When the BS is flowing so fast, the monkey cannot put the cork back in.
Seeking empirical evidence to support or refute powder/seating-depth nodes
- Thread starter VenatusDominus
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Arguing with old school reloaders is like arguing with Harris voters…. Waste of time. It's not tricks. It's knowing what is worth your time.
Doghunter23
Well-Known Member
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.
Doghunter23
Well-Known Member
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.
lancetkenyon
Well-Known Member
No politics
Comparing me to a Harris voter? Man, we better not ever cross paths! Them's fightin' words.
Doghunter23
Well-Known Member
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.
lancetkenyon
Well-Known Member
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".
quandary
Well-Known Member
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 do. 75gn A-max's from 1:8 22-250's are into the lands in my rifles, as are 140gn TSX's from 270Win.
sjt18
Member
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.
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
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.
sjt18
Member
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.
sjt18
Member
I've been concerned about getting too close due to pressure. How close are your loads to the max with that seating depth?
