty good there too.

Did you see what I’m looking at with regard to overlapping rounds despite an increase in charge rate? I could just load 30.9-31.0 high node or 30.4 low node and call it good or fine tune a bit further.

 

[DMW1116]

Not really but I’m on my phone. I’ll have to look on my computer so I can see better.

 

[JFrank]

Not really but I’m on my phone. I’ll have to look on my computer so I can see better.

Well I’m kinda done here but if you ever wish to talk about it, hit me with a PM I’ll be happy to help where I can.

 

[DMW1116]

Just wanted to revisit this thread with some new testing looking for a load in my 20" upper. I'm looking for a low charge weight practice load for 100 yards shooting. Low charge weight saves money, but the primary purpose is to get as many rounds as possible from a pound of powder. Specific powders have been hard to find repeatedly since I started reloading in 2020. In such cases, I want to be able to get as many rounds as possible from the powder I can find.

I started with the minimum charge of Tactical Rifle and a 55 grain FMJ bullet. The groups were shot at 100 yards after mounting and zeroing a test scope with some minimum charge sighters. Most groups are all less than 2", which is acceptable for the purpose of this load and the components used. (looking at you, FMJ) The charges start with 17.5 grains and move up to 18.9 grains. I don't have a chronograph, so velocity data isn't used. Measurements between POA and POI were made with a digital caliper, rounded to the nearest 0.01". Measurements were made from center to center.

Over the 8 different loads things bounced around a surprising amount. Vertical variations were over 1.5" between groups in one case. I think I found a couple ranges that look good. One is between 17.7 and 17.9 grains. The groups were consistent, and the vertical difference was ~0.08" between the groups. This low a charge weight does run my 20" rifle, but not my 16" rifle. A second area of interest is around 18.7 and 18.9 grains. These two were even closer, as the vertical difference was ~0.06 " between the groups. I'm only interested in this range if I want a load to use in both 20" and 16" uppers, as I'm pretty sure that range will run the 16" fine.

I also reshot my Blackhawk with the questionable 125 grain load, and it seems I was having an off day. Both from a bench and shooting off hand, things tightened considerably, basically matching what I expected and often get from my other loads in this revolver. I'll explore this more as time permits. I think I've seen a node in pistol loading, as I had a series of 2400/158 grain XTP tests that basically all had the same group sizes and the same location on the target relative to the POA. Group sizes varied by 0.01 over three or four charge increments: 1.13", 1.14", & 1.15". That was a year or more ago, so I don't have targets anymore to do deeper calculations.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

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.

Good luck hauling that stable rest to the lions.
That’s a great way to feed the kitty

Seriously, no offense - I love your stories and have no doubt of your skills on a bench - but I’m pretty sure you have never seen a topical swamp so, here you go:


Where were you thinking the stable shooting bench should go?

By the, I have been hunting in this kind of terrain with revolvers since I ten. No bench. MOA? Don’t need no steenkeeng MOA’s to kill a deer.

 

[JFrank]

Good luck hauling that stable rest to the lions. View attachment 1172037
That’s a great way to feed the kitty

Seriously, no offense - I love your stories and have no doubt of your skills on a bench - but I’m pretty sure you have never seen a topical swamp so, here you go:

View attachment 1172039
Where were you thinking the stable shooting bench should go?

By the, I have been hunting in this kind of terrain with revolvers since I ten. No bench. MOA? Don’t need no steenkeeng MOA’s to kill a deer.

You are certainly right about being on the menu, I was referring to kneeling down, using a shooting stick or a tree to create anything beyond a standing and shooting off hand. I’ve had a few drop off hand but nothing spectacular ~ 90 yards with my 30-30 4x scope is about max for my off hand ability.
Benchrest shooting really doesn’t play into hunting very well, sorry for the misunderstanding and there are certainly guys that excel off hand as well, I think we’ve all had a shoots we’d like to do over, most guys won’t mention them though.
That swamp looks like real challenge, pretty amazing difference between the two landscapes.