Armory Sponsor
Fork in the road on load development - advice needed. (Page 2 of 2)
|
"Fliers" (according to me) There are two causes for "fliers" - shooter errors and small sample testing. The thing about shooter errors is you can, with practice, tell that you made an error. You can even predict where the errant shot will land. Knowing it was a poor quallity shot does not change the POI. However, if it lands where you thought you put it, you have options in dealing with it. I think windage errors fall into this category. IIRC, even at 100 yards, wind gusts can move you about an inch right or left. Fishtailing winds can result in double what single direction gust can cause. Small sample testing can also cause what appear to be fliers in your data. The thing is, they may not be anomalous shots. They could be a shot or two that are filling out the other side of the "bell curve" or filling out the tail of the bell curve. You can be shooting shots that populate the middle or one side of the POI distribution, then, seemingly anomalously, get a shot off-mean. For example, if you roll dice five times and get low numbers (1 thru 8) and all of a sudden you roll an 11 or 12. Is that a "flier"? No, it was a matter of time until it happened, it is normal. As would be a 9, 10, 11 or 12. It just so happened you rolled a few low numbers to start with. It was just a matter of starting with a small sample (your first few rolls). Add the wind, shooter errors and vagaries of small sample testing together and you can easily misinterpret the outcome of your testing. I see this type of thing ALL THE TIME when people post their test results. My favorite is posts with multiple five-shot groups. Each group is relatively small. Each group has a different center location despite the same point of aim. Overlaid on that common point of aim, the result is less stellar than they initially thought. |
|
Originally Posted By Trollslayer: "Fliers" (according to me) There are two causes for "fliers" - shooter errors and small sample testing. The thing about shooter errors is you can, with practice, tell that you made an error. You can even predict where the errant shot will land. Knowing it was a poor quallity shot does not change the POI. However, if it lands where you thought you put it, you have options in dealing with it. I think windage errors fall into this category. IIRC, even at 100 yards, wind gusts can move you about an inch right or left. Fishtailing winds can result in double what single direction gust can cause. Small sample testing can also cause what appear to be fliers in your data. The thing is, they may not be anomalous shots. They could be a shot or two that are filling out the other side of the "bell curve" or filling out the tail of the bell curve. You can be shooting shots that populate the middle or one side of the POI distribution, then, seemingly anomalously, get a shot off-mean. For example, if you roll dice five times and get low numbers (1 thru 8) and all of a sudden you roll an 11 or 12. Is that a "flier"? No, it was a matter of time until it happened, it is normal. As would be a 9, 10, 11 or 12. It just so happened you rolled a few low numbers to start with. It was just a matter of starting with a small sample (your first few rolls). Add the wind, shooter errors and vagaries of small sample testing together and you can easily misinterpret the outcome of your testing. I see this type of thing ALL THE TIME when people post their test results. My favorite is posts with multiple five-shot groups. Each group is relatively small. Each group has a different center location despite the same point of aim. Overlaid on that common point of aim, the result is less stellar than they initially thought. Agreed. If you are shooting in a competition, then of course the group is the group. But if you are doing load development or testing, called flyers absolutely get discarded, as the point is typically to find out if the equipment/load/system capability. |
|
Back in the day, before everybody had a chronograph, I used 3-4 manuals to get a ballpark charge and work my way up towards max charge using the OCW method. After getting good repeatable patterning, I tightened it up with seating depth adjustments, not always longer, sometimes shorter than magazine length. Most of my loads, I couldn't tell you the fps or the es/sd because I never checked, I paid attention to how the powder burned, the primer shape and the accuracy. I can tell you this, the ball powders that a lot of guys avoid due to temperature sensitivity, those were some of the most accurate powders that I tried. Of course, I used #41 primers to light the ball powder. Sometimes we get stuck on a powder/primer/brass/bullet combination that others are raving about, that just aren't working. I don't know why, but occasionally it's time to move on and try something else. |
|
At the risk of making you feel like you've wasted a fair bit of time (And God knows I ate that crow already)... Pick a powder. Pick a bullet. Load 20 rounds at a "middle of the road" powder weight. Shoot it. If it shoots well, adjust the powder weight to get the velocity you want. If it doesnt shoot well, scrap it and move on to another powder or bullet or both. That simple. Dont waste time with ladders and OCW's and dont risk false information with 5 or 8 shot groups. 1 powder, 1 bullet, 1 charge weight, 20 rounds. That should tell you whether your combination is going to work or not. It either does or it does not, and chasing your tail with .2 grain changes in powder is an endless time sink pursing a lost cause. That easy.  Thats the new world load devleopment technique and will save you countles hours of pulling out your hair. Now, if only I could get back that time I wasted using the old world methods..  
|
|
Originally Posted By 2JokersWild: At the risk of making you feel like you've wasted a fair bit of time (And God knows I ate that crow already)... Pick a powder. Pick a bullet. Load 20 rounds at a "middle of the road" powder weight. Shoot it. If it shoots well, adjust the powder weight to get the velocity you want. If it doesnt shoot well, scrap it and move on to another powder or bullet or both. That simple. Dont waste time with ladders and OCW's and dont risk false information with 5 or 8 shot groups. 1 powder, 1 bullet, 1 charge weight, 20 rounds. That should tell you whether your combination is going to work or not. It either does or it does not, and chasing your tail with .2 grain changes in powder is an endless time sink pursing a lost cause. That easy. Thats the new world load devleopment technique and will save you countles hours of pulling out your hair. Now, if only I could get back that time I wasted using the old world methods.. More truth to this than many care to admit. |
|
Originally Posted By 2JokersWild: At the risk of making you feel like you've wasted a fair bit of time (And God knows I ate that crow already)... Pick a powder. Pick a bullet. Load 20 rounds at a "middle of the road" powder weight. Shoot it. If it shoots well, adjust the powder weight to get the velocity you want. If it doesnt shoot well, scrap it and move on to another powder or bullet or both. That simple. Dont waste time with ladders and OCW's and dont risk false information with 5 or 8 shot groups. 1 powder, 1 bullet, 1 charge weight, 20 rounds. That should tell you whether your combination is going to work or not. It either does or it does not, and chasing your tail with .2 grain changes in powder is an endless time sink pursing a lost cause. That easy. Thats the new world load devleopment technique and will save you countles hours of pulling out your hair. Now, if only I could get back that time I wasted using the old world methods.. This is pretty much where I'm at. I would still argue that when you approach 100% case fill at a favorable velocity, have 100% burn, and tune your seating depth, you might get something that works much better than what you started with. But ultimately it's more about picking the right components than it is about incremental changes, and endless groups testing them. |
|
Originally Posted By lazyengineer: More truth to this than many care to admit. That said, if you can put your emotional attachment to the "old world" flawed methods and go into it with an open mind and adopt the new, proven practices you can save yourself endless hours in headaches and wasting components chasing a result you simply can never really achieve. Get yourself a coffee or beer, sit back and relax because shes a long one but Hornadys #50 podcast spells it all out.  Ep. 050 - Your Groups Are Too Small | SAMPLE SIZE | Then if you are still on the fence follow it up with episode 52  Ep. 052 - Your Groups Are Still Too Small | A Follow Up | And if you still need more data an author at Outdoor Life kind of said "Ok, but lemme test it...".....And he found the same thing. Rifle Nodes: How You've Been Wasting Your Time and Money on Load Development Its really, really illuminating on load development and if you accept it (And frankly, this is proven empirical stuff so you'd be a fool not to) it should change your load development significantly as well as set new expectations on what really consitutes an accurate rifle. The best takeaway though is it makes load development so much easier and so much faster. |
|
Please summarize the recommendations of your 2 1/2 hours of video. What sample size are they recommending? You can select an experimental sample size based solely upon statistical considerations. The user selects a level of confidennce they want in the results, how many defects they are willing to accept, etc., and the sample required follows from that. It does not even matter what you are testing - cartridges, gizmos, people,... whatever. I will tell you, it is BIG numbers and it is MERCILESS. An ammo maker can and should do this. You and I only get there over time, through continued use of a load selected from a much smaller sample. It is commonly called, "betting on the come". Most times it works because we rely on data from each other and from manuals. Sometimes it does not work. Applying statistical methods to what we do as reloaders and shooters will open your eyes. |
|
At this point I don't know if the OP settled on a particular load that met both objectives in velocity and SD's: "I have attempted to develop a MK262 clone load for a MK12 clone rifle unsuccessfully. My goal is repeatable sub MOA @100 yards and repeatable single digit SD." I can (maybe) see the desire for MK262 velocity, although unnecessary for the desired 800yds. A hundred fps below that number still is effective at the stated distance. The focus on "single digit" SD's shouldn't really eliminate an accurate load choice even if the SD's are in the 20's. Yes it affects vertical dispersion, but not much more than the shooter's ability to hold within that group size at that distance. |
|
Originally Posted By 2JokersWild: Well, the good news is its very scientifically proven by one of the largest ammunition producers in the world. Hornady. And backed up by a number of other people who are testing this if you decide to not believe Hornady. But...The take away is the facts are the facts, and its a damned hard pill for people to swallow to realize that, frankly, we've been doing it wrong for decades. That said, if you can put your emotional attachment to the "old world" flawed methods and go into it with an open mind and adopt the new, proven practices you can save yourself endless hours in headaches and wasting components chasing a result you simply can never really achieve. Get yourself a coffee or beer, sit back and relax because shes a long one but Hornadys #50 podcast spells it all out.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwumAGRmz2IThen if you are still on the fence follow it up with episode 52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yZyXwy40JMAnd if you still need more data an author at Outdoor Life kind of said "Ok, but lemme test it...".....And he found the same thing. Rifle Nodes: How You've Been Wasting Your Time and Money on Load Development Its really, really illuminating on load development and if you accept it (And frankly, this is proven empirical stuff so you'd be a fool not to) it should change your load development significantly as well as set new expectations on what really consitutes an accurate rifle. The best takeaway though is it makes load development so much easier and so much faster. I’ll definitely be looking for a summary, as it’s hard to allocate enough time for the full podcast. In general, I feel that many make the reloading process FAR too complicated. I typically can have a real good idea of a load in 25-30 shots, and within an extra 25-30 for confirmation, I tend to be set. The internet is a valuable tool for getting at least a general idea of what powder and bullet combo’s work in various cartridges. Initial load development from 2 weeks ago in a 1:8 twist 223. 4 different charge weights. Attached File Initial load development of the same charges, with a 0.2gr higher charge in a 1:7 twist last week. Note: the first rd in the upper left target was the first rd of the day. The barrel had previously been fired with a different bullet/powder combo. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By 2JokersWild: At the risk of making you feel like you've wasted a fair bit of time (And God knows I ate that crow already)... LOL I realize I have done that, but appreciate the opportunity to learn from you (collectively) and from some of my mistakes. |
|
Originally Posted By smoothy8500: At this point I don't know if the OP settled on a particular load that met both objectives in velocity and SD's: "I have attempted to develop a MK262 clone load for a MK12 clone rifle unsuccessfully. My goal is repeatable sub MOA @100 yards and repeatable single digit SD." I can (maybe) see the desire for MK262 velocity, although unnecessary for the desired 800yds. A hundred fps below that number still is effective at the stated distance. The focus on "single digit" SD's shouldn't really eliminate an accurate load choice even if the SD's are in the 20's. Yes it affects vertical dispersion, but not much more than the shooter's ability to hold within that group size at that distance. Pretty much narrowed it down to two, but have been super busy at work and will not be able to start loading and shoot them until after Labor Day. And to the other poster(s) points, I will use 10 or more rounds to get better accuracy/ ES/ SD data. 25.2 grains AA 2520, LC case, 77 grain SMK seated to mag length, and CCI #41 met accuracy & SD requirements, although arbitrary, that I put in place. |
|
Wanted to give an update. Today I explored the two accuracy nodes I found: -25.1 grains AA2520 with CCI#41 primers. -24.2 grains AA2520 with Fed GMM primers. And went + or - 0.1 grains 90 total rounds. -15 each 25.0, 25.1, 25.2 grains with #41. -15 each 24.1, 24.2, 24.1 grains with FGMM. Testing consisted of three 5 shot groups, with the chronograph running for all 15. Best powder charges were as follows: 25.2 grains AA2520 and CCI#41. -0.841 MOA average of 3 five-shot groups. -SD 14.4 -ES 55 24.1 grains AA2520 and FGMM. -0.655 MOA average of 3 five-shot groups. -SD 17.9 -ES 72 (Discussed below). I throw 23.9 grains on the 550, then trickle up to 24.1, 24.2, 24.3 as required, I may have forgotten to trickle up one. Next range session I plan to do one or both of the following: 2 x 10 round groups at 200 yards for any load tested to get better composite & chronograph data. Primary Goal: Seating depth ladder for 24.1 grains, as that accuracy is promising but want to see if a shorter COAL helps accuracy (elated with where it is) or SD/ES (want to improve). Backup Goal: Test 2.265” (approx) COAL on the 25.2 grain load. At 2.260” the powder was compressed on some of the rounds, leading to inconsistent seating depths and some seating die marks on the bullets. If nothing changes significantly here, and my Fed GMM SD/ ES situate, I will probably stop pursuing loads with CCI#41 primers. This was a good backup to the Fed GMM load but want to give due diligence on it. Below are the pictures of my 24.1 grain groups. If anyone can do an overlay of all 15 that would be cool. Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball puts it as 0.90 MOA center to center on the x-axis, same for y-axis. Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
At a certain point you are splitting hairs trying to improve that 0.6-something MOA load with playing around seating depth or +/- 0.1gr powder. The 223 case is notoriously difficult to get "single digit" SD's, and in reality is not going to make a difference at less than 800 yards. You have a good recipe and your rifle shoots well-just take it as is and go use these loads at distance. |
|
The fork in the road is behind you. Pick a load. Load a bunch of them (at least 100). Shoot them (use them not strictly as a test). If it were me, I'd be sure nothing weird happened to the vertical point of impact when the powder charge varied by +/- 0.1 gr. Once I had that, I'd load them progressively rather than trickling each. My personal preference would be to avoid a compressed load. If this is an AR, 2.265" OAL is too big for the magazines. Remember, there is always a tolerance on OAL and some will be longer than your 2.265" OAL. You are courting trouble trying to go that long for rounds that go in magazines. |
|
Originally Posted By smoothy8500: You have a good recipe and your rifle shoots well-just take it as is and go use these loads at distance. Excellent advice. My buddy shot this last night at 600 yards with a 6 Dasher out of a sling. This load is not really tuned for the rifle, but it shot well enough for him to have a personal record. He is a service rifle shooter, but he was shooting my rifle. Given the conditions and how well he was shooting, it didn't perform as well as he thought it should. Monkeying with tenth grain increments or .005 differences in jump is a huge waste of time if you are shooting single or a couple 5 or 10 shot groups. 
|
|
To the three posters above who replied, I appreciate your input. I’m going to stick with what I have at this point, and cease experimentation on this load. I will do the checks that you recommended next range trip after I zero the BUIS. I am actually looking forward to comparing my scoped shots to what I can do with irons. |
|
Originally Posted By Romano316: I’m going to stick with what I have at this point, and cease experimentation on this load. Let us know how it performs at distance. Oh, and here's some wind doping info for you. Wind rose is the number of 1/2 minute "clicks" based on wind speed (black dots) and direction on the "clock". :   
|
|
I liked it, so took a SNIP of the first figure. If only it were so easy. When I look down range I see all of the above. :-) Up close, the flags show the wind blowing left, then it switches and blows the next flag to the right. After that, it's usually either a strong left wind or it can be a head or tail wind. And that's just the flags! The mirage down range makes the target anything but round but you can usually see it running if the wind isn't too strong.. The grass actually is my favorite. It's easy to see for the first few hundred yards, even if there are no flags up. That scenario is typical but is so complicated (for me), I usually try to wait for a single condition to repeat (i.e., flags to the left, right, left). The problem is the clock is ticking. If shooting were easy, it wouldn't be nearly as fun. |
|
The wind reading notes was a page in one of my old score books from either Creedmoor or Jeff Owens, so I scanned it. I don't think they put it in the books anymore. The wind cards have the wind reading notes on the back side with 600yd rose. They can be bought at Champions Choice. Different calibers and scope turret choices: https://www.champchoice.com/mc-range-equip/wind-meters-wind-charts/?srsltid=AfmBOorV4H_JdYmTmloln7t0P5tKh3NS5seZPhTJvU4AunOURysf53Ys |
|
It's funny you posted those. Just the other day, I was thinking I would ammend my scorebook sheets to include places that allow me to indicate the mirage and flag conditions for each long range shot. My scorebook is a MS Word document modeled after the Creedmoor score book but tailored for my needs. I would have my reloading recipe (bullet type and powder charge), sight settings, speeds, shot call, actual points of impact, mirage and wind. An after-the-fact review of that information, especially if done while still fresh, might help as a training tool. I am still trying to learn long range. It would be interesting to know whethere there is any significant difference between the various bullets during actual use at full distance under real conditions. In my case, the 6 mm bullets are - 107 SMK; 115 DTAC and the new 120 Lapua. Alternatively, is the shooter limiting the system so much that the bullet differences are irrelevant. It is the process for load testing - Screening tests - a few shots (3 to 5) at close range (100 to 200 yd) of many recipes to find promising candidate(s) Verification tests - many shots (20 to 100) at full distance to prove the recipe really is good and holds no surprises Validation - continued use of the load in actual application (competition, hunting, etc) I know the latter posts may seem off-topic but I think they represents what the OP could do, should do, after getting past that "fork in the road". |
|
Originally Posted By smoothy8500: Originally Posted By Trollslayer: Up close, the flags show the wind blowing left, then it switches and blows the next flag to the right. Ha ha, like this? https://accurateshooter.net/Blog/greenlr02.jpg Eh... 1.5 MOA left, and hold a tight 9:00, as a start... |
Fork in the road on load development - advice needed. (Page 2 of 2)
Armory Sponsor