Deputy819
Well-Known Member
Just some "food for thought"…
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Ran 2 Satterlee test today
- Thread starter Clem Bronkoski
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I have excellent resulls with satterlee. I haven't used 4064 in years but it was my 3006 favorite powder. Likely run 1000 today. Good powder
slick Nick
Well-Known Member
I think I'll try H1000 next been using 7828ssc behind 210 gr SMKHPBT good BCs and carry farther. Mostly target though at longer ranges. I have not tried IMR 4064 before. Another reason I like this site you can always glean something out of the conversations.
It's definitely doable. ES/SD doesn't always mean small. It's nice if and when it does.
Last edited:
Just a few thoughts.
First, there is more than one ways to skin a cat...as the saying goes...and it all depends on your objectives. I have tried a few, and had success with them.
I have watched these discussions for years. Nothing changes. I don't have as much experience as some of you. When I started it was OCW, then came Satterlee and Harmonics. I don't remember which came first. Then modified Satterlee, combined OCW and Satterlee and many other variations.
Of course QuickLoad which resulted in many arguements, and now GRT, more arguement, but wider acceptance of modeling with software now than 10 years ago.
If you are a true "statistics" student and follow "true" statistics methodology, you will burn out a barrel waste lots of hard to get primers, powders and projectiles before you shoot enough rounds for a statistically relevant result. Remember, in statistics, you have to account for each variable, from case capacity to powder to projectile, rifle and primer and more.
Hornady has its own take and recommendations. If you stadied statitics at all, they are not wrong, in a pure matematical sense, but they have something to sell. I always take a second look at a sales pitch.
I am strong believer in Harmonics. My objectives are hunting loads. If I have a rifle shooting well with a specific load combination, then, the load for another rifle of same make and model would be very close to that. I have proven that for me, with three different WBY MK 300WBY. Statistically, its NOT a big enough sample. BUT it works in my three rifles.
I have used simulation software in my career for over three decades, so I know it offers one solution out of a myriad of possiblilites. I also learned how to use such software to make it work for me. So, FOR ME, my next test will be, shoot 5-10 rounds, same load, record velocities, use GRT to estimate load for OBT, test, adjust, repeat. Just as a side note, when I plugged in my "good enough for me" loads in QL, they coincide with a harmonic note.
I tend to ramble a lot, but my point is, for any method one chooses, there will be people to argue against it, yet thousands of people have results that work for them. I got OCW, modified Satterlee and combinations to work for me, and according to Hornady, my samples are too small.
Good shooting all
First, there is more than one ways to skin a cat...as the saying goes...and it all depends on your objectives. I have tried a few, and had success with them.
I have watched these discussions for years. Nothing changes. I don't have as much experience as some of you. When I started it was OCW, then came Satterlee and Harmonics. I don't remember which came first. Then modified Satterlee, combined OCW and Satterlee and many other variations.
Of course QuickLoad which resulted in many arguements, and now GRT, more arguement, but wider acceptance of modeling with software now than 10 years ago.
If you are a true "statistics" student and follow "true" statistics methodology, you will burn out a barrel waste lots of hard to get primers, powders and projectiles before you shoot enough rounds for a statistically relevant result. Remember, in statistics, you have to account for each variable, from case capacity to powder to projectile, rifle and primer and more.
Hornady has its own take and recommendations. If you stadied statitics at all, they are not wrong, in a pure matematical sense, but they have something to sell. I always take a second look at a sales pitch.
I am strong believer in Harmonics. My objectives are hunting loads. If I have a rifle shooting well with a specific load combination, then, the load for another rifle of same make and model would be very close to that. I have proven that for me, with three different WBY MK 300WBY. Statistically, its NOT a big enough sample. BUT it works in my three rifles.
I have used simulation software in my career for over three decades, so I know it offers one solution out of a myriad of possiblilites. I also learned how to use such software to make it work for me. So, FOR ME, my next test will be, shoot 5-10 rounds, same load, record velocities, use GRT to estimate load for OBT, test, adjust, repeat. Just as a side note, when I plugged in my "good enough for me" loads in QL, they coincide with a harmonic note.
I tend to ramble a lot, but my point is, for any method one chooses, there will be people to argue against it, yet thousands of people have results that work for them. I got OCW, modified Satterlee and combinations to work for me, and according to Hornady, my samples are too small.
Good shooting all
Clem Bronkoski
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more. I also agree that if you used statistics for every variation in a load you'd burn up your barrel before you found the perfect combination.
The test works for me. And after running these 2 tests my next test will be distance from lands. Then I'm done and start to have fun.
So how did you run the tests? One shot at a certain grain weight, then up it .3 gr for ten more shots? example 78, 78.3, 78.6, 78.9, 79.2,...........
How far away did you do the test?
Clem Bronkoski
Well-Known Member
2 rounds each charge.0.5 gr between each for 10 different charges. Chronograph 10' from muzzle. Distance doesn't matter as I was not checking accuracy only velocities.
Those that say it doesn't work have their opinion just as I have mine and I believe it does eliminate a lot of loading guesswork.
I won't argue with them and just use my experience from past lessons learned.
Those that say it doesn't work have their opinion just as I have mine and I believe it does eliminate a lot of loading guesswork.
I won't argue with them and just use my experience from past lessons learned.
Doom2
Well-Known Member
Would you be willing to share your data?
Clem Bronkoski
Well-Known Member
Sure average of 2 shots in 0.5 gr increments: (GR - Vel);
77 - 2889, 77.5 - 2967, 78 - 2984. 78.5 - 2999, 79 - 2983, 79.5 - 3017, 80 - 3058, 80.5 - 3082, 81 - 3104, 81.5 - 3107
Note: My manuals referenced used a 24" barrel and the velocities were a bit less. But with my 26" barrel the increase seems about what it should be.
Caution: My last load is over max but I was checking for pressure signs as I went. I probably could have gone even higher but I didn't feel the need to.
Doom2
Well-Known Member
could you give me the individual shot velocities?
Clem Bronkoski
Well-Known Member
This is where I get the heartburn from guys saying it doesn't work. It seems they are using it and basing their opinions on the wrong reason. A particular shooter, when all the stars line up, will shoot a 1/4" group and say "aha, I found my load". The problem is can this same shooter consistently shoot 1/4" groups with that load or only occasionally and under ideal conditions. Maybe yes but more likely no. Now sometimes a person can get lucky.
I want a load that will shoot groups consistently under all conditions. These groups may only be 3/4" but I know they will be 3/4" consistently regardless whether its 70* or 20*, 40% humidity or 80%, 1500" elevation or 3000', etc.
Clem Bronkoski
Well-Known Member
I don't suggest you try IMR4064. If you want to try an IMR powder try IMR4350. But IMO I believe you'll have better success with H1000.
