MagnumManiac
Well-Known Member
Thanks for confirming what THEIR podcasts are ALL ABOUT…THEIR DESIGNS. Which by the way are NO DIFFERENT in tolerance than anything else out there by OTHER MANUFACTURERS.
Cheers.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
“Your groups are too small” vs barrel life
- Thread starter nksmfamjp
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Cheers.
RegionRat
Well-Known Member
It was always weird how real guns/ammo were almost never really a "normal distribution".
Even with electric driven auto-cannons, you would expect it to be, but it turns out there are reasons why the very center is usually a little flatter than it is supposed to be for a true Gaussian Distribution.
A test barrel locked into a shooting machine, tends to be a little thin at the zero.
Even with electric driven auto-cannons, you would expect it to be, but it turns out there are reasons why the very center is usually a little flatter than it is supposed to be for a true Gaussian Distribution.
A test barrel locked into a shooting machine, tends to be a little thin at the zero.
That doesn't change the fact that what they are saying is statically and mathematically correct.
VenatusDominus
Well-Known Member
Actually, their designs are different than others out there. Through collecting doppler radar data on thousands of rounds fired, they identified and recently patented a meplat diameter to caliber ratio that significantly decreased bullet drag variability. They proved that highly pointed meplats have a lower, but less consistent, drag. A slightly flattened meplat increased the drag marginally, but produced a much more consistent drag. The ratio is what is important and what they were awarded the patent for.
From an article in OutdoorLife 5/21/2024 "To reduce drag variability, the diameter of the flat on the meplat must fall between .08 and .16 times the diameter of the bullet."
Last edited:
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
That took less time than I thought it would! The internet has made it sound like the only good rifles are .25 moa. I get sick of hearing how "My 6.5lb all in hunting rifle shoots .5 moa all day at 1000y". If this was true, these rifles would be winning 1000y bench rest competitions against 20lb rifles. It simply isn't true. A true 1 moa hunting rifle should never be gotten rid of. I think the really good, I mean really good, hunting rifles that are .5 moa, still pitch one out to 1moa here and there. "Called shot. That was me, not my rifle."
In my small statistical load development and long range validation, I want to see solid sub moa accuracy. I totally agree with the Hornady guys that loading in .2gr increments is statistically inconsequential. Unless shooting something like a 17 Hornet I rarely make powder adjustments less than one grain. The smallest that I ever make is .5gr. When I load develop I shoot one shot 1gr increments all fired at the same dot. If the rifle likes what we are using it will usually show pretty close to an moa target, even though we may have increased 200fps to 300fps in the ladder. If the group in the ladder is all over the place, I switch to a different powder. I have seen changing primers take a rifle from 2.5 moa to .5 moa. Wouldn't think it possible had I not seen it. Still too small a statistical sample to prove but it held up at long range.
I think if guys actually listen to the Hornady podcast, they could save the amount of powder, primers, and bullets they shoot to develop a load, in a third. They aren't telling you need to shoot hundreds and hundreds of shots to develop a load. They are telling you not to do that, because unless you do, the small changes that you are making are statistically unproven and likely will not change anything. It might make you more confident, which is priceless.
I could sell a lot more bullets if I told guys to load in .5gr increments in 5 shot groups in a ladder up to pressure. Then take the best group and work up and down from there in .2gr increments to find the best group. Then take that best group and work the seating depth in 2 thou increments in 5 shot groups to find the best group. If a guy has done this he has gone through hundreds of bullets and they are all statistically inconsequential. When you are making these minute changes you would have to shoot 30-50 shots at each change to prove it to be actually better. They are saying that if you actually shot 30-50 shots at each minute change it would prove to be not different.
The guys that take offense to the Hornady guys are the guys that take hundreds of shots to develop a load. Now Hornady comes along and tells them that they have been wasting their time and money and it offends them.
My method to load develop usually takes less than 20 shots, including zeroing and confirming drops. Sometimes we get that rifle that is picky and we have to try several powders to find what it likes. There have been a few that have taken us 70 shots to find the combo but I never tinker a rifle into a good load.
^^^ THIS ^^^
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
Surprised they got a patent for this. When I first started researching this 10 plus years ago, it was known that a bit of a blunt end was better than a pure point. This is why they put the little stick with a disc on it out in front of the fighter jets. Breaks a hole in the pressure for the plane to pass through.
VenatusDominus
Well-Known Member
First, I subscribe to Keith's channel and enjoy his content and respect his opinions. As far as the video you posted, he did not state what the mean radius of either group was. He did give the SD and they are only different by 0.15 MOA. I am not a statistician, but I am not sure if 0.15 MOA is statistically different for these two samples. He does shoot Berger Bullets, which have a more aggressive ogive and may be more sensitive to seating depth than others. He has a newer video out regarding seating depth and it appears his thinking has changed on the subject.
Last edited:
No matter the results from stats, mathematics or Japanese History I know which one Phil prefers out of the two.
How on earth can the results on those 2 targets be looked at any other way than Winner and Loser?
How on earth can the results on those 2 targets be looked at any other way than Winner and Loser?
VenatusDominus
Well-Known Member
If you watch the video, he goes on to shoot 33 round of each load and demonstrates no statistical difference between the larger sample sizes. One group was randomly bigger than the other for the small 3 shot sample, but when you add more data points they were statistically the same. That is the whole point of what we are discussing, small samples sizes are nothing but statistical noise. If you shoot 10 three shot groups of the identical load, you may randomly get some clover leafs and some 1 MOA groups. That is precisely why picking a random 3 shot group does not represent how that load really shoots. Obviously if your goal is 0.5 MOA and your first 3 shot group is 1.5 MOA, then it isn't getting any better, change the powder or the bullet. But basing seating depth off of a single 3 shot group is a waste of time and components, as Hornady and Keith Glasscock have demonstrated.
Last edited:
My office was full of distractions on round 1, I'll watch again later.
Attachments
VenatusDominus
Well-Known Member
I envy the view from your office!
The machinery is easier to deal with than some of the labor.
And the labor is easier to deal with than some of the weather.
Other than that it can be ok. Some days
And the labor is easier to deal with than some of the weather.
Other than that it can be ok. Some days
33 shots each of three different seating depths from previous testing: best, worst, and mediocre. The difference in group size for 33 shots of each seating depth was roughly 10%. Not statistically different. And funky things were going on. Worst was sometimes best. That doesn't make me want to spend much time on seating depth testing.
On the earlier video in the shooter's judgement the 0.003 difference in seating depth made a difference in group size. It does look like a pretty big difference but can't be statistically analyzed. To do statistics he'd need to repeat the test two more times. More importantly was this the biggest difference he's seen? Does it make that big of a difference often or was this a cherry-picked result? So a 7 minute video that proved nothing. Make the same change another 10-20 times with different rifles and bullets and post the results of all targets. Then maybe you'd have something.
