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

VenatusDominus said:
I posted the two references for the express purpose of adding to the community. After recently stumbling across them, they have radically changed my thoughts on how I approach reloading. I thought the community may benefit from the information they proffer.

I am looking to have an honest discussion about that information and hear the opinions of others, many with infinitely more experience and knowledge than I, specifically on the information presented. If you reviewed either of them, I would welcome your insight, you obviously have been doing this a lot longer than I. What I don't understand is the need for personal attacks on my character and motives, you could have just as easily said you were not interested in any new information on reloading and moved on.
Click to expand...
Well.......I am going to answer your last question first. You ask about the need for personal attacks. When I first started reading your thread I said to myself, "Boy is this guy going to get beat up!!!" And....you pretty much did. It was more about how you framed your question, than the question itself. Your question came across as if it was coming from a "smart ***", know it all. With the large vocabulary and the framing of your question that is how it came across. I am not saying that you did anything wrong, I am just telling you how I interpreted your original post. You are dealing a large group of dedicated and knowledgeable shooters on here who are generous, empathetic and kind. They will go out of their way to help "anyone" out and share any and all information they have with anyone who asks. From your post you came across as asking a question and then challenging the information that you received from them. I am certain that if you included, "I posted the two references for the express purpose of adding to the community. After recently stumbling across them, they have radically changed my thoughts on how I approach reloading. I thought the community may benefit from the information they proffer.", the responses/replies would have been a lot different.

Now for you first question. I believe that there are too many "extraneous variables" to achieve what you are asking for, empirical data. "Empirical data is information acquired by scientists through experimentation and observation, and it is essential to the scientific process. Use of the scientific method involves making an observation, developing an idea, testing the idea, getting results, and making a conclusion." With this said, I believe that there is enough "quantified data" to develop a chi-square postulate. Defined "A chi-square test is a statistical test used to compare observed results with expected results. And........the purpose of this test is to determine if a difference between observed data and expected data is due to chance, or if it is due to a relationship between the variables you are studying."

There certainly is enough information, testing and research, based upon the numerous members and volumes of information here on this forum, to develop your own empirical data postulate. Good luck finding the information that you are looking for.
 
I am 45 now and I started reloading on my dad's bench when I was about twelve. What I can tell you, I have learned more in the last couple of years than all the previous years combined. Partially, because I have been nerding out on the subject of late. By and large, things have changed…for the good IMO.

When I was twelve, there was no internet. There were gun magazines and fellow shooters at the range passing info. Trial and error was THE way. I have learned a metric ton from gun forums as it brings the shooting community together…right at your fingertips…literally. Of course, you have to know how to navigate the good from the bad.

Reloading for an old, sloppy chambering factory rifle from yesteryear is far different than a modern factory rifle with tighter tolerances utilizing modern reloading components. Custom actions and rifles are a thing for anyone willing to drop the coin for one…you can make one on your kitchen counter nowadays. Plus, there's way more accurate and precise reloading equipment available. My gas guns…previously thought to be inaccurate spray guns…now out shoot many of my older rifles…easily.

With all that being said, some of the anecdotal procedures of days past do work…and work well. Tinkering with the older rifles seems to be where these techniques come into play. When you listen folks say this or that is a waste of time and is fudlore…listen closely to the equipment they're using/testing. It's typically next generation rifles, components, reloading equipment, etc. Of course you can skip some older techniques and arrive with a good solution for that rifle, quickly.

For those of us that have older equipment and still enjoy shooting dated rifles still need to pull out these complicated loading techniques to get things shooting to desired levels of accuracy and precision. Think about it this way…a well rounded mechanic can wrench on older cars AND plug in the diagnostic equipment for the modern vehicles they produce today. It's easier to plug in a machine that's tells you what's wrong with the vehicle…just like it's way easier loading for new rifles.

That's my opinion anyway…
 
Alibiiv said:
Well.......I am going to answer your last question first. You ask about the need for personal attacks. When I first started reading your thread I said to myself, "Boy is this guy going to get beat up!!!" And....you pretty much did. It was more about how you framed your question, than the question itself. Your question came across as if it was coming from a "smart ***", know it all. With the large vocabulary and the framing of your question that is how it came across. I am not saying that you did anything wrong, I am just telling you how I interpreted your original post. You are dealing a large group of dedicated and knowledgeable shooters on here who are generous, empathetic and kind. They will go out of their way to help "anyone" out and share any and all information they have with anyone who asks. From your post you came across as asking a question and then challenging the information that you received from them. I am certain that if you included, "I posted the two references for the express purpose of adding to the community. After recently stumbling across them, they have radically changed my thoughts on how I approach reloading. I thought the community may benefit from the information they proffer.", the responses/replies would have been a lot different.

Now for you first question. I believe that there are too many "extraneous variables" to achieve what you are asking for, empirical data. "Empirical data is information acquired by scientists through experimentation and observation, and it is essential to the scientific process. Use of the scientific method involves making an observation, developing an idea, testing the idea, getting results, and making a conclusion." With this said, I believe that there is enough "quantified data" to develop a chi-square postulate. Defined "A chi-square test is a statistical test used to compare observed results with expected results. And........the purpose of this test is to determine if a difference between observed data and expected data is due to chance, or if it is due to a relationship between the variables you are studying."

There certainly is enough information, testing and research, based upon the numerous members and volumes of information here on this forum, to develop your own empirical data postulate. Good luck finding the information that you are looking for.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the input, and per your recommendations have edited my original post.
 
FireFlyFishing said:
I am 45 now and I started reloading on my dad's bench when I was about twelve. What I can tell you, I have learned more in the last couple of years than all the previous years combined. Partially, because I have been nerding out on the subject of late. By and large, things have changed…for the good IMO.

When I was twelve, there was no internet. There were gun magazines and fellow shooters at the range passing info. Trial and error was THE way. I have learned a metric ton from gun forums as it brings the shooting community together…right at your fingertips…literally. Of course, you have to know how to navigate the good from the bad.

Reloading for an old, sloppy chambering factory rifle from yesteryear is far different than a modern factory rifle with tighter tolerances utilizing modern reloading components. Custom actions and rifles are a thing for anyone willing to drop the coin for one…you can make one on your kitchen counter nowadays. Plus, there's way more accurate and precise reloading equipment available. My gas guns…previously thought to be inaccurate spray guns…now out shoot many of my older rifles…easily.

With all that being said, some of the anecdotal procedures of days past do work…and work well. Tinkering with the older rifles seems to be where these techniques come into play. When you listen folks say this or that is a waste of time and is fudlore…listen closely to the equipment they're using/testing. It's typically next generation rifles, components, reloading equipment, etc. Of course you can skip some older techniques and arrive with a good solution for that rifle, quickly.

For those of us that have older equipment and still enjoy shooting dated rifles still need to pull out these complicated loading techniques to get things shooting to desired levels of accuracy and precision. Think about it this way…a well rounded mechanic can wrench on older cars AND plug in the diagnostic equipment for the modern vehicles they produce today. It's easier to plug in a machine that's tells you what's wrong with the vehicle…just like it's way easier loading for new rifles.

That's my opinion anyway…
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that the many of the anecdotal methods work, they have for me at any rate. I am just trying to understand why they work and am open to change if there is new information presented.
 
VenatusDominus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Long winded videos are never good in most forum discussions due to time. I cant watch it all right now. What is the seating depth takeaway from the Glasscocks video?

One of the problems with these studies is while well thought out they cant possibly cover all variables. Keiths rifle was totally custom built, the average handloader has a factory deer rifle with average reloading components.
 
Koda_ said:
Long winded videos are never good in most forum discussions due to time. I cant watch it all right now. What is the seating depth takeaway from the Glasscocks video?

One of the problems with these studies is while well thought out they cant possibly cover all variables. Keiths rifle was totally custom built, the average handloader has a factory deer rifle with average reloading components.
Click to expand...
In the video, his seating depth ladder demonstrated a best 3 shot group (load #1) of 0.183" and a worst three shot group (load #3) of 0.374". After increasing his sample size to 33, the group size for the 0.183" load measured 0.7969" and for the 0.374" load measured 0.6840". He analyzed smaller 5 shot groups from the data and found that the #1 load most often produced the smaller 5 groups, but those groups themselves "walked" around the point of aim much more. The #3 load had slightly larger 5 shot groups but were overall better centered about the point of aim, thus accounting for the overall smaller 33 shot group of load #3. He concluded that, while the three shot groups were vastly different, the 33 shot groups were statistically the same and that his changes in seating depth had no meaningful effect on the group size (he also tested a third "mediocre" load from the seating depth ladder which was also statistically the same size as the other two at the larger sample size).
 
Last edited:
VenatusDominus said:
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."
Click to expand...
I read the article and disagree he proved anything except the methods in his rifle worked for him. Again, another totally custom rifle but also some very custom and unpractical handloading methods that most recreational handloaders will never use (eg: pressing a ring into the case neck??? )
 
VenatusDominus said:
In the video, his seating depth ladder demonstrated a best 3 shot group (load #1) of 0.183" and a worst three shot group (load #3) of 0.374". After increasing his sample size to 33, the group size for the 0.183" load measured 0.7969" and for the 0.374" load measured 0.6840". He analyzed smaller 5 shot groups from the data and found that the #1 load most often produced the smaller 5 groups, but those groups themselves "walked" around the point of aim much more. The #3 load had slightly larger 5 shot groups but were overall better centered about the point of aim, thus accounting for the overall smaller 33 shot group of load #3.
Click to expand...
Did he completely remove himself from the firing solution? If not the results are moot. No doubt his custom rifle is precise and hes a good shot but how practical is this for an average person with an average hunting rifle.

Your looking for answers to the whys of a large variation in handloading methods. Using very specific methods will not cover all the possible outcomes. Most likely the science behind the many whys is an average of all the many different methods, calibers, and components used. To ignore the empirical evidence provided by decades of methods (eg, OCW, seating depth nodes) is the exact opposite of applying science to learning why they work.

There are decades of handloading science published in handloading magazines, articles, papers, books and now the internet that validate and explain the why behind building accurate, precise quality handload for whatever purpose you want. One of the best bookmarks on this explains the why in one presentation. To summarize the takeaway answering why: combustion, harmonics, external ballistics. That's it, those are the reasons the various methods work. Your seating depth question is a matter of tuning harmonics for example.

This is a really worthy watch for all handloaders when you have the time.
 
Koda_ said:
Did he completely remove himself from the firing solution? If not the results are moot. No doubt his custom rifle is precise and hes a good shot but how practical is this for an average person with an average hunting rifle.

Your looking for answers to the whys of a large variation in handloading methods. Using very specific methods will not cover all the possible outcomes. Most likely the science behind the many whys is an average of all the many different methods, calibers, and components used. To ignore the empirical evidence provided by decades of methods (eg, OCW, seating depth nodes) is the exact opposite of applying science to learning why they work.

There are decades of handloading science published in handloading magazines, articles, papers, books and now the internet that validate and explain the why behind building accurate, precise quality handload for whatever purpose you want. One of the best bookmarks on this explains the why in one presentation. To summarize the takeaway answering why: combustion, harmonics, external ballistics. That's it, those are the reasons the various methods work. Your seating depth question is a matter of tuning harmonics for example.

This is a really worthy watch for all handloaders when you have the time.
Click to expand...
At work and can't watch the video now. I subscribe to Erik's channel and have seen it before but I need a refresh and will watch later, I like his content. My take on Keith's video was that his 3 shot groups did not accurately represent what the load was really doing. This makes me wonder if my 3 shot ladders are really telling me anything, especially since my rifle and shooting skills are no where near his.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...

"Science" is testable, repeatable, verifiable. I don't remember anything about the why. Nevertheless, I have no idea why one powder doesn't "work" and switching to another does. I guess if we knew why, we could save a bunch of components and time.
 
RichCoyle said:
"Science" is testable, repeatable, verifiable. I don't remember anything about the why. Nevertheless, I have no idea why one powder doesn't "work" and switching to another does. I guess if we knew why, we could save a bunch of components and time.
Click to expand...
I think "science" is used to answer the why. Why does the earth orbit the sun? Why did the apple fall to the ground? Curious people, much smarter than I, have been asking why? for thousands of years and then applying science to find an answer. I am just looking to do the same with my reloading methods.
 
Last edited:
VenatusDominus said:
I think "science" is used to answer the why. Why does the earth orbit the sun? Why did the apple fall to the ground? Curious people, much smarter than I, have been asking why? for thousands of years and then applying science to find an answer.
Click to expand...
Then what your seeking is a totally different subject than handloading. If you want to know why barrel harmonics affect seating depths then you will have to research or set up your own testing.

The goal of handloading is to find the combination of components that get the results you want in your rifle. The various processes to get there are well documented science.
 

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
B
Seating depth, powder charge and speeds
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
MOA or bust
MOA or bust
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

Recent Posts

Top