I'm not.
But I also think we need to be realistic in how limited bullet seating depth tests really are, and thus what conclusions we can (and can't) draw from them.
- Thread starter mitchparker6
- Start date
I'm not.
But I also think we need to be realistic in how limited bullet seating depth tests really are, and thus what conclusions we can (and can't) draw from them.
I personally do 7 x 3 shot groups for every seating depth now .
3 shot groups because I’m using Sporter weight barrels/hunting rifles that don’t appreciate long strings of shots .
Even that probably isn’t enough of a sample , but where do you stop ?
You can stop wherever you want. I think it would be good to understand the limitations of any such test and thus what conclusions you can draw from it.
Hence why I don't really worry about seating depth in my own reloads. I think focusing on making consistent ammo is much more important than finding some magical "node".
I am not sure its even debatable that certain powder charges and lengths don't shoot better than others. Where we end up is, does it make a difference for our end goals, and can we shoot the difference.
I got beat up by a half-dozen dudes about a year ago on here for suggesting that 3-shot groups weren't statistically reliable. 
Then Hornady came out with their podcast a few months later and all hell broke loose.
I was a fan of the old 'Sniper's Hide 5x5' target when it came out.
My particular 3-shot group experience found me many years ago throwing a fluke .289" group. I was so excited I went home and loaded 100 more of that recipe...only to discover that it was a consistent 1 MOA load every time I went to the range. That was my lesson against 3 shot load development.
Now my shop is 30' from my house, and it has my reloading bench and shooting bench in it. I'm very blessed to be able to load and test stuff on a whim, which is a weekly thing as when you live as far from civilization as I do you don't have that social network to keep yourself otherwise engaged.
These days I do shoot 3 for seating depth testing, then groups of 5 for charge weight testing, then a confirmation group of 5...and finally another 5 at distance of 250+ just to make sure it holds together. It's basically a 3x5 aggregate...maybe not enough to keep the Hornady guys happy, but I find it repeatable.
Here's my last workup for my second 6.5x47. I'm highlighting this because it is very seating depth sensitive:
I already knew that 2.620/2.100 was a good length, because that's what the factory 120gr Scenar-L load was. It shot in the .5s during break-in, so I just bracketed it by .005, and then went another .010 and .020 out (please excuse the 2.005 typo...it's supposed to be 2.105).
^ Surprisingly, it has a two group window like old Senior Cortina mentioned. These were only 3 shot groups...except for the 2.615/2.105 - it sucked enough I stopped at two and kept the round for the CBS the next time out.
I then loaded to the longer depth and shot 5-shot charge weights. The best I did that day in a full value wind was this:
Then I fine-tuned charge weights and found that 35.9 - 36.1 all shot equally small on another day (no photo).
Finally, I screwed with very small seating depths at those charge weights with five shot groups again:
^ You can see that when I came out of the optimal depth by just a couple thousandths that my groups damn near doubled. I actually only shot 4 shots on the far right...it was sucking again, so I kept that round for a CBS prior to other load development.
Then I shot that load at 400 yards on a good (little wind) day. 5 shots including a cold bore. I dropped one a bit low right, but it was still a 2" group on the nose.
At this point I'm confident in the load. It took me probably 85 rounds to get here including all of my confirmation stuff, but I don't have much hesitation in saying that my 120gr Scenar-L & N150 load - while a bit seating depth sensitive - is still capable of a little better than 1/2 MOA pretty consistently for five shot groups.
Once the load opens up, I'll seat out another .006 and retest.
YMMV
Sorry for the long post.
Then Hornady came out with their podcast a few months later and all hell broke loose.
I was a fan of the old 'Sniper's Hide 5x5' target when it came out.
My particular 3-shot group experience found me many years ago throwing a fluke .289" group. I was so excited I went home and loaded 100 more of that recipe...only to discover that it was a consistent 1 MOA load every time I went to the range. That was my lesson against 3 shot load development.
Now my shop is 30' from my house, and it has my reloading bench and shooting bench in it. I'm very blessed to be able to load and test stuff on a whim, which is a weekly thing as when you live as far from civilization as I do you don't have that social network to keep yourself otherwise engaged.
These days I do shoot 3 for seating depth testing, then groups of 5 for charge weight testing, then a confirmation group of 5...and finally another 5 at distance of 250+ just to make sure it holds together. It's basically a 3x5 aggregate...maybe not enough to keep the Hornady guys happy, but I find it repeatable.
Here's my last workup for my second 6.5x47. I'm highlighting this because it is very seating depth sensitive:
I already knew that 2.620/2.100 was a good length, because that's what the factory 120gr Scenar-L load was. It shot in the .5s during break-in, so I just bracketed it by .005, and then went another .010 and .020 out (please excuse the 2.005 typo...it's supposed to be 2.105).
^ Surprisingly, it has a two group window like old Senior Cortina mentioned. These were only 3 shot groups...except for the 2.615/2.105 - it sucked enough I stopped at two and kept the round for the CBS the next time out.
I then loaded to the longer depth and shot 5-shot charge weights. The best I did that day in a full value wind was this:
Then I fine-tuned charge weights and found that 35.9 - 36.1 all shot equally small on another day (no photo).
Finally, I screwed with very small seating depths at those charge weights with five shot groups again:
^ You can see that when I came out of the optimal depth by just a couple thousandths that my groups damn near doubled. I actually only shot 4 shots on the far right...it was sucking again, so I kept that round for a CBS prior to other load development.
Then I shot that load at 400 yards on a good (little wind) day. 5 shots including a cold bore. I dropped one a bit low right, but it was still a 2" group on the nose.
At this point I'm confident in the load. It took me probably 85 rounds to get here including all of my confirmation stuff, but I don't have much hesitation in saying that my 120gr Scenar-L & N150 load - while a bit seating depth sensitive - is still capable of a little better than 1/2 MOA pretty consistently for five shot groups.
Once the load opens up, I'll seat out another .006 and retest.
YMMV
Sorry for the long post.
Even if the method isn’t statistically significantly it 100% helps weed out the garbage.
The other thing you don’t see is he tests these loads a lot more significantly than his YouTube would have you believe. It’s also not a set it and forget it thing. His rifles also absolutely hammer.
Also some barrels are different. My last barrel would shoot 3/8 with just about any load you put in it. This one seems to be about 1/2”
The other thing you don’t see is he tests these loads a lot more significantly than his YouTube would have you believe. It’s also not a set it and forget it thing. His rifles also absolutely hammer.
Also some barrels are different. My last barrel would shoot 3/8 with just about any load you put in it. This one seems to be about 1/2”
So what about when you can’t get a bullet to shoot at all with any consistency?
I have a new 223 barrel with .100 FB. I’ve found my velocity node and then started testing seating depth with 75 ELD. I’ve gone from below the neck shoulder junction to barely sticking in the case. Best 3 round groups were right at .5” but when I re-test them, shot gun patterns. Just like your experience with the RDF. So what now? Does this barrel just not like that bullet? I hope that’s the case and I’ve loaded some Berger 85.5s to test now.
There's a lot of nuance to this.
- How are you accounting for and isolating for other variables?
- How are you testing? How are you isolating the shooter from the equation?
- How much does powder charge matter? Every tenth? Two tenths? Three? How do you determine this window conclusively?
- What is your sample size? Are you shooting large enough groups and enough groups to determine what group sizes fall within a certain confidence level? Are you sure sure the results you are seeing are repeatable?
- Are the results repeatable across different days and different conditions?
There's a lot of fallibility to how we test things as reloaders. And my BS meter goes off when someone (I'm not saying you), states with absolute certainty that X= Y in reloading. Because there's so many loosely or uncontrolled variables that go unaccounted for in this game, its impossible to be dispositive about such conclusions.
I'm not sure if I would waste much time with a bullet that showed little promise from the get go.
Some barrels don't like some bullets, and some bullets (like RDF's) are too inconsistent to shoot well.
I don't think I've ever had a projectile that didn't show any promise at the beginning all of a sudden tighten up with the magic seating depth or powder charge. They either shot well or they didn't.
Go to the literature, companies like Berger that test and make bullets tell you seating depth matters. There is even a certain type of ojive that is known to be particularly sensitive to seating depth changes. We also know there are powder charges that tend to produce good results over many guns.
Its not debatable that there aren't powder charges and seating depths that produce better groups. Its debatable that they don't matter to most shooters.
Its not debatable that there aren't powder charges and seating depths that produce better groups. Its debatable that they don't matter to most shooters.
I think that’s where I’m at now. I wanted to use the 75s but it just won’t shoot. Funny thing is I have another barrel that loves the 70 RDF.
I didn’t waste too much on the 75s thankfully. Hopefully the Berger’s will be much better.
Barrel companies also provide break in procedures when they know they don't do anything, because the average consumer is uninformed and wants a procedure.
I'm not saying powder charges and seating depths don't matter. But I think if you use the right projectile, the right barrel and chamber, they don't matter as much as we are let on. And most of our testing methods are far from conclusive.
Ive played around with multiple seating depths, powder charges, primer seating depths, neck tension, etc with my 6BRA. Every time I go to the range I'm recording data and testing something. Averaged across many groups and different days with different environmental, I have found that a lot of it doesn't matter.
And this is not with a 0.5 MOA rifle. This rifle routinely shoots 5 shot groups at 100 yards like this:
However, this is all with Berger Hybrids in top tier cut rifled barrels chambered by top gunsmiths. I've heard that some bullet geometries like VLD's are more picky. Perhaps that's so. I haven't tested them. But my personal testing (which admittedly isn't dispositive on its own by any means), has demonstrated that many factors don't matter as much as we are let on to believe. But maybe I'm lucky every time I go to the range.
All I know is that the more I shoot and reload, the more I realize how much bullshit is spread throughout the reloading world. But I'm just trying to figure it out like the next guy, and despite our hubris as a community, there's lots we still have to learn.
IMO, I think a lot of the forgiveness that gets attributed to BR cartridges is due to their lack of recoil.
Most people don't realize how much recoil exploits their flaws in their fundamentals, nor do they realize how poor their fundamentals truly are. You can get away with the little BR's when it comes to fundamental flaws.
I can get away with so much more with my 6BRA than I can with my 6.5mm's and .30 cals. Every step up in projectile weight and diameter and powder charge is a step-up in punishment for fundamental mistakes.
To your point though, chamber specs matter.
Incorrect chamber specs have caused many a 6x47 and 6XC shooter frustration.
There's so many variables at play. I think if it was as simple as there being powder charge and seating depth nodes, this would show up in cartridges like the BR based cartridges. But in my experience they don't.
My experiences with other cartridges also makes me think there is no magical nodes. I've only been convinced of any nodes when my sample size of data was small (and thus statistically irrelevant).
My mind remains open, but I think ballistics are much more complicated and nuanced than we think/assume. Which is why I'm such a proponent for keeping things simple and consistent, and not to overthink things.
Incorrect chamber specs have caused many a 6x47 and 6XC shooter frustration.
There's so many variables at play. I think if it was as simple as there being powder charge and seating depth nodes, this would show up in cartridges like the BR based cartridges. But in my experience they don't.
My experiences with other cartridges also makes me think there is no magical nodes. I've only been convinced of any nodes when my sample size of data was small (and thus statistically irrelevant).
My mind remains open, but I think ballistics are much more complicated and nuanced than we think/assume. Which is why I'm such a proponent for keeping things simple and consistent, and not to overthink things.
Thats not to my point, thats just more of the same straw man thing you have been doing. We are all well aware there are many variables. But you are doing exactly what you claim to be suspect of people for doing, and claiming your testing has isolated the variables of OAL and powder charge and shown they don't matter.
The difference does show up in BR based cartridges. The difference is less. Can you shoot the difference... Probably not from a bipod and bag...
Break in procedures are not "do nothing" either. It depends on the chamber job how much "break in" a barrel needs. Take a rough throat and start shooting it without cleaning, it will pick up a lot of copper. There are some break in procedures that are likely unnecessarily complicated.
The difference does show up in BR based cartridges. The difference is less. Can you shoot the difference... Probably not from a bipod and bag...
Break in procedures are not "do nothing" either. It depends on the chamber job how much "break in" a barrel needs. Take a rough throat and start shooting it without cleaning, it will pick up a lot of copper. There are some break in procedures that are likely unnecessarily complicated.
I've seen some of your stuff before, and know that you know what you're doing.
In the case of the 75 ELD...I'd just assume that your worst performance is going good be your average performance the next time you took that load out, and adjust accordingly.
I've got two 6.5x47 barrels right now that won't shoot the 130gr Berger AR OTM better than in the upper .5s (5 shots). That is with the same powders (H4350 and RL-16) that shoot routinely in the .3s with the 130 Norma and .4s with the130 ELDs. I've just put those bullets up for the next barrel.
^ or I might play with the seating depth in .003 increments like Erik stated in the video that started this conversation and see if I'm just bracketing the really good window.
Nailed it , very well said .
Yeah most groups with the 75s were 1"-2" so I think I'm done messing with it. All my seating depth tests were .003 increments and I tested a lot of them. I really hate messing with VLD style bullets.
I would be willing to bet that if you did the exact same EC test over multiple days with the exact same ammo, each day would show different results.
In that case, if tests on day 1 showed ammo 'A' was best/in a node, but on Day 2 it was Ammo 'B' and so on, then was day 1 truly as conclusive of a test as one would think it was if you were only to shot it on one day? Which one is the best ammo formulation/seating depth?
For shits and giggles I might even give it a shot - I enjoy this kind of testing. At some point I'll screw on my target 6.5 Creedmoor barrel and test it out over multiple days.
I have found that every handloading method/technique named after a person ends up being bullshit with enough time. There are no secret cheats or hacks and Eric isn't actually smarter or more intuitive than the rest of the field.
The "10 shot velocity ladder test" is the one that gets me. Especially if they aren't using an absolutely precise powder measuring scale.
Fads come and go. The next one will have everyone regurgitating it for a year or so and admonishing everyone that dares use a different method...especially if somebody remotely popular picks up on the fad and publicly supports it.
The only constant in reloading that I've found is that everything you touch has an effect, and that consistency in practice generally corresponds to consistency in results.
Fads come and go. The next one will have everyone regurgitating it for a year or so and admonishing everyone that dares use a different method...especially if somebody remotely popular picks up on the fad and publicly supports it.
The only constant in reloading that I've found is that everything you touch has an effect, and that consistency in practice generally corresponds to consistency in results.
A reason why these "fads" gain so much traction for a period of time is because everyone is looking for a quick fix to make better reloads. Whether that's finding a velocity "node", a seating depth "node", or using a tuner to make micro adjustments that all of a sudden makes your groups come together. Who doesn't want to find a magical "node" in which your precision tightens up or your ES goes way down? Especially if you only have to do a simple test with limited amount of ammo?
Very good shooters push these quick fixes. Scott Satterlee was a huge proponent of the 10 shot velocity ladder test to find a velocity "node". Others propose quick bullet seating depths and/or tuner adjustments to quickly find some sort of a precision "node". And if you use limited sample sizes (which are very normal in our world as reloaders and shooters - there is a lot of limitation in time and resources, we can only test so much as individuals), then its easy to convince yourself that these nodes exist when you perform these tests.
However, if you shoot these same tests over and over again using the exact same ammo (better yet over different days and conditions), it becomes pretty apparent that any perceived "node" from initial testing may not be repeatable. And when really good shooters and reloaders are pushing such limited testing, it just goes to show that even the best shooters are prone to making faulty analysis' due to relying on statistically weak datasets.
I think your last sentence is the most important for those reloading - rather than focus on any so-called nodes, focus on producing the most consistent ammo that you can, using quality components. It's easy to make good ammo that way. And I don't want to discourage anyone from doing any testing, in fact, do more of it. Do the Satterlee test. Do the EC seating test. Test tuners. Test them over and over again, and see if the results standup and if any velocity or precision "nodes" are actually in fact repeatable.
You need to to try the N160.I got beat up by a half-dozen dudes about a year ago on here for suggesting that 3-shot groups weren't statistically reliable.
Then Hornady came out with their podcast a few months later and all hell broke loose.
I was a fan of the old 'Sniper's Hide 5x5' target when it came out.
My particular 3-shot group experience found me many years ago throwing a fluke .289" group. I was so excited I went home and loaded 100 more of that recipe...only to discover that it was a consistent 1 MOA load every time I went to the range. That was my lesson against 3 shot load development.
Now my shop is 30' from my house, and it has my reloading bench and shooting bench in it. I'm very blessed to be able to load and test stuff on a whim, which is a weekly thing as when you live as far from civilization as I do you don't have that social network to keep yourself otherwise engaged.
These days I do shoot 3 for seating depth testing, then groups of 5 for charge weight testing, then a confirmation group of 5...and finally another 5 at distance of 250+ just to make sure it holds together. It's basically a 3x5 aggregate...maybe not enough to keep the Hornady guys happy, but I find it repeatable.
Here's my last workup for my second 6.5x47. I'm highlighting this because it is very seating depth sensitive:
I already knew that 2.620/2.100 was a good length, because that's what the factory 120gr Scenar-L load was. It shot in the .5s during break-in, so I just bracketed it by .005, and then went another .010 and .020 out (please excuse the 2.005 typo...it's supposed to be 2.105).
View attachment 8129649
^ Surprisingly, it has a two group window like old Senior Cortina mentioned. These were only 3 shot groups...except for the 2.615/2.105 - it sucked enough I stopped at two and kept the round for the CBS the next time out.
I then loaded to the longer depth and shot 5-shot charge weights. The best I did that day in a full value wind was this:
View attachment 8129650
Then I fine-tuned charge weights and found that 35.9 - 36.1 all shot equally small on another day (no photo).
Finally, I screwed with very small seating depths at those charge weights with five shot groups again:
View attachment 8129658
^ You can see that when I came out of the optimal depth by just a couple thousandths that my groups damn near doubled. I actually only shot 4 shots on the far right...it was sucking again, so I kept that round for a CBS prior to other load development.
Then I shot that load at 400 yards on a good (little wind) day. 5 shots including a cold bore. I dropped one a bit low right, but it was still a 2" group on the nose.
View attachment 8129676
At this point I'm confident in the load. It took me probably 85 rounds to get here including all of my confirmation stuff, but I don't have much hesitation in saying that my 120gr Scenar-L & N150 load - while a bit seating depth sensitive - is still capable of a little better than 1/2 MOA pretty consistently for five shot groups.
Once the load opens up, I'll seat out another .006 and retest.
YMMV
Sorry for the long post.
Just tested on my Krieger SS .260rem that pill and N160.
NO 100-m paper test, straight to 300-meters.
I say that the powder charge is more importand that the seating depth.
Why i say that, i have loaded thousends and thousend of load, shoot, shoot and shoot more.
But i can say this only of Lapua bullets, but i dont think other bullets are so special, that they would work so much different.
On this video, we did shoot one full box of Lapua factory 136gr Lapua Scenar-L .260REM ammo.
Distance was 300-meters.
My friend shot the last 5-rounds that tight group(0,19 MOA), if you look the video in to a end.
Factory load is never even close to the lands, so why do you chase them??
I say the powder charge is more chritical than the col.
Rifle is factory Tikka T3 SS Varmint 24" with KRG Whiskey chassis.
AND the barrel is spiral fluted, some one say that ruins the accuracy
Well, if we take Lapua bullets on 6.5mm collection, i know, like i know for real because i have tested it, and my friends too.
123gr and 139gr Scenar, you need to take off the lands at least 2mm, if you put it too close it wont work.
Maybe the best results is the seating depth on Vihtavuori reloading manual.
Scenar-L is a different, even that factory ammo is working very well, but i have seen it work best 0,5mm - 1mm off the lands.
I have shot a lot and load 99,9% of my ammo that i shoot.
260rem, 6,5cm and 308win, have had 223rem and 6.5prc too, but those 2 rifles i have sold.
123gr and 139gr Scenar, you need to take off the lands at least 2mm, if you put it too close it wont work.
Maybe the best results is the seating depth on Vihtavuori reloading manual.
Scenar-L is a different, even that factory ammo is working very well, but i have seen it work best 0,5mm - 1mm off the lands.
I have shot a lot and load 99,9% of my ammo that i shoot.
260rem, 6,5cm and 308win, have had 223rem and 6.5prc too, but those 2 rifles i have sold.
......and PRS shooters get their shit pushed in at F class matches.
It's amazing how you seem to continually top yourself for posts that get shared in texts groups and laughed at.
Did another fine-tune seating depth test today. This time I used the 130gr ELD-M. During load charge weight development (done after a rough seating depth test), this load had shot in the .4s - .5s for five shots.
I "verified" the load at 300 with another five round group just to see if it would hold up. It did (~.46 MOA).
Today, I seated out .003, and .006 further (my "load" is .020 off), and .003, .006, and .009 in. The results showed a pretty significant disparity in accuracy. I'm going to load .002 further out as it puts me in the window of good accuracy. No shots were pulled/chunked.
Yeah, there's a bit more vertical than I'd like, but for a 400 and in critter gun, it's plenty acceptable.
At this point, I'm pretty convinced that seating depth is as important as charge weight regarding accuracy...and that both have windows/"nodes" of excellent and horrible results.
I "verified" the load at 300 with another five round group just to see if it would hold up. It did (~.46 MOA).
Today, I seated out .003, and .006 further (my "load" is .020 off), and .003, .006, and .009 in. The results showed a pretty significant disparity in accuracy. I'm going to load .002 further out as it puts me in the window of good accuracy. No shots were pulled/chunked.
Yeah, there's a bit more vertical than I'd like, but for a 400 and in critter gun, it's plenty acceptable.
At this point, I'm pretty convinced that seating depth is as important as charge weight regarding accuracy...and that both have windows/"nodes" of excellent and horrible results.
Diggs-Nice result, and proof that following a process works. Good job. Have 130 ELD’s I’ve been shooting in CM bolt gun-will have to give them a go in x47, though 123 Scenars have been excellent to date.
In terms of being data and quantitative analysis driven, there is of course Cal and his blog but I really like Keith Glasscock’s vids on his Into the Wind channel. He’s F-Open so some of what he focuses on is not germane to some folks. But I find his data collection and analysis to be very solid.
The answer the OP seeks is actually rather simple.
Watch the clip below and start at the 15:45 mark. Listen to Bryan’s load development process(or lack thereof) and stop wasting components and fretting over irrelevant things falsely identified in small sample sizes.
Watch the clip below and start at the 15:45 mark. Listen to Bryan’s load development process(or lack thereof) and stop wasting components and fretting over irrelevant things falsely identified in small sample sizes.
I'll check that out, thanks. I think there are definitely some that are better than others at understanding their data and their limitations, and what conclusions can be drawn (or not), from such data. This is not a knock at anyone, just the reality of reloading and our statistical limitations that we encounter when doing our own "testing" - but not everyone is aware of how limiting our data truly is. And thus, how inconclusive are results usually are.
I'm very skeptical of any shortcut tests that get promoted in order to find any so-called "nodes". I just don't think 3 thou difference on either side of a seating depth is going to amount to 1/2 MOA (or greater) difference in precision. If someone shot the same bullet seating depth ladder 5 different times, I bet they would find 5 different "nodes". But I don't expect anyone to take my word on that - I think if people truly want to find that out they should conduct that test for themselves.
I think the linked video above with Bryan Litz aligns with my personal viewpoints on the matter pretty well.
Haha….I must more dense than usual today as I don’t get the relevance of your posted meme???
Sometimes I think I’m funnier than I am. But if you remember in that movie the guy on the radio says just because you are a sheriff doesn’t germane the situation.
hahaha...forgot all about that. Haven't seen that movie in decades.
Like I said, I seem to be a bit more dense that usual today! LOL
Hello my friend....ok, I fucked it up. Its Winning in the Wind....not Into the Wind! haha Here is a link to his channel.
His vids tend to be short and on a specific topic which I like. I'm rarely going to sit through an 1 hour plus rambling interview or dissertation on some shooting topic. When I first started with rifles (vice decades of clay target shooting), I liked Cleckner's videos for the same reason. One topic and to the point.
Keith is an F-Open guy and he has come in second at the F-class nationals three times in a row (2020-2022 I believe)!! Got to piss you off to miss the top spot year after year by just an x or two, right? LOL But this really is the epitome of consistency, IME.
From an interview with him:
"What are your most notable shooting achievements?
I co-held the US National Record for 20 shots at 1000 yards, 200-17x before my teammate Norm Harrold bettered the record. I’ve placed on the podium of 5 separate National level events in a very short period of time including the last 3 consecutive US F-class National Championships."
Keith is apparently an engineering type in the aviation industry in WA state (works for Boeing right now, I think) and he brings that approach to his vids. He tells you what the data definitely told him and he tells you when the data does not. He's no BS, IMO. Hope you enjoy his content.
Watching Keith's stuff is what brought me back into really trying to load for precision.
Meticulous and methodical.
That guy doesn't compete with a load unless he can shoot 20 shots into 1/3 MOA at 600.
He's the one that exposed me to 3-shot seating group tests at .003 intervals. Erik and F-class John do it too.
So far it works for me, and the naysayers haven't altered my opinion yet. When the current process obviously let's me down, I'll regroup, change my process, and go with whatever proves best at that point in time. I'm certainly not married to anything.
I can only post what my individual experiences are, and if some dudes on here want to call a BS on me I promise that it won't affect my sleep at night.
Exactly. Meticulous, methodical, and I’ll add articulate.
I didn’t know anyone else here was into his stuff.
Very cool
Hey, if it works for you then that's all that matters.
The Satterlee method worked for me for years. So did bullet seating depth tests.
They worked because I used good quality components on good quality reloading gear, it's hard to not make good quality ammo with that recipe.
Then I got obsessed and testing a lot of different variables, and opened up my sample sizes. If one velocity ladder is good, then two or three should be better. If 3 shot groups are good, 5 should be better. Or better yet, a 5x5. Every time I went to the range I was testing something. Still do.
Bullet seating depth tests, powder charges, primer seating depths, neck tension, annealing vs not, different annealing AMP settings, etc.
I discovered that we draw conclusions from what's essentially statistical noise. I no longer believe in nodes. I also learned that it's hard to make bad ammo if you start with top quality components and reloading gear (on top of a top tier barrel with top tier gunsmithing).
That said, if it works for you, then it works for you. I'm skeptical about the conclusively of your tests, but I don't doubt you are making good/great ammo. I also don't expect a single person to take my word for it - those that are interested will do their own in depth testing, and most likely discover that their results aren't as dispositive as they were on first glance.
It's been proven through a lot of research the most forgiving seating depth ranges depending on bullet at 50-80k jump. I've experienced it with sierra, eld and Berger bullets. I will load there as long my chambers freebore allows seating that deep while keeping bearing surface above the neck/shoulder junction. If not I look for something closer to the lands.
To call a man one has never actually met as asshole is the same as looking in the Mirror and seeing it over and over again an expecting a different image...LOL
What about a guy that has met him many times and thinks he is an asshole ?
Your sentence smells of alcohol .
Ever shot a big 3-shot group, then added more shots to it, and the group got smaller? If it starts out small, it might stay small. If it starts out big, move on - unless it was you. That is the value of small 3-shot groups - they help you sort the wheat from the chaff.
Was watching a new YouTube channel by Bruce Teel - three-time consecutive NBRA 600 yard national winner (or something along those lines...impressive regardless of my failing memory at the moment) - and he posted a huge target, full of two shot "groups" during testing.
He's certainly got something figured out, and apparently he can find winning combos that way. The Hornady guys would shit, but as Speedy Gonzalez once put it in an interview about someone else's practice: "How many times did he win...?"
I really think it boils down to discipline type. One side will never agree with the other, and we'll argue about it on the forums forever.
Regardless of how foolish we personally think something is, if it works for someone are you really going to be able to trash it effectively for them? No.
Similar threads
