What’s up with Hornady’s reloading podcast?

[stazmania]

For ALL those who try to sell me Hornady...give up already...I have been burned too many times...move on.
No more comments or reactions on this subject from me

you can't give up haven't you been following. You need to buy/try at least 30 boxes of ammo to get a good statistical sample, then you need to take the dispersion of all of these boxes figure out the mean radius and the finally accept the results because that is as good as it gets.

 

[Phil Rizzo]

I've been hitting my intended target and getting good repeating groups long before a PRC, Creedmoor, a podcast or biased ballistician from any company.

Methinks I'll keep sufferin right along as is.
I'd rather do my learning from the successful shooters, right here and a couple other chosen sources. Not everyone is selling, some are simply teaching.

 

[Phil Rizzo]

And TRM82 dismantled some H 7 prc factory loads with over 2grs charge weight variation.
Something tells me the podcast might recommend that ammo if asked about it?

 

[MagnumManiac]

I totally agree with you about rifles liking some ammo. But when you have three different rifles made at different times, but same brand, all NOT liking the "custom shop" ammo, how many rifles do I need to try it in? Whats the majority brand of rifles shooting 300WBY? Yes I have a Win M70 in 300 WBY, I know you can find other brands but are rare. If your ammo does not shoot well in Factory Weatherby, it should not be sold! Case closed!

I'm old enough to have been lucky when I built my switch barrel Win Model 70 Magnum action in 300/340/375 Weatherby that both Winchester and Remington were making ammo for the 300 & 340, 375 has always been a form and load cartridge to me.
Now, that ammo available back then, especially the Remington Core-lokt in either, was fantastic shooting stuff with sub MoA almost guaranteed, the Winchester was not MoA in my rifle, but close. The Power Point bullet was also not the best, had them blow-up like grenades out of the 300 Weatherby in the 180g flavour, glad bullets got better…
If only those 2 would make Weatherby ammo again.
I can't knock factory Weatherby ammo, except for price, but without it, I wouldn't have brass in 257, 270, 300 or 340. My old Winchester & Remington brass is wearing thin, still usable, but due to neck splits and loose primer pockets, it is also thinning out. Never had the dreaded case head separations…
Now, I buy Norma stamped brass, it is cheaper, yet the same brass as Weatherby. I form my 375 from H&H, mostly Winchester and Remington, but also Norms.
You will never hear me recommend Hornady brass, even though I use it for my 416 Rigby based wildcats, but I have no options…

Cheers.

 

[kenny458]

I don't feel like that's what they are saying. They are saying that the .3 grain changes in charge don't amount to a hill of beans and it's easy to think that they do when you see a 5 shot group shoot "better" at let's say 41.5 vs 41.8. It's not repeatable over a large sample size.

I have played with this plenty trying the Satterlee method, OCW test etc and I totally get what they are saying.

The changing the major components ie bullets and powder is a very good way to do load development. I have been down this road many times thinking I could force something to shoot by fine tuning charge or jump and have one load shoot .5 but and all the others with small changes in seating/charge shoot 1" but it's not repeatable when you revisit it the next day. A major change, either powder or bullet and suddenly it's like you can do no wrong it's shooting tight from the start charge all the way up to max.

I feel like you can get a real good idea of what powder to pursue by doing exactly what he talks about, couple grains off max, 35 thou off lands and 10 shot groups of each powder.

They never state that seating has no affect on accuracy just that in the grand scheme of things with their bullets and their throat designs it doesn't play a huge role and the .005 movements aren't really doing anything.

I'm not really a Hornady fan as far as their components but I do think their podcast is interesting as far as actually testing things that have been "gospel" forever.

This is right on with what I have found over time

 

[cajun]

Why is everything either or. Either Hornady is a company that makes terrible products and misleads their customers with false advertising. Or they are a great company at the forefront of modern cartridge development. Maybe it's a little bit of both. Either way I find it hard to hate too much on a successful American company involved in the shooting sports. After all, love it or hate it, they came out with the most popular round in decades.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I am very frugal in my load development. I don't find node hunting worth the effort. In normal size cartridges I never vary a load less than. 5gr at a time. It just doesn't make enough difference. I start mild and run one shot one charge ladder 1gr at a time. If the group on this ladder is all over the place on the target, I move to different powder. Consistent predictable gains in velocity with each increase in powder charge usually make great loads. Not flat spots in velocity. I want to find where pressure is and back off of it. Usually here is a good spot. Assuming the ladder grouped well and velocity increase was consistent. I start with the longest oal that will function in the rifle without touching the lands. If at the upper end it is not shooting as well as expected I will tinker seating depth deeper 20 thou at a time. Some rifles respond to this and some don't. Or I change primer. Sometimes a primer change does wonders. Seating depth test consists of 2 shot groups. If the first two are not good the group doesn't get better by shooting more into the group. I do not spend much time tinkering a load. It is usually futile to try and make a rifle like what I want. I really don't enjoy tinkering like some do. I would rather be done and shoot it in field conditions. My goal is .5 moa. Some rifles are more capable than others. Expect sub moa out of every rifle. Rarely do I not have a load done, zeroed, and confirmed drops at 800y in less than 20 shots. Once in a while we'll get a problem child that is simply picky and we have to try several powders. I can usually tell in half a dozen shots in a ladder if the rifle likes it or hates it.

With this method I don't sell as many bullets but it is very successful. That's my Hammer Bullets infomercial but I'm pretty sure it will translate to other brands. Maybe not as few shots as Hammers but a good load shouldn't take hundreds of shots ever.

 

[MagnumManiac]

And TRM82 dismantled some H 7 prc factory loads with over 2grs charge weight variation.
Something tells me the podcast might recommend that ammo if asked about it?

There's a huge problem dismantling factory ammo and comparing loads of powder. The simple fact is that they charge by volume, not weight and they can have a variance much larger because they use tricks to get consistent ignition and start pressure that allows for this variation.
Futile comes to mind…

Cheers.

 

[nealm66]

No disrespect but I'm just about done teaching a friend how to reload and I wouldn't let him use hammer bullets as I told him they tune way too easily and he wouldn't learn much at all lol. We just did a pressure ladder with the 130's in his grampas old Remington bolt action 30-30 yesterday and he didn't learn anything except wow!

 

[drabdrew]

It proves I tried it and it works for me! It proves you read and repeat what you read!
Good luck

Just to peak your curiosity, "reloadingallday" on instagram posted a tuner test from an independent party that repeated groupings on each tuner setting 7 times and also included 7 groupings from no tuner. They analyzed the groups by the mean radius. The test calculator uses the x-y offset of every shot from the POA to build the dispersion. He posted the graph where you can see the respective P value for each setting against each other. The results were insignificant. Bryan Litz actually commented on the post and said " There is no evidence harmonics are a significant driver of precision in modern rifles. Another test demonstrates this result; most of the time when a guy thinks his tuner is 'doing something' its more than likely he's misunderstanding the role of natural dispersion."

 

[asd9055]

Just to peak your curiosity, "reloadingallday" on instagram posted a tuner test from an independent party that repeated groupings on each tuner setting 7 times and also included 7 groupings from no tuner. They analyzed the groups by the mean radius. The test calculator uses the x-y offset of every shot from the POA to build the dispersion. He posted the graph where you can see the respective P value for each setting against each other. The results were insignificant. Bryan Litz actually commented on the post and said " There is no evidence harmonics are a significant driver of precision in modern rifles. Another test demonstrates this result; most of the time when a guy thinks his tuner is 'doing something' its more than likely he's misunderstanding the role of natural dispersion."

 

[Phil Rizzo]

All the theories and data are very interesting, indeed.
Especially when well known known names are attached.

None are as interesting as the bullet holes in paper.
If it works for you use it.
If it doesn't then don't.

 

[willfrye027]

"The earth is flat! Look across the horizon and it's obvious!!!"

"You've gotta tune that load! Look at my 3-5 shot groups it's obvious!!!"

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

There's a huge problem dismantling factory ammo and comparing loads of powder. The simple fact is that they charge by volume, not weight and they can have a variance much larger because they use tricks to get consistent ignition and start pressure that allows for this variation.
Futile comes to mind…

Cheers.

Yup, I tore down some very accurate 300rum ammo for a buddy a while back as it was just a bit warm for his custom setup. I kicked her back 5% but it took weighing a good number of charges to get an average (plus and minus a grain or better). He was happy as a clam with the slightly reduced ammo. It shot as well with zero high pressure issues.