we need a crying orkan meme

Baron23 said:

Well, my view is that he has far more experience with this subject of barrel damage from cleaning than pretty much anybody on the Hide so I accord him a great deal of credibility, personally.

On the subject of ".3 all day long", etc....I'm pretty sure that I read one of Cal's Precision Rifle Blog posts where he stated that a 10 fps SD would result in a 1 MOA dispersion or distribution (circular error probability???).

Now, I hated statistics in college, I'm old and don't remember a single bit of it, but my impression of Cal's articles is that he is either proficient in statistics or consults with those who are on these subjects.

Any comments about this?

Click to expand...

instead of asking for some ones opinion just run some velocity numbers in your app or kestral

you might shoot a 30-30 and the guy who answers shoots a 300 norma , the answers will be very different as can be expected

change the velocity and look at what distance your shooting for the difference

10fps means nothing at 100

its not the SD but the ES that kills you lol

brianf said:

instead of asking for some ones opinion just run some velocity numbers in your app or kestral

you might shoot a 30-30 and the guy who answers shoots a 300 norma , the answers will be very different as can be expected

change the velocity and look at what distance your shooting for the difference

10fps means nothing at 100

its not the SD but the ES that kills you lol

Click to expand...

Thanks Brian...and yes, clarification...this was in his series on 6.5 CM.

Cheers

Mr. Litz is an expert. Like, a for real expert per the definition in the dictionary.

brianf said:

Even with in that video with the insane group at 1000, one last shot was well outside the group. that alone invalidates any decision made from that result, more testing is needed.

Click to expand...

In reference to that group, in person, Erik also says it was luck...but then people start using it around the internet as proof for whatever they are trying to support

...i havent watched the video...so not sure how he refers to it there, but typically things on youtube are done certain ways for view count as most people know

I have a serious question about the discussions here and elsewhere about 3 or 5 or 10 round groups not being enough to draw a conclusion. If that's true, how are AB custom curves so accurate when they're created with only 10 shots? I'm talking the PDMs that come as a result of shooting over AB's doppler at ELR matches, which I've done myself. Some may say it's apples and oranges but, obviously, 10 shots is enough for statistically relevant data in that instance.

parshal said:

I have a serious question about the discussions here and elsewhere about 3 or 5 or 10 round groups not being enough to draw a conclusion. If that's true, how are AB custom curves so accurate when they're created with only 10 shots? I'm talking the PDMs that come as a result of shooting over AB's doppler at ELR matches, which I've done myself. Some may say it's apples and oranges but, obviously, 10 shots is enough for statistically relevant data in that instance.

Click to expand...

Because the models themselves are basically deterministic. There isn't a chance of gravity playing differently on an body in motion each time they interact.

But you have BC variability from bullet to bullet as you're firing the bullet. The information you get from that exercise shows the SD/ES of BC for what you just shot. We're measuring the same thing when we do velocity testing. Or, are we saying that group size is far more variable than any measurement of velocity SD/ES and requires a far larger sample size than bullet SD/ES?

parshal said:

I have a serious question about the discussions here and elsewhere about 3 or 5 or 10 round groups not being enough to draw a conclusion. If that's true, how are AB custom curves so accurate when they're created with only 10 shots? I'm talking the PDMs that come as a result of shooting over AB's doppler at ELR matches, which I've done myself. Some may say it's apples and oranges but, obviously, 10 shots is enough for statistically relevant data in that instance.

Click to expand...

So, because doppler takes the fun out of it. It is accurately measure data that doesn't need statistics. I keep this in a back drawer somewhere...

parshal said:

But you have BC variability from bullet to bullet as you're firing the bullet. The information you get from that exercise shows the SD/ES of BC for what you just shot. We're measuring the same thing when we do velocity testing. Or, are we saying that group size is far more variable than any measurement of velocity SD/ES and requires a far larger sample size than bullet SD/ES?

Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that group size is far more variable than measurements until you remove the human from the equation. I believe accuracy of the load for a given rifle would best be determined if the shooting could be accomplished by a machine rest, such as a ransom does for handguns.

max1840 said:

I'm of the opinion that group size is far more variable than measurements until you remove the human from the equation. I believe accuracy of the load for a given rifle would best be determined if the shooting could be accomplished by a machine rest, such as a ransom does for handguns.

Click to expand...

The doppler head is getting a data point every 2-3 feet over a 1200-2000yd track. Then software is pulling the CD vs. mach data out of it to create those files. So even if 10 shots is all that is fired, there's tens of thousands of data points. That said, yes... 10 shots is a little skimpy to say "Bullet X has more drag variability than Bullet Y", unless the difference is significant enough that test-to-test noise can't cause overlap.

I don't know what AB does, but the doppler testing I've been involved with is typically more like 30-50 rounds of each bullet. Multiple guns, the entire mach regime from <1.0 to as fast as is reasonably possible. You can make a very usable file with 10 rounds, especially if the end user has the ability to "true" (fudge) things, but I'd say it's a little skimpy to start saying X is 1.5% drag variability and Y is 2.2% drag variability as a claim of population performance. "Percent drag variability" or "Percent BC variability" also need a little more description to be useful terms.

max1840 said:

I'm of the opinion that group size is far more variable than measurements until you remove the human from the equation. I believe accuracy of the load for a given rifle would best be determined if the shooting could be accomplished by a machine rest, such as a ransom does for handguns.

Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why the current discussion of primer seating depth is so stupid. Until you take out that variable, you are working with hugely flawed data. Even ransom rests take some skill.

Baron23 said:

Ah, found it:

"I/we will only use the JB Bore Compound. Not the bore brite."

And with a whole lot of caveats like don't use a brush

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/how-and-when-to-utilize-abrasive-bore-cleaners.7094636/

Click to expand...

Just ordered the "kit" Brownells offers. It's never in stock, so you need to get a in stock notification and act fast.

Choid said:

Exactly, which is why the current discussion of primer seating depth is so stupid. Until you take out that variable, you are working with hugely flawed data. Even ransom rests take some skill.

Click to expand...

As a general statement, I've seen that I add about 0.1-0.15 MOA to a 20 shot group when I shoulder fire the same barreled action that was used in the accuracy fixture. Obviously if I'm having a bad day that could easily be more. I'm certainly more variable than the fixture, and have even watched my called shot errors cancel dispersion. I want to make it clear that those instances are totally "luck".

spelunk said:

Serious question for those of you with this gizmo or similar: why? I guarantee I can prime faster and with fewer steps using my frankford arsenal hand primer. I hear of bench priming being faster and such, but you have to load them one by one into a tube before the rest of the operation. You're also stuck to one place on the bench whereas with a hand primer you do it wherever you want. For me, I hand prime and drop powder at the same time and its super fast.

Click to expand...

I use the VibraPrime to load the primer tubes so no loading primers one by one for me. I suspect many others with the CPS use something similar.

Ledzep said:

The doppler head is getting a data point every 2-3 feet over a 1200-2000yd track. Then software is pulling the CD vs. mach data out of it to create those files. So even if 10 shots is all that is fired, there's tens of thousands of data points. That said, yes... 10 shots is a little skimpy to say "Bullet X has more drag variability than Bullet Y", unless the difference is significant enough that test-to-test noise can't cause overlap.

I don't know what AB does, but the doppler testing I've been involved with is typically more like 30-50 rounds of each bullet. Multiple guns, the entire mach regime from <1.0 to as fast as is reasonably possible. You can make a very usable file with 10 rounds, especially if the end user has the ability to "true" (fudge) things, but I'd say it's a little skimpy to start saying X is 1.5% drag variability and Y is 2.2% drag variability as a claim of population performance. "Percent drag variability" or "Percent BC variability" also need a little more description to be useful terms.

Click to expand...

ahhh, poor ledzep....data and actual testing has no merit around here

"i shoot a lot and thats why im right" holds considerably more credibility

Ledzep said:

... "Percent BC variability" also need a little more description to be useful terms.

Click to expand...

BC variability percentage is SD value presented another way.

spelunk said:

Serious question for those of you with this gizmo or similar: why? I guarantee I can prime faster and with fewer steps using my frankford arsenal hand primer. I hear of bench priming being faster and such, but you have to load them one by one into a tube before the rest of the operation. You're also stuck to one place on the bench whereas with a hand primer you do it wherever you want. For me, I hand prime and drop powder at the same time and its super fast.

Click to expand...

I'll give you a couple of perfectly good reasons to use one.

(No, I don't own one, nor have I ever used one)

I'm 59 years old. I've done maintenance type work my entire life. Because of that I have three very serious issues that make hand priming painful.

Bilateral carpal tunnel. 2x post surgery and its still there.

I have arthritis in my fingers and thumb joints. To add to that, I also have Dupuytryn's contracture in both hands.

Yeah, thanks Uncle Sam.
I digress...

Anyway,
using hand held priming tools causes pain during and after use. Even worse, it causes me to awaken at night with swelling and pain in my hands.

My grip strength has weakened tremendously in the last ten years.

The shit never goes away, but I can sure as hell make it worse by using my hands to do basic tasks.

If I was a 20, or 30 something, none of that stuff ^^^^^ up there would mean anything to me. Why? Because when I was younger I felt like none of that stuff would ever affect me.
I was wrong.

Greg's priming tool is expensive. There's no arguing that fact.
I keep asking myself if it's worth it.

Rebecca told me to just order the darn thing and I could minimize the number of things that keep me awake during the night.


What is good sleep and less hand pain worth to a person?

$600 seems cheap.

brianf said:

ahhh, poor ledzep....data and actual testing has no merit around here

"i shoot a lot and thats why im right" holds considerably more credibility

Click to expand...

Troof.

If people are ensuring primers are seated the same depth, I do hope they are uniforming primer pockets.

Whether the amount of crush on the anvil matters, I doubt it. About all that concerns me is if it’s seated fully to prevent misfires from the initial firing pin strike seating the rest of the way.

.5 MOA all day long if’n I do my part isn’t even remotely competitive in benchrest. I mean, it’ll consistently get you on the wailing wall though.

spelunk said:

Good point. I see that as a valid reason for bench/press priming. I should have been more specific about how these gizmos are faster? Just seems more complicated/expensive as well as slower.

Click to expand...

The primer tubes can be filled in under one minute.

Everything isn't about speed anyway...

Bigfatcock said:

View attachment 7795798

Click to expand...

Rail guns. The pinnacle of short range Precision and accuracy.
To a person that can read the wind properly, they are nearly unbeatable.

A novice with a rail gun will have his ass handed to him by a Light Varmint shooter that can read and react to the wind.

Cynical said:

Even if the data doesn’t support a correlation between es/sd and primer seating depth, the CPS is still to me far and away the easiest and most efficient priming method short of running the brass through a progressive press. I’ll take Litz’s word as final and conclusive until someone with more credentials tells me different.

Click to expand...

When I was switching to a Dillon I used "not buying a $600 priming tool" as an easy way to justify the price.

spelunk said:

Serious question for those of you with this gizmo or similar: why? I guarantee I can prime faster and with fewer steps using my frankford arsenal hand primer. I hear of bench priming being faster and such, but you have to load them one by one into a tube before the rest of the operation. You're also stuck to one place on the bench whereas with a hand primer you do it wherever you want. For me, I hand prime and drop powder at the same time and its super fast.

Click to expand...

I used to use a Lee Bench prime, I still have it and use it on buddies ammo all the time. worked great.

I can't believe there are so many of the CPS out there and no one is coming out and saying ya I tested different primer seating depths and......

Mike Casselton said:

Rail guns. The pinnacle of short range Precision and accuracy.
To a person that can read the wind properly, they are nearly unbeatable.

A novice with a rail gun will have his ass handed to him by a Light Varmint shooter that can read and react to the wind.

Click to expand...

100% correct.

Taylorbok said:

I can't believe there are so many of the CPS out there and no one is coming out and saying ya I tested different primer seating depths and......

Click to expand...

Think of golf.
Instead of practicing and practicing correctly to improve their game, people try to buy a game.

Our guy can smoke a drive 325 yards and he hits 6.5% of his fairways.

He ain't a happy camper, but he can knock the shit out of that Titleist.

Can't be him though.

Instead of backing off a bit and hitting an 80% speed drive and 75-90% fairways, he wouldn't be happy with a 274 yard average drive.
Fuck that.
His score could come down into the mid 80s, he's not blasting that 320yd drive. Fuck that.

What does he do?
Practice?
Nope.
He goes and buys that new $780 driver. That'll do the trick.
Now he's hitting 339yds and 4% fairways.

WTF? Over.

He still hasn't learned to properly use the tools in his bag.


Let's move on to reloading/ammo production.

Basic tools vs Gucci (thanks Dave) reloading tools.

Used properly, basic tools will make very good ammunition. So will the Gucci tools.

The difference is that some people take the time to figure out how to get the most out of the products they have.
Other people have the best stuff and turn out shit product. (Remember our golfer?)

Most aren't like that, thankfully.

Will Gucci tools always produce better ammo in the hands of an average reloader? Probably not, but like the better golf equipment, it's sometimes more forgiving.

What many reloaders should strive for is understanding the process and the tools they use.

Go beyond the overview of what they do and into theory of operation.
A much deeper understanding, if you will.

That understanding, put into practice will produce your best ammunition.

You still need to have a good rifle and optics, but you have to be a great shooter to get the most out of your rifle and ammunition.

This takes practice.

Yeah, you can buy some of your accuracy with the right rifle and ammo, but like our golfer, YOU GOTTA PRACTICE...


My theory on why we aren't seeing reports of improvements with respect to primer seating, is that the owners of many of the tools thought they could just buy better accuracy, but they haven't even learned how to use the CPS and its associated hardware.

Maybe some have seen tremendous gains and don't want to let the cat out of the bag.

The last group might be getting a placebo effect from it.

I don't have the real answer, but I do know that with any tool, they work better if you know how to use them...

Mike Casselton said:

I'll give you a couple of perfectly good reasons to use one.

(No, I don't own one, nor have I ever used one)

I'm 59 years old. I've done maintenance type work my entire life. Because of that I have three very serious issues that make hand priming painful.

Bilateral carpal tunnel. 2x post surgery and its still there.

I have arthritis in my fingers and thumb joints. To add to that, I also have Dupuytryn's contracture in both hands.

Yeah, thanks Uncle Sam.
I digress...

Anyway,
using hand held priming tools causes pain during and after use. Even worse, it causes me to awaken at night with swelling and pain in my hands.

My grip strength has weakened tremendously in the last ten years.

The shit never goes away, but I can sure as hell make it worse by using my hands to do basic tasks.

If I was a 20, or 30 something, none of that stuff ^^^^^ up there would mean anything to me. Why? Because when I was younger I felt like none of that stuff would ever affect me.
I was wrong.

Greg's priming tool is expensive. There's no arguing that fact.
I keep asking myself if it's worth it.

Rebecca told me to just order the darn thing and I could minimize the number of things that keep me awake during the night.


What is good sleep and less hand pain worth to a person?

$600 seems cheap.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Mike....when we were young, who worried about chronic pain....and yeah, I got mine and yeah, I haven't slept through the night since I injured my back almost 14 years ago.

And your post is a GREAT justification for a bench mounted primer.

Best of luck with you hands.

Mike Casselton said:

Think of golf.
Instead of practicing and practicing correctly to improve their game, people try to buy a game.

Our guy can smoke a drive 325 yards and he hits 6.5% of his fairways.

He ain't a happy camper, but he can knock the shit out of that Titleist.

Can't be him though.

Instead of backing off a bit and hitting an 80% speed drive and 75-90% fairways, he wouldn't be happy with a 274 yard average drive.
Fuck that.
His score could come down into the mid 80s, he's not blasting that 320yd drive. Fuck that.

What does he do?
Practice?
Nope.
He goes and buys that new $780 driver. That'll do the trick.
Now he's hitting 339yds and 4% fairways.

WTF? Over.

He still hasn't learned to properly use the tools in his bag.


Let's move on to reloading/ammo production.

Basic tools vs Gucci (thanks Dave) reloading tools.

Used properly, basic tools will make very good ammunition. So will the Gucci tools.

The difference is that some people take the time to figure out how to get the most out of the products they have.
Other people have the best stuff and turn out shit product. (Remember our golfer?)

Most aren't like that, thankfully.

Will Gucci tools always produce better ammo in the hands of an average reloader? Probably not, but like the better golf equipment, it's sometimes more forgiving.

What many reloaders should strive for is understanding the process and the tools they use.

Go beyond the overview of what they do and into theory of operation.
A much deeper understanding, if you will.

That understanding, put into practice will produce your best ammunition.

You still need to have a good rifle and optics, but you have to be a great shooter to get the most out of your rifle and ammunition.

This takes practice.

Yeah, you can buy some of your accuracy with the right rifle and ammo, but like our golfer, YOU GOTTA PRACTICE...


My theory on why we aren't seeing reports of improvements with respect to primer seating, is that the owners of many of the tools thought they could just buy better accuracy, but they haven't even learned how to use the CPS and its associated hardware.

Maybe some have seen tremendous gains and don't want to let the cat out of the bag.

The last group might be getting a placebo effect from it.

I don't have the real answer, but I do know that with any tool, they work better if you know how to use them...

Click to expand...

If I could have hit 80% of fairways at 275 in my prime I would rarely have been on the wrong side of 70. Alas.

I'm pretty good with the show stick.
It's my short game that doesn't/didn't get worked enough.

I play once or twice a year now for charity and I do okay.

It would be more fun to have someone drive a ball into the fairway, and then we shoot the ball with our rifles...

Mike Casselton said:

Maybe some have seen tremendous gains and don't want to let the cat out of the bag.

Click to expand...

I thought all the guys that hide accuracy secrets hung out over on accurate shooter. LOL

@Mike Casselton the issue for me isn’t Gucci or the show stick aspect. It’s that I have 8,000 other things going on so I’m looking for efficiency. I could prime on an auto drive, but then it’s a bitch to get it dialed back in for 9mm or 223 (depending on which one I use to prime). That makes it less efficient overall to me. The CPS is efficient in my process, so I use it.

I doubted before I could ever shoot the difference between the alleged consistency of the CPS and priming on a 1050 or 750, and think Litz confirmed that for me saying there is no difference. But anyway I don’t shoot 105 prairie dogs with 100 shots either.

Cynical said:

I don’t shoot 105 prairie dogs with 100 shots either.

Click to expand...

I have. Doubles are pretty easy with the pups. Triples and quads are your money makers.

I've also shot less than 20 with 80 shots.
45mph Dakota winds are kinda sucky.

It's all fun and games until you shoot one in the eye.
Then it's all fun...

Mike Casselton said:

I'm pretty good with the show stick.
It's my short game that doesn't/didn't get worked enough.

I play once or twice a year now for charity and I do okay.

It would be more fun to have someone drive a ball into the fairway, and then we shoot the ball with our rifles...

Click to expand...

Not rifles....shotguns. Time honored sport of golf skeet!! haha

I assume most here have a Forester press. With that assumption, why not just use the Forester included primer vs. a CPC, if you're not concerned with controlling depth, or the dreaded hand primer?

Baron23 said:

Not rifles....shotguns. Time honored sport of golf skeet!! haha

Click to expand...

Basically the same game.

Jefe's Dope said:

I assume most here have a Forester press. With that assumption, why not just use the Forester included primer vs. a CPC, if you're not concerned with controlling depth, or the dreaded hand primer?

Click to expand...

The only press I've ever used that seated primers with any control or consistency was the Partner press.

Choid said:

Basically the same game.

Click to expand...

You duck hunt with a .270 also? ;-)

Bigfatcock said:

Mr. Litz is an expert. Like, a for real expert per the definition in the dictionary.

Click to expand...

I agree & I listen carefully to his findings but, testing of anything requires a particular focus which sets the goals of the outcome.
There definitely is an elephant in the room with a lot of testing, particularly when conducted at ELR & F-class ranges.
As an example & indeed in many cases a reality IMHO, the assumption is & has been that any positive change should result in a definitive reduction in the SD however, there is indeed a point reached where the SD will only show a reduction over a much larger sample set & up to that point, cannot be inferred reliably with the use of regression analysis assuming previous variability gradients. Simply put, the outer markers are far wider & the data within the area of testing doesn't display the necessary variation.
This is a subject that I would like to discuss with brianf in a dedicated thread. Suffice it to say that, I believe the theoretical limit has been reached with regard to ELR & F-class &, as a result, we need to consider the possibility that a macro SD of sorts needs to be formulated which extends the data range to include a group of shooters results.
In essence, the changes expressed in the data are no longer expressions of real outcomes but are subsets of Gaussian distribution within the framework of the testing. In general terms, we have magnified the area of testing to the point where the usual statistical analysis is no longer able to differentiate the variability with the necessary fidelity.

spelunk said:

Serious question for those of you with this gizmo or similar: why? I guarantee I can prime faster and with fewer steps using my frankford arsenal hand primer. I hear of bench priming being faster and such, but you have to load them one by one into a tube before the rest of the operation. You're also stuck to one place on the bench whereas with a hand primer you do it wherever you want. For me, I hand prime and drop powder at the same time and its super fast.

Click to expand...

Ever strap on a fanny pack full of brass and prime while taking a shit, having sex, or driving to work?? Lol sorry man, just fuckin with ya, all in good fun...

spelunk said:

Serious question for those of you with this gizmo or similar: why? I guarantee I can prime faster and with fewer steps using my frankford arsenal hand primer. I hear of bench priming being faster and such, but you have to load them one by one into a tube before the rest of the operation. You're also stuck to one place on the bench whereas with a hand primer you do it wherever you want. For me, I hand prime and drop powder at the same time and its super fast.

Click to expand...

I recently switched from FA hand primer to the fancy gizmo. Frankford primer was causing pain after doing 100 cases. Had to start using two hands which made it awkward. I don't lack the strength to use one hand, just hurt afterwards. This is after about 5 years of use.

CPS is just as fast if you use a loading tool for the primer tube. The one I have uses battery a powered vibrator on the tray that knocks them to a corner, dropping them all in the tube. It's a must have accessory imo. Adds about a minute to the setup time.

If the marketing strategy is “create as much fuss over the CPS and get everybody talking about it, it will lead to many units sold” I’d say it may be working

Seems to me all we need for our CPS's to be as versatile as a hand primer is a strap to secure it to our leg so we can prime anywhere.. Lol.. Patent pending...

Taylorbok said:

I thought all the guys that hide accuracy secrets hung out over on accurate shooter. LOL

Click to expand...

They do ….the members that talk out of their ass over there get berated and kicked out.

Then they come over here and try it

Ledzep said:

As a general statement, I've seen that I add about 0.1-0.15 MOA to a 20 shot group when I shoulder fire the same barreled action that was used in the accuracy fixture. Obviously if I'm having a bad day that could easily be more. I'm certainly more variable than the fixture, and have even watched my called shot errors cancel dispersion. I want to make it clear that those instances are totally "luck".

Click to expand...

Obviously that is very impressive, but wouldn't you still consider it confounding when talking about methods that produce even smaller changes in precision?

Yeah it's definitely best to do whatever you can to eliminate external variables when you're not looking at the effects of those variables. if I know I'm +/- 0.15 MOA if everything looks great on my end, then that's just that much more noise that I have to sift through to judge results. And maybe the next guy is .05 MOA, and the next guy .3 MOA.... Certainly doesn't make things easier on us.

Ledzep said:

Yeah it's definitely best to do whatever you can to eliminate external variables when you're not looking at the effects of those variables. if I know I'm +/- 0.15 MOA if everything looks great on my end, then that's just that much more noise that I have to sift through to judge results. And maybe the next guy is .05 MOA, and the next guy .3 MOA.... Certainly doesn't make things easier on us.

Click to expand...

It doesn't, but it also points out how asinine it may be to pursue extreme precision, when we ourselves are not capable of shooting that precision difference.

Everyone is different, but to me, I'm going to only perform reloading steps that actually make a difference to me. I'm not going to waste time performing steps that don't translate into direct downrange results that are observable and repeatable. If there's a reloading step that may see a 0.05 MOA increase in precision on a rail gun, but takes an extra half hour to do over 100 rounds, and isn't exactly observable shooting off of a bipod and rear bag, then I'm not going to go through the time to perform that step.

There's a lot of variables to control when it comes to reloading and our rifles precision, and its easy to get lost in the noise. There are a lot of rabbit holes to go down, and at some point we become the weakest link in the system. I think it's admirable when individuals go down these rabbit holes in pursuit of ultimate precision, but at some point we just need to be happy with our individual processes and just go out and shoot.

I learned something new this week. There’s people out there who don’t win anything, that will weigh charges manually on a $2300 lab balance, and actually cut kernels to be accurate to .001gr in order to win, and still not win. Imagine cutting a kernel of Varget into 20 pieces and having the hubris to think you can shoot the difference, and then having absolutely nothing to show for it.
Primer seating depth consistency seems like a much easier variable to control.

Gotta admit, I too participate in reloading voodoo-doo-doo.
A lot of it is confidence building, feel good "do goody good bull shit."

But do it anyway. . .

Tokay444 said:

I learned something new this week. There’s people out there who don’t win anything, that will weigh charges manually on a $2300 lab balance, and actually cut kernels to be accurate to .001gr in order to win, and still not win. Imagine cutting a kernel of Varget into 20 pieces and having the hubris to think you can shoot the difference, and then having absolutely nothing to show for it.
Primer seating depth consistency seems like a much easier variable to control.

Click to expand...

But this is complete question begging, no?

Tokay444 said:

I learned something new this week. There’s people out there who don’t win anything, that will weigh charges manually on a $2300 lab balance, and actually cut kernels to be accurate to .001gr in order to win, and still not win. Imagine cutting a kernel of Varget into 20 pieces and having the hubris to think you can shoot the difference, and then having absolutely nothing to show for it.
Primer seating depth consistency seems like a much easier variable to control.

Click to expand...

N570
+/- .06 grains

I don’t compete nor care to, I’ve done the competition thing with countless hours of practice.
It’s not for me anymore.

Give me a 10-20 shot SD under 10 and consistent 5/8 MOA or better groups.
Hell, even 3/4 moa If the SD was silly good.

In good conditions these requirements will put a smile on your face and in bad conditions won’t matter.
And best of all it’s easy to achieve, often substantially when you get one of THOSE barrels.

I have a fairly simple rule when someone makes claims to shooting very small groups all the time. This is not specific to anyone. General observation.

If their pics and/or videos is only with a bipod and rear bag, I pay zero attention to the claims.

Minimum to achieve consistently holding that kind of precision is an SEB rest or equivalent.

Mike Casselton said:

Rail guns. The pinnacle of short range Precision and accuracy.
To a person that can read the wind properly, they are nearly unbeatable.

A novice with a rail gun will have his ass handed to him by a Light Varmint shooter that can read and react to the wind.

Click to expand...

This has always been a question i pose to guys who tell me theyre certain and finding their loads in tactical/hunting rifles down to benchrest sized groups...

i havent meet a single one yet shooting over flags or worrying about the wind...