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

The outdoor life article didn't make much sense to me- he was looking at charge weight to dial in his accuracy? I thought the point of charge weight was to get your SD as low as possible… how can he think that single digit SD won't shoot better than say 50 SD at 1000 yards? And aren't small sample sizes the most valid thing to track.. if I run threw 30 rounds in 10 minutes I am going to have a very hot barrel and a lot of heat distortion in my scope.
 
has anyone that shots bench rest and has a rail gun tried this? They track there aggregate score over the course of a full season. I think they error on the side of everything matters all the time. For some reason I don't think I could be competitive in BR if I just bought a rail gun and just loaded a book minimum load and just fire away all season…
 
has anyone that shots bench rest and has a rail gun tried this? They track there aggregate score over the course of a full season. I think they error on the side of everything matters all the time. For some reason I don't think I could be competitive in BR if I just bought a rail gun and just loaded a book minimum load and just fire away all season…
I know of a couple of F Class shooters (successful ones) that learned some of the reloading techniques from a "Speedy" Gonzalez, Hall of Fame Benchrest shooter. I think there are some parallels but I recall that in some of the interviews that EC has done with Speedy there are differences in how they reload. Slight differences.
 
I know of a couple of F Class shooters (successful ones) that learned some of the reloading techniques from a "Speedy" Gonzalez, Hall of Fame Benchrest shooter. I think there are some parallels but I recall that in some of the interviews that EC has done with Speedy there are differences in how they reload. Slight differences.
I have seen him and speedy in a couple reloading videos, most of what they say I have seen also in my reloading. I just don't think I heard either of them say that charge weight or seating depth don't matter at all.
 
has anyone that shots bench rest and has a rail gun tried this? They track there aggregate score over the course of a full season. I think they error on the side of everything matters all the time. For some reason I don't think I could be competitive in BR if I just bought a rail gun and just loaded a book minimum load and just fire away all season…
No, you couldn't be competitive.
I know a guy who shoots BR, light gun, heavy gun, and has a rail gun, all in 6PPC. He fiddles with loads weekly. Fine tunes before a Match, and during a Match.

I shot his rail gun with his loads he had been tinkering with that day. I had a .08" 5-shot group, and he said, "you need to watch the wind flags to tighten that up".
 
Right, cause most old reloaders will vote for Harris…mmm, probably not.
1727922913904.gif
 
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."
This! Unless someone posting here has access to the Hornady, Federal etc test facilities there is no way to gather empirical data, there are to many variables. Think for a second what Hornady has at hand. An indoor, environmentally controlled facility, using rail guns. With a Doppler radar system that costs a couple hundred k. With precision tools to build their test ammunition and the ability to do as much testing as they want. My guess is no one here has this. Even so look at Hornady's variables. Every barrel is different, the way every barrel was cleaned is different, barrel life is different, different technicians running the equipment etc. Even with all of this their product is of middling quality. Granted they are tuning loads to no specific rifles and mass producing the ammunition.

To me this why an individual can run a 3 or 5 shot OCW at 100 yards, get a sense of what his rifle likes. Load a bigger sample size, test that, adjust if necessary, test at long distance, adjust if necessary. Result a load that shots great in your specific rifle. Statistically valid empirical evidence? Absolutely not. Does it work? Absolutely yes. That's all I care about!
 
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.


Looks like you are catching some grief from some. I'm newer to this than you. Unfortunately I have wasted quite a few bullets and some powder trying to find the "art" of this that so many seem emotional about.

I like efficiency and the shortest route possible. I tried Satterlee ladders but have not found it to be predictive. Quite likely some of my less precise methods are contributing to the failure... but it still hasn't worked for me. It is interesting. I can understand the "theory". But recently I had 5 shots in .2 increments all fall within about 15 fps. I chose the middle and tested a 5 shot group- the SD and ES were higher than for the 5 different loads.

My basic approach now is to choose a load from published data that suggests a velocity I can be happy with... test for speed... see how it groups... then work with seating depth. Seems like a longer path but I did a lot of "ladders" to get nowhere.
 
This! Unless someone posting here has access to the Hornady, Federal etc test facilities there is no way to gather empirical data, there are to many variables. Think for a second what Hornady has at hand. An indoor, environmentally controlled facility, using rail guns. With a Doppler radar system that costs a couple hundred k. With precision tools to build their test ammunition and the ability to do as much testing as they want. My guess is no one here has this. Even so look at Hornady's variables. Every barrel is different, the way every barrel was cleaned is different, barrel life is different, different technicians running the equipment etc. Even with all of this their product is of middling quality. Granted they are tuning loads to no specific rifles and mass producing the ammunition.

To me this why an individual can run a 3 or 5 shot OCW at 100 yards, get a sense of what his rifle likes. Load a bigger sample size, test that, adjust if necessary, test at long distance, adjust if necessary. Result a load that shots great in your specific rifle. Statistically valid empirical evidence? Absolutely not. Does it work? Absolutely yes. That's all I care about!
Don't look now but I think your last paragraph amounts to a valid method. I may have missed it but did not notice the OP specifying an objective or specific result. For me and my simple equipment and "crude" methods... if I can get under an inch MOA I'm going to be pretty happy.

I think guys like the one in that video set a bar that could frustrate a lot of us newbies. I just try to take them with a grain of salt, use what I can, and have fun.
 
Top