Видео

Like an STD reloading just doesn't go away, it just keeps spreading. I load over 27 different cartridges, and go shooting every other week, so it kinda got out of hand.

@ I might be at the Livermore range tomorrow. Want to go too?

So Tesla drivers do not have to obey the law? I see your logic Ken.

How so?

We are trying, but this is California and I am sure every one of those drivers are victims of social injustice.

Nothing, democrats are shit, they defund the police

We are trying to encourage the school to ask the SRO to post there occasionally and hand out tickets. We are trying to raise awareness at the school so that they install a camera system. At a minimum this would capture the parents that violate the stop sign and then the school can deal with them. I would say suspending the students for the carelessness of their parents would be a minimum consequence. Wait, what am I saying? No one believes in consequences anymore, just victimhood.

Yea, surprised me too.

@@bmghunter5966 thanks, we did, say Hi if you see us brother!

Thanks. That was the point of that test. Trying a new way to find a "good" load. Was watching the Dude from Little Crow and was trying his method, that along with a newly purchased copy of QuickLoad to get that started. Appreciate the appreciation.

Always great to hear from the wonderful helpful people that comment on the internet. I think your advice was invaluable and helps all of us be a better person. You are a true gift to humanity.

Agreed. I am disappointed in the 6 ARC and disgusted with the 224. In checking Gordon’s reloading tool post the loading, these are the wrong powders for these cartridges, even though they are in the “book”. Next time I will check with Gordon’s reloading tool first.

No audio with the spot shot.

No problem. I will create a blank sheet. I have one for each cartridge that I load for. If you have a particular favorite that you wish to try, let me know and I will send a blank one for that cartridge.

I would also apprecaite a. spreadsheet for the 6.5 Creedmoor.

@@FrancoisCloete No problem, I just need an email address to send it to.

@@FrancoisCloete you can send me your email address to send the Excel file to 00_winders_lengthy@icloud.com

MrBigcharl you can send me your email address to send the Excel file to 00_winders_lengthy@icloud.com

Good idea. I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions in a future video.

Because reading 3-5 shot OCW groups is akin to reading tarot cards! You can literally see whatever you want to see! I used the OCW method for years, was a big fan until the Hornady podcast showed the error in my thinking. OCW works to a degree but the Hornady method, backed by sound statistical evidence is a more reliable method and often quicker finding a load.

@@58harwood I agree the more data the better, but to get to a statistically valid solution requires more time and money than most people can afford. My point in my reply to you is that most of the people that I encounter that are gun owners, whether they be a the range or a competition are the nicest and most helpful people you would want to hang out with. Somehow when people get on the internet they seem to lose all civility and start acting like an a_ _. I appreciate good responses, the ones that are not helpful and in fact just demeaning will be responded to with tongue in cheek sarcasm and ridicule.

@@scorch101 But in the end it’s not “more time and money” than going the OCW route. That’s the common misconception that is not true! A 5 shot 5 group OCW test is a minimum of 25 rounds. And what do you have to show for it? Garbage in, garbage out! Any single 5 shot group is not diagnostic by themselves. You just shot 25 rounds and all of that data is suspect, incomplete, not all that reliable. Typically I’ll load one 5 shot test first, sometimes I’ll do a 10 shot group first but, the total number of shots always adds up to 30 rounds minimum total..If I get a flyer with the initial 5 shot group and the group already exceeds my expectations, I move on. If it looks possible/promising, I’ll go load another 25 rounds and shoot them over the first 5 shot group. So, I’ve used 30 rounds, you’ve used 25. However, your data points are incomplete, not that useful, lacking, not reliable. Whereas the one 30 shot group I shot is statistically more valid, more diagnostic. So, who’s really wasting time and ammo? The 5 shot, 5 group OCW test is statistically just a crap shoot. IMO 😎

@@58harwood I value your opinion, just try to be civil about it. Saying someone is clueless is classless.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am sure with this comment you will win RUclips most gracious, helpful and knowledgeable comment. You sir are truly a man among men, worthy of all the praise you deserve. Even I, a lowly resident of Commiefornia, with few, but still some opportunities to seek four legged prey successfully is surely in awe of your stalking prowess. A true king of the beasts seeking to make mankind to rise in your image.

Uh oh. Triggered !! Momma always told us that sometimes the truth hurts. You seem hurt.@@scorch101

Not at all, just acknowledging your obvious supremacy.@@elmerfudd7674

Thanks Jose.

Actually the video is very misleading and flat wrong in many of its assumptions and leaps to conclusions! Like I said, “clueless!”

Thanks, it actually surprised me.

If that works for you great. It did not work for me.

Ok, so I am not sure of your point. This is the reason you do OCW and validate with SD and ES. Am I missing something in your comment?

@@scorch101 Just stating that me and several other people have done the satterly method of load development to find the flat spots in velocity and every time you do that test the flat nodes are in a different spot every time sometimes they are close but never ever the same place twice. Iv seen a flat spot at example 45 grains repeat the test and that spot would move to 45.8 grains the OCW portion of your video is statistically a sound method but the velocity testing to find flat spots is worthless. Brian litz has a podcast with Eric cortina where they talk about this method to find loads and also have found the same thing iv noticed when trying to find a load this way.

@@terrycalvert7812 Thanks for the response. The method I mentioned in this video, uses both velocity and Point of impact to determine nodes. After you think you have a node then you still need to do confirmation loads of greater numbers around those nodes to make sure that your SD and ES are low. Preferably in the single digits or teens.

@@terrycalvert7812 I have found the very same thing and it has me puzzled what to do next. A very low ES and SD node over a few different 0.2 grain weights one day, then 3 days later, totally different ES and SD's at the same charges. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Cheers

@@PaulWilliams-l7x the method iv had the most success with is the ladder test where I focus more on flat spots in impact at further distance say 500 and on out to even a 1000 yards! Shoot 2 shots at each charge and you will find normally a grain spread where all 6 of those shots will be within a cpl inches of each other the others will be spread out much more than your node then I load in the middle of that grain spread and do seating depth testing! After seating depth you might still need to play with powder charge a cpl tenths one way or the other just to see if the load can be improved a lil more! Iv also found with this method that I find a much more stable load that’s a lot more tolerable to temp changes and environmental conditions!! Long range only has a great video going through every step of this form of load development it’s about an hour long but if you want to learn how to do a ladder test and get the most out of it I’d watch it a cpl times and write things down there isn’t a better video I know of showing how to do a ladder test!!

Thanks.

Granted that Dan Newberry may have been the first to "coin" the term OCW, however it has evolved over time to encompass a method to try to determine the best charge weight and powder for a particular rifle, bullet, brass, primer and powder combination. My method tries to minimize the number of rounds by using both POI and velocity distribution. The thought here, ( and I am not the originator of this thought) is that dispersions in POI and dispersions in velocity are both related to the resonance of that combination of constituents. Finding the best or optimum charge weight such that the barrel is at a node or "least deflected" point when the bullet exits the barrel is the aim of the search. By combining both POI and velocity spread for a given charge weight you get to consider two factors to determine the optimal charge weight. If the POI spread and the SD occur at the same load, you may have found the node. A five shot grouping at that node + or - .1 or .2 grains would be the confirmation test.

@@scorch101 Your method, and Dan’s method, are statistically flawed, the sample sizes are way to small to be of any meaningful use in any way! Garbage in, garbage out! 👍

@@58harwood you see 58 you can post a useful text. This might surprise you but I mostly agree with you on the statistical value of this method. I find it useful to screen powders and loading without having to generate large amount of data. Recently I have combined this with Gordon’s reloading tool with the additional screen of no powder charge that has less than a minimum 90% case fill AND 100% powder burn. This may not tell you the best load but it will tell you the powder/charge combinations that are not worth trying.

All I’m saying is, like Astrology, many can see trends and supposed “nodes” when and where you want too! There is an implicit bias in the interpretation of the limited “data”. Look, I was the poster child for the OCW and Satterlee methods! In retrospect, I couldn’t have been more naïve, wrong or embarrassed! Just saying………

@@58harwood There are several versions of OCW, all of which are aimed at showing where the point of impact (not group size) is stable within a charge weight range. If you cannot see a very clear node on this basis, then you have a significant issue at hand. All these approaches are based on positive compensation, and in fact the barrel harmonic frequency can be determined by this type of test. It is quick, easy, and reproducable.

@@lngrange8912 It's the same thing with a slightly different focus which, is a another non event because it uses the same lack of data points & draws a similarly irrelevant conclusion. It would be worth your time to do a little study on the subject of statistical relevance & how to achieve it.

@@lngrange8912 That's the very problem though. The data seems to be representative but, it isn't, at least not for the question you're asking. You have to allow the data to tell the story & not impose upon it something other than what it can statistically support.

Doing a ladder test/ocw with 3 shot groups is a fast track to eliminate the noise. If you’re measuring powder weight accurately then simply looking at extreme spreads of the data will tell you enough about powder charge to eliminate charge weights of a load. Since ES is a prediction of SD we can simply look at our ES to tell us where SD will be bad and eliminate them as a potential node. 3 shot groups provide a 59% confirmation of 20 shot groups. 5 shot groups 74% and 10 shot groups 89%. So 3 shot groups are enough to say with 100% accuracy a charge weight will be bad and 59% confidence they will be good. Once that data is collected it’s time to Increase our firings of a 59% confirmed charge weight. You do this by increasing to 5, 10 or 20 shot groups. This time being able to analyze the data with more scrutiny. If ES and SD are where you’d like them to be then it’s time to do the depth test. The mistake people make is taking 3 shot groups of accuracy and saying thats a node. You don’t use 3 shot groups to confirm a node, you use it to eliminate where a node isn’t. Hope that helps.

@@4bigwheels09 I see what you're getting at. The problem with that assumption is that it supposes that all the data represents what should be happening at a particular charge weight over the three or 5 shots. The same issue applies to reading group ES. The 1st erroneous assumption is that any significant deviation is due solely to the charge weight applied without any other supporting data. The 2nd error is the fallacious logic that a significant deviation represents the ongoing characteristic of that charge weight. In both cases of velocity & group ES, the assumption should be that the rifle is just firing one shot after another in a continuous series & not divided into blocks of small samples. One large deviation in 5, 10 or 20 shots does not mean much without the remainder of the data. This is the reason why low sample numbers are misleading because we never get to see the real data trend. Low sample numbers hide the real trend & cause the shooter to infer a far greater emphasis on one or two data points well before a realistic data trend is evident. For example, one significant velocity deviation in 3 or 5 looks far worse than that same velocity deviation in 20 whereby, the SD of the 20 shot group show a very consistent trend with the one significant deviation standing out as an anomaly rather than a defining data point. The same situation applies to group ES. One significant deviation stands out amongst 3 or 5 shots but, 20 shots may have revealed 19 shots in one inch with that large deviation at 2 inches. What that tells me is that the shot at 2" was an anomaly & the rest support the overall effect on the target. It's not only possible that a very good "Node" could be discarded but quite probable. I don't know when shooters are going to understand that statistical principals cannot be shortcut & achieve anything meaningful. Thorough statistical testing is very reliable only when used correctly. When shortcuts are used, it is no longer statistics & cannot reliably be used as an extrapolation method.

Such a nice reply from such a courteous person, thank you so much for being alive. I am sure all your friends cherish your acquaintance.

It's not 1970 any more numbnuts. We use chronographs these days and not your 50s alien movie antenna ones your grandfather used to rely on. Do it your way then, no one is telling you to do it this way. I for one use 3 methods. This, the 5 shot group and then 20 shots at 1200yds. If they all land on the same place, I know it's a good load. Usually between 17-25fps ES is what I end up with. There's is no sure way to do this or a real proven method. Anyone that's shot enough at far distances will tell you that. All anyone can do is get close enough and guess what? Too many variables and too many things figure into what the outcome will be. You are going to "waste" components like it or not. If you're not ready to accept that, pick a different hobby.

Agreed. I have found that even 2-3 per load to determine a node followed on the next trip with a 5 shot confirmation load of the node usually works.

Sorry for the late reply, I actually do not use that data at all. I think I just nerded out on the Excel sheet. "If it can be done, and it is useless, someone will do it." said by someone somewhen.

Sorry, no. Perhaps I should do an entire video on determining seating depth. Short answer is once you know your chamber dimensions and where the bullet touches the lands, I start at 20 thou back (if possible, due to magazine limitations) and start playing around forward and backwards from there.

Fernando, unfortunately I was not the camera man but have access to all the raw footage. I can look for you in that if you want, but I would need a picture of you contemporary of 2007 to find you. We all change a bit dude, I know I do not look like I did 16 years ago.

Yes

@@scorch101 thanks!

Yes

Yes

@@scorch101 Thank you very much!

Yes

@@scorch101 Thanks.

Yes

@@scorch101 Thanks man and hit subscribe

Yes

@@scorch101 Thank you!

Prior to this auto-fill system, I had a fill line run into the pool from the side hooked up to the water line in my house. I attached the valve (like an auto sprinkler valve to that line and it is activated by the auto fill system.

Thanks Jasper, to each their own, but I appreciate the kind word.

The mount that I have my press on had trouble with the hose kinking and primers getting stuck in the tube that I had to constantly clean out. With the spring, I have NEVER had a primer get stuck and the spring just does not kink.

Actually the scope is on a tripod behind the firearm. I guess the muzzle blast is enough to shake the camera.

Thanks and I have no schmutz from the primers coming out of the spring. It all falls down into the catch bin in the top drawer.

Thanks

If you dig a hole near the pool while under construction as a fill location. Mine is in the skimmer.

Mine had the tube, but not a catch canister. The tube just kinked up too often for me to like how it worked with my mount.

It is a very sturdy bench and I also bolted it to the wall to keep it even more rigid. There is no flexing of the top and the wood is about 0.5 inch thick, The metal only runs around the edges I believe. I think it would be difficult to replace the wood top. Thanks for the comments and questions.

Thanks.