Seeking empirical evidence to support or refute powder/seating-depth nodes

[Horse1]

I've been concerned about getting too close due to pressure. How close are your loads to the max with that seating depth?

The 22-250's are 3275fps from 22" and 3300 from 24".

The 270's are 3030 fps from 22".

 

[quandary]

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.

I think you need to watch the Furman videos on Long Range Only

 

[cajun]

So one guy posted a video that he found no difference in accuracy with seating depth changes. So the reality of statistics is that is just one data point. You would need at least 30 more people to replicate the results to see any trend. I suggest you read Bryan Litz's books if you want to nerd out.

 

[FEENIX]

So one guy posted a video that he found no difference in accuracy with seating depth changes. So the reality of statistics is that is just one data point. You would need at least 30 more people to replicate the results to see any trend. I suggest you read Bryan Litz's books if you want to nerd out.

LL, that's also what I recommended in #8.

 

[FireFlyFishing]

So one guy posted a video that he found no difference in accuracy with seating depth changes. So the reality of statistics is that is just one data point. You would need at least 30 more people to replicate the results to see any trend. I suggest you read Bryan Litz's books if you want to nerd out.

Your groups are too small…

 

[FireFlyFishing]

View attachment 606706

Nah, I get what you were saying. The joke is on you.

 

[Grey Goast]

Simple when the speed of your bullet traveling through your barrel matches the center of your harmonics of your barrel as it leaves the last touching point of the barrel equals true travel of your bullet to target and if your aim is true and you have done your part the bullet will hit its mark with no fliers except in the case of bad bullet forming in manufacturing Just my thoughts running wild. Some people would call these nodes.

 

[Beluebow]

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

The video means little....two different relays is hardly a fair comparison. We have seen it many times (on video) of rifles seemingly go in and out of tune over the course of the day.

Edit to add.......as Fclass shooters (which KG doesn't do any longer) we get to see very large sample sizes. We get to see what actually works with some of the best platforms made. To discredit that because it's not a hunting rifle platform is silly in my opinion.

 

[Alibiiv]

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!

Yup....that's exactly what I wrote.

 

[Doghunter23]

I think you need to watch the Furman videos on Long Range Only

Link? He is just talking about running ladder tests in the forums I read, I know how to run a ladder test. Every load I shoot I shoot across my chrono during load development. My point is that during my load development I shrink my SD from 35 to 4.6 and my group size from 1.5 moa to .25 MOA and I guess it's not statistically relevant? It seems to be relevant to me but maybe I have an overactive imagination.

 

[sjt18]

The 22-250's are 3275fps from 22" and 3300 from 24".

The 270's are 3030 fps from 22".

I meant your powder load. Are you over the published recommendation, in the middle, low, etc?

I'm kind of worried about touching the lands with a charge near max and having an extreme pressure event.

I am pretty close to a satisfactory load for Sierra TGK 140 Gn in my 270. I am at the max my mag will hold at 3.360. I don't have sophisticated equipment. I used a method the guys at IR used measuring from the muzzle to the bolt face and then seating a bullet with the bolt and measuring the max OAL by the difference. I think I'm still around 20 thousandths off the lands. I saw pressure with Staball 6.5 at over 55.4 gns. Someone else reported they got to 60 gns without pressure. I think I'm pretty safe at 54.8 to 55.0 right around 3000 fps.

I previously played with some ELD-X and must have been pretty close to the lands. Pressure went up on something less than the max load.

 

[ShtrRdy]

Link? He is just talking about running ladder tests in the forums I read, I know how to run a ladder test. Every load I shoot I shoot across my chrono during load development. My point is that during my load development I shrink my SD from 35 to 4.6 and my group size from 1.5 moa to .25 MOA and I guess it's not statistically relevant? It seems to be relevant to me but maybe I have an overactive imagination.

I provided one link in post #30. Included links below ...

 

[ShtrRdy]