Thread: Testing a conventional approach to load development

@gimp thank you for spending your money and time to bring us this data. As well as other the other data in recent related threads. It is extremely interesting.
I have listened to Hornady #50 podcast, will be also take in the follow up #52 podcast.
All of this explains a lot of personal observations of variability in my ( usually 3 shot ) groups. I also realize I've wasted soooo much time and ammo on "a couple of clicks" when sighting/checking zero using 3 shot groups and looking for differences group size based on small changes in powder weight.

I get a hint of confirmation bias in the initial abstract.

[QUOTE]. Go back to the range, shoot again, start trying to "fine tune" when the confirmation loads do not meet the same level of performance as the initial test
/QUOTE]

I would ask what happens when the confirmation loads do meet the initial test? I get the feeling the author is perhaps holding the idea that the initial test is the best group in the ladder. When speaking as a hunter reloader, the initial test is a group that meets the standard required. Which is I think something you will agree on.

So my process is to load up a ladder from somewhere above book minimum- because I know my rifle and load- and shoot till I approach book max. If all groups in the ladder are under my required standard of 1.25 -1.5 moa approx then I will simply choose the one that gives me the velocity im after with the least powder and im done.

If none or many are not achieving the standard I want then I will try a different projectile. If that does not work then I will replace the gun.

The simplified approach. Same rifle 2209 147ELDM. Why? Better bullet, likely to actually be used from this rifle.

10 rd at 100m - acceptable for requirements. Speed 2600 avg as expected based on book data. .3 up .3 left to zero. SD fine as you expect with quality components.



3 at 300


3 at 400


At 500 (+) my hit probability is definitely dropping off on this small plate


I left home about 12, just got back. Load sorted

I sort of agree with STC.

I used to do load development. Nowadays I just load the max load with a decent bullet and if it doesnt lock the bolt up and the velocity is acceptable and it will shoot into an inch and a half, I am happy.

I dont see any difference between your approach and mine; although I produce less graphs.

What’s the barrel length of your 260 @gimp? I’ve got a model7 & 260 factory bbl that will be off to gunsmith shortly. Thinking to go 18in.

This rifle is something like 18-19 inches, I don't recall exactly

Sometimes you just have to use what is at hand. Some time ago I bought 300 rounds of Belmont 62 gn 223. Ive tried it in several rifles and none would shoot it well.

Today I was reviewing these last few "accuracy" threads and realized (Im probably a slow learner, beg your pardon in this is nothing new) maybe I could improve it.

Using the analysis tools to look at larger sample sizes I thought - maybe I can make this ammo usable. So I shot 3 groups of 5 shots on top of each other.

Then using BallisticX (but any of them will do the job) I analyzed the very average "group" and used its recommended offset to adjust the scope.

The result should be a very precise zero. This precise zero "improves" the ability of the combo to place shots on targets (fir this ammo, Wallabies and goats) at reasonable distances.

So the ammo is not wasted afterall.



Cheers

PS - bloody good shooting Gimp, well done!

Originally Posted by Tentman

Sometimes you just have to use what is at hand. Some time ago I bought 300 rounds of Belmont 62 gn 223. Ive tried it in several rifles and none would shoot it well.

Today I was reviewing these last few "accuracy" threads and realized (Im probably a slow learner, beg your pardon in this is nothing new) maybe I could improve it.

Using the analysis tools to look at larger sample sizes I thought - maybe I can make this ammo usable. So I shot 3 groups of 5 shots on top of each other.

Then using BallisticX (but any of them will do the job) I analyzed the very average "group" and used its recommended offset to adjust the scope.

The result should be a very precise zero. This precise zero "improves" the ability of the combo to place shots on targets (fir this ammo, Wallabies and goats) at reasonable distances.

So the ammo is not wasted afterall.

Attachment 254237

Cheers

PS - bloody good shooting Gimp, well done!

I'm a slow learner as well...but now I see it...good post, great conversation.

Originally Posted by Tentman

Sometimes you just have to use what is at hand. Some time ago I bought 300 rounds of Belmont 62 gn 223. Ive tried it in several rifles and none would shoot it well.

Today I was reviewing these last few "accuracy" threads and realized (Im probably a slow learner, beg your pardon in this is nothing new) maybe I could improve it.

Using the analysis tools to look at larger sample sizes I thought - maybe I can make this ammo usable. So I shot 3 groups of 5 shots on top of each other.

Then using BallisticX (but any of them will do the job) I analyzed the very average "group" and used its recommended offset to adjust the scope.

The result should be a very precise zero. This precise zero "improves" the ability of the combo to place shots on targets (fir this ammo, Wallabies and goats) at reasonable distances.

So the ammo is not wasted afterall.

Attachment 254237

Cheers

PS - bloody good shooting Gimp, well done!

That's the hunting accuracy that's been talked about so much. Don't really have an excuse for missing much at conventional ranges with that

Is that numbering in order of shots fired? If so I think you actually have something weird going on as it’s pretty clear the groups are walking up the page

Originally Posted by PerazziSC3

Is that numbering in order of shots fired? If so I think you actually have something weird going on as it’s pretty clear the groups are walking up the page

Nope. I just analysed them up the group

Had a crack at a 20 round group to get a better idea of my true zero and accuracy.
Blued Howa 1500, 308win, 20" sporter barrel, hs precision stock, Element Optics 2-16×50HDLR, Nikko Stirling zero-lok rings.
Shooting 165gn speer btsp's over ADI2208 in Sako brass.

5 shots then 5 minute break to let things cool down



Second lot of 5 shots (10 in total) then 10 minutes cool down.



Third lot of 5 shots (15 in total) then 10 minutes cool down.



Forth lot of 5 (20 in total)




I had one flier out to the right on it's own in the 3rd lot of 5 shots, I 100% know I pulled it I was getting uncomfortable and my back was spasming. It doesn't really matter but just worth mentioning. It was the first round of my 3rd 5 shot string, I got up and stretched after that and drilled the next 4 rounds back into the main grouping. I'm not trying to kid anyone or myself one outlier doesn't ruin that group.
20 rounds shot prone off my bipod 1.6" inside edge to inside edge is still plenty good and gives me a very good indication of my true zero.
Just want to say thanks @gimp your journey has been very compelling for me as a reloader.
Not bad for a $500 Howa in a flashy stock

100m or 100y? @dannyb

Originally Posted by gimp

100m or 100y? @dannyb

yards, of note the targets are not to scale despite the PDF saying they are....

And here is the latest evidence this approach just plain works. A 6mm ARC barrel that I'd shot for 200 rounds or so, showed promise as an ARC with the 103s but never "properly tested". Rechambered to 6mm CM.

Taken to the range last night and a ladder shot up to book max. The results analyzed using GRT (calibrated to the resultant case capacity and actual velocity etc.). It suggested an additional 50-100 fps was still on the table. Not wanting to run this rifle "hot" I rounded the load up to an even number and confidently loaded 50 rounds.

At the range this arvo to test and here are the results, which include the cold bore shot - I got interrupted hence finished at 9 shots. All good for hunting to 500M

Note that the shot order is not as labeled, the cold bore shot is in the middle of the group, maybe #8

I did get humbled a bit later, we went to 571M to shoot some gongs and despite a solid zero from the above group I cocked up the settings between the scope and Strelok and couldn't hit the 6" gong to save myself . .,. It did eventually get sorted but shows how many things can go wrong in this LR game