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

VenatusDominus said:
Empirical evidence:
www.outdoorlife.com

Rifle Nodes: How You’ve Been Wasting Your Time and Money on Load Development

Everything you know about rifle nodes and load development might be wrong. Click here to see the results for yourself.
www.outdoorlife.com www.outdoorlife.com
Click to expand...
This is not empirical evidence refuting seating depth nodes. They clearly stated they didn't play with seating depths and they were referring to accuracy not precision.

Here is some empirical evidence supporting seating depth nodes:
(note: queued up to the seating depth part so you dont have to watch the full thing on a different subject)
 
If 50 people that have been succesfully reloading for 30+ years are telling you what works, you should probably just trust them.
I know what works for me. I have learned a lot over the last 30 years in doing so. I load tens of thousands of rounds a year. I have shot approximately 5600 rounds of CF rifle rounds a year for the past 10 years.

I give my methods. Take the info and do what you want with it.
 
Webster says empirical means:
1. : originating in or based on observation or experience. empirical data. 2. : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.

So based on my observations of world class shooters targets I'm going to say that their methods work. I'll also say that up until I started refining my reloading practices, based on what some world class shooters do, I had good accuracy. 1/2MOA sometimes 1 MOA usually... out to 200 yards. Since then I have been able to put 3 rounds in the same hole (only at 100 yards but it held 1/4 MOA to 300) with three different rifles, with loads developed using the methods they talk about. By definition I don't have to regard system or theory :)

If you put enough rounds down range, you'll see the changes to impact that occur with changes in the cartridge load. And the weather. And the noisy mofo next to you, shooting a land cannon with a giant muzzle brake borrowed from a Howitzer. And the powder lot, and the bullet lot, etc, etc, etc.

We are setting off an explosion in a confined space with one exit behind an imperfect projectile that we then subject to almost instantaneous rotational velocity change with the high expectation that it will arrive on target where we want it to with precision. AND we expect it to do the same thing over and over again.

Based on observation and experience, it works.
 
Agree with Lance and others.
Since I retired ~10yrs ago I am thankful I can for the most part shoot when and how much. I shoot ~6-8k rds a year with a variety of cartridges. I've learned a lot just in the last 10 years… more than I did the previous 30 years of reloading. I buy good components, stick to the basics. I take what others say and stride and don't care what Hornady says …in my "testing" I see a difference when it comes to powder charges, seating depths, neck interference fit, and neck preparation etc… this doesn't mean that every cartridge will be affected equally . In short terms if I think something is on the cusp of becoming really accurate and precise…I'll go down the rabbit hole and explore it. If it doesn't seem to be coming around to my degree of satisfaction I sell it or just leave it as is and use it for just closer range game or steel Targets.
I can't remember what reloading channel it is, but the commentator says "you do you"
My recommendation is you need to put in the time and money for 20 to 30 years and make your own decision. But obviously sharing your experience and your results can help others.
 
VenatusDominus said:
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" without any empirical evidence. 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 otherwords, their methods may work, but not for the reasons they think. My goal is, through empirical evidence, to sort out what actually makes a difference in the reloading process and what is just the deeply held dogma of the community.

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".

And just to be clear, 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.

Empirical evidence:
www.outdoorlife.com

Rifle Nodes: How You’ve Been Wasting Your Time and Money on Load Development

Everything you know about rifle nodes and load development might be wrong. Click here to see the results for yourself.
www.outdoorlife.com www.outdoorlife.com
Click to expand...

The gentleman in the video is one that I watch a lot of stuff that he does on YouTube about shooting chronographing he is from Washington State that's where I'm from I'm not yet got to meet him he lives south from me someday I'd like to go to a range with him and pick his brain also he is pretty good everything that I have ever done and followed on what he is talked about seems to be pretty close for accuracy and otherwise shoots straight stay safe everybody have fun at the range
 
lancetkenyon said:
If 50 people that have been succesfully reloading for 30+ years are telling you what works, you should probably just trust them.
I know what works for me. I have learned a lot over the last 30 years in doing so. I load tens of thousands of rounds a year. I have shot approximately 5600 rounds of CF rifle rounds a year for the past 10 years.

I give my methods. Take the info and do what you want with it.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of 30 shot groups 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💥
 
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...
Winner winner...chicken dinner...
 
I don't often post on here, mostly just read and retain all of the fruits of others labors. Most of my work goes into factory rifles, I like getting out of the box guns to shoot under .5moa or better at a 100. While doing this I have often wondered why a seating depth change made a positive or negative difference or why the powder node on some rifles is .6 grains as opposed to 1.2 grains on a different but same OEM rifle built to the same tolerance ranges. I'm not ever going to argue, if it makes a difference or not, as already posted, the proof is on the target. However, I would like to know why it makes a difference? What are the bullet, gasses, kernels of powder, molecules of atmosphere etc.. doing differently in that .010 gap that they weren't able to do before?

Sorry for the long winded post. I truly appreciate all of the knowledge and experience on this site and will go back to lurking from the outside.

Thanks
 
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.
Click to expand...
I posted the two references for the express purpose of adding to the community. If you reviewed either of them, I would welcome your insight, you obviously have a lot more experience at this than I do.
 
Last edited:
Koda_ said:
This is not empirical evidence refuting seating depth nodes. They clearly stated they didn't play with seating depths and they were referring to accuracy not precision.

Here is some empirical evidence supporting seating depth nodes:
(note: queued up to the seating depth part so you dont have to watch the full thing on a different subject)
Click to expand...

You are correct, the article only tests powder charge nodes, the video by Keith Glasscock addresses seating depth nodes. I follow Erik's channel and, until recently, based my reloading method, with regards to seating depth, on this very video. After watching Keith's video (a former F-class shooter) I am rethinking my methods.
 
Last edited:
Mrvmax said:
Here's some info. I will say that I've improved my groups by varying charge weights and OAL. It too much time but did improve group size.
Houston warehouse
Click to expand...
I read that article and it supports the hypothesis that powder and depth nodes are a myth, as their only accurate seating depth was on the lands. I don't think Its findings on seating depth are applicable to hunting as I don't think anyone seats touch the lands. From the article:

"One thing he stressed is that bullets must be precisely seated against the lands. He NEVER fired a single official screamer group when he was "jumping" bullets. All his best groups were always seated into the lands, or at the very least touching the lands. His practice was to seat the bullets so the engraving was half as long as the width of the lands...You can change the powder charge slightly, and it won't really make any difference, but if you change the bullet seating depth (ie. not touching the lands) or the grip on the bullet, you're going to see bad things happen fast."
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

B
Seating depth or powder charge?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Remmy700
Remmy700
6
Powder charge and seating depth
7 8 9
Replies
112
Views
16K
SSG Graybush
SSG Graybush
J
seating depth along with powder charge
Replies
3
Views
1K
FearNoWind
FearNoWind
P
Seating Depth Affected By Powder Charge?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Scout1
S
B
New Loads: Powder Charge vs Seating Depth
Replies
4
Views
4K
bookworm
B

Recent Posts

Top