24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,556
J
JeffG Online Content OP
Campfire Tracker
OP Online Content
Campfire Tracker
J
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,556
I'm try to find the simple logic in the mysterious world of reloading.

in reloading for my hunting rifles I select my bullet for terminal success, either small groups for varmints, or predictable expansion on game animals, then I search for the most consistent load; consistent point of impact, small ES on the chrono, hopefully with similar results at summer temps and winter temps.


Once finding a good load, and I eventually run out of powder, I try another jug of powder, sometimes the same type/new batch, sometimes a different type (less temp sensitive, or one of these new "clean burning/less fouling" types). I use the same rifle, same bullet, same cases, same primer trying to achieve the same velocity I had success with. Once there I get the same consistency only about 50% of the time. It feels like starting load development all over again with every new jug of powder.

My question:
Why wouldn't the best consistency of any rifle/cartridge/bullet combo be the same with any powder that can achieve the same muzzle velocity?


"...One Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All"

JeffG
BP-B2

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,639
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,639
Instead of loading for ES, one would be better served loading for standard deviation. It's a much better description of consistency

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,699
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,699
Originally Posted by JeffG
I'm try to find the simple logic in the mysterious world of reloading.

in reloading for my hunting rifles I select my bullet for terminal success, either small groups for varmints, or predictable expansion on game animals, then I search for the most consistent load; consistent point of impact, small ES on the chrono, hopefully with similar results at summer temps and winter temps.


Once finding a good load, and I eventually run out of powder, I try another jug of powder, sometimes the same type/new batch, sometimes a different type (less temp sensitive, or one of these new "clean burning/less fouling" types). I use the same rifle, same bullet, same cases, same primer trying to achieve the same velocity I had success with. Once there I get the same consistency only about 50% of the time. It feels like starting load development all over again with every new jug of powder.

My question:
Why wouldn't the best consistency of any rifle/cartridge/bullet combo be the same with any powder that can achieve the same muzzle velocity?


It isn't just the speed of the bullet as it exits the muzzle, it's the timing of its exit relative to whatever dance your barrel does. Different powders can and do produce different acceleration curves, so two loads having the same speed at the muzzle don't necessarily have the same time from the instant of ignition to the exit of the bullet. Just like two drag cars can have the same trap speed but different 1/4 mile times.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,101
A
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,101

About the time I think I have figured out how to achieve a small ES with various handloads.........I figure out I don't.........


Casey

Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively...
Having said that, MAGA.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,898
M
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,898
Extreme spread is a very fickle statistic--especially when applied to the relatively few shots in a typical hunter fires when working up loads. Even standard deviation doesn't mean anything when firing a 5-shot string (much less a 3-shot string). Ammunition companies generally fire dozens of rounds when testing for consistent SD.

This still doesn't mean their ammo will always be reasonably accurate in a wide variety of rifles, because the rifles themselves vary too much. But in general there's a better chance of consistent accuracy than the "pet loads" of many handloaders, many of which are based on a single 3-shot group.


“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
IC B2

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 36,822
D
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
D
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 36,822
I used to be more concerned about low E.S/S.D..'s. than I am now. I've had rounds with less than desirable variations that shot great. I'm now looking more at the target, but realize, E.S. and S.D. values have merit. May be more important at extreme ranges.

Seems to me that Varget has some of the lowest E.S. values and does very well at the target. I can see why target shooters like it. I know I do.

It can be a fickle business, different powders performing differently in different rounds. So, blanket statements may not have a lot of predictive value, opinions here on the Fire, notwithstanding... blush

grin

DF

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 708
A
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
A
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 708
Originally Posted by JeffG
I'm try to find the simple logic in the mysterious world of reloading.

in reloading for my hunting rifles I select my bullet for terminal success, either small groups for varmints, or predictable expansion on game animals, then I search for the most consistent load; consistent point of impact, small ES on the chrono, hopefully with similar results at summer temps and winter temps.


Once finding a good load, and I eventually run out of powder, I try another jug of powder, sometimes the same type/new batch, sometimes a different type (less temp sensitive, or one of these new "clean burning/less fouling" types). I use the same rifle, same bullet, same cases, same primer trying to achieve the same velocity I had success with. Once there I get the same consistency only about 50% of the time. It feels like starting load development all over again with every new jug of powder.

My question:
Why wouldn't the best consistency of any rifle/cartridge/bullet combo be the same with any powder that can achieve the same muzzle velocity?


As others have stated, acceleration of the bullet to the muzzle (this varies with the powder used, dimensions of the bore and/or bullet and start pressure). Case fill is another consideration (>95%, avoid 100% as some cases will be compressed and some not, and generally < 105%) so two zones for case fill. Seating primers in a consistent manner helps ES ( I pre-load the cup to the anvil) the thinking here is mitigation of an inconsistent firing pin strike. I get better / lower ES with cases once fired from annealing ( this points to my inconsistent annealing processes). Concentricity of the loaded round must be 0.000" run-out, if not , find out where in the load process that induces run-out, (this will lead you to using a body die and a Lee collet neck size die).

Depending on whether the cartridge is over-bore, like a 22-300 Weatherby as a gross example, barrel erosion must be accounted for. You will see this as velocity dropping off a bit, groups opening up.....essentially losing your tune. An increase in powder usually help here. Bottom line here is that your load over time must be dynamic to the changing 'mechanics' of your rifle and environment that it is operated in.

A LabRadar is a great tool for tracking velocities, my dedicated bench guns are velocity recorded for nearly every round. This gives me a better over-all picture as to what is going on , state of tune and how the environment affects things.
The study of QuickLoad answers a lot of questions about the 'mysteries' of internal ballistics. If you go that route I've found printing off the manual helps immensely in this regard.

The same regime is followed for my hunting loads, the only difference is that a light factory crimp is applied for the sake of reliability in the field.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
D
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
D
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
Range (what shooters call ES) is directly convertible to standard deviation. As stated earlier, estimates at variation based on small samples can quite far off.


Be not weary in well doing.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,898
M
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,898
Denton,

Of course--but many of the handloaders I have been acquainted with only record the fastest and slowest shots in their notes. (In fact, a few only record the fastest shot, just like many only shoot one group with a certain load, and call load "development" good.)


“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,699
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,699
Originally Posted by denton
Range (what shooters call ES) is directly convertible to standard deviation. As stated earlier, estimates at variation based on small samples can quite far off.


I'm not a statistician, but having been a theorem proving mathematician in a prior life I "feel a disturbance in the force" when I see something like that stated without the caveat hypotheses. grin

IC B3

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,836
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by denton
Range (what shooters call ES) is directly convertible to standard deviation. As stated earlier, estimates at variation based on small samples can quite far off.


Isn't that what the buttons on a calculator are for? grin

Been awhile ago, someone posted a factor to multiply the results of less than a ten shot groups. Do you have those numbers Denton?

Nice thing about the electronic targets people are migrating to, they give you a velocity at the target. Shot Marker also gives you a SD for your string. I haven't researched the accuracy of the numbers.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
D
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
D
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
Gotta be quick... only have about 10 minutes.

The conversion factor is the d2 constant, which is an old shortcut method for quickly estimating standard deviation. It is widely used to set three standard deviation limits in Control Charts, and has been for about 100 years.

For small groups of data, say 5 items, it is very nearly as efficient as standard deviation, and does not have the problem of systematically underestimating variation. By the time you get to groups of 10, its efficiency is beginning to fall off quite a bit.

There are several ways to estimate standard deviation, and typically none of them will give exactly the same answer. However, most of them will provide decent accuracy.

To convert range to SD, you divide range by the d2 constant:

For groups of 2, d2=1.128. For 3, 1.693. For 4,2.059. For 5, 2.326. I'll post the rest after my meeting.


Be not weary in well doing.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,836
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by denton
Gotta be quick... only have about 10 minutes.

The conversion factor is the d2 constant, which is an old shortcut method for quickly estimating standard deviation. It is widely used to set three standard deviation limits in Control Charts, and has been for about 100 years.

For small groups of data, say 5 items, it is very nearly as efficient as standard deviation, and does not have the problem of systematically underestimating variation. By the time you get to groups of 10, its efficiency is beginning to fall off quite a bit.

There are several ways to estimate standard deviation, and typically none of them will give exactly the same answer. However, most of them will provide decent accuracy.

To convert range to SD, you divide range by the d2 constant:

For groups of 2, d2=1.128. For 3, 1.693. For 4,2.059. For 5, 2.326. I'll post the rest after my meeting.



Thank you sir!

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
D
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
D
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
OK... out of the meeting now.

For 6, 2.534. For 7, 2.704. For 8, 2.874. For 9, 2.97. For 10 3.078.


Be not weary in well doing.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,662
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,662
When one is operating at around 55,000 psi in a tiny chamber, very minor variables can become quite significant. I have and use a 30-378. One more grain of powder in my loads and I get near every possible indication of pressure.


1Minute
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,640
B
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
B
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,640
Originally Posted by 1minute
When one is operating at around 55,000 psi in a tiny chamber, very minor variables can become quite significant. I have and use a 30-378. One more grain of powder in my loads and I get near every possible indication of pressure.


You are talking Weatherby here, that is a whole different can of worms that Denton might not even be able to sort out 🤔😀

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,734
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,734
Aren't these math questions on the SAT test?


My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,898
M
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,898
Is this really so "unknown"?

The techniques for loading accurate benchrest rounds have been known and written about for a long time: Brass of consistent weight and dimensions, especially neck diameter. Bullets that are consistent in weight, and more importantly dimensions, especially neck thickness. Powders that perform consistently in different temperatures (a full case helps, even with other powders) and sometimes playing with primers to see which one results in the finest accuracy. (Yes, this still CAN make a diffference.) Then there's playing with seating depth, which often is more important than powder charge.

Plus, there;s the chronograph factor. Some provide more accurate results than others, but over the past year I ran a test with several chronographs ranging in price from around $100 to $500+. All except one resulted in the same average velocity, within less than 10 fps. This was while chronographing the same loads at the same time, with the chronographs set up together.


“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755
Y
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Y
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755
Originally Posted by mathman
Originally Posted by denton
Range (what shooters call ES) is directly convertible to standard deviation. As stated earlier, estimates at variation based on small samples can quite far off.


I'm not a statistician, but having been a theorem proving mathematician in a prior life I "feel a disturbance in the force" when I see something like that stated without the caveat hypotheses. grin


I could be wrong, but I think denton's statement is correct if we assume a normal distribution. Problem is, that's a poor assumption for this stuff. I've seen plenty of results in shooting that do not fit a normal distribution at all, with all sorts of common causes like mixed headstamp brass, mixed batches of components, etc. Theory like this falls apart when the assumptions don't match reality.

I don't worry about ES too much other than as an indication of inconsistent powder burn at low pressures. Otherwise I go by results on target and fine tune as needed.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
D
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
D
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
It actually doesn't require a normal distribution. If special causes like barrel rubs and shooter flinch have been eliminated, so that variation is random, then it will give about the same answer as calculating SD by its definition, the sum of squares. If special cause is present, then the classic sum of squares route will give a higher number.

Standard deviation is a measure of variation.

Range is a measure of variation.

They are different measures of the same thing, and can be converted back and forth. If the subgroups have few items, the conversion is pretty good.

If you are shooting five shots, range is about as good a number as you can get.


Be not weary in well doing.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
D
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
D
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,112
MD....Inquiring minds want to know: Which chronograph gave the odd result?


Be not weary in well doing.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,898
M
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,898
The last Shooting Chrony I owned.


“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
My thoughts, FWIW, I agree with MD pretty much across the board. There be a tremendous amount of chaos unleashed with the primer pops, and our job is to make the chaos as uniform as possible from shot to shot. Some things are more important than others, but if you fiddle long enough you'll figure out what matters. An example that gave me pause years ago: .338 Win load work up, Shilen DGAM action and barrel properly installed on a quality composite stock. Load 1 goes down range to the 100 yard target and groups about 3", this with an ES of 5 fps. Load #2 follows and has an ES of about 12-13 as I recall, and groups in the 3/4" range. Easy choice that was. Paper is paper, dead meat is dinner.

I like to explore the numbers, but at the end of the day don't forget what the purpose of the drill is....


I am..........disturbed.

Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain


Joined: May 2015
Posts: 708
A
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
A
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 708
Then there's playing with seating depth, which often is more important than powder charge.

I load to magazine length or 0.010" to 0.015" off the lands. Get good result at long range (600-1200 yards).

I have been tuning with powder charge and have not at all explored tuning with seating depth.

The reason is I do not fully understand how this method works over the powder charge method, especially if chamber to bore axis is perfect and zero run out on the loaded cartridge.

Can you explain in a few sentences? thanks.

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
And when a fella gets this all figured out he ought to start loading BP cartridges for competition. The learning curve is steep. laugh


I am..........disturbed.

Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 9,681
S
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
S
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 9,681
Hey Dan, do you think that some people here overthink things a little? I believe that John should do a proper advice column: Ask John.
---

Dear John,

I'm having a problem with my chronograph. Or maybe my rifle. Or my components. I'm not really sure.

I own a Savage Axis XP in 308 Winchester - please note, it's not the regular Axis, but the upgraded skull stock and whatever else they put on the XP to make it better. Here's my problem. I just started reloading, and bought a Shooting Chrony, and proper targets from Cabelas. I used to print targets at home on my printer, but decided it was time to work things through scientifically, so I got orange ones.

Anyway, I loaded up seven cartridges and took them to the range. It was really exciting! My first home made cartridges! I set up everything on the shooting bench, including my chronograph. I read at your website - 24 Hr CampFryer - about testing your own reloads. When I shot the first three, all the velocities were different!! I followed the recipe EXACTLY (capital letters added for emphasis). I just don't get it.

My scale isn't cheap! I bought it off of ebay for $30. It's digital!
The powder is all fresh. I think I read somewhere that you shouldn't use powder that's more than 2 years old.
I'm shooting Noslers, not cheap Hornady or Barnes bullets.
I got a Leupold scope. That might be my problem. I read there that Leupolds are junk now.
I bought Lapua cases too!

So what's the deal? Is my chronograph uncalibrated? Is the Leupold affecting the velocities? Should I switch case brands or try another bullet? Woodleighs? Maybe they're dirty and need cleaning?

I'm at my wit's end and ready to chuck it all!



Safe Shooting!
Steve Redgwell
www.303british.com

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain
Member - Professional Outdoor Media Association of Canada
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
Over think it?

Maybe, lemme think about it. laugh


I am..........disturbed.

Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain


Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,368
R
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
R
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,368
Originally Posted by Dirtfarmer
I used to be more concerned about low E.S/S.D..'s. than I am now. I've had rounds with less than desirable variations that shot great. I'm now looking more at the target, but realize, E.S. and S.D. values have merit. May be more important at extreme ranges.

Seems to me that Varget has some of the lowest E.S. values and does very well at the target. I can see why target shooters like it. I know I do.

It can be a fickle business, different powders performing differently in different rounds. So, blanket statements may not have a lot of predictive value, opinions here on the Fire, notwithstanding... blush

grin

DF

I read a lot and still do. Made me chase the low ES/SD numbers. Along the way I found I was watching the chrono and saying, WOW this is going to be THE load ( shooting far enough away at paper to not be able to see the group) only to drive down and look and say WTF. The group was horrible. Or at least bad.

Found that often times a higher ES/SD gave better paper groups.

That was probably circa early 90s for me.

Since then a chrono only tells me appx what speed I'm at and allows me to do a bit of calculating to have appx drops when I'm going on out and firing my actual drops for data. I have almost zero use for chrono these days, ALMOST.

The ONLY way, IMHO, to know how a load groups at X distance, is to SHOOT it at X distance.


We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755
Y
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Y
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755
Originally Posted by denton
It actually doesn't require a normal distribution. If special causes like barrel rubs and shooter flinch have been eliminated, so that variation is random, then it will give about the same answer as calculating SD by its definition, the sum of squares. If special cause is present, then the classic sum of squares route will give a higher number.

Standard deviation is a measure of variation.

Range is a measure of variation.

They are different measures of the same thing, and can be converted back and forth. If the subgroups have few items, the conversion is pretty good.

If you are shooting five shots, range is about as good a number as you can get.


No, playing with some numbers here, I'm pretty sure it does require a normal distribution or at least an even spread of numbers across the range. Your assumptions don't hold up in the real world; velocity variation is not truly random and often shows skewed groupings that don't match your assumptions. Too many of the variables that affect velocity end up in groups (like different headstamps) and that makes an assumption of random data unrealistic.

For example, sometimes a first shot is lower velocity than all the rest in a string - the standard deviation is higher compared to another string of numbers with an even spread, even when the extreme spread is the same.

Or, maybe we have two lots of brass that result in different velocity, so we've got two velocity groups in our string - then the standard deviation is even higher with the same extreme spread.

We can't just assume those things don't happen (because they do), and that's why we don't just use e.s. by itself. Of course neither number means much with only 3 or 5 shots except to tell when something really went wrong.

Last edited by Yondering; 10/16/19.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,556
J
JeffG Online Content OP
Campfire Tracker
OP Online Content
Campfire Tracker
J
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,556
I appreciate the depth of knowledge and experience represented by All of Your replies, (I'm the OP), and it basically proves to me that ANY statistical information is better (maybe ,only really useful,) with bigger statistics. Back to my simple logic question, before I burn out my barrel; I am trying to find a short-cut around discovering, then weeding-out, the likely culprit of aberration statistics in a small-section analysis of one gun, and one bullet, while fine-tuning, or re-trying a previously successful powder charge, as a way of finding more consistent "predictability" with less wasted experimentation.

I do not rely on low ES or SD as the pinnacle statistic for accurate shooting, but I do see it as a significant sign of accurate reloading. Actually, I too have occasionally gotten my best groups with a wider SD, and that's usually the load I went to the field with. I am assuming here(.., and here's the simple logic part,) that my reload "node" was wider with the wider SD, while still giving me the consistent P.O.I. accuracy I want, thereby offering me a greater range of flexibility and success in my imperfect reloading process.

Small matters, consistent groups across +/- 3% powder charge = Winner (for me)! Most of my really stellar groups have been hard to recreate consistently (but I have had some tantalizingly consistent ones). This is why I continue to struggle along wither ladder tests at my measly 150 yd range. They rule out the the totally useless powder/bullet/rifle combos that the reload manuals and internet statistics say should work great. Does quick-load do a better job at weeding out these aberrations?

Thanks again All!! I really appreciate You gun-nuts taking the time to consider this sort of question seriously. I can easily slip down the rabbit-hole of over-thinking, and it's reassuring to find a full house when I get down there!


"...One Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All"

JeffG
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
Dunno what you're shooting but ladder tests are useful things.


I am..........disturbed.

Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain


Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,442
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,442
Do ALL operations and actions exactly the same.

Size concentrically 180 deg.

Weigh bullets/sort.

Weigh brass/sort.

Weigh each powder charge TO the tenth.

Measure exactly.

Seat concentrically 90, 120 or 180 degrees.

Minimize runout.

If using a crimp, crimp concentrically 180 degrees.

If shooting copper, allow copper equilibrium...don't remove copper overcleaning.

Cold bore shot(s).

Wind management.

Use multiple strings if necessary.


Don't ask me about my military service or heroic acts...most of it is untrue.

Pronoun: Yes, SIR !
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 215
S
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
S
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by JeffG


My question:
Why wouldn't the best consistency of any rifle/cartridge/bullet combo be the same with any powder that can achieve the same muzzle velocity?


Maybe this was mentioned but barrel harmonics would be my guess.Different powders have different pressure curves which directly effect the way the barrel moves.

Shooters who are serious about the best accuracy buy certain powders that are“Tried and true” . They buy powder in bulk as well. (8 pounders minimum ). They buy bullets by the thousand and enough cases to last the life of the barrel. This is all in an effort to mitigate the effects of changing lots which effects harmonics and consequently having to repeat load development.

Or if you have minimal time to experiment ( like myself ) you also buy in bulk for the same reasons mentioned.


Last edited by SawDoctor; 10/19/19.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,368
R
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
R
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,368
Originally Posted by SheriffJoe
Do ALL operations and actions exactly the same.

Size concentrically 180 deg.

Weigh bullets/sort.

Weigh brass/sort.

Weigh each powder charge TO the tenth.

Measure exactly.

Seat concentrically 90, 120 or 180 degrees.

Minimize runout.

If using a crimp, crimp concentrically 180 degrees.

If shooting copper, allow copper equilibrium...don't remove copper overcleaning.

Cold bore shot(s).

Wind management.

Use multiple strings if necessary.


I can do quite a bit less, and still win matches out to 600 pretty easily against some good shooters. Sometimes we do more than we need.

OTOH I don't shoot BR either.


We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,368
R
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
R
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,368
Originally Posted by JeffG
I appreciate the depth of knowledge and experience represented by All of Your replies, (I'm the OP), and it basically proves to me that ANY statistical information is better (maybe ,only really useful,) with bigger statistics. Back to my simple logic question, before I burn out my barrel; I am trying to find a short-cut around discovering, then weeding-out, the likely culprit of aberration statistics in a small-section analysis of one gun, and one bullet, while fine-tuning, or re-trying a previously successful powder charge, as a way of finding more consistent "predictability" with less wasted experimentation.

I do not rely on low ES or SD as the pinnacle statistic for accurate shooting, but I do see it as a significant sign of accurate reloading. Actually, I too have occasionally gotten my best groups with a wider SD, and that's usually the load I went to the field with. I am assuming here(.., and here's the simple logic part,) that my reload "node" was wider with the wider SD, while still giving me the consistent P.O.I. accuracy I want, thereby offering me a greater range of flexibility and success in my imperfect reloading process.

Small matters, consistent groups across +/- 3% powder charge = Winner (for me)! Most of my really stellar groups have been hard to recreate consistently (but I have had some tantalizingly consistent ones). This is why I continue to struggle along wither ladder tests at my measly 150 yd range. They rule out the the totally useless powder/bullet/rifle combos that the reload manuals and internet statistics say should work great. Does quick-load do a better job at weeding out these aberrations?

Thanks again All!! I really appreciate You gun-nuts taking the time to consider this sort of question seriously. I can easily slip down the rabbit-hole of over-thinking, and it's reassuring to find a full house when I get down there!

I may have missed it, but have you stated your goal? what accuracy at what distance and with what gun/type of gun/custom or not etc?

IMHO if you think you had a better load but can't duplicate it, most times you never had that good of a load. Hence some of the threads on 2 -10 shot groups. We shot 22 shot groups in competition and that would really tell you what you had. The one time I had a tube I was working on that produced some 1.25 inch 5 shot groups at 600, I knew good and well it would likely be a hot tube but more like a .5 moa gun at 600 rather than .25 moa or so... even though I had a number of tiny groups. Not enough to be statisical though.


We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,442
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,442
Originally Posted by rost495
Originally Posted by SheriffJoe
Do ALL operations and actions exactly the same.

Size concentrically 180 deg.

Weigh bullets/sort.

Weigh brass/sort.

Weigh each powder charge TO the tenth.

Measure exactly.

Seat concentrically 90, 120 or 180 degrees.

Minimize runout.

If using a crimp, crimp concentrically 180 degrees.

If shooting copper, allow copper equilibrium...don't remove copper overcleaning.

Cold bore shot(s).

Wind management.

Use multiple strings if necessary.


I can do quite a bit less, and still win matches out to 600 pretty easily against some good shooters. Sometimes we do more than we need.

OTOH I don't shoot BR either.





Big deal.

We can shoot out to that with an M4. Keep practicing.


Don't ask me about my military service or heroic acts...most of it is untrue.

Pronoun: Yes, SIR !
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
691 members (160user, 12344mag, 12308300, 17CalFan, 16Racing, 1234, 64 invisible), 2,691 guests, and 1,255 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,621
Posts18,398,558
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.130s Queries: 14 (0.005s) Memory: 0.9977 MB (Peak: 1.2662 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 14:54:49 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS