Low SD but bad groups

[bultinkle]

.

 

[orkan]

their benches are tables that are not solid. Could be getting a bounce from them?? Could be the lights with my old eyes. I shoot there fairly often. It is climate controlled and the farm is not LOL. It is a thing and not a fluke. I don't really care I just shoot there because it is comfortable and fun. I really do feel the further away you are able to test loads the better and more consistent your results will be. However, I am old and I'm sure my methods are dated and will not work for a professional like you so please ignore my ramblings.

I'm a big advocate of proofing loads at distance. Especially at any distance the load is to be used. We have no disagreement there at all.

Though I've not seen an instance where a load worked at 100yds that was pure didn't translate to distance. Conversely I've seen countless students that didn't have the proper load at 100 fall to pieces as you describe at distance. Yet the fact remains that past 100yds, atmospherics tend to clutter up the testing for shooters that can't cycle their actions fast enough to stay in proper control of the condition. This is especially evident out here in the prairie where the wind blows constantly. So there is a specific reality to what will produce consistent success which depends on experience level as well as where the shooting is being done.

Perhaps what we're really talking about here is what "can" work, versus what will be virtually guaranteed to work for everyone all of the time. Every time I push shooters out in 100yd increments, the demand on the shooter becomes exponentially greater for every hundred yards added. Mental aspects, optic limitations, atmospheric considerations, ballistic effects. It all increases in a non-linear fashion at some yardage.

It's easy to see how I'm expected to provide techniques that will absolutely work, rather than what "can" work. Over the years I've made a concentrated effort to boil down the methods to provide guaranteed results. Lots of rounds fired to learn it. I'm currently loading for 17 cartridges among my own rifles which I'm trying to cull drastically. As you're seemingly aware... that can be demanding.

Lots of ways that can work, but usually only one best way. Sometimes that can be super hard to quantify. Other times it's pretty easy.

Thanks for your perspective.


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

 

[milo-2]

In my opinion your describing the Satterlee method.
When I do ladders its more about bullet impact and vertical in relation to were all the bullets impact in the whole ladder test to determine the " node" the wider the better in both powder, seating and neck tension ladders. I do record velocity but its not the determining factor.
I do 2-3 shot groupings in the ladder test.

The velocity ladder, I am not sure people who use this method even care about initial impacts on target. It is more about sample size and tight numbers, followed up by seating depth tests, which IMO has to alter initial numbers some.
Your method, the Audette ladder, or OCW method are considered dated as the sample sizes can be too small.
Either way, the desire to be right and therefore develop a following is too prevalent. The way I read things, the velocity crowd seems to feel that barrels do not have accuracy nodes, so OBT, OCW, and AL tests are really not a thing. So no longer can numbers shrink in accordance with group size.
I myself think the Satterlee method was taken way too far out of context, and variations of it sprouted. BUT, it works for a fair share of people.
Thing is, the division between the 2 methods, but I honestly feel if one guy actually makes a strictly chronograph based load that shoots extremely well, and you took his rifle and made your load with it, chances are your load and his would be close to identical. Different paths were taken to get there is all.

 

[Orange Dust]

I'm a big advocate of proofing loads at distance. Especially at any distance the load is to be used. We have no disagreement there at all.

Though I've not seen an instance where a load worked at 100yds that was pure didn't translate to distance. Conversely I've seen countless students that didn't have the proper load at 100 fall to pieces as you describe at distance. Yet the fact remains that past 100yds, atmospherics tend to clutter up the testing for shooters that can't cycle their actions fast enough to stay in proper control of the condition. This is especially evident out here in the prairie where the wind blows constantly. So there is a specific reality to what will produce consistent success which depends on experience level as well as where the shooting is being done.

Perhaps what we're really talking about here is what "can" work, versus what will be virtually guaranteed to work for everyone all of the time. Every time I push shooters out in 100yd increments, the demand on the shooter becomes exponentially greater for every hundred yards added. Mental aspects, optic limitations, atmospheric considerations, ballistic effects. It all increases in a non-linear fashion at some yardage.

It's easy to see how I'm expected to provide techniques that will absolutely work, rather than what "can" work. Over the years I've made a concentrated effort to boil down the methods to provide guaranteed results. Lots of rounds fired to learn it. I'm currently loading for 17 cartridges among my own rifles which I'm trying to cull drastically. As you're seemingly aware... that can be demanding.

Lots of ways that can work, but usually only one best way. Sometimes that can be super hard to quantify. Other times it's pretty easy.

Thanks for your perspective.


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

You are spot on about the atmospheric. We are blessed on the Prairie here that in the summer and fall the wind almost ALWAYS lays to nearly indoor conditions late in the afternoon and early in the mornings. Get up early and no mirage or wind to spoil the fun, just dew to get everything wet. Why it falls just after daylight ill never know. Don't do load development much anymore unless I run out of powder, bullets, or get a new gun. Mostly just take a shot and a follow up whenever I am working on the farm, or coming or going to a stand, or a range session where I take several guns and play. got pretty burned out on rifles and pistols over the years and bet you will too. Not as much fun when it becomes work. Shotguns I have always tried to shoot 100 rounds EVERY day in serious practice. Even that has greatly diminished due to unavailability of components, primers mostly. 5k of primers is a find lately. Getting 40k ain't happening. I am pretty sure I'm in the twilight of all of this. I just hope I can keep at it long enough to teach my grandson.

 

[Orange Dust]

The velocity ladder, I am not sure people who use this method even care about initial impacts on target. It is more about sample size and tight numbers, followed up by seating depth tests, which IMO has to alter initial numbers some.
Your method, the Audette ladder, or OCW method are considered dated as the sample sizes can be too small.
Either way, the desire to be right and therefore develop a following is too prevalent. The way I read things, the velocity crowd seems to feel that barrels do not have accuracy nodes, so OBT, OCW, and AL tests are really not a thing. So no longer can numbers shrink in accordance with group size.
I myself think the Satterlee method was taken way too far out of context, and variations of it sprouted. BUT, it works for a fair share of people.
Thing is, the division between the 2 methods, but I honestly feel if one guy actually makes a strictly chronograph based load that shoots extremely well, and you took his rifle and made your load with it, chances are your load and his would be close to identical. Different paths were taken to get there is all.

I'll go out on a limb and bet you are not wrong. I would also bet if I sent you my rifle, bullets, powder, brass and primers and asked you to use them to develop a load you would end up so close to my load it would be scary. All this ain't nearly as hard as lots of folks think. It gets weird sometimes when you can't get a bullet to shoot and try and force it. Sometimes it is just easier to fish than to cut bait.

 

[TXTrained]

I'm not going to get into it with Brian but I will with you. 100 yds is just too close to see meaningful differences. We have a 100 yd indoor range. Every rifle I have will duplicate the groups shot there at 300 outside. No idea if it is lighting, their tables, or whatever, but it is pretty consistent. I am not referring to the boattaild going to sleep. Never believed that. I am referring to today's rifles are too accurate to be able to judge loads that close. We don't test enough rounds to have meaningful statistics between loads anyway. Short range only enhances the issue. The more accurate the rifle the worse it is. I believe this is where a lot of the shoots good at 100 but falls apart at 400 comes from.

I get mine on point at 100 yards outside.Not a 100 yard range near me anyway.But after the 100 yard zero I go straight to 600 yards. There are guns and reasons some shoot well at 100 yards but not worth a dang at 600 yards and farther.I just dont see any reason in putting so many down range at 100 if Im not going to shoot that short.Ladder Test,Node..maybe tune it if I want.I rarely shoot shorter than 600 yards anyway.No fun in it for me.LOL

 

[Tree Farmer]

I've been following this thread closely as I'm having a similar problem. One day my load will shoot .5 moa and the next it shoots 1.1 moa. Tried every loading tweak I could think of with the same results, looks great and then falls apart. But, the ES is always good. I finally concluded the problem had to be a bedding issue. It appears it was. Factory bedding had epoxy in the rear pillar and the rear action screw was threaded through it. Also, some bedding material oozed forward of the recoil lug and was against the barrel. Removed the epoxy in both areas and shot two different loads this morning (different bullets and powder charges). Both loads (3 shot groups) went just under and over .5 moa. I wasted a lot of components trying to tune a load when the problem was the rifle. I'll confirm consistency and then start shooting at distance.