“Your groups are too small” vs barrel life

If I get the Hornady theory of group building, it sounds like shoot larger sample sizes to more precisely determine the accuracy of the load in the barrel.

So, you need to shoot something to find pressure, right. So you have to shoot ~30 to determine this, especially shooting non-std cartridges, oal's and jump distances.

Then you would shoot 20-50 round groups to set powder charge for the bullet. Then seating depth. Then primer type, Then neck tension, then crimp, then primer depth, then repeat for several bullets to get match level results.

Doing all this for several bullets and what are we talking 1000 rounds of barrel life? How much is left for match shooting. Does this mean I can develop on one barrel and apply results to the next 2-3 barrels? Maybe.

The other side develops off 3-5 round groups, gets to a load in under 300 rounds, but struggles with things like load tune at long range, load tune range to range, other issues. The one thing this group doesn't do is chase results and then running out of barrel life.

How do you combine the 2 to get a "best value"?

It really depends on your standards for the rifle. If you have a 1/2MOA expectation from the rifle, if even 2-3 round groups exceed that, you are wasting time, components and barrel life if you keep shooting.

If your expectation is 1 MOA then there may be validity to more shots.

I don't think the hornady method does anything but sell more bullets! 2 shots is all you really need for a particular load. If it won't shoot sub moa with 2 shots.....3 ain't gonna make it better. Yes your sample size will be larger therefore your data will be more accurate. But im not shooting groups to shoot groups. I'm developing a sub moa hunting load.

I'm finalizing an 80gr ttsx load in my 25-06. I did a 10 round pressure ladder starting with a medium load of H4350 and imr4350. I went up in .5gr increments past max charge without pressure signs. I found a large 1gr node 1gr over max book pressure. there's 20 shots.

Imr4350 was faster so I've loaded 3 of each powder charge from 1gr over max book to where I stopped before. There's 30 shots....10 .1gr increments for 3x

50 total so far. Would have been 40 had I known imr4350 would give me more speed or I only had 1 powder.

Found an accuracy load at 1.7gr over max book. Shot a 3 shot clover leaf.

CBTO has remained the same throughout testing. I Might do seating depth testing but I doubt it. Just depends if I can replicate the clover leaf load without changes.

Neck tension is at .004" and won't change.

I'm not saying it's dumb to do all the primer and tension and seating depth and everything else you mentioned for "benchrest accuracy". Those guys are shooting for groups or score. As a hunter I'm shooting for hamburger. You can definitely dive off in the weeds on tuning a load!! But knocking a .1" off a group at the expense of consumables for a hunting rifle is unnecessary.

20 to 50 round groups? I've never heard of a person doing this.

What's the source of this info?

Barrels are unique. A load worked up for one barrel has no certainty of delivering acceptable performance in another. One load isn't even likely to give optimum performance throughout a barrel's life due to throat erosion.

Grizzman47 said:

20 to 50 round groups? I've never heard of a person doing this

Click to expand...

That was "sort of" addressed in part of the thread over in the "Long Range Hunting & Shooting" section……"A Compliment to the Forum and a Little Humor"! memtb

I am in the hornady camp on this one, but I think you are missing a couple of their key points. When you actually shoot a statistically relevant group size (20+), it turns out that changes in seating depth and powder charge are either very minor and insignificant, or nonexistent at all. This is with modern cartridge design and their bullets (applies to others of similar ogive design), but has been broadly applicable for me.

Knowing that, it is better to change powder and/or bullets rather than constantly tinker with seating depth and powder charge. If a few different combinations are not achieving results; you cut losses and rebarrel. Keeping in mind that a true 1/2" gun is a unicorn in all but benchrest disciplines.

In my current 25 creedmoor barrel I arrived at a final load in about 30 rounds. 10 to find pressure, and then two different 10 shot groups to confirm it was a shooter. It will do 10 shots into 1" without fail, 600 rounds down the barrel and nothing has changed. I could cherry pick some tiny 3-5 shot groups that look impressive but the reality is that it's a 1" gun across many conditions and range days which is very good.

The hornady method results in LESS rounds to find a load, done properly. This means more rounds actually shooting and practicing which makes for a better shooter in the long run.

If you are in disbelief (i was), try shooting two 10-20 shot groups with a completely different powder charge or seating depth. You will find any difference to be small, and not repeatable assuming you are below max pressure with both loads. If you shoot a pressure ladder at the same POI, you will even find that the group size is remarkably close to the group size of your final load..

willfrye027 said:

I am in the hornady camp on this one, but I think you are missing a couple of their key points. When you actually shoot a statistically relevant group size (20+), it turns out that changes in seating depth and powder charge are either very minor and insignificant, or nonexistent at all.

Click to expand...

If you put the seating in a bad place, no amount of 'group sizing' will fix that.
Same with powder mistune, and poor barrel timing.
But with proper load development, I'm sure many here attain 1/2moa of precision or better, as useful for LRH, regardless of statistical relevance.

I'm satisfied with one shot groups with cold bore accuracy development, as long as it groups near center of mark.

The Hornady BS is to promote THEIR cartridge designs, which THEY claim to be superior, however, the truth is far from their HYPE.
They sell ammo. PERIOD!
Many cartridges came before THEIR PRC design with attributes far greater than THEIRS, however, THEIR marketing has people BELIEVING THEIR HYPE AND INGLORIOUS MANIPULATION OF THE TRUTH…

Cheers.
P.S.
I have stated here numerous times that the ONLY way to tell if a load groups well, is with 10 shot groups on different days in differing conditions at 600…

MagnumManiac said:

The Hornady BS is to promote THEIR cartridge designs, which THEY claim to be superior, however, the truth is far from their HYPE.
They sell ammo. PERIOD!
Many cartridges came before THEIR PRC design with attributes far greater than THEIRS, however, THEIR marketing has people BELIEVING THEIR HYPE AND INGLORIOUS MANIPULATION OF THE TRUTH…

Cheers.
P.S.
I have stated here numerous times that the ONLY way to tell if a load groups well, is with 10 shot groups on different days in differing conditions at 600…

Click to expand...

There are many many new and inexperienced participants in LR shooting now. Thanks to over the counter guns and ammo and turrets that go with em for instant success.
And a podcast is THE way to reach them. Lord knows a paper copy of anything from the past can't be right.

Agree with willfrye027, a lot of guns are closer to true MOA guns than .25 MOA or less if we are honest. Statistical analysis is often biased and/or mis-interpreted. For the hunter, group size builds confidence in the system, but first round cold bore groups should be more important to him/her because that is where their "group size" counts.

nksmfamjp said:

If I get the Hornady theory of group building, it sounds like shoot larger sample sizes to more precisely determine the accuracy of the load in the barrel.

So, you need to shoot something to find pressure, right. So you have to shoot ~30 to determine this, especially shooting non-std cartridges, oal's and jump distances.

Then you would shoot 20-50 round groups to set powder charge for the bullet. Then seating depth. Then primer type, Then neck tension, then crimp, then primer depth, then repeat for several bullets to get match level results.

Doing all this for several bullets and what are we talking 1000 rounds of barrel life? How much is left for match shooting. Does this mean I can develop on one barrel and apply results to the next 2-3 barrels? Maybe.

The other side develops off 3-5 round groups, gets to a load in under 300 rounds, but struggles with things like load tune at long range, load tune range to range, other issues. The one thing this group doesn't do is chase results and then running out of barrel life.

How do you combine the 2 to get a "best value"?

Click to expand...

If you are doing quantitative research, you want numbers (your sample population is high). If you are doing qualitative research, your sample size from a population sample is lower, and you are going for a specific target and goal with the quality of your sample. Then, you analyze it according to your research goal.

How do you combine the 2 to get the best value? Most people do not. The closest I have gotten to this concept is to test load combinations while breaking in barrels, ~20-30 rounds through.

Anyway, when I am satisfied with load development, I do cold bore shots like @Mikecr and adjust accordingly from there.

Mikecr said:

I'm satisfied with one shot groups with cold bore accuracy development, as long as it groups near center of mark.

Click to expand...

The biggest thing is that when you start shooting statistically meaningful groups you find the vast majority of things people spend time trying to tune don't matter. With very few exceptions things like minor seating depth changes, small changes in power charge, different primers, etc. don't actually matter enough to screw around with. Small sample sizes make it look like they matter, but it's really just noise you get with low round count groups. With 5 shot groups you should expect your largest groups to be a bit over twice the size of your smallest groups, even if you're shooting the exact same load with every other variable perfectly controlled.

Most folks shooting enough for it to matter have the same smith chamber the same blank with the same reamer set for the same headspace every time, so usually the load development with a new barrel is pretty quick.

With big barrel burners you don't generally don't spend a bunch of time and components hoping to find a better load. You set a threshold for the level of precision and velocity variation you're looking for based on use case, past experience, and/or TOP Gun, and spend more time practicing in challenging conditions than at the loading bench.

Grizzman47 said:

20 to 50 round groups? I've never heard of a person doing this.

What's the source of this info?

Barrels are unique. A load worked up for one barrel has no certainty of delivering acceptable performance in another. One load isn't even likely to give optimum performance throughout a barrel's life due to throat erosion.

Click to expand...

Tiny Tim said:

Agree with willfrye027, a lot of guns are closer to true MOA guns than .25 MOA or less if we are honest. Statistical analysis is often biased and/or mis-interpreted. For the hunter, group size builds confidence in the system, but first round cold bore groups should be more important to him/her because that is where their "group size" counts.

Click to expand...

I agree many shooters are 1 MOA shooters over a large sample size but for what we are doing, I don't think it matters that much.

Phil Rizzo said:

There are many many new and inexperienced participants in LR shooting now. Thanks to over the counter guns and ammo and turrets that go with em for instant success.
And a podcast is THE way to reach them. Lord knows a paper copy of anything from the past can't be right.

Click to expand...

What is this "paper copy" thing that you speak of?
Do they even teach the younger generations how to read and write any more?
If it ain't on the You Tube than it doesn't exist LOL