What’s up with Hornady’s reloading podcast?

[cajun]

So, I just started load development for my 25 Creedmoor. Barrel already has 200 rounds through it. Found a decent load with 121 Hammers to get me through this passed hunting season. I then bought some 115 Tipped Hammers to try out. I loaded a 10 shot ladder from 36gr - 40.5gr of H4350. Here is the 10 shot group.View attachment 561673
View attachment 561675
I figured if 10 shots grouped like that over 4.5 grains, I could pick any charge weight and it would probably group pretty good. So I picked 40.2gr to get the most velo without hitting pressure. As 40.5 is pretty close. Here were the results a couple of days later. View attachment 561676View attachment 561677
Then I loaded 5 more and shot this group a few days later.View attachment 561678View attachment 561679I deleted one shot due to an error I made during loading. I accidentally spilled some powder out of one round after I put up everything. That round shot 2966fps and it still grouped with the others. I never messed with seating depth. I stayed at 20 off the lands. Im just just 20 total rounds in for this load. Since this rifle is for hunting, I was happy with the results and stopped there. This was at 100yds as I don't have access to shoot further. Sorry for the long post, just wanted to share my experience.

Thats what I was talking about. You have a good powder bullet combo. The creeds love H4350. This is how I do it. If the powder ladder doesnt look like that I pick another powder.

 

[jackthebear]

Bullet seating depth has an effect on accuracy with Hornady eldx and eldm bullets.

Then Show us with your targets done in a blind study with a large sample size of 30 rounds per seating depth change!

 

[gregmark24]

Here's the Hornady graph at 0.2 GN increments. Dismiss the holes between those peaks.

 

[stiff neck]

So, I just started load development for my 25 Creedmoor. Barrel already has 200 rounds through it. Found a decent load with 121 Hammers to get me through this passed hunting season. I then bought some 115 Tipped Hammers to try out. I loaded a 10 shot ladder from 36gr - 40.5gr of H4350. Here is the 10 shot group.View attachment 561673
View attachment 561675
I figured if 10 shots grouped like that over 4.5 grains, I could pick any charge weight and it would probably group pretty good. So I picked 40.2gr to get the most velo without hitting pressure. As 40.5 is pretty close. Here were the results a couple of days later. View attachment 561676View attachment 561677
Then I loaded 5 more and shot this group a few days later.View attachment 561678View attachment 561679I deleted one shot due to an error I made during loading. I accidentally spilled some powder out of one round after I put up everything. That round shot 2966fps and it still grouped with the others. I never messed with seating depth. I stayed at 20 off the lands. Im just just 20 total rounds in for this load. Since this rifle is for hunting, I was happy with the results and stopped there. This was at 100yds as I don't have access to shoot further. Sorry for the long post, just wanted to share my experience.

I've had similar results with hammer bullets. But NOT with regular jacketed rifle bullets. Even a crude Glock 9mm can be load tuned at 25 yards with powder charge and seating depth, it's easy to see.

 

[BlackTail30]

I think if people approached reloading with just a little bit of critical thought, they'd understand what Hornady is saying. If you ask 50 reloaders how they load ammo you'd probably get 50 answers. Why is that?

Some guys swear by the Satterlee method and get good results.
Some guys swear by the OCW method and get good results.
Some guys swear by a Ladder test and get good results.
Some guys load develop on virgin brass and get good results.
Some guys only develop on fired brass and get good results.
Some guys always neck turn and get good results.
Some guys never neck turn and get good results.
Some guys anneal every firing and get good results.
Some guys never anneal and get good results.
Some guys swear by bushings and get good results.
Some guys swear by mandrels and get good results.
Some guys neck size only and get good results.
Some guys full length size only and get good results.
Some guys test small .003 jumps and get good results.
Some guys test big .025 jumps and get good results.
Etc., etc., ETC…..

If there's a 1,000 different methods that get good results then maybe the method isn't as important as we think it is. Use good components and try to be consistent as possible and you'll have good ammo. No .001 difference in jump or .01 more of powder is going to put you into a "node".

 

[stiff neck]

No .001 difference in jump or .01 more of powder is going to put you into a "node".

Literally nobody claimed that, nor anything similar.

 

[BlackTail30]

Literally nobody claimed that, nor anything similar.

LITERALLY the entire premise of this thread was that small changes to charge weights and/or seating depth do make changes.

I feel sorry for all the folks that are sucked into their advice. I never watched the whole thing but it almost sounded like one of them was saying bullet seating didn't have much effect and a couple shots of a random powder charge would let a guy know if it was a good combination or not.

 

[stiff neck]

LITERALLY the entire premise of this thread was that small changes to charge weights and/or seating depth do make changes.

0.001" jump? And 0.01gr powder? Puts you in a node? Again, literally nobody said that.

 

[BlackTail30]

0.001" jump? And 0.01gr powder? Puts you in a node? Again, literally nobody said be that.

Boy, I bet you're the life of the party! I was exaggerating to make point. Apparently it went right over your head. You can ignore the steak and focus on the peas if you want. I'm not going to starve with you. Have a great day!

 

[stazmania]

Here is a video on youtube "Jeff Peinhardt - 4-Gun Agg. World Record holder" that tell you what is possible "not practical for most" but shooters wanting to get the most out of their equipment there are some nuggets.

 

[nksmfamjp]

If there's a 1,000 different methods that get good results then maybe the method isn't as important as we think it is. Use good components and try to be consistent as possible and you'll have good ammo.

What I would argue is average reloaders grab a method, load up a string and go with the best result. This will often give you a 0.3-0.8moa group. If we latch on to a single result and go, it is like playing the lottery.

If we take this result and reshoot with another variable, but repeat the previous best, we get confirmation or not. Then we take that best and vary something else small, we get a 3rd confirmation. Then we load 100 and go practice, we get more confirmation or rejection of results.

Add into this that most scenarios are well handled by a 1.5 moa load and you can easily develop a load that gives you good groups….or good enough.

I find when I hang my hat on a 0.3 moa group, I'm often disappointed changing range or conditions. Generally this was the load falling apart. Finding pressure, backing off and shooting 20 is a good way to see where a load is at. The difference is I have a real 20 same load & conditions sample to compare to another try…… vs a bunch of 5 shot groups shot at nearly the same load, but not the same.

 

[BlackTail30]

What I would argue is average reloaders grab a method, load up a string and go with the best result. This will often give you a 0.3-0.8moa group. If we latch on to a single result and go, it is like playing the lottery.

If we take this result and reshoot with another variable, but repeat the previous best, we get confirmation or not. Then we take that best and vary something else small, we get a 3rd confirmation. Then we load 100 and go practice, we get more confirmation or rejection of results.

Add into this that most scenarios are well handled by a 1.5 moa load and you can easily develop a load that gives you good groups….or good enough.

I find when I hang my hat on a 0.3 moa group, I'm often disappointed changing range or conditions. Generally this was the load falling apart. Finding pressure, backing off and shooting 20 is a good way to see where a load is at. The difference is I have a real 20 same load & conditions sample to compare to another try…… vs a bunch of 5 shot groups shot at nearly the same load, but not the same.

No argument at all from me! I agree 100% and that is exactly how I do load development. Find pressure and back off. Load up 10 and shoot a group at 100 yards. If I don't like it I'm changing bullet or powder. I'm not going to play around with charge weights or seating depths. If I do like the first 10 shot group I load up 10 more and validate at distance. In 25-30 rounds I know where pressure is, shot a group with enough data points to feel good about it holding up, have a 10 shot zero for my rifle and load combo, and I've validated the load at distance. Done!

I think the funneling bias you refer to in the beginning of your post, where we pick "the best" from small sample sizes and keep tweaking is a recipe for disappointment.

 

[willfrye027]

What I would argue is average reloaders grab a method, load up a string and go with the best result. This will often give you a 0.3-0.8moa group. If we latch on to a single result and go, it is like playing the lottery.

If we take this result and reshoot with another variable, but repeat the previous best, we get confirmation or not. Then we take that best and vary something else small, we get a 3rd confirmation. Then we load 100 and go practice, we get more confirmation or rejection of results.

Add into this that most scenarios are well handled by a 1.5 moa load and you can easily develop a load that gives you good groups….or good enough.

I find when I hang my hat on a 0.3 moa group, I'm often disappointed changing range or conditions. Generally this was the load falling apart. Finding pressure, backing off and shooting 20 is a good way to see where a load is at. The difference is I have a real 20 same load & conditions sample to compare to another try…… vs a bunch of 5 shot groups shot at nearly the same load, but not the same.

"Generally this is the load falling apart"

Or…this is an example of small sample size misleading you.

And then when you're "in the node" but a shot falls out…do you call that a flier? Flinch?

I have done things both ways..personally the headaches, guessing, and wasted time at the loading bench and 100 yard line have been minimized by going away from the notion of nodes.

For some guys it may be enjoyable to tinker and play with small variations looking for a slightly tighter group. But the reality is it takes a very large sample size to prove small differences in group size..and at that point your lands have moved, fouling increased, range conditions/mirage have changed…for me that's time wasted that could have been spent improving my wind call and positional shooting.

The hornady guys admit that some small changes/improvements can be made with tinkering, with SOME cartridges and bullets. If that sounds fun, have at it. But there is a more painless way that achieves similar results in less time/components, freeing the shooter up to actually practice at whatever their chosen discipline is.

I would argue that the vast majority of shooters would see improvement in their scores, ability, or whatever meaningful metric you can place on it by ditching the conventional idea of a tune and spending time actually practicing with even a "mediocre" load in whatever their chosen discipline is.

 

[willfrye027]

For the "node" guys—highly recommend taking the time to understand what hornady is trying to explain. Big manufactures, government entities, etc have known these things for years. You don't need to accept it as gospel, and even if you stay in the "node" camp their education on statistics and sharing the data on many thousands of shots will enrich your understanding of the sport.