I have to admit to thinking the same thing on many occasions.
- Thread starter Ndbowhunter
- Start date
Yeah, meh.. kinda.. lol
If the ammo is .2 MOA better than it was before, then the overall long term dispersion will be .2 MOA better regardless of if the shooter can hold perfect or can barely hold 1 MOA. A shitty shooter will go from 1.7 MOA to 1.5 MOA. Significant? Worth the effort? Personal decision time..
But from my personal standpoint, unless you're shooting for score in scoring rings, or doing ELR, most of the uber prep stuff is a waste of my time. You can cram virgin components together with thrown charges and 100% not have the ammo holding you back at a PRS/NRL match or for hunting within sane ranges.
Yeah, meh.. kinda.. lol
If the ammo is .2 MOA better than it was before, then the overall long term dispersion will be .2 MOA better regardless of if the shooter can hold perfect or can barely hold 1 MOA. A shitty shooter will go from 1.7 MOA to 1.5 MOA. Significant? Worth the effort? Personal decision time..
But from my personal standpoint, unless you're shooting for score in scoring rings, or doing ELR, most of the uber prep stuff is a waste of my time. You can cram virgin components together with thrown charges and 100% not have the ammo holding you back at a PRS/NRL match or for hunting within sane ranges.
I agree with all of that.
0.2 MOA is a big precision improvement, one I would certainly take (and so would most others). 0.05 MOA, not so much.
With quality components, quality reloading gear combined with a consistent reloading technique, its hard not to get loads that good with the equipment that's available today. You don't have to try that hard in todays day and age of reloading to get quality reloads that will shoot well.
I'm not a benchrest guy, I'm not looking to set the benchrest world on fire or set world records. For some, chasing precision to the finest degree is an objective, whether that's out of passion or necessity. And good for them, I find the learnings that come out of that interesting, and I respect them for attempting to move the needle.
Anyways, to each their own on where they draw that line for effort versus precision. The law of diminishing returns certainly comes into play, and its up to the individual where on the curve they want to call it "good enough".
How would you explain literally thousand of people finding the same node with 3 shots per charge weight and the OCW method?
I appreciate the tasting that some people have done, but I seriously doubt many have done the level testing and work that went into OCW. It was not one guy shooting at paper, and coming to conclusions.
That's easy. They see what they want to see. It's called confirmation bias & is the predominant driver of what most guys are pleased to call testing.
I used to think the "Satterlee method" used to work, as did many others. Until I did more testing myself and found that to be false 
I completely agree. Whatever it takes to scratch your itch is up to you and the sky's the limit with this hobby. I salute Orkan for recognizing a need, developing a product and bringing it to market. I may end up with one soon. I never thought I'd get an amp annealer or an auto trickler 4 but I'm enjoying them both and the confidence they bring that my ammo is as good as I can make it.
A method developed by internet lore by people who did not understand the context of the video or test, is not comparable to OCW.I used to think the "Satterlee method" used to work, as did many others. Until I did more testing myself and found that to be false
I'm not necessarily saying it is.A method developed by internet lore by people who did not understand the context of the video or test, is not comparable to OCW.
Internet lore?A method developed by internet lore by people who did not understand the context of the video or test, is not comparable to OCW.
I watched the man himself explaining his method in detail.
The only context I recall is the confirmation bias I spoke of.
What node have literally thousands of people found?
How many other people found different nodes?
Why do the amplitudes "between nodes" shrink as sample size increases?
41.6 of H4350 in Hornady brass with 140g bullet.
23.2 of 8208 with a 77g bullet
I don't even have to say what cartridge those are for and people will know them.
26.6 of varget with a 55g bullet 223
Whats the one everyone uses for 308 with 4064 that matches FGMM?
23.2 of 8208 with a 77g bullet
I don't even have to say what cartridge those are for and people will know them.
26.6 of varget with a 55g bullet 223
Whats the one everyone uses for 308 with 4064 that matches FGMM?
Last edited:
I have a CPS and love it. I recognize that its a luxury piece of reloading equipment, one that's not necessary to shoot at the level I require, but it's so much more better and comfortable to prime from then a hand primer. I dreaded priming until I got the CPS. The fact that it's very precise and consistent is a bonus to me, but I can't tell you at this time whether or not it increases precision.
I do have some testing I plan to run with the CPS and my 6BRA, mostly in relation to seating depth and ES/SD. ES/SD is easily measurable and quantifiable, one I can sort out over a few trips to the range and a few hundred rounds.
If you are using FGGM cases then you should work up from about 41.0 grains of 4064 to somewhere around 42.2 or so.
People choose the wrong area because they did the test or read the test wrong. They didn't find a node. You can tune accuracy with seating depth. Its all in there when you go read up on OCW. I appreciate the "testing" some of you guys have done, but you must also appreciate that OCW was not a method come up with by one guy shooting at paper and coming to conclusions.
Please show me your data that shows the amplitude between nodes changes.
Do you believe harmonics and bullet exit time play no part in day to day consistency?
So your telling me if you could have any priming tool on the market at zero cost, you would take the Lee auto prime over the CPS?? I need some of what you've been smokin'.. Lol
I believe they do, just not the type of barrel deflection OCW demands.
To begin with, the barrel whip attributed to OCW is unlikely to have an effect on the projectile because the frequency of that movement is too low. The frequencies I've seen range from 80 Hz to 150 Hz. Bullet barrel time ranges from approximately 0.9ms (0.0009) to 1.4ms (0.0014). At 80 Hz the muzzle displacement requires 12.5ms (0.0125) & at 150 Hz 6.6ms (0.0066).
I think the problem is obvious.
Some stuff just works.
That's why, when a guy has a 308 that isn't shooting, we tell him to try the Sierra 168 match loads.
Disclaimer: I do not suggest using any of I've below information without proper testing, because too many people want the easy button.
Work up to any load listed below.
45-ish gr VarGet 168 Sierra
To go along with that, 26.0 H-335 and a 50gr bullet. 223
30.0 Varget 105-107gr. 6-BR
20gr H-335 20gr V-Max. 17 Mach-IV or 17 Fireball
28.5-29gr N-133 65-68gr bullet. 6- PPC
I could go on and on, but certain combinations work in a lot of different firearms.
If I had someone ask me about loading 6.5 CM, I'd steer them towards trying/working up to the 140 Hybrid and 41.5gr of H-4350. Because it seems to work well.
With any loads, the handloader should test them carefully.
Don't discredit what mild winds will do at a lousy 100yds to your groups.
Keep good records too.
This is definitely true and it’s think for my next 260 bbl I’m not even going to work up a load.
Dillon 650/750 or 1050/1100 owners just primed and loaded another 1000 rounds of match ammo while scrolling through this thread....
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
This is operating under the assumption that it’s not possible that these were found after many thousands of range trips by hundreds of shooters.
The only way the argument that OCW was the reason behind this is if you could confirm people did the OCW and then it just worked directly after.
If at any time a substantial amount of people found something different in their OCW, and then found out it wasn’t what they thought, and went back to range to experiment, then the argument is invalid.
Which none of us can confirm at all. Therefore the way you are presenting OCW “proof” is not a valid angle.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just that you can’t produce any meaningful data beyond asking questions like “how come so many” which is impossible to quantify or verify.
However, people like Ledzep, Bryan Litz and a few others have data set after data set where OCW and things like positive compensation don’t produce the same results day in and day out.
They might not be correct either, but they have the data to show wherein you don’t (you meaning anyone on the other side of the argument).
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Not to mention, most people never go back and test the “bad” info.
I challenge anyone who wants to really check into things…..
Do your load development and find your best and your worst performing loads. Then do your seating depth test.
Now, load up 30 rounds of each charge weight and seat all the bullets the same in both sets
Find a friend or someone to blindly feed you ammo. Where they know which shot was the good and which was the bad. Have them keep a log of those shots. Velocity and precision.
Compare them at the end.
I challenge anyone who wants to really check into things…..
Do your load development and find your best and your worst performing loads. Then do your seating depth test.
Now, load up 30 rounds of each charge weight and seat all the bullets the same in both sets
Find a friend or someone to blindly feed you ammo. Where they know which shot was the good and which was the bad. Have them keep a log of those shots. Velocity and precision.
Compare them at the end.
This is a huge point. If tests show differences day to day, then bad loads will turn good just as good loads will turn bad. But there are limits to time, components, barrel life, so it makes sense to settle on something that is good enough for what you are trying to achieve day in and day out. Of course, what Litz is trying to achieve is different from what I am.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Most of the time, the difference between “good” and “bad” is much, much closer than people realize.
Especially in this discipline shooting off bipod and rear bag at steal, or off props. Most anything with quality components and consistent loading methods will produce ammo far better than needed.
That’s the reason the 10 shot method “works.”
It’s literally just the shooting version of spinning a wheel with random charge weights. All of them will work plenty fine for most people.
The quality of components and reloading equipment makes it almost difficult to load bad ammo, which is probably why the 10 shot method may appear more effective then it truly is.
I've done a lot of testing with different charge weights in my 6BRA, trying to find the most "optimal" charge. What I've ended up finding is that there's a huge window where performance is relatively the same.
In a lot of cases, I find that we as reloaders try to draw conclusions using small data sets, that aren't necessarily there. We don't rigorously test and retest to confirm or disprove hypothesis', and really, most loads work well enough for what we do.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Agreed.
I also don’t mind small sample sizes for eliminating stuff. If it shoots like shit for 3 shots, no need to keep going.
It’s amazing how simple load work ups are. I used to get really technical and spend a lot of time and ammo to find the load. Now I’m usually pretty good after about 10 rounds. 10 rounds and I can usually judge if the combo is going to work or not.
I think most of the time wasted in my past was from paranoia and the risk of blowing myself up.
Some call it complacent, I call it frugal.
Bullets, and cartridges seem to perform best at certain velocity nodes, it all started with factory ammo like fed gmm, and how it seems to work with several thousand rifles out there. They’ve figured out a good enough powder combo to work across the board.
Last edited:
Something I have noticed in my rifle at least is that the heavier projectiles give more consistent results on target.
I've done a lot of testing with 30 cal 125's, 130's & although I can get them to shoot very well, the heavier 168's seem to shoot well no matter the seating depth or powder charge. Never see a lot of difference with the 168's.
I've noticed a similar situation with my 243. I often wondered about that.
I've done a lot of testing with 30 cal 125's, 130's & although I can get them to shoot very well, the heavier 168's seem to shoot well no matter the seating depth or powder charge. Never see a lot of difference with the 168's.
I've noticed a similar situation with my 243. I often wondered about that.
In hunter benchrest, the 30BR rules the roost, and they shoot 110-125 gr with an 18 twist. Depending on your twist, you could just be spinning the light bullets too much.
That has definitely crossed my mind. The barrel I have in at the moment is 1:10.
The barrel which will be replacing it is 1:13 chosen for 155's. It's a straight truck axle & I look fwd to some excellent results.
and I was banned from SH because I argued with orcan for his super druper primer seater...
and ES/SD doesnt count... brian measure his velocity with real radar, we measure with labradar, which is +/-0.1%, which is 3 fps if we have 3000 fps.
so if our bullet is 3000 fps quick, our labradar can say anywhere between 2997 to 3003 fps.
so I can only laugh when I see proof for AMP annealer, when labradar show 0 fps difference... in reality it can be 6fps difference, and labradar will still say it is the same speed...
and ES/SD doesnt count... brian measure his velocity with real radar, we measure with labradar, which is +/-0.1%, which is 3 fps if we have 3000 fps.
so if our bullet is 3000 fps quick, our labradar can say anywhere between 2997 to 3003 fps.
so I can only laugh when I see proof for AMP annealer, when labradar show 0 fps difference...
in reality it can be 6fps difference, and labradar will still say it is the same speed... Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
and I was banned from SH because I argued with orcan for his super druper primer seater...
and ES/SD doesnt count... brian measure his velocity with real radar, we measure with labradar, which is +/-0.1%, which is 3 fps if we have 3000 fps.
so if our bullet is 3000 fps quick, our labradar can say anywhere between 2997 to 3003 fps.
so I can only laugh when I see proof for AMP annealer, when labradar show 0 fps difference...
Please post more. You can’t beat the free entertainment.
Also, fyi, Lou Murdica isn’t using a Labradar.
As explained to Dan Newberry by the engineers he consulted when developing his OCW theory. You can't find a node by looking at velocity, ES, or SD. You are looking for the largest areas, with minimal POI shift from charge weight. I usually use 7-8 charge weights, which is 21 to 24 rounds, to identify charge weight with an unfamiliar combo. With a familiar combo, I can usually cut that to 9-12, just to identify the edges of the node in a new barrel. I.E, At what charge weight the POI to shift happens.
When you compare charge weight POI "nodes" to the precision of our current reloading equipment, like Autotricklers and Prometheus', etc., do you find that these nodes are smaller then the precision resolution of our modern powder throwers?
To ask more simply: in todays world with modern powder throwers, does a POI node even become a consideration? With modern equipment, are we moving between and in and out of POI nodes because our current generation of powder throwers are not precise and consistent enough?
I'll admit that I personally haven't done the Dan Newberry OCW method, but I also haven't really found a need to either.
I’m at the point of 20 some years of doing this, I can pick a known popular load, like supercormdogs said and it most likely will work, I’ll test it at long range and if it gives me a good vertical, I’ll just roll with it. I sometimes will start a grain or two below if the rifle is showing a tight chamber or short throat. But most of the time, with in 10 shots I know if I have to move on or not.
If is not performing very well I might do a OCW or a ladder and see what’s going on. Most of the time I’ll start playing with seating and dial it in. Sometimes it doesn’t work, but most of the time I can find something to work.
I haven’t done one in several years.
Admittedly I’m getting lazy.
Then there’s guys who rely solely on factory ammo and manage to do pretty well.
If is not performing very well I might do a OCW or a ladder and see what’s going on. Most of the time I’ll start playing with seating and dial it in. Sometimes it doesn’t work, but most of the time I can find something to work.
I haven’t done one in several years.
Admittedly I’m getting lazy.
Then there’s guys who rely solely on factory ammo and manage to do pretty well.
Last edited:
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
This issue is, there are other engineers who also advise the opposite.
I mean some literal world class shooters use velocity to find a node. Pretty hard to argue with if it works/ wins.
That being said I'll be developing a new load this spring and I plan to do both a ladder test and OCW and compare the results.
Could you sight the source, please?
Some cases are easier than others too. Most of the 6mm stuff used today is really easy to load for. I just chose a charge weight inside of book data for my 6 Creedmoor, sighted it in, shot some 600y groups and carried on. I did the same thing in my 280. ES and SD were fine, vertical at 600y was fine. There is big difference between saying, this made good enuf ammo, and OCW doest work. We can argue about the samples not being big enough, but somehow people are landing on the same powder charge weights using the same test. Yes, its anecdotal, as is most everything we do.
I totally agree with you. OCW works, a ladder works. Thankfully for my lazy ass, just starting with a known good load works most of the time for me, minor tweaks are sometimes needed of course.
Sure lots of reasons to consider what charge weight to use based on where you will have a POI shift based on charge weight.
POI shifts in my 6.5 Creedmoor around 41.2 and 41.9 or something very close. I load 41.6, so my Charmaster makes that 41.5-41.7ish.
In my 300wm they are usually over 1g wide, so I throw charges for it unless I am doing load work up.
I have seen some Dasher and BR targets, that the POI didn't shift for the entire work up.
I was going to do a 50 round test on my next batch of 6.5 Creed throwing h4350. I know ledzep had mentioned in this thread and talked about it more extensively in another, that he throws most of hist stuff now to save time. Reducing time at the bench is always high on my priority list.
I throw all my 223 stuff also, 8208 meters pretty well, Varget not as well, but 26.4-26.8 all shot 1.7" at 300y with 55 v max. WC844 like water.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Bryan Litz for one. Would be hard to find anyone who has done more documented testing.
They have not been able to replicate OCW or any other type of positive compensation with any confidence. As well as have open invitations to anyone who can bring their rifle and ammo and shoot it over their equipment.
Thus far, no one has been able to show them anything that holds up over time.
Also, while not an engineer (or might be, I don’t know), @Ledzep constantly posts data here thar is well beyond what most anyone has published that shows what most people think they are seeing is mostly “noise.” Yet everyone just skips right over his posts as they can’t debate them with any research or data.
Last edited:
Actually Brian doesn’t believe shit. He tests gathers data and then makes a hypothesis. Then he again tests that hypothesis. No belief required.
It’s amazingly how just getting to a certain speed and a doing a quick jump test can get you a good load sometimes.
And refreshing, I remember pulling my hair out on certain rifles and cartridges back in the day.
Literally losing sleep over a 7 mag or win mag. With secant ogives and jammed bullets way longer than mag length. All these newer cartridges seem to have wide nodes and lots of research and development done with high accuracy in mind. Functional in mags, bullets with hybrid designs, It’s really starting to get a lot easier for folks.
I consulted with Dan via phone. Awesome guy. He saved me a ton of money and supplies……
Great. You can dispute it with him. Litz happily publishes his data. Show us yours.
I know for a fact that Litz uses scientific method a control and only publishes or makes a claim when it’s repeatable. That’s why he has debunked so many gun myths. Like this one.
Most of the shit I buy just because I like it, and for no other reason. A depression era person I am not. You cannot take it with you.
I know for a fact that Litz uses scientific method a control and only publishes or makes a claim when it’s repeatable. That’s why he has debunked so many gun myths. Like this one.
Most of the shit I buy just because I like it, and for no other reason. A depression era person I am not. You cannot take it with you.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Reloading Equipment PRICE DROP - Large lot of dies - Redding, Lyman, RCBS, Lee, Hornady
