• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Case Study Of Optimum Barrel Time For 308

CharlieNC

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
May 15, 2011
355
41
74
Valuable load development approaches such as the Audette ladder test and Dan's OCW are based on finding the powder charge range which yields a minimal effect on the vertical point of impact (POI) as the charge is varied; these are the so called "nodes". While the merit of these methods is clear, a major question is why does this work? How can you add more powder, which results in higher pressure and velocity, yet the POI will actually fall? Everyone appreciates the fact that barrels vibrate at various frequencies but Chris Long developed a bit of a different view in theorizing the propagation of a shock (pressure) wave back and forth from receiver to muzzle. Probably the most useful aspect of his work are several simple equations which enable one to calculate the nodes directly based only on the barrel length, as opposed to needing the sophisticated software required to determine the complex vibration patterns. The nodes are expressed as optimum barrel time (OBT), which is the time the bullet spends in the barrel before exiting the muzzle, in order to avoid the shock (pressure) wave disturbance. So how can this be applied and used? The good news is barrel time is one of the parameters calculated by Quick Load (QL).

To test this theory I carried out ladder tests for a Savage 308 with a 26" barrel 1:10 twist. Brass included WC and LC which have different capacities, which is an input field in QL. Sierra Match King 168 and 175, plus the 155 Palma bullets were evaluated; the differences in seating depth are also incorporated in QL as these change case capacity. For simplicity only the results for RL 15 powder will be shown here. The vertical POI was measured at 200 yards and the reported results were centered for each bullet type.

First it is interesting to note that the POI node at the low charge of 42.5gr RL15 is similar for the wide range of bullet weights, although the associated pressures and velocities are very different according to QL. Due to the lighter bullet weight, it was possible to extend the charges to find a node for the 155 Palma around 46.5gr.




The barrel times for all these cases were determined using Quick Load to see how the results compared to the calculated OBT nodes, which are at 1.19 and 1.33 milli-seconds (ms) for the 26" barrel.


It is evident that the POI nodes match very well at the OBT nodes! I have found similar results for other calibers, bullets, powders as well. So I am convinced the OBT theory is quite valid, and beyond providing a short-cut to minimize time and cost it is also useful to help diagnose other issues. For example, while the seating depth is accounted for in terms of the effect on pressure/velocity/barrel time all of the other complex mechanical aspects of seating into or jumping to the lands is not. So if your are way off on the jump, the OBT calculation should have you in the ballpark when it comes to powder charge so you are not chasing that as well.

Since this was very conclusive evaluation it was time to change something so I cut the barrel back to 20" and found a case of IMR4064. Using Quick Load and the new OBT nodes it was quick and easy to home in on a good POI node with minimal time and effort.
 
As far as I know you will need Quickload to determine barrel time.

Chris long has a website describing all of this and he has a chart to help you determine the OBT for your barrel length as well as a calculator using excel.

Optimal Barrel Time Paper

A friend of mine introduced me to OBT method a while back and it's all I use now. I've done side by side testing using OCW and OBT and almost always the results are the same. Only it takes less time and ammo using OBT.

Nice job OP!
 
Last edited:
Yes the OBT nodes for a given barrel length are straightforward from the C Long paper. Then you need Quick Load to calculate the powder charge to achieve the node for the particular powder, bullet, brass, etc. Instead of simply using the defaults it is much improved to measure your exact case water capacity, realistic case overall length if you are not sure, and confirm other critical dimensions as inputs. It is also very informative to calculate what-ifs and other possibilities of interest. That is why I chopped off my 308 barrel to a more fun 20". For some reason it was limited to a "low" pressure before blowing primers and bolt sticking, and I determined that it would be always be a marginal situation chasing 1000 yd with the velocity I could achieve at an accuracy node. Plus that gave me a good reason to get a new 6.5x47!
 
Charlie, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to send your data to Chris Long. He might have moved on from efforts to try to confirm OBT's efficacy, but I'd bet he'd be interested to see your results.


OBT first caught my eye because what it predicted matched the meticulously tweaked pet load in my .204 Ruger varmint rifle, to the tenth of a grain. When I used it on my .308 PBR, the OBT-predicted 168-gr SMK load shot groups essentially identical in size to 168-gr FGMM (~1/2 MoA), which I'd reckon is the best that barrel ever could shoot (with me at the wheel).

I had some nickel-plated Hornady .308 brass lying around that I didn't want to use in "production" runs because nickel doesn't anneal, so I decided to use them for 'fouler' rounds. Since they were the only nickel .308 cases I had, it'd be pretty hard to mistake them for 'production' loads. But there's no reason why foulers shouldn't be expected to shoot well, right? And if there was anything at all to this OBT nonsense, despite the difference in case capacity from my 'production' brass, it shouldn't be much trouble to work up a reduced charge load for them that was two accuracy nodes lower than my (OBT-predicted) production load (saves powder, and wear & tear on rifle and brass, right?).

So I backed down two nodes in OBT-predicted charge weight. The reduced load also shot almost identical groups to the FGMM (within <10%). Just for giggles, I tried it again, one node higher (couldn't go any lower for fear of SEE), mid-way between the foulers and my production load. Same result.

At that moment I stopped fretting over whether Optimum Barrel Time worked, and switched to trying not to break the mojo.
 
Fred, Chris did review this particular data and he was pleased to see someone else provide a bit of comprehensive confirmation. I have similar data for 223, 6BR, and 6.5X47. The main aspect which differs is the steepness of the POI vs powder charge response; the good combinations still exhibit the nodes but the overall sensitivity is less. The lack of good info in this field is surprising to me; maybe there is a lot of gov't DOD knowledge that just doesn't go public. We put a man on the moon with a slide-rule (I still have two of mine) and first Space Shuttles had far less computing power that our smart phones; fast forward to today and you can design and build damn near anything you want with unbeliveable computing hardware and spit it out with 3D printer! But most of the info I find on this topic is very old DOD. I'm semi retired and have plenty of time to play with this stuff now, and find it very intriguing; I would be interested to learn if someone else had other real world examples relating the computation and prediction of accuracy using different approaches.
 
5c8c9a15433a845f4520ca058aa8f27a3ab4733e42ff4343df29eb3dc23b8d2a.jpg
 
Do I have to buy Quickload in order to calculate OBT? Or are there other ways to do it. The $157.00 was holding me back. Was interested in it for one rifle.
 
Interesting....I'm not at all familiar with QL but what kind of inputs are required to get this data? Powder, bullet, seating depth, case, cartridge & barrel length? QL must have some database to draw from to formulate this kind of info. Have you seen this work on other cartridges?
 
Check the C Long paper on OBT to get the formulas that you can plug into excel to calculate the OBT nodes; then you need Quick Load to work up loads that will give you the barrel times to match these targeted nodes. QL has a large data base of calibers, bullets, powders and you can use the defaults to simply plug in your powder charge, but much more accurate results are obtained by measuring actual water capacity of your brass plus the COAL. It is very informative to see the large effect of these types of variables, plus how they work. Wish the QL data base was updated to include 2000MR!
 
Spent a lot of time reading today...Not sure I have my head wrapped around it yet but I'm gaining. I spoke with NECO on QL but decided I need to understand the C Long paper better before I purchase the software. Very good post Charlie.
 
If the program can calculate for actual charge weights and precise vertical units of point of impact in milimeters I assume there must be provisions for entering powder lot numbers and barrel cross sectional density and material as well?
 
M40 the program does not calculate POI; the graphs show the results of my load development shooting and the POI across a range of charge weights. The key point is to demonstrate that the actual POI nodes do in fact occur near the predicted/calculated OBT nodes; very useful info to know in advance when developing your loads. Or when you want to select a new rifle or barrel, you can run what-if cases to decide if that short barrel can give enough velocity (calculated by QL) for long-range with expected accuracy (OBT node).
 
I noticed in the Chris Long paper that he says that barrel length is generally figured from the center of the chamber instead of the bolt face. Is that basically from the front of the action? Sort of like a cantevered beam if your barrel is free floated.
 
Do you use actual Barrel Length or Effective Barrel length? When you enter your barrel length in QuickLoad it displays effective barrel length, I assume based on chamber. Which do you use in the formula?
 
In Chris's writeup he bases the barrel length as measured with a rod inserted in the barrel to the bolt face for simplicity.
 
Just because, I'll be a contrarian:

What you're seeing is not OBT at all. In fact OBT is incorrect in that while longitudinal waves may exist, they have no meaningful impact on bullet dispersion since they're, well, longitudinal. Dispersion comes about because of lateral motion.

What you're seeing is the old fashioned vertical whipping motion of the barrel that has been seen by shooters as far back as 100 years ago. "Nodes" appear because the vertical velocity imparted by the barrel's whipping motion can help cancel out variations in muzzle velocity. I think that if you plot the elevation vs velocity, and subtract out the elevation change to due velocity, what you'll see is a sine wave who's frequency is more closely matched to the whipping motion than the longitudinal motion.
 
In Chris's writeup he bases the barrel length as measured with a rod inserted in the barrel to the bolt face for simplicity.

How can this make sense? I would think the harmonics of a barrel would be dependent on only that portion of the barrel that is free to vibrate. i.e. ahead of the receiver or lug, not including any part that is essentially one with the receiver.
 
Last edited:
How do muzzle brakes effect the node? I would think that brakes would change the timing of the node depending on their size and weight.
 
For side to side (whipping) "modes" of vibration, any change in the weight distribution of including barrel contour, fluting, or weights will change the frequency and amplitude of the vibrations. I believe these are by far the dominant modes that we care about, and this is why tuners like the browning BOSS work. Also, the manner in which the barrel is held matters greatly. Of course, 99% of the time, that means threaded into an action, but other methods (like barrel blocks or isolation systems) will change the vibration patterns. Finally, the third thing that matters are the forces that drive the vibrations and where they are acting. A recoil lug at the front of the action will drive a rifle differently than one at the rear. The inertia of a heavy scope will change things relative to a light weight scope. A dual port action will differ from a single port action, and left hand from right. It all matters - some things more than others, but some of the small things matter more than you might think, and others maybe not quite as much as you think. Unfortunately, it's just too damn much work to really sort out, so we guess a lot.

Even given the above, I've greatly simplified the dynamics involved. It's far to complex to boil down to OBT, which as I said earlier, I don't believe matters anyhow.

Harold Vaughn wrote a fascinating book on this topic (Rifle Accuracy Facts), and if you run across it, pick it up. Unfortunately it's out of print.
 
How do muzzle brakes effect the node?...
Very little, if at all. Another SH-er and I both asked this directly to Chris Long. His replies are here and here. And my experiences with shooting the same loads through the same rifles, suppressed and un, bears him out.

OBT is based on calculating the timing of a reflected wave traveling back and forth between the breech and the muzzle at the speed of sound through steel. The critical dimension is from the breech to the muzzle, minus any thread-on muzzle device. The speed of sound through steel is several times the muzzle velocity of even the fastest rifle bullet, so this wave overtakes the bullet several times in both directions before the bullet clears the muzzle. Which is the reason every barrel has multiple accuracy nodes.

If you're genuinely interested in learning, Chris's explanation of the OBT concept is a good place to start. It's a technical paper, not necessarily a practical one, so it's full of engineer's mumbo-jumbo. Wade through it if you can. Unless you're an engineer, it's mostly the conclusions that matter anyway.

Chris doesn't go into much detail on how to apply OBT for load development, and I was lost in the wilderness trying to figure it out on my own until I came across some work done by a fellow by name of David Wilson. In other posts here on the Hide I had linked to those pages at David's personal web site, but he no longer maintains it. Fortunately, those pages are still available in the Internet Archive. I linked to the archived pages here. I just checked and at this moment they're still available, so if you have even a passing interest, now would be a good time to archive a copy of them for your own.

I describe my basic process for applying OBT here. Even though I tried to explain it as simply as possible, it still sounds complicated, maybe too complicated. Once you've got your head around the concept, the telling is about 10x more complicated than the doing. I won't tell you mine is the best method, or even a good one, but it works well enough I'm sometimes stunned how test few loads I fire before I move on from deciding on a charge weight to tweaking seating depth. Since I got read on, fussing with seating depth always takes more test rounds than finding the proper charge weight.
 
Very little, if at all. Another SH-er and I both asked this directly to Chris Long. His replies are here and here. And my experiences with shooting the same loads through the same rifles, suppressed and un, bears him out.

OBT is based on calculating the timing of a reflected wave traveling back and forth between the breech and the muzzle at the speed of sound through steel. The critical dimension is from the breech to the muzzle, minus any thread-on muzzle device. The speed of sound through steel is several times the muzzle velocity of even the fastest rifle bullet, so this wave overtakes the bullet several times in both directions before the bullet clears the muzzle. Which is the reason every barrel has multiple accuracy nodes.

If you're genuinely interested in learning, Chris's explanation of the OBT concept is a good place to start. It's a technical paper, not necessarily a practical one, so it's full of engineer's mumbo-jumbo. Wade through it if you can. Unless you're an engineer, it's mostly the conclusions that matter anyway.

Chris doesn't go into much detail on how to apply OBT for load development, and I was lost in the wilderness trying to figure it out on my own until I came across some work done by a fellow by name of David Wilson. In other posts here on the Hide I had linked to those pages at David's personal web site, but he no longer maintains it. Fortunately, those pages are still available in the Internet Archive. I linked to the archived pages here. I just checked and at this moment they're still available, so if you have even a passing interest, now would be a good time to archive a copy of them for your own.

I describe my basic process for applying OBT here. Even though I tried to explain it as simply as possible, it still sounds complicated, maybe too complicated. Once you've got your head around the concept, the telling is about 10x more complicated than the doing. I won't tell you mine is the best method, or even a good one, but it works well enough I'm sometimes stunned how test few loads I fire before I move on from deciding on a charge weight to tweaking seating depth. Since I got read on, fussing with seating depth always takes more test rounds than finding the proper charge weight.

Thanks Fred for the additional information. I find this very interesting and have already applied the formula to two rifles to see if the calculation matched the performance. The first rifle, a Cooper in 6.5x55, has been a dead nutz performer with the very first load I ever tried. The second, a custom Remington 700 in 7mm STW, has been the most frustrating rifle I have ever owned in getting it to settle down and be consistent with any load. The formula on the Cooper had a node that was almost exactly what QuickLoad reported as my barrel time . The Remington on the other hand had QuickLoad barrel times for all my recent loads that were pretty much midway between two nodes.

So with those two examples I think I have pretty much justified the concept in my head. The proof will be finding and tweaking a load for the Remington that gets the barrel time closer to a node and improves the accuracy.
 
Last edited:
There are certainly many different harmonic frequencies associated with numerous aspects of barrel contour, bedding, etc. If you look at the VarmintAl website there are several computer generated videos which exemplify the frequencies, bending, etc including the longitudinal shock wave. If you have access to a nice computer, MatLab, and are versed in finite element analysis (FEA) you could learn a lot playing with this. According to Chris's writeup, his motivation was to explain nodes which in his opinion did not match up with the classical barrel vibration frequencies; hence the shock wave and OBT development. In the case of my case study, the observed POI nodes match up with the calculated OBT nodes which I would say confirm this is the dominant harmonic to deal with in my barrel. I have also seen this fit for other calibers and barrels. While this is not proof positive that this is the only or dominant harmonic for all barrels, it is clear that this is an important one that you should be concerned with. Good news is you do not need to be a FEA expert to use it.
 
I just finished reading all the links above. I understand what Mr Long is talking about (I used to build antennas for communications). Now that I understand OBT is there a formula to account for primer and powder burn along with the cases and chamber pressure without QL to land within OBT?

-Dick-
 
I have skimmed through this thread as I use this method and didn't see anything about QL / Powder calibration.

Don't forget, you have to calibrate QL to your "chronographed powder charge". It doesn't matter what charge you chronograph as long as all components are the same when you go to work a load up.
 
I have skimmed through this thread as I use this method and didn't see anything about QL / Powder calibration.

Don't forget, you have to calibrate QL to your "chronographed powder charge". It doesn't matter what charge you chronograph as long as all components are the same when you go to work a load up.
One of Dobbsie's posts links to stuff that links to the three tweaks used to calibrate QL to your chrono results.
 
I recently got my first chrono to try calibrating for closer agreement. After the initial comparison shown in the graphs here, I have done an abbreviated OCW around the caclulated OBT
nodes for confirmation. In a few weeks I hope to give an update on how well the chrono calibration improves predictability of the nodes for the loads that have not been dead-on in the past.
 
Help needed. After reading this thread and all the links with additional information regarding OBT, I decided to run a test through my 7mm STW this weekend. I plugged in all the case information and added a 180gr Berger Hybrid for a projectile. The rifle has a 25.5" barrel and I calculated a node at 1.39ms. I started playing with H1000 as a powder and after a few trial and error attempts arrived at 75.3 gr to obtain the 1.39 ms OBT with a velocity of 2833 and a 93% fill. Max psi was 54510; well within the max psi of 66717 psi.

I also used the QuickLoad feature to find a second powder that would yield the same 1.39ms OBT with a load that filled the case to 90% or greater. Out of the list I selected Retumbo at 79.1 gr, 2887 fps at 97% fill. I loaded up a few rounds of each and headed to the range today to verify velocity so I could tweak the load if necessary to match the OBT node. This is where things got a little strange. The H1000 averaged 2977 fps instead of the predicted 2833 and the Retumbo ran at 3095 fps versus the predicted 2887; over 200 fps faster. The loads did run hot with the primers well on their way to being very flat.

To match the velocity in QuickLoad I had to significantly bump the Burn Rate Factor and drop the load over 12 grains on the Retumbo. Did I do something wrong? I have used QuickLoad for awhile to select loads for various load development for other calibers and have never had this much variation.
 
Last edited:
I do not have QL but that could fall into a temp sensitivity issue. What temp was the load predicted and what was your ammo temp prior to shooting?

-Dick-
 
I do not have QL but that could fall into a temp sensitivity issue. What temp was the load predicted and what was your ammo temp prior to shooting?

-Dick-

I believe the default temp for QuickLoad is 70* which is also real close to the temps over the weekend give or take a couple.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
Are you using actual brass water capacity and COAL? If not this could make a lot of difference in actual vs calculated velocity.
Then it sounds like whatever you are doing to the burning rate factor is then being un-done with the extra powder; because 12 gr for 200fps doesn't pass the smell test.
Did you run a powder increment above and below the calculated for OBT to confirm being at a node?
 
Are you using actual brass water capacity and COAL? If not this could make a lot of difference in actual vs calculated velocity.
Then it sounds like whatever you are doing to the burning rate factor is then being un-done with the extra powder; because 12 gr for 200fps doesn't pass the smell test.
Did you run a powder increment above and below the calculated for OBT to confirm being at a node?

Well to be honest I did expect to be much closer to the estimated OBT than it turned out, and I did take along a couple of loads above and below the calculated amount and they were way over velocity and way up on the pressure scale. I adjusted the burn rate in QL for Retumbo to match the velocity I got at the range. I then backed the load down to get to the velocity needed for the 1.39ms that I was originally after. That difference in load in QL was 12gr and case volume went from 97% to 80 some odd percent. No I did not do the water capacity on the cases. I never had a need to but it looks like in this case I should at least clear that variable. I was using actual COAL, seating depth etc.
 
Water case capacity is 99.985 gr on a fired Remington 7mm STW case. Just for my own benefit and to make sure my QL (or me) has not gone whacko, will someone that has QL please plug in 7mm STW for a cartridge, 180gr Berger Hybrid for a bullet, bullet length 1.53, 25.5" barrel, COAL 3.795, case length 2.85, 99.985 case water capacity and seating depth .585". Select Retumbo for a powder and see how much of a load is required to equal a 1.39ms barrel time?

Thank you!
 
Water case capacity is 99.985 gr on a fired Remington 7mm STW case. Just for my own benefit and to make sure my QL (or me) has not gone whacko, will someone that has QL please plug in 7mm STW for a cartridge, 180gr Berger Hybrid for a bullet, bullet length 1.53, 25.5" barrel, COAL 3.795, case length 2.85, 99.985 case water capacity and seating depth .585". Select Retumbo for a powder and see how much of a load is required to equal a 1.39ms barrel time?

Thank you!

I came up with about 80.8 gr.
 
I came up with about 80.8 gr.

Whats the velocity? I get 81.0 for a 1.389 with a velocity of 2907 and 56803 psi compared to a max 66717 so it appears safe. But I pretty much guarantee a cartridge loaded to 81 grains to be a kaboom in my rifle. Something is really wrong with the data. It lists the Burn Rate Factor Ba as .3370

Hodgdon lists max load with Retumbo at 73.8gr and 2876 fps.


Sorry for stomping all over this thread. I'll start a new one.
 
Last edited:
What I love about Quickload is it really forced me to ask why on some things. In the end it has proven itself more and more, and saves me more and more money as I learn to dial each new firearm in quick.

Can't find my go to powder?? I just go to QL, put my load in and use it to reverse engineer loads using other powders.

You might be surprised at what velocities you can get with x y or z powder in certain combinations. Where you thought you couldn't spin a long bullet fast enough, you might have been at the wrong seating depth for that bullet regardless of what other bullets have done.

Just gives you more information and it will make you a better shooter. Great for handguns also.

There are little nuisances with certain things but it can definitely better help you select the right reamer for your application. I see too often people trying to put a square peg in a round hole when it comes to jump/jam etc. Understanding OCW/OBT both and using quickload as a tool can take your game up and save you money!
 
Sorry for interrupting but I have a quick question... I'm running the 215 bergers in a 30" Broughton 5c. I measure the bullet length, case capacity for h2o, case length and actual COAL. I have seen where the BA is set at .5. Well, using this does not even come CLOSE to giving me my velocities , pressures ect.. I found if I go back down on the BA to .33 or so it's closer.
So , is there an actual formula for adjusting this setting?? Basically , I'm inputting all the correct parameters but my speed and pressure is way to low from what I'm getting in reality.
 
That's amazing! Reflecting on my load development with IMR4064/175SMK, my nodes are/were the same as the first chart. 24" AI w/FTE brake.
 
If I gather all of my variables can someone run QL for me and give me a list of powders and charges that will work in my rifle. I am running low on powder and trying to find something available that will work.