JFrank
Member
In all reality if the farthest a guys looking to shoot is100 yards or minute of deer then none of this matters, just shoot the small one and not worry about it moving it changing. Or just buy off the shelf ammunition.
When do I stop looking for the right load?
- Thread starter igotta40
- Start date
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,256
Exactly!
Very interesting take and since I am not a competitive shooter or anything close to being one, I have never thought about such things. The point I was trying to make is when are we satisfied with the load? Is the answer never? I have never thought about elevation or weather conditions (except for wind-there are no flags on my local 100-yard rifle range). That being said, however, I have gone to the range to shoot my .270 Win and .338 Win Mag in 70's-degree dry weather and in 30's-degree weather in heavy snow without any change in impacts or groups (as long as I do my part which is not always easy for me). With the elk I have gotten near Craig, Co. at 10,000 to 11,000 feet elevation the bullet impact was the same as what I had sighted in for at my home range which is probably between 400 feet and 500 feet in elevation. Thank you so much for the discussion and education.
An excellent lesson for all of us. Thank you for your input.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,935
Largely, the matter with it is the fact it is only a few shots and one group, and collective experience with statistical evaluation of that group proves it is NOT unique or differentiated among the other groups on the page.
Reshooting that test multiple times will likely change the results, such that single sample proves to be only a statistically probably anomaly, and NOT a representation of actual load performance.
In other words, the fact that group was smaller than the others around it appears to be coincidence, not performance.
For some of my rifles,I've found a load that gives me the accuracy and velocity that I want.My 300WM is a lightweight hunting rifle that I shoot 180 grain Partitions or Accubonds in and its 1.5MOA accuracy is fine for what I do with it.I'm not going to punish my shoulder with a lot more shooting to try to shrink that number.A rifle with a slim fore end and a lot of recoil isn't going to be a bughole machine,at least not with me at the helm.I have what I consider to be a realistic goal for it and that goal has been met.I bought myself a heavy barrel 6.5 Creedmoor for Christmas to shoot steel out to 1,000 yards and it may not be where I want it by this time next year.I've already found a load that is working out great,but I'll tweak it and still try other loads in the rifle to see if I can improve on what I'm getting.My 223 target rifle for F-class has had a total of 3 different loads developed for it with each one being a different bullet,and each one has improved accuracy over the one before it.For a rifle like that,I have a great load going for it but I wouldn't have improved it if I'd stopped looking at trying something different.Set a goal,try to reach it but always be willing to try something else if you want to improve.When to stop and call it good is totally up to you.Getting to that satisfactory load is a journey and it can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be.
I do not shoot steel, b.
The reason I started reloading was because my .222 Rem Mag (Remington 700-bought in 1969) would not shoot the only factory made ammo available (Remington (and Peters) 55 grain loads worth beans so I had to experiment with several different loads to find what it would shoot and ended up with two-BLC-2 and IMR 4895 behind a Sierra 53 grain hollow point. I stuck with the BLC-2. Lots of dead ground hogs with that load.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,935
The biggest problem in this paradigm, as I see it, is that MOST of the handloaders in that class aren’t actually refining, despite their belief that they are.
For example, this OP believes they have something worth chasing because of one small group among others, and in “refining” at the next level, he’d chase that particular rabbit, and maybe start seating depth tests, or maybe start swapping primers. But eventually, it’s likely that group would not actually improve, and the reloader will get frustrated that “well it shot so well at first, but then it kind of fizzled, so I’m back to the drawing board…”
When all the while, that rabbit really wasn’t the best one to chase, and the ONLY reason it caught his eye was that ONE small group. But applying a little scrutiny to the experimental design, and ESPECIALLY applying scrutiny to the analytical design, we see that this particular group size among peers is ONLY coincidental, and shooting 10 groups of the same load might recreate the same distribution of group sizes we see on this page from DIFFERENT charge weights.
This detail is why NONE of the analytics applied in any of the proven long range load development methods are based on group sizes. Using group size requires exhaustive and prohibitively large sample sets, which aren’t any more productive than the limited sample sets we DO use - which is why we use the analytics methods we do, and the experimental design we do.
So MOST of the “some reloaders which just keep refining and refining and never stop” aren’t actually “refining” anything at all, they’re just burning components and chasing smoke.
JFrank
Member
My son in law was gifted a 270 wsm a few years ago, and with zero reloading experience he chose a bullet ( 140AB) he felt would be good for deer and elk. We looked at a few powders available and settled on H4831sc and Federal mag primers, after a little research he chose a range of charges to look at incrementally ( pictured below ) shooting at one point of aim it’s easy to see when the barrel timing comes together with the powder charge and when it starts to go away. he narrowed down the window to a couple charge weights depending on weather shot pretty well and so far repeats just fine, so for his purposes he’s done.
- He developed a load based on a chosen bullet rather than stumbling across a small group.
And he did all the tuning at 200 yards..
- He developed a load based on a chosen bullet rather than stumbling across a small group.
And he did all the tuning at 200 yards..
Attachments
Last edited:
hoardingthemanual
Member
I was reading my bible and started with the basics. Genesis chapter 1. As I read the story of how God created our beautiful Earth, I realized that he moved on after seeing each new addition was “good.” Not perfect. Good. If that satisfied our Lord when making the universe, good enough should satisfy load development.
It is a small community. The .222 mag was my first center fire rifle (Remington 700 BDL) in 1969. One of my better investments even if obsolete. Your rifle is a beauty and my guess it is a Sako judging by the look of the forearm.
Last edited by a moderator:
N555
Member
I find holes regularly touching at 175 yard is acceptable, for hunting ammo, shooting in field conditions.
When I first started this stuff 50 years ago, I was happy when the holes were touching at 100 yards, but now, at my age, I will take them touching at 50 yards. Lots to be said for BP at 125 in my 20's, versus now (180) in my late 70's. After my teens, I never was that great a shot and felt that all 4 of my rifles shot better than what I could.
Similar threads
