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 Offline OP
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
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: 44,710
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,710
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: 26,108
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,108

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: 59,910
M
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,910
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: 36,824
D
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
D
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 36,824
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
Offline
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: 59,910
M
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,910
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: 44,710
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,710
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
Offline
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
Offline
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: 29,664
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,664
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: 59,910
M
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,910
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
Offline
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.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
137 members (2UP, 300_savage, 257 mag, 160user, 35, 10Glocks, 12 invisible), 1,813 guests, and 827 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,728
Posts18,400,776
Members73,822
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: 0.092s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9027 MB (Peak: 1.0624 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 09:57:55 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS