Using the Scott Satterlee load development technique with the Nosler 140 RDF and Hodgden H100V
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- In this video I demonstrate using the Scott Satterlee load development technique with the Nosler 140 RDF and Hodgden H100V. We actually load 25 rounds instead of 10, and also increase the charge weight only .1 grains instead of .2 to try and develop our Pressure / Velocity curve.
Subscribe for more informative videos: goo.gl/pMHmvu
Link to the video on the 6.5 guys channel: • S4 - 04 - 10 Round Loa...
I’m a reloading hunter. I load up carefully all my increasing charge loads. I just shoot till my gun makes it easy to group. I then note it, and load around the suspect good load to see how resilient. Good enough for my type of hunting.
Consistency is all about eliminating as many inconsistencies as possible. That may well sound like a self-confirming maxim, but it's a mantra that was beaten into me by a very experienced professional load developer years ago, and it's stood me in good stead. Scott's method, is founded upon diligent component prep. If you rush the process, without putting the work in, you'll get unintelligible results. I know, because I've made the exact same mistake myself. Yes diligent prep takes a lot of time, but rushing the process is a total waste of time. Your own time doesn't cost you anything, so why wouldn't spend that little bit extra and do everything that you possibly can do? With regards to Scott's method, I view it purely as a means to identify candidate loads which offer the widest margin of error with regards to inconsistent charge weights/environmental factors. I've personally found that the smallest ES candidates don't always produce the smallest group sizes. Likewise the smallest group sizes don't always produce the lowest ES results. If you're lucky, you may find a candidate that offers the best of both worlds. Ultimately I still test OCW on paper, with Scott's method complimenting that process. Velocity is the least important metric in my loads, as a World Champion explained to me "you don't claw back any lost points because you missed the fastest". You'll medal with an ultra-consistent 2,300fps load long before you medal with an unruly 2,800fps load.
When I’m ready to test my first work up. I plan to shoot load and shoot 20 rounds using the saterlee method. Instead of shooting 1 round at every .1grain, I plan to shoot 2 rounds of the same weight every .2grains. Basically it would be like running a 10 shot/.2grain test twice. By graphing the 20 shots as one graph, I hope to see a more apparent flat spot to focus attention on.
I have heard of several changes that people have used to validate this method for themselves. Ultimate reloder just posted his own variation, however he is doing this during fire forming, which I don't recommend. Best of luck to you.
Gonna hit the subscribe button. Nice to hear someone really flesh out all the possibilities with an open mind.
Duck Slayer hope you enjoy the channel. Always glad to hear input from the audience.
A complete brass should always be completed prior to any loading. Just take couple more variable out of the equation. I have done the Satterlee test have always used fire formed brass for the gun I am testing. I've been reloading for over 40 years, and still learning from my mistakes. But mistake I learn from. Keep trying. You'll get there.
Aah, you mean a complete brass prep completed??????
Great video! I found this vid because of the 6.5 Guys. I myself am a novice reloader and Im excited to get home and try this method for myself. I believe there is alot of merit in it's theory and I enjoyed watching your attempt at it. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, I have implemented a modified use of this method in my load development processes.
@@BoltActionReloading Now that you have tried it do you have any insight like do's and dont's, or improvements for this method?
@@cplmackk1 Its not a simple answer. I don't want to claim to be an expert either. I think that its interesting. I think that there are good and bad aspects to it as well. Anybody that likes statistics hates the idea of it because it is not statistically sound. If your reloading process isn't dialed in it won't help you at all. I will probably do another video on it but what it really has done for me is to look for variation in my reloading process. Addressing that is the most valuable step to me.
I didn’t know Scott invented it. I’ve used it since 1975. It is a good procedure After finding your group of powder charge, then waste 10 rounds with different bullet seating depth. It works. Good video
I am not sure he did. but he has a pretty good video covering it. People seem to have mixed responses to this idea so I thought I woudl make a video on it. Glad you enjoyed it.
What chrono did you use back in the 70’s?
Thanks for doing this load development test, it gives us another perspective how to do it from seeing the 6.5 guys load development. Keep going with using the same loads but using the once fired brass just to see if anything changes the ladder test.
I will probably try to repeat this at least once to see the difference before I start tweaking things too much. I am very interested to see where I can get with the least amount of testing. The 6.5 guys video alludes to being able to do this with multiple powders so It would also be interesting to see if this follows with other powder choices.
I have tried it before. It has directed me into a number of very sound loads, but I have only ever tried it with brass that has been fire formed in my chamber. My initial trial in 223 netted me a load that shoots in the .2's in my tikka 223 varmint using cheap S&B primers and 75gr bthp bullets. I am going to give this a shot tonight with fireformed hornady brass, h4350 and 140gr RDFs.
Let us know how you go with this please Justin, very interested in the load up with the H4350 as well. Thanks.
The test relies on a consistent SD to tell you anything. I often get terrible SDs during fire forming, but single SDs afterwards. So my recommendation would be to repeat the test with fire formed and trimmed brass. If you're going to sort brass, select those with the most uniform neck thickness.
I don't disagree, but I hate to start with neck turning as I would prefer to load without doing that. We very well may end up there before this is over. I honestly thought about loading them all with the same charge and picking the ones with the closest velocity for a given charge and going with those.
moparmadman I hate to keep citing Zediker, but he's probably forgotten more than I will ever know. He says the best way to sort brass is by selecting those that yield Xs. Second best way is to select those cases that come out of the box with the most uniform neck thickness because it speaks to the overall uniformity of the case. So you don't have to turn the necks. Just go with the best of the lot.
+njgrplr2007 I recall that in the book. But I don't want to discard 3/4 of the lot either. Creating 5 sub lots out of 50pcs defeats my purpose.
I’ve tried this method with several guns and found the same. It relies on the existence of a low-SD node, so brass quality is critical. For me, it worked great even in virgin Lapua brass (6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5x55 Swedish). It was kind of meh in PPU 7.5x55 brass, and it was awful in Lapua 7.62x53r.
Hybrid 100V is one of (if not the) most accurate powder in two of my 6.5 CR rifles. With 140 gr SST, the best accuracy node is between 40.6 and 40.8 with Hornady neck sized brass. My velocity runs between 2640 and 2660 consistently.
So your thinking that the graph might not be a fluke then?
That's correct. I consistently shoot sub .5 MOA (five shot groups) with the 40.6 load.
What primer do you use?
CCI 200 Large Rifle.
the sill is desired and important because powder performance may vary with temperature and throat erosion. By using a powder charge within the sill, these effects may be minimized.
However there is variation at any specific load because the scale accuracy may be +/- .05 gr, there is variation in hand loading components, the chronograph accuracy may be +/- 5 fps, etc. So it is possible to get an "artificial sill" due to inherent errors in measurements and hand loads. These variations are not accounted for due to a sample size of 1 for each powder load in the 10-shot OCW method.
One approach is to shoot the 10-shots from low to high powder charge, then repeat for a sample size of 2 by shooting the 10-shots from high to low powder charge to confirm that the sill is not "artificial". Or shoot the 10-shot OCW each day for 3 days in a row to see is the sill "artificial" or is is consistent and real?
I have not tried this development but fireformed brass is a must for developing precision loads mainly due to the consistency in size. A local long range match consistent winner weighs everything, bullets, primed cases and powder. He however uses a Forester Neck resize and bump die. He only shoots Berger 140 Match Target VLD projectiles Lapua brass and RL 17.
Truth be told I didn't figure that it would come out as pretty with not fire formed brass, but I needed to fire form it somehow. To keep the same load in the same case I may just neck size these out of convenience. I would rather use FL but who knows.
another inconsistancy you may find with brass is the primer ignition hole is punched from the outside in, this causes burrs on the inside and may or may not cause ignition varances. there is a deburring tool that has a depth setting bushing so you can deburr each brass the same depth but first you have to trim necks.
I just did a set of R.P. brass they were pretty bad. By the way Remington is aabout the worst brass I have used ,case weights are random as hell and they are much lighter than winchester. Winchester is pretty consistant. So now if I buy loaded or unloaded I will steer clear of rem. brass!
Looking for "NODES"....how fun. I have even weighed all the brass for testing and put it in the loading blocks from low to high. Then, I do the same for the bullets and line them up from high to low. The hope is to even out the velocity by pairing heavier bullets with more volume. Thinking more about that, maybe the heavier bullets need the smaller volumes, so the higher pressure but heavier bullets snd up with the same velocity. If you think any of this makes sense, you have the disease.
+David Dale thanks for the insight ( I think) I hate to add too much cause I really do not want to add permanent steps to my process that I don't want to routinely repeat. We will have to see where this leads.
Just laughing at the things we do to achieve perfection. Merry Christmas!
There are so many opinions out there that finding the facts can be difficult. I agree with you that reducing the number of variables is the best way of discovering the truth of the matter. I understand the reasoning for going to 0.1 grain but it reduces your overal window per shot fired.
I am currently using the dV/dGn method to scan through an area of load. I just used it to work up a 7.62x39 load.
1848 1 2208
1855 2 2260
1978 3 2274
1980 4 2296
1930 5 2300
1962 6 2376
1985 7 2377
2022 8
2038 9
This was the results obtained using two different bullet weights over a charge varied by 0.2 grains. The left column was a 150 grain projectile,. The right column was a 125 grain projectile and the middle column was cartage fired. I would of preferred to have submitted the graphs, but could not figure out how, so I submit my results.
I am not familiar with this method is there a written method of this somewhere?
I think this result confirms this rule of thumb: Never attempt to develop your final high accuracy loads with new unfired brass. Always start with fire formed brass if you can.
I too would like to see this same test done with same components except for fire formed brass
It would be I interesting to see it preformed again with the now fired cases, I plan to try this with my .224 predator.
Been reloading fifty years and I like this test I was doing this same test in 1974 , and I had never heard of anyone else doing this , all in all the goal was to find a load that shot great and acceptable velocity, and my single most significant find over fifty years was that certain bullets and certain weights of bullets in combination with the right powder gave that particular rifle it’s best print on paper , and this is the one thing that I would not forget , the combination that gave me best results,,it’s a long road but very gratifying,, I laugh at all these guys with there new found caliber 6.5 creedmoor,, I wish all of them could see my 6.5 Remington magnum shoot , and a good shooting 264 win mag ,, they wouldn’t get so excited about that little creedmoor after that , ha ha ha
People love to bag on the 6.5 creedmoor shooters. It's a great all around performer with good ballistics, and super.low recoil with enough punch to make it perfect for pork venison or long distance steel. My 6.5 is under 7 pounds, scope, ammo and all, and I could put it right on my collar bone and not think twice about pulling the trigger. That allows me to focus on the shot, not the recoil. I'm pretty sure I could shoot it off my chin without breaking anything, but I'm not gonna try it 😅.
@@rodneyhoskins8187 yep that’s right, I’ve shot the barrels off of two 260 Remingtons and loved every bang of it ,and have taken lots of game with them , it’s all about the fun of the sport of shooting and staying within your budget
Thanks again for another informative vid! Best regards
Full case prep retest fired brass. Looks like 40.3 -40.7 range is your region. Looking for one that should be good either way if your off.
Retest should nail it down. Then explore...keep an eye out on that region for repeat gold. Would shoot a 5 shot group of 40.5 gr along with retest to see what ya get though. Skip bottom of graph and fire the hotter rounds like you suggest.
I think that if you did full case prep (fire forming, trimming all to same length, sorting by internal volume, etc as well as sorting bullets by bearing surface length) your results would have been different. If you can get the brass and bullets as consistent as possible it reduces the variables that much more. Also, when your cold bore shot is taken, do you have any oil in the barrel? If so that can tend to lead to higher pressures and possibly the velocity increase on the first shot. Great stuff as usual.
Thanks for the comment. It doesn't seen to matter if the cold bore is fresh after a clean or not. First shot is always higher velocity. I was really hoping to show what could be done with the least prep as possible. I don't think the average guys wants to neck turn, water weigh, etc. if they can help it. I really wish Saterlee would go into more depth on his reloading process, but I guess it will just give me something to shoot for.
moparmadman just having once fired brass alone may be enough to show a huge difference.
I don't doubt it, but I don't want to beat it to death either. I hate to wear out my brass just figuring out how to develop a load but in the long run it may be the best option.
0.1 grain increments, especially in something as volumous as the 338 Lapua, is goofy. resolution on your scale may be 0.05 grn, but what is the accuracy spec? Redo that graph, eliminating say the odd numbered charge weights, and see if it makes more sense.
I do this method all the time. It really does work! I do, however, think you over did it a bit. If you re-did the test at 300 yards in .3gr increments, I think you will find more usable data.
handloading 24/7/365 this method ignores everything but velocity, distance is irrelevant
I alway start with a seating depth test at 300 yards to check for the best groups. Once I find a seating depth that is the most accurate. Then I do a similar test like Scott’s but I load two sets of 10 rounds at .3gn each. And fire the first 10 of them at 300 yards looking for velocity nodes and POI shift. Then I repeat with the other 10 rounds. This has seemed to work the best for me the last rifle I developed a load for I was able to shoot a 1.6 inch 4 shot group at 500 yards with the flyer it open up to 2.3 inch 5 shots at 500 yards. I would like to see you repeat the tested with trimmed and fire formed brass to see if the number stay the same.
I know I am somewhere close to where it belongs in this case, the lower shots are all lower velocity shots. Satterlee discuss doing this first and then adjusting the seating depth, so I am sure there is a lot of matter of opinion for choosing the seating depth. I did video the target but didn't think it was worth working into the video. Maybe if I redo it it will be more worth while.
Typically (at least from the several different rifles of mine that I have done load development for) you want start with finding the velocity node as Satterlee does, then adjust seat depth. And this actually makes sense because seating depth is primarily just effecting barrel time more then anything except in the extreme's like projectile jammed into lands or seated excessively deep in shell. A few thou of seat depth can have a substantial impact on barrel time and thus accuracy but little effect on velocity.
For example, I was doing some loads several months ago for my 6.5cm rifle with 123gr ELD-X's and I found a nice flat velocity node at 43.6gr of H4350 where I was getting average vel. of 2932fps with an ES of 9 and SD 4.5. I cant remember my exact numbers during the Satterlee type velocity node test but I was only say about a 10 or 11fps difference between 43.4 and 43.8gr but at Hornday's recommended 2.670" (if memory serves be correctly) COAL, the 5 shot groups were almost 1.5moa... I started playing with the COAL and got the groups down to consistent 0.43moa with a COAL of 2.735 and the vel. ave. when to 2923 but ES and SD were virtually identical.
This is why I actually prefer Satterlee's method over even 300+ yard ladder test or other OCW tests.. With consistent velocity, POI will be most consistent when the projectile is exiting the barrel exactly the same way every single time and the only way to insure this is that the pressure wave within the barrel is back at / as close as possible to the breech when the projectile is exiting the barrel (muzzle will be in its most relaxed state). Since the Speed of the pressure back and forth through the barrel is so fast (almost 19000fps)compared to the projectiles speed , even just a few thou of an inch difference in seat depth can have a significant effect on where the wave is relative to the projectile.
Well that's fun and all. But I'm my opinion lateral testing at 4,5,6 hundred yards and repeated is I feel a catch all do all. It just really shows extreme spread of everything. However I'm not saying you couldn't do it this way just for starting points. And yes need to use worked fire formed brass. And bench rest primers. I don't feel that just because you find a low extreme spread of velocity at a certain charge weight, that it's going to be a good tuning node for your rifle. Tuning nodes are at certain velocities. You must find that. Then work the brass and load yo be more consistent in velocity. Powder,neck tension,brass quality, bullet, all need to be consistent. When eley or lapua load the the Olympic match 22lr it is done under extremely atmospheric controlled environments along with bullet consistency neck tension, priming consistency. And you really don't reap the benefits of the match grade 22lr ammo with out a precision rifle. That's my experience!
I always say, follow the numbers not the groups. numbers dont have human error
This test should be done with already fire formed brass and shot at 400 to 500 yds for the velocity spread to show itself on paper. However the numbers didn’t show much on the first try but if you do a second test of this I would try it starting at 40gr and stop at 42.5 or when pressure signs show up.
I wil likey try this combination over, but around me 400 yards is not easy to get to and i couldn't video it there. I did think about going a little higher, but thought that loading the same charge in the same brass might be interesting too.
moparmadman I know you are short on space available so velocity nodes will have to show themselves on the chrono...second firing should be more consistent :)
What about different Bullets of same weight , would they have the same velocity node. If you are shooting in a different climate or location and you may have lost or gained velocity. Could you change to a different bullet Or would you have to change bullet weight? What I am thinking is at long range to keep the Bullets in the same point of aim.
I have repeated this test several times using the same powder charges and increments, same cases, same bullets, same primers, same everything. Sometime I see a flat spot, sometimes I don’t. When I do see a flat spot it’s seldom in the same velocity range as a previous flat spot. Perhaps I’m not doing it correctly but for me it’s a total waste of time and components.
You know I have tried this some but what I noticed is extreme spread is single digits for several shots but as you keep shooting the extreme spread gets bigger. I attribute this to the barrel becoming more fouled. I have started to use it some but to think he is gonna get single digits say after firing 30-40 shots I'd say is a stretch an would have to see it to believe it. I would say I make sure brass for these test are fire formed, trimmed, neck sized only, an all cases exactly the same for testing. Once I found a velocity I was happy with I played with seating depth an was able to get some single digits e.x. But I tend to load batches of 300-400 rounds an some cases only have 3 reloads on them an some 5. It's gonna be impossible for me to get all 3-400 cases exactly the same unless I start all over with a new batch of 500 cases. Is it worth it to me. No.
Repeat with same fireformed brass
41 grains run with it. think you should of did the necks tho length and width. only gotta do the thickness once.
Not new. But very accurate. You can’t sell easy nor a new fad about development. Too easy for fans. Come to my place with your hi dollar rifle. I won’t charge you
You're using the wrong powder for the 6.5..hybrid is a terrible powder for 65
Why did you use magnum primers for this work up? Just curious
I have found that they ignite some powders more consistently.
@@BoltActionReloading magnum primers in my 243 allways yieled low speeds with hybrid
Hi Chris, I plan on doing some more extensive research on this topic as I think many people are confused on the interaction of different primers. (I am not claiming to be an expert on this either) I have not done as much work with H100V as I have with H4350 so I can easily see there being differences. I am looking forward to putting some data behind my assumptions.
alpha brass is awesome, it dont matter what the case weight is, the capacity is all the same.
Great vids! How often do you clean your barrel?
+635suz thanks.... It's a matter of opinion for most folks. Personally 500-600 rounds for a complete cleaning. Every time I go I take a bore snake afterward. Just me though.
Redo it. Maybe use it to fine tune your final load.
You need fireformed brass, trimmed and uniformed to get accurate results.
It's not a beginner test(not a reference to you) and data can be hard to interpret and sometimes you will get false node in the way.
Also I am sorry but the H100V is to me one of the crappiest powder ever designed and not suited for the creedmoor.
Do the test again with IMR 4451/H4350 and RL16 and you'll get easier developments.
No offense taken, just trying to figure everything out. Thanks for commenting.
My assessment of the Satterlee method is that it will yield positive results only some of the time.
One sample of anything is statistically completely meaningless. The only way this method could possibly yield positive results is by pure chance as, any data can by definition, hold no statistical validity.
Statistics requires 2 or more of any sample &, unless there exists some prior knowledge (prior samples) this Satterlee system can only be operative by chance.
Results would actually be, to some extent, statistically significant with the application of at least 2 shots per charge weight.
Other than proving that an increase in charge weight yields an increase in velocity, the Satterlee method can not yield results beyond pure chance & what is left can only be the perceived results of the tester.
Furthermore, I don't believe this Satterlee method is actually testing for a supposed velocity trend.
For example; if we were to assume a particular powder was perfectly suited to a particular rifle/bullet combo &, that powder acted precisely as it should then, with progressive increases in charge weight, we would expect to see a linear increase in velocities with no levelling off until the point of maximum pressure is attained.
Let us suppose then that a band of charge weights can be identified which indeed exhibits the kind of trend which is known to occur. Using only one shot per charge weight interval is statistically invalid & is much more likely to be random noise than it is capable of being a trend.
I believe that, in principal, the Satterlee method does have some merit if applied using the averages of at least 3 shots per interval. Other than this kind of modification, I can't see how anything other than random noise can result.
Ive watched a bunch of your videos and you never seem to come up with anything..
What exactly is the output you are looking for? Some groups are better than others. Expected velocity and statistics is included, is there some other information you are looking for?