Load development.....opinions??

[DUSTY NOGGIN]

its just excel ,
keeping track of the brass , your first shot of 44.6 , 4th shot of 44.8 & 5th shot of 44.4 , neck tension cold or too hot , only you would know ?? maybe delete those cases from next test

but now your starting to see the inconsistencies of the scales we use , too

i think your would have seen a better trend if you did one grain increments , with batch size of 4 -- in this chart you are missing alot to see any curve

in this chart i typoed the 44.8 box and labled it 43.8

 

[FURMAN]

Not every load that has a small es and sd will be accurate and not every accurate load will have a small es and sd. I have countless personal data to support this. You have to find out where the two intersect. This is where a ladder shot at long range comes into play. It shows both(the paper does not lie). To those who say ladders(done correctly) are a waste they either don't get it or should not be shooting game long range. If you want an accurate load at 1000 yards the best way to get it is to tune at 1000 yards period. You may get lucky with a load tuned at short distance and that is great but is just luck. If you do develop at 100 it needs proven at the distance you intend to shoot. I think most know and do this. If I absolutely have to do load development at short distance I do the OCW. I know many will disagree and that is fine but there is a reason national champ 1000 yard benchrest guys tune at distance. As far as helping with your load, in my opinion, we need to see targets.

 

[willyqbc]

Just my opinion but I think what your doing is a waste of components. Yes, Its fun for some.
Most ladder tests are run by folks looking for a ultra long range load, the PRS guys who aren't pro's and shoot free factory ammo, etc.
No offense but your rifle is a good "hunting" rifle to 300ish yards. Find a load which groups the best. Test it at 300 yards, Be done with it. I doubt you will get any true half MOA groups with the Savage, or many other factory $500 rifles.

If a MACHINE rest were used in ladder testing it would make sense but as long as there is a human shooting, there will never be conclusive data.

like I say, just my opinion. reloaders obsess over these ladder test, I just dont get it.

But I'm now obsessing over load data for Hammer Bullets, so I'm goofy

Buzzsaw, I am more interested in the theory everyone uses for load development. This rifle, bullet, powder combo was just a convenient medium for the conversation as it is what i happen to be working on right now.
And you're absolutely right, this will in fact be a moderate range hunting round for coyote/wolf. If not for this exercise, I would just load up 45.0 and go.......but what fun is that!!

Chris

 

[Buzzsaw]

I hear ya Chris and yep, I agree. Its fun and its shootin which cant hurt !!!

7mm-08, stuffed with Varget with the ballistic Tip = bad Medicine for game !!!

Carry on sir..

 

[Mikecr]

I believe accuracy is the most powerful of ballistic attributes.
So I would choose a gun with half the power, but twice as accurate.
Given this perspective, 'practical' is a different path than terminal priorities would put me on.

How can I drop a deer at 500yds with a 22cal 50gr bullet -harder than a 50cal 750gr bullet?
Answer: BRAIN SHOT
And I think practical here depends on why you're shooting,, at anything.

 

[Canhunter35]

The 44.5gr load has an es of 11 and the 45gr has an es of 16. In my experience 3 shots are not really about to form any kind of statistic regarding velocity, and imo it's a waste of barrel and bullets. Chase the best group somewhere between 44.5-45gr, I would perform a 5-600 yard ladder with 3 shots from 44.6, 44.8, 45gr and collect data.
Then I would perform a seating depth ladder to really wring out the available performance

 

[Canhunter35]

If a MACHINE rest were used in ladder testing it would make sense but as long as there is a human shooting, there will never be conclusive data.

All load development whether ur shooting groups or ladders suffers from shooter error.
There hasn't been a single ladder test performed. Shooting at a 100 and recording velocity is not a ladder. It's an obsession with es and sd of velocity because people are struggling to find a 1000yard load instead of shooting at a 1000 and seeing how you do followed by diagnosis on how to improve it.

 

[User4302021]

Buzzsaw, I am more interested in the theory everyone uses for load development. This rifle, bullet, powder combo was just a convenient medium for the conversation as it is what i happen to be working on right now.
And you're absolutely right, this will in fact be a moderate range hunting round for coyote/wolf. If not for this exercise, I would just load up 45.0 and go.......but what fun is that!!

Chris

My theory of load developement is to find the optimal pressure range where the powder is burning consistently and cleanly, being off the maximum charge just enough to ensure that there is no overpressure when the weather gets hot. Then I tune the load using seating depth to find the optimal barrel timing.

 

[DUSTY NOGGIN]

everybody has their way of doing things.
some of the reasons i start load development with a velocity test at close range is, usually i start with some new type of brass and it needs to prepped and i turn necks. that first range trip it gets brass matched to chamber neck axis centered. you can get the scope closely zeroed and find pressure max with velocity data all in one trip to the range. then another short range trip @300 adjust seating and see if i can get both velocity and accuracy. which i use all that remained for that box of prepped brass. if all goes well that leaves me with a full box of brass to mark twice fired, with a good idea of drop out to 300. now i have enough data at that point to get serious out at longer and usually connect quickly

yes, very excessive for a hunting rifle but i do the same with all my rifles
at least it isnt work right

 

[Zen Archery]

45.0 but I'm a velocity loader.
Most modern guns have incredible tolerance 1MOA/Mil or less. Match that with consistent velocity. You're good to go.

 

[willyqbc]

I cuurently dont do ladders or ocw per se, i guess what i am doing is kind of a combination of a few different methods. What i am looking for at 100 yds is that flat spot in velocity across a range of charges, an unchanging point of impact across a range of charges, decent groups. If i find a charge range where velocity doesnt change much, and poi stays the same with reasonable groups, then thats where the real testing will begin. In this case i will test slightly above 45.0 to see if poi and velocity still hold consistant. I dont want to be right at the edge of a node. If things hold true up to 45.2 or .3 i will then move out to intended max range (400 yds) and fine tune with seating depth. All the initial 100 and 200 yd stuff is just to gather info while getting the brass fireformed to this rifle.
Anyway, thats how i do it right now....but always looking to learn or try something new!

Chris

 

[User4302021]

So I am always curious as to how others do their load development, and had some results at the range today that opens the door to some potentially interesting discussion.

rifle is a savage lightweight hunter in 7-08 19" barrel
120 nosler ballistic tip over Varget
brass has not been fired in this rifle and was annealed,full length sized and trimmed
initial work up loads of 42.5 - 45.5 grns and shot them at 110yds

42.5 - 2759, 2808, 2798fps 1.425"
43.0 - 2826, 2834, 2819fps 1.315"
43.5 - 2857, 2835, 2846fps 1.132"
44.0 - 2899, 2898, 2922fps 1.202"
44.5 - 2911, 2907, 2918fps 0.657"
45.0 - 2947, 2963, 2957fps 0.363"
45.5 - 2980, 3013, 2977fps 1.580"

Now, at this point we look at the data and decide where to go next? for the sake of argument, lets say we are developing a 500 yd hunting load.

44.0 and 44.5 show a total standard deviation of 9.75 and an extreme spread of 24 fps, but point of impact was approximately 3/4" different

44.5 and 45.0 show a total standard deviation of 24.7 and an extreme spread of 56 fps, point of impact was identical. 45.0 group would have landed inside the 44.5 group.

So moving out further for testing, do you go after the 44.0 - 44.5 range with the very consistant velocity

OR

do you chase the 44.5 - 45 range with the tighter groups and consistant point of impact?

Seeing as I have allready loaded tomorrows rounds, I know which one I'm chasing

.....just curious how you all would proceed in your load development??

Chris

44.5 is most likely the beginning of your optimal burn rate. It grouped with the next highest load for one, and it is right at 2% off your highest charge weight. That is usually where that pressure range begins. The one you choose (44.5 or 45) depends on the temperature at the time you were working these up. You don't want low temps to affect your burn rate enough to drop you out of that pressure range.

 

[User4302021]

I cuurently dont do ladders or ocw per se, i guess what i am doing is kind of a combination of a few different methods. What i am looking for at 100 yds is that flat spot in velocity across a range of charges, an unchanging point of impact across a range of charges, decent groups. If i find a charge range where velocity doesnt change much, and poi stays the same with reasonable groups, then thats where the real testing will begin. In this case i will test slightly above 45.0 to see if poi and velocity still hold consistant. I dont want to be right at the edge of a node. If things hold true up to 45.2 or .3 i will then move out to intended max range (400 yds) and fine tune with seating depth. All the initial 100 and 200 yd stuff is just to gather info while getting the brass fireformed to this rifle.
Anyway, thats how i do it right now....but always looking to learn or try something new!

Chris

That velocity flat spot stuff is nonsense. I respect Scott Satterlee, but I wish he had never put that out.

The rest of it...OCW, Ladder Method (Audett's method), shooting groups in a linear work up, seating depth...all have measurable and repeatable processes driving them. Just different paths to the same end.

 

[willyqbc]

Dog rocket, thanks for the input! curious why you think the flat spot concept is nonsense? In my head, getting into the middle of a range of charges that doesnt show much change of velocity, would be somewhat forgiving of temp swings, scale variance etc, etc. Similiar to a range of charges that have a consistant poi. Should be a "forgiving" load???