Load developement procedure

NMexJim said:
CQB, ol buddy, he said crawl out from the dark and watch the podcasts. First hand is always best hand.

I'll add that the list of names and companies in Varms thread pretty much define modern scientific ballistic development. They have the means and cutting-edge facilities to test endlessly and that's just what they do.

Last, in the podcast they very carefully separate out the need for hunter class folks to conduct the painstaking test by benchrest and pro shooters. They admit to not doing all of it themselves as evidenced in some of this thread content.
Click to expand...
I don’t watch podcasts nor participate in activities for which podcasts are necessary but will stipulate this one is a good one.
 
Varminterror said:
Indeed, the Hornady engineers have presented data which suggests most common load development methods don't survive contact with actual science. One particularly polarizing episode presented results which show that the Satterlee curve (derived from Creighton Audette's Ladder method ~50yrs before) doesn't hold up. They presented data which showed that powder charge nodes - flat spots in the velocity vs. charge weight curve - don't survive from barrel to barrel. Alex Wheeler & Erik Cortina put out a podcast a couple of years ago which also agreed - there's no such thing as a velocity node, but rather we experience relatively coincidental nodes correlated to what really amounts to experimental bias which occur because competitors use the same components (bullets, brass, powder, barrels, cartridges) for the same purposes/courses of fire, so it should be natural that doing the same thing yields the same results... Bryan Litz & Doc Beech's team at Applied Ballistics have a similar podcast with similar findings, also published within Volume 3 of Applied Ballistics Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting (chapter starts on page 57 for those following along).

In my own testing, having conducted the same tests over multiple different barrels which both confirm repeatable results within a range of barrel life for a specific barrel, but ALSO confirm that powder charge nodes don't last forever and don't uniformly transfer from one barrel to the next. If I lay out 5 or 6 tests (15-18) on top of one another for a given barrel, I get nodes repeating in the same location, with ever so slight variability in the velocity result for each (hence why I confirm my nodes and correct my velocity before matches), BUT, when I overlay all of the data I have using the same components, which now spans 11 different barrels, I get one big, fuzzy catepillar shaped data set which perfectly matches a simple linear regression (Change in potential energy available = change in kinetic energy yielded by the system).

Alternatively, before a match last season, I swapped barrels at midnight on Wednesday night when I returned from a business trip and used absolutely arbitrary load data - I texted a buddy from Wisconsin who I knew was using the same bullet and brass - both new to me - and I dropped his load into my barrel, and at 9am Thursday morning, I shot the smallest 20rnd group I've ever fired in my life, and ONE of the smallest 10rnd groups I've ever fired (technically 2, or maybe technically 3, since the first 10 and second 10 of the 20rnd group would have also been on the short list). I shot 35 rounds at a 100yrd zero board 3 for a group, moved the scope, 1 more, moved to zero, 11 on one target, then 20 on another, estimated a velocity, then moved to an 800yrd KYL and took one shot each to walk down from ~2.5moa to 3/4MOA, and put 6 rounds on the 3/4moa target at 800... Complete SWAG on velocity, brand new barrel which had been on the rifle for less than half a day, ammo loaded STARTING in the middle of the night on virgin brass of a brand I'd never used before, and a bullet I'd never used before... I taught an Intro to PRS Competition course that day, then used the same load to shoot a 1 day match that weekend...

Don't overthink load development - but don't chase 3 shot groups at 100yrds and pretend the results are meaningful either...



Be surprised then.

The Hornady Podcast is hosted by a figure head, Seth Swerczek, but the meat and potatoes of the discussions are lead by Senior Ballistician Jayden Quinlan, Ballistician Jacob Morrow, and Engineer Miles Neville (productive competitive shooters themselves). The data-driven science they share, for FREE, through this podcast - much akin to the Applied Ballistics Podcast - is an exceptional resource for shooters, and has invaluable information being shared freely online for the betterment of our engaged community. Narcissism and cynicism aren't part of their program.
Click to expand...
After my many years (1) of experience reloading I would have to agree with the 3 shot groups comment. For example i worked up a hunting load last year (green as a gord) and was just completely dissapointed that i didnt get single hole 3 shot groups on my first ever work up with a 40 year old rifle and piss poor marksmanship. I thought it was a complete failure because i shot 1.25 moa.

A few months later after firing a few hundred more rounds and doing some tweaks to the rifle I found that the ammo wasnt bad at all. Larger group testing proved it. Its MOA ammunition....and ya know what? That put meat in the freezer just fine.


I really like the hornady podcast. There are way too many videos telling people that they should get xx results from yy with any rifle and etc. Hornady doesnt paint that bs picture at all. They have many different topics and I like to listen when Im at work performing boring physical labor. Helps the day go by, but it can get a little confusing when the match guys start talking. I watched one today on barrel cleanliness and pressure spikes. Good stuff.
 
To the fellas that claim to not have listen to the podcast i would recommend that you do. It can be found on YouTube and the podcast app. They do pimp their product at times but a lot of their podcast do not have anything to do with Hornady at all but instead another reloading related topic. The internal ballistics, external ballistics, and barrel cleaning all come to mind.

They also do a podcasts where different cartridges are spotlighted. Kinda cool to hear the history of some of them.

To the op i recall hearing what you heard but it gets so technical that i have to listen to it several times to fully grasp the concept.
 
CQB45ACP said:
I’m not familiar with this podcast (or any other podcast) but are they representing Hornady or are they just some guys sitting around yammering? If the former, I’m very surprised. If the latter, I’d expect some disclaimer written by a Hornady lawyer plastered all over the screen.
Click to expand...

In all due respect, the first response in the thread was yours, making these derisive and dismissive comments.

I wasn’t quite sure the point - if you don’t have comments to the subject matter, and don’t have knowledge of the specific reference being cited, why make the negative comments to undermine the discussion before it even started. It’s fine if you don’t have interest in the subject matter, but what was the benefit you sought in making a blind jab at something you’ve never seen, heard, or experienced?
 
CQB45ACP said:
I may, but doubt, I’ll ever watch a podcast. Any podcast. Have no beef against this one or the subject matter.
Click to expand...
You gotta listen to Joe Rogan once. Its a podcast on spotify. Alot of good stuff on there. Alot of true stuff the media doesnt talk about
 
The needs of PRS shooters vs pure accuracy shooters overlap, but are different.

Some loads shoot very well over a wide range of good barrels.

No, loads don't always work when changing barrels.

Yes, your old load might shoot great in the new barrel.

If you are shooting for pure accuracy, long range F class, Benchrest etc, you'll have to fine tune each barrel, the competition is that stiff.
(Assuming you can shoot at that level)

Bergers outshoot ELDs. ELDs are cheaper and popular. The better PRS shooter will beat your eyes out with a lessor bullet. (Kind of like pool sticks)

Ain't life fun. :)
 
Varminterror said:
In all due respect, the first response in the thread was yours, making these derisive and dismissive comments.

I wasn’t quite sure the point - if you don’t have comments to the subject matter, and don’t have knowledge of the specific reference being cited, why make the negative comments to undermine the discussion before it even started. It’s fine if you don’t have interest in the subject matter, but what was the benefit you sought in making a blind jab at something you’ve never seen, heard, or experienced?
Click to expand...
Man you are waay off base. i was reacting to the OP, not the podcast, and made two clear analytic points WRT to his question without criticizing anyone nor any content.

Maybe more reading should be in your future and far less writing.
 
lowcountry308 said:
To the fellas that claim to not have listen to the podcast i would recommend that you do. It can be found on YouTube and the podcast app. They do pimp their product at times but a lot of their podcast do not have anything to do with Hornady at all but instead another reloading related topic. The internal ballistics, external ballistics, and barrel cleaning all come to mind.

They also do a podcasts where different cartridges are spotlighted. Kinda cool to hear the history of some of them.

To the op i recall hearing what you heard but it gets so technical that i have to listen to it several times to fully grasp the concept.
Click to expand...
I do like their "10 min cartridge talks" they never are 10. How many rounds do you think it would take a professional bullistican to verify a load. They do it all day every day. They are starting with more information than you have when finishing.
 
CQB45ACP said:
Context is everything
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, however some of the context just seems negative. I don’t aim any disrespect towards anyone I just find the thread disrupted a few times. Podcasts are not a lot different than some good topics being discussed on a forum where guys share knowledge and experience.
 
CQB45ACP said:
i was reacting to the OP, not the podcast, and made two clear analytic points WRT to his question without criticizing anyone nor any content.
Click to expand...

Nah… you really, really didn’t. You quite clearly stated 1) you don’t listen to the podcast referenced (in other words, you can’t offer an informed position on the topic), then 2) you projected disbelief that the podcast could hold any value because it would only be “some guys sitting around yammering,” or dismissed that if it were presented by credentialed folks representing Hornady, it must be plastered with legalese… neither of which were cogent discussion points towards the OP’s questions.

I know this, because I read YOUR words here just fine.
CQB45ACP said:
I’m not familiar with this podcast (or any other podcast) but are they representing Hornady or are they just some guys sitting around yammering? If the former, I’m very surprised. If the latter, I’d expect some disclaimer written by a Hornady lawyer plastered all over the screen.
Click to expand...
 
Varminterror said:
Nah… you really, really didn’t. You quite clearly stated 1) you don’t listen to the podcast referenced (in other words, you can’t offer an informed position on the topic), then 2) you projected disbelief that the podcast could hold any value because it would only be “some guys sitting around yammering,” or dismissed that if it were presented by credentialed folks representing Hornady, it must be plastered with legalese… neither of which were cogent discussion points towards the OP’s questions.

I know this, because I read YOUR words here just fine.
Click to expand...
You’re really blinded by something but needn’t be.

A disclaimer was what I was talking about. Theyre all over everything we do in this hobby. But here’s an even better example:

You know how CNBC posts a disclaimer after the morning and evening appearances of Jim Cramer? It isn’t criticizing Cramer, it’s deflecting possible liability. Look again at what I said.
 
OFFGRID said:
Im sure i dont have the whole story of what these guys are doing and im sure its plenty safe but it kinda sounded odd. It also sounds like it saves alot of components. Does anyone have experience with this kind of stuff?
Click to expand...

Circling the wagons a bit - back to the OP’s expressed confusion or frustration:

Many, many reloaders put in EXTREME effort to make their lives more complicated. So many folks chase 3 shots here and there and assume differences in group sizes are meaningful - when they aren’t. And then those folks are surprised when their load throws flyers, and they go back to the bench and think of some different knob to tweak, which doesn’t really tweak anything - but on the target, they see ONE small group and assume it must be meaningful. And then back at the range, they find some flyer and wonder what went wrong… all the while, there hasn’t been any valid difference between their results, but they convinced themselves to weight sort bullets and cases, and that they need to load down to the Kernel…

But in reality, it really isn’t so difficult to make loads which shoot well. If we imagine microns make a difference, it will LOOK like they do, but we’re chasing smoke. If we just let the rifles shoot, they will - and the road to get there is really, really smooth, and really, really short. If we need to shoot sub-1/4moa, then we can worry about more than 3 things, but until you’re reliably printing 1/4moa, chasing smoke won’t shrink groups.

 
Varminterror said:
Circling the wagons a bit - back to the OP’s expressed confusion or frustration:

Many, many reloaders put in EXTREME effort to make their lives more complicated. So many folks chase 3 shots here and there and assume differences in group sizes are meaningful - when they aren’t. And then those folks are surprised when their load throws flyers, and they go back to the bench and think of some different knob to tweak, which doesn’t really tweak anything - but on the target, they see ONE small group and assume it must be meaningful. And then back at the range, they find some flyer and wonder what went wrong… all the while, there hasn’t been any valid difference between their results, but they convinced themselves to weight sort bullets and cases, and that they need to load down to the Kernel…

But in reality, it really isn’t so difficult to make loads which shoot well. If we imagine microns make a difference, it will LOOK like they do, but we’re chasing smoke. If we just let the rifles shoot, they will - and the road to get there is really, really smooth, and really, really short. If we need to shoot sub-1/4moa, then we can worry about more than 3 things, but until you’re reliably printing 1/4moa, chasing smoke won’t shrink groups.

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
223 55gr varget? how much should i load?
Replies
18
Views
31K
KansasSasquatch
K
W
  • Locked
Load development efficiency
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Bfh_auto
B
C
  • Locked
9mm load data for magnum primers?
Replies
2
Views
405
clone
C
PhillySoldier
  • Locked
Pistol Load Development Methods
2 3
Replies
54
Views
8K
PhillySoldier
PhillySoldier
OFFGRID
30-06 sst load developement
Replies
21
Views
793
OFFGRID
OFFGRID
Back
Top