|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72 |
Also, the member asked for the results of your testing.
And, as I predicted, you didn’t give him any feedback
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72 |
I addressed that earlier. The “repeatability” is the proven load So, you're concluding that the method finds the absolute best load, and your confirmation of that is comparing that load to itself, over time. And you're calling that statistical analysis. That about sum it up? Close. The method finds the best load for that combination of chosen components
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8 |
I was actually referring to last part of your reply. Very ironic! Assertive defence is neither passive nor aggressive. This is where the passive aggression began in this thread: The intersection of "Audette Testing" for load development and statistics is ironic for me. I'm a Creighton Audette fan and chased down whatever of his writings I could find; Rifleman, Precision Shooting etc.
Audette was very well versed in Statistics and wrote an article entitled "It Ain't Necessarily So" where he debunked folks making pronouncements of accuracy based on single groups or 3 shot groups etc. The irony is that he used and wrote about load testing shooting single shots at escalating charge weights (he called it the "20 shot method"). And thought nothing of the statistics of if as others are calling out here. The method just flat out worked for him to find a load that had match winning accuracy.
For those that don't know much about Audette, he was a high level Highpower Competitor, gunsmith, and accuracy critical thinker. He was the Harold Vaughn of his generation (if you haven't heard of Harold Vaughn, that 's a discussion for another time).
Others such as Dan Newberry decided Audette needed to bulk up his statistics by shooting 3 shots at each charge weight in a "round robin" fashion. (google OCW or Optimal Charge Weight to read more). Chris Long put his Engineer's stamp on Newberry's theory with his OBT (Optimal Barrel Time) theory. I personally think they missed the point. The 20 shot method is a great shortcut to getting to an accurate load that is conditions, temperature and charge weight resilient. It wasn't meant to withstand statistical analysis.
Closer to the topic raised by the video; Randolph Constantine (he was an actual bona fide Rocket Scientist) decided he would use a chrono at 100 yards in his version of Audette Load Development and called his twist "Incremental Load Development". I shook my head when I read his article in Precision Shooting for much the same reasons as that video called out. Flat spots in a charge/velocity curve didn't match up to 300 or 600 yard accuracy on paper for me. Nice to see someone on the Long Range Forum who is familiar with the method and Long Range Load Development. Not many are, as you can see. I’m not convinced that’s a realistic assumption. Shooting groups at 100 yards with all load increments where trajectory differences are negligible would reveal that the precision of the various increments is often inconsistent enough so as to be comparable with the dispersion in the trajectory between increments at longer distance. Yes, the signal gets lost in the noise as they say…hence as described by Audette, he shot at 300 yards to boost the signal and shot prone off a front bag, with a scope (even though the end use was irons for competition), during the early morning when the wind was calmest to reduce the noise. Curious what the results of your testing was like? I doubt you’ll get any useful feedback I was happy to discuss the topic based on merit, but you wanted to make it personal. THAT was passively aggressive? You’re definitely a snowflake and “Ovary” act!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Nah, I just don’t suffer fools, bullies, or narcissists very well. You’ve had the same MO for years. Very predictable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8 |
Also, the member asked for the results of your testing.
And, as I predicted, you didn’t give him any feedback
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I did, but you missed it. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,411 Likes: 66
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,411 Likes: 66 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)? That's interesting there Jordan. IMO - consistent MV would result in more consistent barrel harmonics which is the desired result.
Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)? Because the “flat spot” in velocity may occur at a bullet exit time when the barrel is moving most “violently”. No matter how carefully one loads his ammo, there is going to be variance in muzzle velocity The entire premise of the Audette is to load and fire rounds with varying exit times. The Audette isolates the optimal exit time during barrel movements for the chosen bullet given the other components
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72 |
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)? That's interesting there Jordan. IMO - consistent MV would result in more consistent barrel harmonics which is the desired result. Wrong-o As was shown in the video in the OP
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,411 Likes: 66
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,411 Likes: 66 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)? That's interesting there Jordan. IMO - consistent MV would result in more consistent barrel harmonics which is the desired result. Wrong-o As was shown in the video in the OP So inconsistency in the speed at which a bullet travels down the barrel (which would be the only thing causing barrel harmonics to happen - just sitting there, unfired doesn't do anything) - makes the harmonics consistent. Flies in the face of all things rational but....
Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)? Because the “flat spot” in velocity may occur at a bullet exit time when the barrel is moving most “violently”. No matter how carefully one loads his ammo, there is going to be variance in muzzle velocity The entire premise of the Audette is to load and fire rounds with varying exit times. The Audette isolates the optimal exit time during barrel movements for the chosen bullet given the other components I’m very familiar with the simplistic, advertised theory. Deeper consideration reveals a more complex system, hence my questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 28,547 Likes: 9
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 28,547 Likes: 9 |
I was actually referring to last part of your reply. Very ironic! Assertive defence is neither passive nor aggressive. This is where the passive aggression began in this thread: The intersection of "Audette Testing" for load development and statistics is ironic for me. I'm a Creighton Audette fan and chased down whatever of his writings I could find; Rifleman, Precision Shooting etc.
Audette was very well versed in Statistics and wrote an article entitled "It Ain't Necessarily So" where he debunked folks making pronouncements of accuracy based on single groups or 3 shot groups etc. The irony is that he used and wrote about load testing shooting single shots at escalating charge weights (he called it the "20 shot method"). And thought nothing of the statistics of if as others are calling out here. The method just flat out worked for him to find a load that had match winning accuracy.
For those that don't know much about Audette, he was a high level Highpower Competitor, gunsmith, and accuracy critical thinker. He was the Harold Vaughn of his generation (if you haven't heard of Harold Vaughn, that 's a discussion for another time).
Others such as Dan Newberry decided Audette needed to bulk up his statistics by shooting 3 shots at each charge weight in a "round robin" fashion. (google OCW or Optimal Charge Weight to read more). Chris Long put his Engineer's stamp on Newberry's theory with his OBT (Optimal Barrel Time) theory. I personally think they missed the point. The 20 shot method is a great shortcut to getting to an accurate load that is conditions, temperature and charge weight resilient. It wasn't meant to withstand statistical analysis.
Closer to the topic raised by the video; Randolph Constantine (he was an actual bona fide Rocket Scientist) decided he would use a chrono at 100 yards in his version of Audette Load Development and called his twist "Incremental Load Development". I shook my head when I read his article in Precision Shooting for much the same reasons as that video called out. Flat spots in a charge/velocity curve didn't match up to 300 or 600 yard accuracy on paper for me. Nice to see someone on the Long Range Forum who is familiar with the method and Long Range Load Development. Not many are, as you can see. I’m not convinced that’s a realistic assumption. Shooting groups at 100 yards with all load increments where trajectory differences are negligible would reveal that the precision of the various increments is often inconsistent enough so as to be comparable with the dispersion in the trajectory between increments at longer distance. Yes, the signal gets lost in the noise as they say…hence as described by Audette, he shot at 300 yards to boost the signal and shot prone off a front bag, with a scope (even though the end use was irons for competition), during the early morning when the wind was calmest to reduce the noise. Curious what the results of your testing was like? I doubt you’ll get any useful feedback I was happy to discuss the topic based on merit, but you wanted to make it personal. THAT was passively aggressive? You’re definitely a snowflake and “Ovary” act!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Nah, I just don’t suffer fools, bullies, or narcissists very well. You’ve had the same MO for years. Very predictable. ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/gcVtw04X/Stern-Stare-Down.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,385 Likes: 4
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,385 Likes: 4 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)? This.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168 Likes: 16
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168 Likes: 16 |
But Rick is being passive agressive with all his facts and explaining stuff we don't understand. ![[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fthats-normal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2Fsaw-that-coming.gif%3Fresize%3D450%252C253&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=694422ab69f70db4b9f9242436ab7c5431acf0a8a89d49b58a50b839fc6ac2d3.gif)
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8 |
It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all. What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance Barrel Harmonics I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)? That's interesting there Jordan. IMO - consistent MV would result in more consistent barrel harmonics which is the desired result. Wrong-o As was shown in the video in the OP I think you may be misinterpreting the message of the video. I don’t recall him saying that less velocity dispersion is not good for load performance. He was mainly addressing the sampling issue in load development. My interpretation of the video’s message is that using impacts on target is a more reliable way to develop loads than searching for minimum velocity dispersion in data sets with insufficient sample size.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72 |
But Rick is being passive agressive with all his facts and explaining stuff we don't understand. Amazing, isn’t it? Thought the 24hr “brain trust” might know more, but it’s quite revealing how much they don’t, but pretend to. Dunning-Kruger on display
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,949 Likes: 72 |
My interpretation of the video’s message is that using impacts on target is a more reliable way to develop loads than searching for minimum velocity dispersion in data sets with insufficient sample size. That’s exactly what he’s saying and that’s exactly what the Audette isolates
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8 |
Dunning-Kruger on display LOL, it sure is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,581 Likes: 8 |
My interpretation of the video’s message is that using impacts on target is a more reliable way to develop loads than searching for minimum velocity dispersion in data sets with insufficient sample size. That’s exactly what he’s saying and that’s exactly what the Audette isolates Well, you’re at least half right.
|
|
|
|
|
650 members (12344mag, 10gaugeman, 1beaver_shooter, 10gaugemag, 160user, 1234, 75 invisible),
2,599
guests, and
1,258
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,530
Posts18,530,824
Members74,033
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/d3r0RpxX/38498198-876D-4140-A79B-0C63E7EC4CEB.png)
![[Linked Image from media.tenor.com]](https://media.tenor.com/SERIsIhTEKQAAAAM/basketball-will-ferrel.gif)