When do I stop looking for the right load?

[RetiredUSNChief]

"When do I stop looking for the right load?"

When you get to a load that does whatever it is you're trying to do.

If you're a hunter, will it take the game you're going for?

If your a competition shooter, will it group as competitively as you're trying for?

 

[igotta40]

VT, thanks for that explanation, and more importantly, for taking time out of your day to try and educate me! I’ve seen and read about the Satterlee Velocity Curve Method (though I didn’t know that was the name of it) and I comprehend the values indicated, and now I get what the “node” is, and it’s importance. I owe you a lunch & a beer, sir!

 

[Ru4real]

This is for my Savage 110 in 300 Win Mag.… When do I stop looking for the right load?…

Never. It’s a sickness and it’s why you seek us out. Misery loves company. Welcome, friend!

 

[BJung]

I stop when my groups match either what the best another shooter has achieved with a similar gun or as good as I think my gun is capable of. For example, I own a 9mm BHP. Shooters claim the best group they've achieved is 1-1/2" to 2". So, this is my goal for that gun. I am testing my T99 Arisaka. Some say that they get 3" groups at best. Yet, I've read of a shooter that shoots a sporterized T99 and claims it shoots 1" groups and stated that the Arisaka can shoot as good as any other military rifle. I owned a sporterized Enfield once and it shoot a group the size of a quarter. And so, my goal is to shoot a group the size of a quarter with my T99. Some may say it's impossible. but I will try to get there.

 

[peeplwtchr]

When you hit your goal, whatever that may be. I wasted a lot of components before I learned to be happy with a good load.

Me too, hundreds of .223 loads. When I found a repeatable moa or <moa load for two different test rates , I stopped.

Now onto .308.

 

[Theinkman]

I like shooting, especially rifles. I also enjoying handloading and the statistical analysis of the associated data. I never stop shooting after finding a good (or great) load. Always a new bullet or powder to try, sometimes I may want to change neck tension or seating depth.

I guess I just like to see what is over the next hill.

 

[sage5907]

Some of us are never satisfied. My current downfall is to try to use Nosler AccuBond 165 grain bullets in a 30-06. The other day I looked on the floor under my reloading bench and there were about a dozen empty bullet boxes, all AccuBond 165. Bullets made by Sierra, Speer and Berger all shoot good in my rifles but the AccuBonds have been difficult. I have been through various loads of IMR 4350, H 4350, Reloader 16 and Reloader 17 and I am still looking for the perfect load. This accuracy chase has been going on for about 3 years. So far, 57 grains of Reloader 17 is giving the best accuracy and my goal is to get acceptable accuracy with a velocity over 2850 fps. I have two boxes of bullets yet to reload and will keep going. My next accuracy test is to shoot a 300 yard target in hunting conditions and I won't quit adjusting loads until I get a good group at 300 yards.

 

[Charlie98]

When you hit your goal, whatever that may be. I wasted a lot of components before I learned to be happy with a good load.

+1.

I have different accuracy goals for each of my firearms, and then subsets of accuracy expectation between different loads... like 150grn .308 blasting ammo vs 168grn BTHP's.

For the OP... it looks like you have found a possible answer with your 69.9grn load, but as your ranges increase, you may find the load wanting... you may very well need the extra velocity of the next node, or the bullet might become unstable at 800yds, etc. I am in the same process... I've worked up a .308 load for my Savage rifle... and while I've found 2 good loads, the longest I've shot them was 150yds. As I go longer, I may very well be sent back to the loading bench.

Personally, once I find a potential load that I want to go forward with, I load 20 of them up and and shoot them for accuracy. 20 rounds at one setting would be more statistically valuable than just 3 or 5 rounds. JMHO.

 

[Chuck R.]

When you hit your goal, whatever that may be. I wasted a lot of components before I learned to be happy with a good load.

The same here. Components, barrel life and time.

And to take your thoughts a step further, make sure you're chasing the right goal. For instance when I competed in silhouette and midrange, reloading to get small groups was a supporting or intermediate goal, not the endstate. The ultimate goal was to win or at least place in matches.

To accomplish that, small groups just wasn't enough, time and ammo spent behind the rifle practicing was actually a bigger requirement. I never performed poorly in that type of match due to an extra .25" in group size, just as I've never lost an animal hunting due to an extra .5" group.

I have done poorly due to lack of practice. One of the guys I shot with was a load/group junky. Every time we shot together he'd be working on a new load. I on the other hand got a reliable sub-MOA load and called it "good to go", my time was then spent shooting from positions and practicing for matches, whether it was with my match rifle or a .22LR. End result, in 2 years I'm a master class shooter and he's still in AA chasing the perfect load.

Everything has an opportunity cost associated with it, time at the reloading bench, plus time/components testing loads is time/components not spent practicing.

 

[Nature Boy]

When you look at all proven long range development methods, NONE are based on 100yrd group size.

exactly right

 

[Rule3]

Yes, I see. The possible combinations of powder and bullet types and weights are almost infinite. The trial and error method can get expensive if I have boxes of projectiles that give disappointing results. I’ll focus now on these two loads and see if the results are repeatable, then try them at 200, 300, and go from there.

Lets not forget, what primers, what brass, what was the COL Crimp or no crimp? So many little things add up, They you need lots of groups with data from the chronograph.
It will never end

 

[wcwhitey]

Reloading to shoot or shooting to reload? Once your find a nice combination that you are happy with it’s okay to stop. If you want to improve accuracy a bit more spend some more time on case prep. Weigh and separate components into similar batches. Make sure the powder throw is as precise as you can get it. Anything that helps with deviation. BTW, I didn’t measure but most of those groups already look sub MOA. I don’t know the combo but that ain’t bad!

 

[Nature Boy]

It takes me 75-80 rounds to tune a load. That includes finding the accuracy node, seating depth test, primer test and 20 shot validation at distance.

 

[kmw1954]

It takes me 75-80 rounds to tune a load. That includes finding the accuracy node, seating depth test, primer test and 20 shot validation at distance.

Sure wish I was that good.

 

[41 Mag]

Take your best group and move out to further distances. I've had several rifles shoot awesome at 100, decent at 200 and flop at 300. I've also seen it the other way around shooting mediocre at 100 and tighten up further out.

When I am moving out on distance I always try to pick dead wind days. Sometimes it might be in the morning sometimes its evening. Either way a dead wind removes one more factor. I also have the luxury of having my own place to shoot complete with a rock solid bench and measured ranges. Usually if I can punch a group similar to one of your tight ones at 300, I call it done. If I can keep it at or under 2" at 300 that is plenty good for hunting.

That said, like mentioned earlier, here in TX it can go from 20 to 75 or 80 from daylight to dark. Having a load that is consistent is hard to manage sometimes. I usually try ro work up in the hotter temps and then test in the colder ones. Keeps those primers from leaking as much. Usually I find a group will open and maybe drop just slightly, from the high temp position. Still it's a good load for what I'm after.

 

[Nature Boy]

Take your best group and move out to further distances. I've had several rifles shoot awesome at 100, decent at 200 and flop at 300. I've also seen it the other way around shooting mediocre at 100 and tighten up further out

Those contradictory results at different distances are likely a byproduct of not having found the accuracy node at 100 yards. As @Varminterror and @South Prairie Jim stated earlier, selecting the smallest group in a set of charge weights can be deceiving.

To put it as simply as I can, the process of load development is an exercise in reducing shot-to-shot variation in the vertical direction. There will be a range of loads that have the least amount of vertical deviation, which is defined as “the node”. There are established processes to find that node and they’re pretty simple to follow.

Horizontal variation is largely on the shooter. Consistency, stability and repeatability in rifle mechanics nets reduced horizontal deviation.

Managing expectations is also important. Naturally, there are limits on the accuracy potential of each rifle. When I develop loads for one of my hunting rifles I have to remind myself that it’s not going to perform at the same level as one of my purpose built target rifles. It also doesn’t need to either.

With that said, I still follow the same process to find the most consistently accurate load. It’s the primary reason why I go through the effort to make my own ammo.

 

[BJung]

Those contradictory results at different distances are likely a byproduct of not having found the accuracy node at 100 yards. As @Varminterror and @South Prairie Jim stated earlier, selecting the smallest group in a set of charge weights can be deceiving.

My rifle testloads are at 100 yards. I take my time to reduce human error. I don't understand why some rifle shooters test their loads at 50 yards. It seems too close and the only time I do so is to know my POI for hunting purposes. That said, I've read on long-range shooting forums that you do need to see how your accuracy load shoots so as to fine-tune or choose a different node. One shooter commented that the largest node is the best. I don't know yet because I don't take reports as gospel but as good possibilities. I like testing claims myself. For example, for pistol loads, a common recommendation is 2.8gr BE. I said to myself, "oh yeah?" I better not make a few hundred yet. So I tried it. For the canister of BE I had and my components and gun, it was 2.9 gr BE.

 

[BJung]

It takes me 75-80 rounds to tune a load. That includes finding the accuracy node, seating depth test, primer test and 20 shot validation at distance.

I feel like that too. Like I'm purchasing a box of bullets and powder just to find the accuracy load and practice a little with might might be left.

 

[JFrank]

I feel like that too. Like I'm purchasing a box of bullets and powder just to find the accuracy load and practice a little with might might be left.

A perfect reason to define the mission, chose wisely and buy in quantities of 500 or more and develop a tune around that bullet.

 

[wcwhitey]

I feel like that too. Like I'm purchasing a box of bullets and powder just to find the accuracy load and practice a little with might might be left.

That is true! Loading up small batches trying to find the “perfect” round is not easy. Just so many variables; wind and weather, shooting ability on a particular day, etc. Even being in that mission can be frustrating and moves too quickly to gather all the data needed. Sometimes “good enough” is just that but loaded in quantity and shot for a while can give you feedback and which direction an improvement needs to be made.

I’m todays environment with components not only scarce at times they are expensive too. Over the last two years I have been forced to try new powders and components. The cost in cash and time can be a pain to get loads that are no better and sometimes worse than the ones I spent the time to develop decades ago. As much as I like to reload and try different combos it’s not always fun sending turd pills down range.

I have zero clue as to what the performance will be at extended ranges on the OP’s current combinations but he is clearly on the right track. That is why I stated earlier to work with the one that feels the best and maybe tweak it going forward as needed. Evaluate along the way and enjoy a bit of shooting.

 

[igotta40]

“Evaluate along the way and enjoy a bit of shooting.”

Above all, I enjoy the shooting!

 

[Varminterror]

I've also seen it the other way around shooting mediocre at 100 and tighten up further out.

Bryan Litz has $10,000 for you, if you could actually prove the impossible.

 

[Fishtales]

What is the matter with the 69.6 load? You basically have one raged hole with one very close flyer. Do you really want to waste money on more components and time building new loads when you could be at the range shooting an extremely good load? The Lyman 50th edition list's 8 powders (with a spread of 6 to7 grains from lowest load to highest for each) not including the powder you are using. Among the bullet manufacturers there are probably 10 (or more) different ones you could use. It would take a very long time to load and shoot all the possibilities. There is probably a mathematician in the group that can calculate the number of all those possibilities. If you are that concerned with longer ranges and are that good a shot (I am not), then move the target back to 400 or 500 yards and shoot it to see what your group is. When I shot 3 shot cloverleafs at 100 yards I stopped experimenting and used those loads for my .222 Rem Mag 50 years ago, .270 Win 45 years ago, .300 Savage 20 years ago, and .338 Win Mag 20 years ago I quit messing with any other loads. Why 3 shot groups you might ask? Because when I looked through the spotting scope and saw them, I knew there was no point in taking any more shots and ruining the group.

 

[igotta40]

My point exactly

 

[JFrank]

What is the matter with the 69.6 load? You basically have one raged hole with one very close flyer. Do you really want to waste money on more components and time building new loads when you could be at the range shooting an extremely good load? The Lyman 50th edition list's 8 powders (with a spread of 6 to7 grains from lowest load to highest for each) not including the powder you are using. Among the bullet manufacturers there are probably 10 (or more) different ones you could use. It would take a very long time to load and shoot all the possibilities. There is probably a mathematician in the group that can calculate the number of all those possibilities. If you are that concerned with longer ranges and are that good a shot (I am not), then move the target back to 400 or 500 yards and shoot it to see what your group is. When I shot 3 shot cloverleafs at 100 yards I stopped experimenting and used those loads for my .222 Rem Mag 50 years ago, .270 Win 45 years ago, .300 Savage 20 years ago, and .338 Win Mag 20 years ago I quit messing with any other loads. Why 3 shot groups you might ask? Because when I looked through the spotting scope and saw them, I knew there was no point in taking any more shots and ruining the group.

Nothing wrong with 69.6, iirc no one said there was. The question was when to stop ?
The thread evolved into load development discussion where a couple guys including myself made points regarding stability and point of impact shift and not looking for the smallest group when testing charge weights, rather vertical dispersion and defining the width / edges of a node and when it moves.
Why define the edge of a node? Because we want repeatability and tomorrow the weather will be different and altitude may be different and when that tiny group isn’t tiny any more and not hitting the same spot we can know what happened and how to correct it.
Why use flags? Same answer..