Seeking empirical evidence to support or refute powder/seating-depth nodes

I am new (since 2019) to the long range shooting community and admittedly my experience is limited. I have been frustrated with all the voices claiming their methods are "how it should be done". I am not inferring that their methods don't work, what I am saying is that if so many different methods all produce the same results, accurate loads, then logically not all of the processes in the various methods are as significant as believed. In other words, the methods may work, but not for the reasons we believe. My goal is, through applying the scientific method, to sort out what actually makes a difference in the reloading process and what is just the deeply held dogma of the community.

I deeply appreciate and respect the experience and knowledge of those in this community, and their willingness to share it. I know that their methods work and produce accurate results, all I am trying to do is figure out why. After recently stumbling across the following information, I have radically changed my thoughts on how I approach reloading. I thought the community might benefit from the information they proffer.

I am looking to have an honest discussion about the information linked below and to hear your opinions, many with infinitely more experience and knowledge than I. If you take the time to review either of them, I would welcome your insight, obviously your have been doing this a lot longer than I.

The truth teller is the target. It don't lie. There is lots of ways to get there but the target is always right.
The way you worded the question leads me to believe that you are not seeking the way to better accuracy but a shortcut for your own benefit.
Perhaps you don't understand that every rifle is different, every reamer is different, every bullet is different etc...... now add in the precision for which the rifle was made and you literally have a infinite number of variables. I have developed methods that work for me and my rifles. None of them would meet your standard for empirical evidence.
I (we, members) know how to develop accurate loads for our rifles. However I don't need to prove it to anyone. Some of the greatest minds in the shooting world are here on LRH. They openly share their methods with the community but they only need to prove their method to themselves.
A search here on LRH would have given you a years worth of reading. Then you have to decide if it meets your standard for proof.

Is there a way to tell when an anecdotal becomes empirical?

sedancowboy said:

The truth teller is the target. It don't lie. There is lots of ways to get there but the target is always right.
The way you worded the question leads me to believe that you are not seeking the way to better accuracy but a shortcut for your own benefit.
Perhaps you don't understand that every rifle is different, every reamer is different, every bullet is different etc...... now add in the precision for which the rifle was made and you literally have a infinite number of variables. I have developed methods that work for me and my rifles. None of them would meet your standard for empirical evidence.
I (we, members) know how to develop accurate loads for our rifles. However I don't need to prove it to anyone. Some of the greatest minds in the shooting world are here on LRH. They openly share their methods with the community but they only need to prove their method to themselves.
A search here on LRH would have given you a years worth of reading. Then you have to decide if it meets your standard for proof.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your candor. I am not seeking a shortcut, but rather to apply the scientific methods I have been trained in to the shooting sports I enjoy. Shooting with bullet flight times of over 1 second require a fair bit of math and science. I have been reloading since the 90s, but just started reloading for LR/ELR in the past 5 years. I have developed loads that are very accurate in my rifles. Like many here, until recently, I tuned loads first by powder charge and then by seating depth, but somehow, at times, I felt like I was chasing my tail. I have been actively trying to absorb the wisdom and knowledge of those on LRH since I joined in 2021 and sometimes it feels like I am drinking from firehose. I stumbled on the two references above and now I am rethinking my processes for reloading, mostly because they are the first references I have seen that approach reloading from a scientific standpoint, rather than a "this is how it has always been done and works" standpoint.

RichCoyle said:

Is there a way to tell when an anecdotal becomes empirical?

Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence generally is the experience or observations of one person. Empirical evidence consists of observations collected systematically by researchers or individuals as part of a research study. Both of the links I referenced fall into the empirical category. They both set out to answer a question, designed a study to test the question, and then systematically collected data to find an answer.

I need some Excedrin hahahahah.

Actually I admire your passion for learning, with guidelines. Keep asking so I can gather some more. My notebook has plenty blank pages left.

Your post reaks of the worst type of internet challenges. The petulence of someone who has added nothing to the accumulated knowledge but DEMANDS that those that have provide irrefutable proof of the accuracy of their statements and methods.

If the MASSIVE amount of information available from a huge number of well experienced people on this forum does not meet your threshold of 'empirical" evidence then I suggest you take a long walk off a short pier. Go do your own research and develop your own fact based knowledge and methods. Come back in 15 or 20 years after you get to the top ranks as a LR competitor and pass on your pearls of wisdom.

VenatusDominus said:

So far, the empirical evidence I have seen supports the hypothesis that velocity and seating depth nodes are deeply held dogma, rather than something that actually makes a difference in the accuracy of a load. If there is some empirical evidence to the contrary I would love to see it, but at this point in my search for the truth, anecdotal evidence isn't going to sway me anymore than "because I said so".

Click to expand...

Empirical means different things to most. In the research world, empirical research studies have to come from reputable and independent sources and are often peer-reviewed. They also include expert panel reviews and field testing. Bryan Litz's work in this matter is the closest to empirical evidence. Most of the field testing is done by people like us in the LRH community.

sedancowboy said:

The truth teller is the target. It don't lie. There is lots of ways to get there but the target is always right.
The way you worded the question leads me to believe that you are not seeking the way to better accuracy but a shortcut for your own benefit.
Perhaps you don't understand that every rifle is different, every reamer is different, every bullet is different etc...... now add in the precision for which the rifle was made and you literally have a infinite number of variables. I have developed methods that work for me and my rifles. None of them would meet your standard for empirical evidence.
I (we, members) know how to develop accurate loads for our rifles. However I don't need to prove it to anyone. Some of the greatest minds in the shooting world are here on LRH. They openly share their methods with the community but they only need to prove their method to themselves.
A search here on LRH would have given you a years worth of reading. Then you have to decide if it meets your standard for proof.

Click to expand...

Agreed! Unfortunately, sometimes people complicate things unnecessarily.

The empirical evidence really is how your firearm reacts to handloading. The variables to my firearm are completely different. I don't think you can just slap a value on a reloading measurement across the board. It does matter how you seat for one project, but on the next it may be negligible. Targets don't lie, especially as far as you choose to launch them. Test....

I think part of the trouble in shooting is there is no true control. Barrels are constantly eroding and fouling. Bullets, brass, primers, powder and atmosphere are only all the exact same for a single shot. And then, there is the nut behind the bolt adding human error or inconsistency to every shot. Trying to achieve the same outcome from different components. The harder you think about it the more impossible and intimidating it can become. Finding a method to follow and having perceived success might be the best one can hope for. you have to start somewhere in load development and if you are going to use your ammo for a purpose you have to have some sort of endpoint. I have been down this road with bullet terminal performance as well. Seems simple enough, but then shot angle, hide density, muscle density, bone density, rotational stability, impact velocity and on and on try to muddy the water. Achieving precision from chaos. A persons load process is kind of the ritual that wards off the demons of variability.

Dean2 said:

Your post reaks of the worst type of internet challenges. The petulence of someone who has added nothing to the accumulated knowledge but DEMANDS that those that have provide irrefutable proof of the accuracy of their statements and methods.

If the MASSIVE amount of information available from a huge number of well experienced people on this forum does not meet your threshold of 'empirical" evidence then I suggest you take a long walk off a short pier. Go do your own research and develop your own fact based knowledge and methods. Come back in 15 or 20 years after you get to the top ranks as a LR competitor and pass on your pearls of wisdom.

Click to expand...

I don't dispute that the way things are being done work, they have worked for me. I am certainly not demanding that anyone prove anything regarding the accuracy of their statements or methods. I am trying to understand WHY the methods work. I get that many of you may not care why what you do works, only that it does, but the engineer in me wants to understand the why. Bryan Litz's is a tremendous asset to the shooting community because he approaches it as a scientist. I was just hoping to discuss, from a scientific perspective, the underlying why's of our reloading techniques.

VenatusDominus said:

I don't dispute that the way things are being done work, they have worked for me. I am certainly not demanding that anyone prove anything regarding accuracy or methods. I am trying to understand WHY the methods work. I get that many of you may not care why what you do works, only that it does, but the engineer in me wants to understand the why. Bryan Litz's is a tremendous asset to the shooting community because he approaches it as a scientist. I was just hoping to discuss, from a scientific perspective, the underlying why's of our reloading techniques.

Click to expand...

Your user name is Venatus Dominus, and you expect that we will fall for someone using Latin to aggrandize themselves. You may see yourself as the dominator of the hunt of wild beasts, but some of the rest of us understand Latin too, and are not fooled by such artificial airs, nor shall we fall for being baited by this post.

If others chose to play your silly games, that is their choice.

Dean2 said:

Your user name is Venatus Dominus, and you expect that we will fall for someone using Latin to aggrandize themselves. You may see yourself as the dominator of the wild beasts, but some of the rest of us understand Latin too, and are not fooled by such artificial airs, nor shall we fall for being baited by this post.

If others chose to play your silly games, that is their choice.

Click to expand...

Actually, the name comes from the video gaming tag used when I played X-Box with my teenage sons in the 2000s and meant "game master" as in video game master. I have used it for 2 decades and until just now never connected it with "game" as in the game we hunt. And just in case you were wondering, I rarely dominated when playing Call of Duty with my boys.

I am real olde & have acquired huge amounts of "empirical" evidence of accuracy performance indicated by frequent long range hits & tiny groups of bullet holes in paper. My exhaustive research is supported by hefty charges seen on credit card statements.

Why this works for me & my unbending standards are:
High quality barrels because bad barrels don't shoot good.
High quality bullets, suitable for barrel twist, like primo bullets & barrels
High degree of ammo uniformity with good components because of the obvious
Avoiding yield strength limits
Intense & frequent cleaning & adjustment because if it is dirty or wobbles it won't shoot good
Knowing how your optics, like scope adjustments work
Memberering what works & what does not work.
Having a nice trigger.

Seating depth? I knew this fine gentleman who won the Wimbledon Cup using a .300 WM loaded with 190 Hornady hpbt bullets & surplus H4831 powder. The 190's were seated to lightly jam into rifling. He probably did the more of the same stuff listed above.