Interesting Load Development Results

[25WSM]

OCW takes 3 times more ammo to do correctly. So with all the ammo I save I can use them to do my seating depths and final test. I'm confident enough in just the velocity test to get me close now. Saved time and money for sure.
Shep

 

[P7M13]

This method seems to work almost 100% of the time.

Idioms keep me smiling

 

[cajun]

I watched one of Eriks videos talking about load development. He said he will shoot rounds over the chrono to find the node first and not even consider groups. Just shooting into a berm. Then he would do a seating depth test. Interesting stuff.

 

[25WSM]

Nothing in this world is 100% except that nothing is 100%
Shep

 

[25WSM]

I've ran across a few rifles that would have been better at being shotguns.
But very few.
Shep

 

[25WSM]

I just built a 300rum and did the velocity test and it had a great big node like they normally do. Tried shooting groups and it sucked. Barely able to shoot moa. I tried different powder and primers and seating depths. Nothing shot good. Just from sheer frustration I checked the twist. It was a 12 and was ordered as a 10. A 12 was just enough to keep them from key holeing but not enough to shoot good. I had a 100% track record with this companies barrels BUT then this happened. It's one of the top 2 match barrel makers also. I have the new barrel in hand just need to get it all chambered up and start again. I'm sure my velocity test will find the node again but this time it will hammer. Almost a 100% chance it will.
Shep

 

[Mikecr]

I think both obviously work well and if you do them both right I think you'll end up with very similar end results like I demonstrated here.

This seems the 'conclusion' that I missed, and for that much I disagree.
You're looking at what happened with 1 gun. The components for 1 gun. Load develop for a few more guns & see how lucky you get. I think your conclusion would shift.

It doesn't always follow that an OCW load shoots best, or even near best. A ladder at distance will often put you in a different place, and FULL SEATING TESTING (which isn't even included with OCW) changes ladder outcomes.
I've found that OCW takes me to forgiving, while seating/ladder/fine incremental/fine seating takes me to best precision.
Precision gets me closer to accuracy, then cold bore accuracy, the most powerful of all ballistic attributes.

 

[User4302021]

I've found that OCW takes me to forgiving, while seating/ladder/fine incremental/fine seating takes me to best precision.
Precision gets me closer to accuracy, then cold bore accuracy, the most powerful of all ballistic attributes.

Considering that some cartridges can erode the throat at a rate of .007" - .012" per 100 rounds...what is your solution for maintaining that "fine seating"?

You mentioned that seating changes ladders, so do you do another ladder then?

 

[Jud96]

This seems the 'conclusion' that I missed, and for that much I disagree.
You're looking at what happened with 1 gun. The components for 1 gun. Load develop for a few more guns & see how lucky you get. I think your conclusion would shift.

It doesn't always follow that an OCW load shoots best, or even near best. A ladder at distance will often put you in a different place, and FULL SEATING TESTING (which isn't even included with OCW) changes ladder outcomes.
I've found that OCW takes me to forgiving, while seating/ladder/fine incremental/fine seating takes me to best precision.
Precision gets me closer to accuracy, then cold bore accuracy, the most powerful of all ballistic attributes.

Speaking of cold bore. Here's the second target I shot for the OCW. See the "Fouler" target, that's two shots from a cold bore from my original load. I think the cold bore on this rifle is good. If you want to make your own thread describing your better methods, then by all means do so. I'm not new to load development or precision hunting rifles. I made this thread to share my interesting results and to show how two separate methods gave the same conclusion. As far as seating depth, I seated these 215s .010 off and they shot 1/8-1/4 MOA groups. I don't think you can improve that lol. I suggest doing seating depth before doing OCW, velocity testing, ladder test, etc. This wasn't a complete load development thread. Again, this was just showing my results from two separate tests and methods.

 

[25WSM]

Jud your test show exactly what I've proved to myself and many others. I've done the test with at least a dozen rifles before I concluded that the Satterlee method was showing me the same thing as ocw and my ladder test. I now only use the velocity test to tune hunting rifles and have found it very easy to tune them to 1/2 moa very quickly. I still use the velocity test on my 1000 yard rigs but also do ladder test at 1000 to determine the best charge and seating. As far as seating depth before or after I've tried it both ways and don't really see much difference so I always start with velocity test first. I research the bullet I'm using and start at a depth that seemed to shoot good for most everyone else. Then I adjust seating after the velocity test. I encourage everyone to try all the different methods on a single rifle with the same components and draw your own conclusions. I did and when all the test were showing me the same thing over multiple rifles I just picked the way that was fastest and used the least amount of ammo. Alot of times I do the velocity test and a ladder at the same time. The velocity flat spots are the same ones that group up on the ladder. Basically all the methods will eventually get you to your load some just do it much faster. Ultimately everyone will pick what works for them the best. But you won't know till you try them all across several rifles. Juds test mirrors mine exactly.
Shep

 

[ntsqd]

Can I just say that I'm happy to see someone shooting a .308 Norma?

I'd say 'someone else... " but my barrel won't get here until close to T-Day and I've yet to pick a scope.~30 years ago I bought an 03-A3 that had been re-chambered in this caliber and I've been partial to it ever since.

I'm fairly new to this kind of load development, so I'm finding this thread to be a huge help. Thanks!

 

[ButterBean]

This seems the 'conclusion' that I missed, and for that much I disagree.
You're looking at what happened with 1 gun. The components for 1 gun. Load develop for a few more guns & see how lucky you get. I think your conclusion would shift.

It doesn't always follow that an OCW load shoots best, or even near best. A ladder at distance will often put you in a different place, and FULL SEATING TESTING (which isn't even included with OCW) changes ladder outcomes.
I've found that OCW takes me to forgiving, while seating/ladder/fine incremental/fine seating takes me to best precision.
Precision gets me closer to accuracy, then cold bore accuracy, the most powerful of all ballistic attributes.

You should be in the legendary thread status by now SMH

 

[Jud96]

Can I just say that I'm happy to see someone shooting a .308 Norma?

I'd say 'someone else... " but my barrel won't get here until close to T-Day and I've yet to pick a scope.~30 years ago I bought an 03-A3 that had been re-chambered in this caliber and I've been partial to it ever since.

I'm fairly new to this kind of load development, so I'm finding this thread to be a huge help. Thanks!

If you ever need any help with .308 Norma life or what not, just let me know! I have spent a lot of time shooting this rifle and developing loads for it. The .308 Norma is an amazingly accurate and good cartridge. With modern powder and bullets it is very impressive.

 

[25WSM]

The 308 Norma is definitely a good one. It's what Winchester should have done intead of the win mag. Remington messed up with the Rums too. The 7 and 30 would be better on the 338 case and 338 would be better on the 30 case. But heck what do I know.
Shep