do you even understand what I wrote and what you answered? it doesnt seems so...
I'll Post This Here - Hornady's Podcast #50. I thought it was one of their best, but some reloaders might not like what they see....
- Thread starter JAS-SH
- Start date
do you even understand what I wrote and what you answered? it doesnt seems so...
Last edited:
This podcast shook my understanding of what a ladder test is supposed to find when comparing chronograph readings for three or five shot groups at each interval of charge weight. The assumption was that there is a node or shallow spot on the curve where a change in powder charge does not result in very much change in muzzle velocity. Loading at that selected powder charge, I always thought, would be less sensitive to variation in charge weight. Two problems with that, I’m beginning to think:
1. I have been doing everything to illuminate or minimize the variation in the charge throws from case to case, either by trickling or by investing in a digital powder measure, so the variation in charge weight is not an issue worth working to avoid;
2. The entire underpinning of the ladder test has now been called into question. On the podcast they explain that with large enough sample sizes you eliminate the noise and the increase in muzzle velocity becomes a smoother line without those magic flat spots that we are all looking for. In truth they are not there.
For me the issue with five shot groups on ladder tests was that the ES of each tiny sample meant so much overlap at each charge interval that they all ran together making each step insignificant. My daughter, who is a Masters candidate at Johns Hopkins, snorted when she saw SD printed out from the chronograph on a “sample size of five.” Should’ve gotten me thinking of this sooner.
Throwing out the idea that there’s a perfect charge weight is liberating, but I’m still not comfortable with the suggestion that you can pick any charge weight between minimum and maximum from the book (I guess I’m still convinced that it needs to be tweaked for MY rig). My approach continues to be based around trying to achieve the same muzzle velocity I’m getting from that rifle with proven factory ammo (for instance Federal Gold Medal Match 168gr. SMK at 2,609 fps out of my M1A loaded — oh crap, that was five shots I need another few boxes to chron them again…anybody know where I can get more?).
One thing is for sure: whatever my favorite load turns out to be, I should run 20 rounds at least with the Magnetospeed before I trust any muzzle velocity figure in a ballistic calculator (I guess that means replacing my custom ordered Leupold elevation turrets, too…)
NOW, On the next Hornady podcast, I’d like them to find a way to explain why different barrels like different bullets, and what really is the difference between powders…
1. I have been doing everything to illuminate or minimize the variation in the charge throws from case to case, either by trickling or by investing in a digital powder measure, so the variation in charge weight is not an issue worth working to avoid;
2. The entire underpinning of the ladder test has now been called into question. On the podcast they explain that with large enough sample sizes you eliminate the noise and the increase in muzzle velocity becomes a smoother line without those magic flat spots that we are all looking for. In truth they are not there.
For me the issue with five shot groups on ladder tests was that the ES of each tiny sample meant so much overlap at each charge interval that they all ran together making each step insignificant. My daughter, who is a Masters candidate at Johns Hopkins, snorted when she saw SD printed out from the chronograph on a “sample size of five.” Should’ve gotten me thinking of this sooner.
Throwing out the idea that there’s a perfect charge weight is liberating, but I’m still not comfortable with the suggestion that you can pick any charge weight between minimum and maximum from the book (I guess I’m still convinced that it needs to be tweaked for MY rig). My approach continues to be based around trying to achieve the same muzzle velocity I’m getting from that rifle with proven factory ammo (for instance Federal Gold Medal Match 168gr. SMK at 2,609 fps out of my M1A loaded — oh crap, that was five shots I need another few boxes to chron them again…anybody know where I can get more?).
One thing is for sure: whatever my favorite load turns out to be, I should run 20 rounds at least with the Magnetospeed before I trust any muzzle velocity figure in a ballistic calculator (I guess that means replacing my custom ordered Leupold elevation turrets, too…)
NOW, On the next Hornady podcast, I’d like them to find a way to explain why different barrels like different bullets, and what really is the difference between powders…
What makes you think they know?
59:35 Erik and George talk about the hornady podcast a little.
Yeah, they do but it sounds like two guys drinking beer Monday morning, quarterbacking a game that they didn’t even watch. They had nothing useful at all to say about the podcast, which was a serious affair from two guys who have thought extensively about the ideas presented. Jorge can build good guns and Eric can shoot F class superbly no doubt. but I’m not sure they even saw the podcast let alone grasped the statistical principles presented there in
@BobV Then their podcasts and Bryan's books have been a success.
The idea of ladder tests was never about "velocity flat spots", but somewhere along the last 10 years or so I can see lots of YouTube videos and posts on forums that took it in that direction. (To be fair, Satterlee did follow up with limiting his context and how his method is applied, but that seemed to be too little too late...) Far too many folks got chronographs and set out to do "load development" with a single sweep.
The Hornady folks and Bryan Litz are not presenting their positions as news, because this isn't news to folks who do ballistics since before the public internet.
However, a sweep of velocities as done in "Audette Ladder" tests, has always been valid in that it is a search for vertical patterns in the shotfall at distance that are in fact due to the charge/velocity/harmonics and are in fact repeatable to the degree that the rifle's quality level will determine.
Some rifles will not produce a clear ladder result owing to their dispersion levels from other variables swamping the ones from velocity.
Your attention to powder charge tolerance was not a waste of time. It just needs to be kept in perspective with all the other variables that contribute as much or more to your group size or POI shifts.
I recall seeing lots of folks invoking a Satterlee Method where they shoot one ten shot string with powder steps, look for a "flat spot" and move on.
After a career in this field, it made me want to yell at the screen a few times. Imagine the complexities of artillery or mortars with variable charges or shells? Now make decisions on hundreds to thousands of copies of the guns, and the ammo made by the lowest bidders? Is there dispersion to manage with statistics? You bet. But the guns still have harmonics and characteristics that make some loads better than others. We don't do a single charge string, even with serial number 10, 000 of a barrel, if we want to know something about a load change.
Now that we are all past the concept of the difference between good examples and confusing examples, or the mistakes made with chronographs and statistics and what not to do.... a more valuable talk would include some demonstrations of good ladder performance side by side with bad ones.
It is certainly helpful to teach the general community where dispersion behavior and sample size are difficult and confusing, but now is also the time to teach the general community about managing the variables of non-match rifles where they are not confusing with respect to load development.
It takes corporate resources or a big budget to produce videos like the one I mention, so I won't hold my breath.
It is easy to demonstrate what not to do and how adding samples can nullify what folks think is a good load in a common sporting rifle, but I will say it would be more important and more difficult to prove and demonstrate the method of what you should do using a good quality field rifle like a "sniper rifle" or a PRS rifle with a quality custom barrel, then intentionally take it in and out of tune.
It is also time to demonstrate good examples of barrel tuners, rather than just bad ones, but that is opening another can of worms.
They did mention ideas for further topics, but time will tell... Hornady has the resources to show good and bad tuning using a good quality field rig. They have it within their reach to shift the focus from short range chronograph testing back to the targets and take it to distance where it belongs. I won't hold my breath...
Happy New Year!
The idea of ladder tests was never about "velocity flat spots", but somewhere along the last 10 years or so I can see lots of YouTube videos and posts on forums that took it in that direction. (To be fair, Satterlee did follow up with limiting his context and how his method is applied, but that seemed to be too little too late...) Far too many folks got chronographs and set out to do "load development" with a single sweep.
The Hornady folks and Bryan Litz are not presenting their positions as news, because this isn't news to folks who do ballistics since before the public internet.
However, a sweep of velocities as done in "Audette Ladder" tests, has always been valid in that it is a search for vertical patterns in the shotfall at distance that are in fact due to the charge/velocity/harmonics and are in fact repeatable to the degree that the rifle's quality level will determine.
Some rifles will not produce a clear ladder result owing to their dispersion levels from other variables swamping the ones from velocity.
Your attention to powder charge tolerance was not a waste of time. It just needs to be kept in perspective with all the other variables that contribute as much or more to your group size or POI shifts.
I recall seeing lots of folks invoking a Satterlee Method where they shoot one ten shot string with powder steps, look for a "flat spot" and move on.
After a career in this field, it made me want to yell at the screen a few times. Imagine the complexities of artillery or mortars with variable charges or shells? Now make decisions on hundreds to thousands of copies of the guns, and the ammo made by the lowest bidders? Is there dispersion to manage with statistics? You bet. But the guns still have harmonics and characteristics that make some loads better than others. We don't do a single charge string, even with serial number 10, 000 of a barrel, if we want to know something about a load change.
Now that we are all past the concept of the difference between good examples and confusing examples, or the mistakes made with chronographs and statistics and what not to do.... a more valuable talk would include some demonstrations of good ladder performance side by side with bad ones.
It is certainly helpful to teach the general community where dispersion behavior and sample size are difficult and confusing, but now is also the time to teach the general community about managing the variables of non-match rifles where they are not confusing with respect to load development.
It takes corporate resources or a big budget to produce videos like the one I mention, so I won't hold my breath.
It is easy to demonstrate what not to do and how adding samples can nullify what folks think is a good load in a common sporting rifle, but I will say it would be more important and more difficult to prove and demonstrate the method of what you should do using a good quality field rifle like a "sniper rifle" or a PRS rifle with a quality custom barrel, then intentionally take it in and out of tune.
It is also time to demonstrate good examples of barrel tuners, rather than just bad ones, but that is opening another can of worms.
They did mention ideas for further topics, but time will tell... Hornady has the resources to show good and bad tuning using a good quality field rig. They have it within their reach to shift the focus from short range chronograph testing back to the targets and take it to distance where it belongs. I won't hold my breath...
Happy New Year!
They already have. On one of the their latest podcast they mentioned that they use a "fixed" shooting fixture for a lot of their test.
The bottom line is this: what are the ACTUAL drops downrange for velocity / reloading charge weight variances. That is all that nodes are supposed to be telling you. And in small samples it's just speculation. Focus on velocity. There is some math involved but it is not difficult. Suffice to say, that at 1000 yards a .1 grain difference can result in a ~3 inch variance on the target. 1 MOA at 1000 is 10.47 inches - so .1 grain is a 1/3 MOA variance. 3-inches might be huge for F-class. But for PRS, its immaterial. And then add wind and all bets are off. Wind affects aerodynamic jump and that in itself will show such a variance in drop.
I think we overthink this. Get a good load, within a .1 grain drop variance and go shoot - A LOT.
Last edited:
I'm not sure you listened to Erik's podcast. Both Erik and George seem skeptical (that says something) but more importantly, Erik wants to get the hornady guys on his podcast. That's something I'd love to see. I'm not completely settled on the issue so I'm really liking seeing some of these other folks chiming in.
Oh and before I fotget... your profile picture is statistically insignificant. Might want to change that before you get mistaken for one of those prideful 1/4 MOA shooters.
Erik is a sarcastic dick just screaming for attention . Not credible to folks in the know .
One thing that came up a little later in the discussion between George and Erik was that even with rail guns, it's apparently not quite as simple as throwing one down and sending rounds down range, with all the 'human error' removed. I've seen that discussed elsewhere off-n-on, that there very much is some tuning involved in getting one dialed in - and even then, I've seen a few accounts of BR matches where the small group of the day didn't go to the heavy rail guns, but to some guy shooting in the LV class. I've read other tales of people having fits with various fixtures used to hold guns that are normally 'shoulder fired', where a good shooter could get better groups than the fixture could. Maybe not every time, and certainly not every shooter, but still...
Which begs the question... how are these 'accuracy fixtures' that Hornady is using set up? Do they need to be 'tuned' like rail guns for optimal performance? Were they?
Which begs the question... how are these 'accuracy fixtures' that Hornady is using set up? Do they need to be 'tuned' like rail guns for optimal performance? Were they?
They created strawman arguments about shooter error, and the gun and blah blah blah. Generally out of their depth compared to the Hornady guys
And I’ll follow up that 50 BMG pic with 17 more shots when I get around to it. Fortunately, I have hundreds of pieces of RWS brass and thousands of RES primers and a couple thousand 750 Amax so I should be good to give you the statistical sample size that will satisfy you. my shoulder might feel differently about the endeavor haha
Good podcasts by Hornady guys. Good work that others can repeat and test for themselves. This is a good start. For the most part on here the discussion has been well done too.
As someone with graduate level work in math and who graded doctoral papers in school of science, much of the stuff around the why that people claim about bullets, barrels, wind, and precision does not pass the initial round cow test for me.
We are nowhere near having an ideal rifle system based on fundamentals of dynamics and kinematics. No one I know has yet said, assume an ideal rifle that has these characteristics. And then say what is the ideal cartridge and then the ideal rifle scope.
As someone with graduate level work in math and who graded doctoral papers in school of science, much of the stuff around the why that people claim about bullets, barrels, wind, and precision does not pass the initial round cow test for me.
We are nowhere near having an ideal rifle system based on fundamentals of dynamics and kinematics. No one I know has yet said, assume an ideal rifle that has these characteristics. And then say what is the ideal cartridge and then the ideal rifle scope.
No , It took some experience first . You may never reach that level son .
Hiney, I used to think so too, but after his quips in that vid, I bought a tuner from him, now a household name here!
#Ericrocks
barrels are easy. some are bad, some are average, some are exelent, and some are the best. just like normal distribution.
but remember for all time: best barrels goes to best shooters. not average joe, not average shipers hide member. only best shooters, which 'sell' those barrels by youtube, and set records with them.
so it's pointless if some barrel maker sets most records, because you cant get those best barrels from the product line. they are for sponsored shooters.
bullets are the same story. some are better than another. look which are popular, and this is guide for quality.
powders are powders... if one doesnt work, try another one. same for primers.
Are your pronouns up/tight? I’m sure your credibility is so much more than some stupid YouTuber guy. Lol. Haters gonna hate.
of course they are skeptical. erik is 3-shot-group guru and seller of his tuners. and when bryan and hornady and all others prove with a lot of statistical data that this is lie and bulshit...
I'm a big fan of Bryan Zolnikov and the 'Wich Doctor' series on YouTube. He's put in a lot of time and money in his testing and is consistently printing tiny 5 shot groups. I can only imagine that a 20-50 shot group would probably screw his groups up too but 5 shots is always centered and tight. Go figure.
Erik shoots a 20-shot discipline.
The last time I checked, a fixture never beat anyone, and humans can shortcut the process by steering the round for conditions. In short, we can hold a different value to account for wind changes a fixture cannot.
There is a reason we don't compete against fixtures, and even in Benchrest, they have to shoot it out to see who wins.
The last time I checked, a fixture never beat anyone, and humans can shortcut the process by steering the round for conditions. In short, we can hold a different value to account for wind changes a fixture cannot.
There is a reason we don't compete against fixtures, and even in Benchrest, they have to shoot it out to see who wins.
Is there much wind in a testing tunnel?
We don’t shoot in a tunnel, we know how to shoot groups and read them too
And I have been privy to fixture tests they never match reality when in a tunnel vs not
And I have been privy to fixture tests they never match reality when in a tunnel vs not
PS
Let me know when Hornady can go back to providing ammo with an SD under 25fps, too... seems they want to make excuses why things are not as good anymore, so our samples are too small, again.
Meanwhile, we have been doing this for 150 years so I think we know how to shoot for success without dropping 50 shots in to a single target first.
Let me know when Hornady can go back to providing ammo with an SD under 25fps, too... seems they want to make excuses why things are not as good anymore, so our samples are too small, again.
Meanwhile, we have been doing this for 150 years so I think we know how to shoot for success without dropping 50 shots in to a single target first.
Well, they are doing all this for free, no costs to us, geez, some shit has to fall through the cracks, lol
Doing this for free, or is this cheap advertising by getting your product in front of potential customers? Throw in a touch of controversy and you just reached 3x as many.
I think their data is very applicable, but not necessarily a hard and fast rule. There's one variable (actually several under the same umbrella) I'd like to know if they factored in; Hornady. If they used Hornady bullets and brass, it's very likely they saw variances of their own product manifest themselves.
Lapua brass and Berger bullets can shoot some amazingly small groups. That particular combo has maximized accuracy potential in any of my rifles, IME. Also, cartridge selection. I would feel confident putting a 6 BR, 6.5X47, or 284 Win using Lapua brass/Berger bullets against any Hornady product.
Not knocking Hornady by saying this. They are putting out really good products at a good price point that allows the sport to be more accessible. I use a ton of their products and most have performed very well, better than a lot of competitors products. However, they've never quite performed as well as the aforementioned combos. For field match accuracy, most wouldn't be able to differentiate, myself included. There are inherently accurate cartridges though, and for ex. a 6.5x47 is more inherently accurate than a 6.5 Creedmoor. I haven't played with a 6 ARC, but you'd have to present some serious evidence to prove it is more inherently accurate than a 6 BR.
Again, I've used 6.5 Creedmoor a bunch. It works extremely well. Same with several other Hornady combos. But, there is a difference.
Lapua brass and Berger bullets can shoot some amazingly small groups. That particular combo has maximized accuracy potential in any of my rifles, IME. Also, cartridge selection. I would feel confident putting a 6 BR, 6.5X47, or 284 Win using Lapua brass/Berger bullets against any Hornady product.
Not knocking Hornady by saying this. They are putting out really good products at a good price point that allows the sport to be more accessible. I use a ton of their products and most have performed very well, better than a lot of competitors products. However, they've never quite performed as well as the aforementioned combos. For field match accuracy, most wouldn't be able to differentiate, myself included. There are inherently accurate cartridges though, and for ex. a 6.5x47 is more inherently accurate than a 6.5 Creedmoor. I haven't played with a 6 ARC, but you'd have to present some serious evidence to prove it is more inherently accurate than a 6 BR.
Again, I've used 6.5 Creedmoor a bunch. It works extremely well. Same with several other Hornady combos. But, there is a difference.
So who/what barrel manufacturers are you talking about?
Maybe some places do but not us. What we make you is what I would put on my gun. We don’t cherry pick this one or that one for this shooter or that shooter etc… we don’t have different grades or qualities of barrels.
Same goes for caliber…a 6mm benchrest barrel vs a 30cal F class barrel vs a 30cal sniper rifle barrel….they all get the same work done to them and attention to detail.
Be careful what you say and how you say it.
Frank
Bartlein Barrels
sorry frank, but this is how ALL barrel producers are doing. so it's hard to believe that you don't do it that way.
Man I don’t say this often but this place would be better served if you shut the fuck up.
it's not my fault that you are retarded and dont know shit how thing are working in this business.
What is the source of this claim you’re making?
And how would it work? How would these “select” barrels be selected and/or tested to assure their superiority?
And how do you know so much about the business? i mean your tell one of..if not the biggest names in barrels..that he cherry picks after he just said he dont.
Look at his past posts. Just packed with terrible grammar and bashing, "americans," because we're so stupid. Very likely a rusky troll account. I smell commie....
Telling Frank how his operational process actually works was one of those posts where everyone has to take an hour off, sit back, and process the level of stupid that just went across their screens.
Next time I see a warning label on a jar of peanut butter, I'll know it's because MarkyMark likes Jif.
Next time I see a warning label on a jar of peanut butter, I'll know it's because MarkyMark likes Jif.
Yea o.k. it shows that you know everything.
I was actually going to offer you to come here for part of a day...and that you could pick out the piece of steel and tell me what caliber/contour barrel you would like made and you could follow it thru the shop as well as see other barrels being made the same way and see there is no difference but I came to the conclusion your not worthy of the offer.
So I'll just sit back and watch this thread.
Frank maybe you should hire this guy because apparently he knows more than you about making barrels LOL!!
OHHH....and if i was to say you cherry pick barrels could i get a tour and a free barrel?
I was gonna ask too but I figured it was best to pretend that the last page of this thread just never happened....
I’m no internet psychologist but it looks to me like markymark and 308pirate are related.
Add another x to your title, I was hoping for a CuckyCuck001-Hiney grudge match here, but the squirrel went around the wrong tree.
Very refreshing to see and hear Miles on this podcast. I hope his skillset is recognized in the business and he's a voice we are able to hear more of. Such a good dude.
I've only watched half the video. I want to finish watching it and there are a couple of things already that I want to rewatch to make sure I'm understanding what is all being said. It's real world stuff and they are dealing in real world data/statistics. So I tip my hat to them in saying things that some of us probably don't want to hear and or agree with.
I was able to sit in on a class that Jayden put on about ballistics etc...about 3 years ago. I've been trying to get Jayden to come with me when I teach a class at the sniper schools. Then you have a bullet/ammo maker and a barrel maker in the same place at the same time. The bullet/ammo and barrel go hand in hand. Jayden put on a good class but timing etc.. either with work or family stuff we haven't been able to pull it off doing a class together.
As much as someone here or somewhere else might not agree with what they are saying or how to do testing etc... I will tell you this...I've had conversations with other bullet/ammo makers as well....and what they're are saying pretty much agrees with what other places see as well.
I'll finish watching the video tonight.
I think you should probably tread lightly, lest your time here become short....
Similar threads
