Its a never ending tail chase. Good shooting barrels, somebody who knows how to clean their good shooting barrel, a good shooter, and quality components put together correctly make nice targets. Those Hornady guys don't shoot low quality dirty barrels, and worn out cases. I really like what they have to say. I really like what you have to say as well. I think anybody who has been at this awhile can agree we do some tail chasing at times!!!
43 years of reloading experience here. That doesn’t make me a pro by any stretch of the imagination, but I have seen a thing or two. My buddy shoots 5 shot, one singular hole, groups at 200 yards, more often than not, with his 6/PPC. He breaks records & wins matches routinely. All loading traditionally. When some “reloading wizard” can tell me, how to improve on that, I will listen. Besides, I thoroughly enjoy traditional load development & case prep. When I get one rifle/pistol shooting good, I want to do another one. It is possible, I am an addict.
The target is the truth (as long as the sample size is relevant). The problem here, is that ballisticians and engineers shoot 100 round groups from machine rests in a controlled environment, and they also say "believe the target". But who's target do you believe? in the end, it's the interpretation of the target that molds our perception.
As a relatively new PRs shooter and a long time hunter I feel I have a foot in both camps. I have no desire to try and tell f class or Benchrest shooters what is best. They will always shoot smaller groups than most of us and I love to watch them do it. That being said there is something to the idea of limited load development. It’s all about how you allocate your time. I ask folks this, what makes you more likely to hit your next target, .2” smaller groups or 100 rounds of positional shooting practice? I lean more towards practice than development, but that’s just me. Loved the video.
The big question this video was meant to tackle; is if nodes really exist. This is the only point of disagreement between F-Class shooters and proponents of Nodeless load development. To me, this video was inconclusive and opinions will be a matter of perspective.
When I started shooting steel at 500 yards, I realized my benchrest loads were useless, because my standard deviations were all over the place. Today, a node with the best SD is what I load for. A lot to think about here. This presentation was frigging awesome. Nothing else on RUclips even close to this exercise.
Oddly, I started to not care about SD so much shooting steel. As long as SD is 18 or better, the distance and drag evens things out at target. Now I just watch the SD to make sure its not getting excessive but prioritize the group size.
Best episode I have seen on this channel. Awesome. Deserved or undeserved, after the whole 7PRC dodging and hiding I put a big question mark on anything coming out of Hornady
Absolutely loved this video. I watched the Hornady video before I saw yours and disagreed with their conclusions. I would classify myself as a hunter and recreational shooter. The traditional load development process works best for me and I work to have sub MOA groups. Achieving that gives me the confidence to go to field knowing that my equipment can do the job and I can then concentrate my efforts towards being a better hunter and not have to worry about if the rifle will perform. One thing I noted is the way you shot when during your test. In one of your previous videos you did load development for a friend who couldn't get his rifle to shoot very well, a 300 H&H I think. You were able to develop a good load and shot it better than him. You said he was shooting the rifle "sniper style", i.e. lightly touching the rifle and squeezing the rear bag. You said that he was under the false impression that the bullet exited before recoil and that it is better to firmly hold the fore end of the rifle for better control with which I wholeheartedly agree. However, I noticed you didn't do that while performing your test. Why? Lastly, I would like to see you do a video on neck sizing vs. full length sizing. I neck size as I feel it makes the most "scientific" sense to me and preserves my brass. I bump the shoulder back only when the brass will not chamber easily, basically letting the rifle tell me when it's time to resize the brass. In a vintage video I saw from Hornady, Joyce Hornady stated neck sizing was the best way to go. I would love to know your thoughts on that.
You skimmed over the reasons for my methodology with bench shooting. On a heavy rifle shooting a mild cartridge, the free recoil position is the best (as is evident in every competition). When shooting a magnum cartridge in a lightweight hunting rifle, the free-recoil position doesn't work well and you need to hang on. In this video, I was shooting a 127gr 6.5 Creed out of a 14-pound rifle (almost no recoil).
I have been testing this. So far it is true. I think small changes only make a difference for benchrest and f class with top equipment. I still do pressure, seating, and powder tests but fewer shots with bigger changes. If it doesn't shoot, new powder or bullet. I shoot a 20 shot group to confirm. Its a wash cuz more practice in the wind is probably more useful than chasing .1 groups at 100.
Great video! Recent discussions about load development are very interesting, and I think that I can do significantly better with my own load development. It is good to question “conventional wisdom”. Mean radius doesn’t mean squat if you get fliers from one load and not from another. The bigger the group, the more fliers are hidden in the data. Standard deviation on a big enough data set reveals the inconsistencies we want to avoid. I’ve used a ladder test with 10-shot groups, but I also looked at the groups on the target. When I found a load that appeared optimal, I shot more because I knew from statistics that standard deviation on a sample size of 3, 5 or 10 was basically meaningless. That Hornady tech seems to assume that we go through our hand loading process once and then STOP. If I had a load that produced .60” 5-shot groups sometimes but 1.25” groups other times, I knew something was wrong and I needed to make adjustments. P.S. that powder dispenser looks so 😎. I love the jigger/dipper!
We do load development. I used to just pick a load out of a manual. I never had to shoot big game past 250yds. Now I do the whole process. My 22 creedmoor wouldn't do better than half moa, with my first choice of powder. Next try, one grain of difference, went from three point five in to one hole groups I went to gunsmithing school in Trinidad, Co. My instructor was a fourteen time bench rest champion. Learned a lot there
Thanks for taking the time to put this great video together 😀 I like that you are open minded and not just bashing Hornady (not so much anyway 😁) and calling it bs. If I remember correctly, didn’t Miles say in #50 that they use hefty barrels like 1.25” diameter ie bull barrels in their fixture? I think that could explain partially why they don’t see so much difference between charge weights? My experience from 150 rifles or so is that fat barrels are much easier to load for than pencil thin barrels. A current Sako A1 in 222 with the infamous spaghetti straw thin barrel is a good example of this, being finicky as h-l. Until I finally added a weight in the form of a suppressor to it. This made the barrel much easier to load for. So nodes are definitely a thing for thin barrels. Or maybe it’s just my statistics that are lacking 😬😉 Thanks again 😀👍🏻
Great video!! I agree with your opinion/conclusion. I'm guessing there isnt a single PRS shooter/rifle combo that could compete with F-Class or Benchrest. Not saying they aren't good shooters, they just have a different end goal that isn't focused on small groups
As a game hunter, and occasional steel plinker, I reload for groups from starting load to max, until I find a tight one right under max with my favorite bullet for big game (hogs). Then do the same for my medium game projectile (deer). Then small game (rabbits\squirrels). And once more for my varminting rounds (fox\armadillo\Coyote). Once I note my point of impact shifts I'm set, can do all 3 in one caliber 30-06, in one rifle Mossberg Patriot, in one trip only by swapping cartridges. I reload for flexibility, and to have fun.
This is also exactly what my father does with every one of his hunting rifles. Catalogues the type of brass, primer, bullet, powder type/amount. In order to leave for us to use someday when he is gone to get the most out of each rifle.
It's well over 100* every day in the summer where I live, so the mirage at 500 yards is not good for this type of testing (especially for multiple 20-round groups). I'll wait for things to cool down in the fall.
This intro was awesome, haven’t watched the matrix in a long time. I always did as you said and found my optimal powder charge with what produced good groups, and way back before I had a chronograph I was guessing on velocity, but it never stopped me from taking big game with my handloads. The rabbit hole does go deep though which can suck us in
I admit that I distrust engineers and Hornady. So Anything a Hornady engineer says is immediately suspect in my mind. Being in medicine we lie through statistics all the time. Its a simple matter to pick endpoints to study that will support the conclusions we are looking for. I think thats what Harnady did with looking at mean radius.
Well, when it comes to Hornady I have to ask if things like "quality control" and "consistency" are real... I checked bullet weight on 8 boxes of their bullets, that's 800 of the same bullet from the same lot. I got a variance of 1.8 grains. The same test with Sierra bullets produced a variance of .4 grains... All the Sierra bullets were +/- .2 grains of the target weight. If I'm loading plinking fodder for short range then I'll save a few bucks and buy Hornady. If I'm looking for accuracy at extended range... Ill spend the money for Sierra, or better yet, Berger.
There's a method that's similar to what you're explaining done by ReloadingAllDay. Calls their method the RAD method. He focuses on case capacity and pressure over the ladder tests and seating depth. I also just checked the Barnes Data for 6.5cm and their max is 40.4gr at 2748fps.. big difference, it seems, in CC with Lapua over Hornady cases(typically terrible Capacity in my exp, only thing worse is Federal). Ima save this video and add it to my Playlist for into to reloading for buddies
I've been thinking about this for about a year now. I reckon a viable approach for a sub 400 yard shooter is to find a commercial ammo with the hunting projectile you want to use then fit and use a barrel-tuner to tighten up 20-round groups, with that ammo. When barrel's "don't like" a primer, powder, and bullet combination, that just means the harmonics produced by that when fired, are in an unfavourable place along the barrel's length. So tune the barrel's harmonic lengths, and not the cartridge. Why change the ammo if a single simple physical adjustable variable, can be altered to change the 'node' locations to a more favourable length-location on the barrel, to obtain tighter groups, with the ammo you desire to use? If you have a constant supply of the same ammo, it becomes a set and forget item. And if you change the ammo, you just retune the barrel with some groups. It may drift slightly with batch number changes, but probably not enough to bother fine-tuning it. I may be quite OK with group results from doing that and just give reloading a swerve. That's another 'red-pill' option.
But, what about the fact that every scientific study on barrel tuners concluded that they are also doing nothing. Even Eric Cortina says that they do not work for dialing in a load or making a load better; he says he only uses them to make small adjustments during matches to account for environmental conditions; but his process is a secret.
ISSF pistol reloader without access to a chronograph here. 5 minutes , was thinking ,"I'll take the blue pill, thanks". At the end all I could say was yep I called that one right.
The major difference between what your testing vs Hornady is in😮your equipment. They will say the first easy button is to get a custom barrel. Not only do you have that you have top notch receiver, stock, and probably trigger. I believe the majority of their focus is to help the newer guts, with factory equipment. As a personal note, I recently but on my first custom barrel and between it and the factory barrel my findings are that it will shoot a wider range of bullets with a larger range of powder variations much better. Comparing the best loads in the factory barrel though to the custom barrel I see a bit of improvement, but not earth shattering. Love your content. Thank you
I deliberately used a great barrel in this test because people would blame my results on a sub-par barrel if I didn't. I also didn't use a competition rig, because Bubba would say the test isn't fair. This video was never about Bubba vs engineers vs F-class shooters. The Hornady guys and Brian Litz claim that powder nodes do not exist; which if true, would be a serious game-changer for ALL shooters. Claiming that nodes are imaginary is a serious claim. Personally, I'm not sold yet.
Totally agree with you. I think Hornady is partly right in most people don’t shoot enough to get a realistic group. I have seen the same thing you describe but I just follow what the competition guys do they seem to be on it.
There are two words that I have found to be 100% useless when it comes to handloading and hunting inside what most of us would agree are reasonable hunting distances. Those two words are "statistically significant." I get so tired of hearing "experts" tell us that what we do, how we load, how we test, is statistically INsignificant. They can all come visit my house and tell that to all the game I have on the wall, floor, pedestal mounts. The methods I've used for handloading for a long time have served me well. I will admit that my best shooting rifles are not factory production rifles. Most have Brux, Bartlein, Krieger, K&P, Benchmark, Hart, Broughton, and Lilja barrels, Rem clone actions, Jewel or TT triggers, and McMillan stocks. It think that makes a difference. Bottom line regarding Hornady or similar, is when they push to convince us we need to shoot a thousand rounds to figure out what is statistically significant just wants us to buy more of their bullets and brass. It's all BS....OR I'm like you, just been REALLY LUCKY the last 4 decades.
Over the last 15 year my reloading process has gotten very simple. I live in CA, all we can use is copper, so bullets are simplified and I’ve landed on Barnes as the best. Typically I just go to the book, select the most accurate powder for the bullet weight, select charges near and/ or at book max, and I always get MOA and usually sub MOA results. I select OAL at book recommendation. Barnes Vortex loaded ammo is always great in my rifles but in price gouging California, too expensive. So I reload to copy the factory and save money. It s fun to fuss with loading but I’m mostly over that. If you get 3/4 or 1/2 MOA why mess with that? I don’t use or pay attention to Hornady but I appreciate their research. I used hornady GMX once and got something like 6 inch groups in a very accurate rifle and never bought another hornady box of ammo or their bullets for rifles. Good video.
I have been testing this myself. I loaded two groups of 25 rounds. One in 147 grain and one in 143 grain with a random charge weight for each group for my 6.5 CM and shot them each 5x5. What I found is that the 5 shot groups in each 25 load test appeared to have nodes even though the charge weights were the same within the respective 25 shot test groups. One group of five even had an es of 7 and sd of 2.6. When I totaled up all 25 in each test the sd’s were 9.2 and 11.2 so not the same but not off by much. The group sizes were very similar only being off by about a tenth of an inch in total size and only a few hundredths of an inch mean radius. My loads were all measured to the hundredth and seating force was relatively consistent and done with an arbor press with force pack and Wilson dies. I am currently working up another batch to test this again and plan on dropping the charge weight on the 147’s some as I did get ejector swipe on three or four casings. I believe that if nodes do exist that they do not exist to the extent that many believe and that es and sd are more of a measure of how consistent your reloading process is than a way to pick a charge weight.
Thanks for the timely info and tests. This will make me rethink everything, as we should. Seating depth changes pressure and case volume and jump, soooo i think its pretty important. But, cant explain how strapping a magnetospeed on the tip of the barrel is gonna play nice with harmonics.
Great video. I'm just a normal hunting reloader who limits my shot to less than 300 yards. I normally just do a pressure test using measuring ahead or the extractor groove. My max is the first load where I can detect swelling. Then I test with 3 shot groups with a few charges approaching the max I found. I don't mess with jump because my allowable OAL due to magazine length is usually nowhere near the touching the lands. I've developed two deer loads and one moose load that all shoot close to MOA and never looked back. Granted I almost never shoot over 200 yards but all my kill are one shot with only one moose that required some tracking but was still less than 50 yards from where I shot it. It was a rushed close shot where the moose spotted us. Ended up being a high lung shot with no blood trail.I also shot one moose at over 200 yards quartering hard to me and it fell where I shot it. FWIW, original Remington factory loads shot about 3 inches at the time. I've since tried about 8 factory load that all shot close to MOA for 3 and 1.5 inches for 5 shot groups. They probably shoot better than that but it's all I can do with a 2X7 scope. Since factory loads are as good as my reloads now I don't reload. I still have some Federal TBT I'd like to reload but that will have to wait until I can snag a moose license.
I love the Hornady podcast and listen to every episode. But……like Eric Cortina says, “Believe the target!” I’ve done the standard load development on all my rifles, and when you find that “node” or “sweet spot”, it’s a great feeling.
I had a 223 wssm that would push a bullet fast enough to cause disintegration due to the centrifugal force. It would sprinkle a target with shrapnel at 100 yards. I finally ended up shooting Barnes 62gr bullets, which held together and actual shot very accurately. Hand loading makes for some interesting times.
I think what this test reveals is that there are charges/bullet seating depths that can minimize the odd “flyer” that can come in and ruin a data set. What’s important is to find a powder, primer, and bullet combination that produces acceptable accuracy and velocity for the intended purpose. Realistically for my load development I like to just roll the dice and try a powder and bullet. If that combo is shooting like sh** from the get go at low charge weights I switch one or the other. I’m not trying to print tiny groups. I hunt in the woods so pinnacle accuracy is not worth chasing my tail over. I will go insane doing it. Check to make sure velocities are roughly where I want and I’m done. My X-bolt 308 will shoot 1 1/4” groups with the load I’m using now and I’m perfectly happy with that.
I have a personal theory. I don't claim it to be true but this is it. Guns like velocity nodes not specifically powder nodes but if you can match up a powder node with said velocity node accuracy will result To be clear what i am saying is that powder burn rate does not matter but the velocity the bullet obtains from said velocity does. Obviously powder fill would still affect proper ignition and amount of powder burnt would affect velocity. So a long heavy barrel would mitigate these affects causing less effects Therefore people shooting competition rifles might come to the conclusion they dont matter but anyone shooting a skinny barrel knows immediately how much it matters
@Joe-lk6oc I was wondering about Barns tips. The tips are not centered very well. At least, I dont think so. And the tip is a softer plastic. I guess all Hornady has to get you to do is just have a little doubt in their competitors.
@@jamesmooney5348 It was actually Hornady who "claimed" their original tips were melting in flight. I don't believe that for one second. It was more like a Hornady marketing ploy if I were to guess.
@Joe-lk6oc Yeah, I know. But by the claim they made about tips, they were able to place doute in my mind about Barns tips. I have no idea what actual temps are reached in the tip of a bullet as it travels down the barrel and then flies through the air. It's gotta be hot. It would be interesting to find out. And yes, Hornady is about sales, which i get sick of. But at least they have product on the shelves and they are not as expensive as Nosler. Nosler can pound sand.
Awesome video. First I’m a hunter that started reloading because I wanted more consistency compared to factory ammo. I accomplished that but now I enjoy the reloading/shooting more than hunting. I do see truth in a lot that hornady said especially about powder. I realized awhile ago you can make a rifle like a powder or even a bullet but I have tried. Do I think there are nodes yes but not always. Does bullet jump matter, yes but if you are experienced enough and know bullets you should know how to set bullet length to get acceptable groups. Just like you knew to run those Barnes 50 thou back.
I am New to reloading I shoot 3 shot groups look for Best on I work up in 1/2 gn increments if the volisty is spread is under 20 I reload it again if it does about the same results I call it good. But my reloading is for hunting and just for fun shooting. Thanks for teaching
I have been reloading for 45 years, back I’m the late 1990’s Hornady did a work up on the new 9mm for the FBI after the Miami shoot out. I wanted to load some of these new rounds so I called Hornady (ballistic research department) and ask if they could mail me the work up tables for the 147 sub sonic 9mm FBI test ammo. The Guy said sure. Two weeks later I got a brown envelope full of the all there recent 9mm work ups all hand written and water mark as Hornady propitiatory do not release or copy. This is my favorite 9mm data to load from. It has a section in my reloading binder with tab label “ Hornady Q Section” I’m very sure the data was published but my old copies still makes my day.
Great update - would be great to repeat it to see if it comes out the same. With the test was it shot on a fouled warm barrel or clean cold bore - just wondering if that impacted the numbers.
Love the videos keep them coming, but with Hornady there is alot of hot air coming out of that camp i just think they are trying to sell more bullets but I will say they have made some that I like right now I have a 6 arc that I won in a raffle that I am presently surprised with so idk
Given that mean radius is never used in recording group size in competition, it isn't the standard that should be used to judge the precision of loads.
back in the day it would have mattered more but currently componants are so consistant, that now we can pretty much pick something at random and if your using name brand componants and a decent rifle and optic it will giving you 3/4 to 1 MOA. to getto 1/4 moa youll have to start upgrading the system. eg go from hornady to berger bullets, from a factory to custom/semi custom rifle. it all still matters but most of us have other limiting factors and the signal to nosie ratio is such that we cant see a diffrence.
Desert dog! Love your videos. Question: how important is shoulder bump when sizing? I have been told a few thousands bump is ideal after firing brass. But for some of my hunting loads have been bumped accidentally up to 8 thousands. Am I hurting accuracy? Thanks
I wonder similar. Even though not stat relevant...you can soon see..better will generally shoot better ..but after 20 shots..those groups did look similar.. Velocity node for constant velocity.. But..what about vibration node...the timing of the bullet out of the barrell .is barrel at end of vibration..outer..or, central. This seems to be timing the bullet speed/barrel exit to match the barrel whip. For some time ... I've given up on most load Dev ..too shy of barrel wear and component usage. Choosing 'moderate plus' speeds and seating with 3 thou jump. With custom barrels..this seems to work very well. Only doing brief seating depth tests usually to no real difference found. As you said at start...shooting very accurately and consistently is paramount...and very hard to do...and wind...finding dead still days to do this is tricky. What I can do is very precisely measure the powder charge. I'm waiting for case capacity air gauges to become readily available...internal volume of case is probably of more significance. It's all very interesting. Beautiful summary. Well done again. Thanks.
Looking at the groups at 5/10/20 With the velocity being erratic, the harmonics go too, so you’ll get more flyers. It will be within the “norm” bc the norm is throwing flyers for the anti node.
According to Hornady I’ve been doing it wrong for 40+ years. I don’t shoot long range, I hunt at 100 yards or so. My load development is take a bullet and work up a powder charge to give the best 3 or 5 shot group. I didn’t have access to a chronograph but the deer in the freezer never noticed. All my rifles shoot less than MOA. Job done.
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 sorry if I went off track. I think nodes do exist, they can be found by different methods and degrees of accuracy to suit the intended purpose. As you suggested, sometimes we can use a whole lot of expensive and difficult to find components trying for the ultimate accuracy.
Great video,but Ill stick with what Ive always done,and that is to find a load that shoots the same group,withon a quarter inch either way,for the first five shots out of a cold barrel.Im a hunter and never have gotten into match shooting.Not that I havent thought about it, but until I do,Ill load for optimum huntin accuracy.
Might be a good method for someone like me who is not interested in the absolute pinnacle of accuracy and would be happy with just a very accurate load. But it would definitely suck to have to buy small quantities of bullets and powder just to test a million combos
Watch my video titled "point of impact shifts". I discuss the barrel heat issue and why the quality of your barrel matters. Top quality custom cut-rifled barrels almost never experience the issue.
Not likely. 100 yards with a fast load and a 5 mph quartering wind. I also try to time my shots with breaks in the wind. The bigger issue was the mirage on this 110* day. This is why I stuck to 100 yards, turned the magnification down a little, cooled the barrel between shots, and shot up on the bench instead of prone on the ground.
Application determines what data collection and data production method to seek. If you're going to make 2 significant shots on game at range, the hit zone is flexible to a point, take your meat home, be happy, then it doesn't matter as much. If you're going to win matches at long range, be judged on group size, be firing rounds half a day, then it all starts to matter a lot more.
The big question this video was meant to tackle; is if nodes really exist. F-Class and Benchrest shooters say they do exist, and engineers say they don't. My testing was inconclusive.
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 The theory seems to revolve around the concept of barrel whip, or vibration frequency. What I have read many times and heard people talk about many times is the goal is to get the bullet to release the muzzle at a "dead" spot along that whipping frequency. If all other factors are minimized to insignificance, it seems increasing the pressure in the cartridge has affected the barrel frequency. Is this barrel whipping idea something engineers are saying is "the matrix" to use a metaphor? Barrel tuners seem to highlight this frequency whip does exist, as small adjustments to tuning weights will tighten group size, other factors consistent. Or likewise, a moveable point of barrel support in the fore-grip of a stock has similar observed effects. Forgive me if I'm off on rabbit trails. I did digest about half the Hornady podcast that's being referenced.
@@exothermal.sprocket Yes; they claim the entire "harmonic balance" theory is not grounded in reality when it comes to "sweet spots" or "nodes". Their testing indicates that either your barrel likes a bullet/powder combo, or it doesn't, and load development is meaningless. Brian Litz is currently on-board with this theory, and he is a very credible source. In the last year, many experienced reloaders have also embraced the nodeless methodology. Brian Litz, and most top shooters also claim that barrel tuners are a figment of our imagination. Much testing has been done with the Cortina tuners, and no statistical advantage has ever been realized during any scientific test. Like stated in the video, the reloading world is at the beginning of a big transition. The more I shoot larger-sample groups, and the more I try to repeat load results, the more doubts I have. One thing is for certain; 5-shot groups don't tell the whole story.
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 I wonder if the munition ballisticians and test engineers ever talk to mechanical engineers and metallurgists about steel harmonics and vibration frequencies, especially as it pertains to a piece of rod with a hole through the middle of it. There's ways to test theories about barrel vibration rather than obsessing over bullet impact patterns and trying to back-theory what might be happening with steel. Just a thought.
@@exothermal.sprocketNo, but they put tens of thousands of rounds on targets from a machine rest in a controlled environment to see if variables really matter. Both sides say "trust the target".
Is 7 three round groups different than a 20 round group. I'm pretty new to reloading, probably about 300 or rounds playing with load development, but my results seem reliably repeatable as far as the notes and seating depth compared to loads outside the notes... time will tell
Open minded and willingness, that's what I try to practice. I do know that the old 3 or 5 shot groups in different increments until u do or dont find something repeatable does work for hunting applications under 400 yrds, I've got tons of proof loaded up in the cabinet, in several calibers But always in that rabbit hole, trying something new to get that little bit more, like the newest thing for me now is sizing mandrels, so we'll see how that goes. Mainly its good to have a good BS meter and common sense
This is Science. Put a theory to the test. One thing that I think would have made this test better is if you didn’t know which group was loaded for the powder node. This would require a friend to label one lot of ammo A and the other B and have them record the velocity data. I don’t think your bias played a part in the results but theoretically it could have.
I would say based on your results, along with the results of countless others, that load development is absolutely real and I don't buy what Hornady is saying about it. After identifying the nodes you shoot a good sample of rounds to see what happens. When you shot those rounds in the node they were both more accurate and had a much lower SD than those that were in your anti node. Me personally, I don't get this elaborate with load development because I'm not a long range competitor or long range hunter. If I was then I would want to go through this process of load development to really prove my load. But I'm just a big game hunter shooting no more than 400 yards distant, and with that in mind, plus the cost of components and the difficulty in finding them I just don't shoot anywhere near as many rounds as you did in this video.
No mention of optimum barrel time theory? 100% agree about hornady marketing. Variable drag technology? Sure maybe thats a thing but smashed tips isnt going to give you a consistent anything so there is a worthless patent. Dont get me started about the flash holes from case prep episode... i have 500+ brand new 22 arc cases that says hornady flash holes are some of the worst on the market and absolutely require deburring every single case just to attempt to get an accurate internal volume measurement.
Great video as always. I don’t know if Hornady is correct about the various parameters being insignificant but what they say about the statistics is obviously true. It is just basic math, I laugh when many youtubers take a couple 3 shot groups and declare a production rifle good or bad. It’s completely meaningless. Also, I don’t really trust the fclass shooters, many of them are taking a couple shots and fiddling with a barrel tuner, it’s all superstition. Sure, they can shoot but their silly routines are no different than rubbing a rabbit’s foot.
But F-class shooters shoot 20-round groups constantly, and the Hornady guys state that a 20-round group IS statistically relevant. Doesn't that make their case for the existence of nodes plausible as well? Look at my test in this video; pay particular attention to the SD's between my node and anti-node. People are looking for confirmation bias and skimming past the real question here; do nodes exist? My results were inconclusive and depend solely on perspective.
How about the decades old method from The Real Gunsmith - 3 shot group/starting 1-2 gr below max, measuring velocity/SD, measuring for pressure, looking at your groups, than repeating the process by increasing charge for 0. 5 gr etc. ?
I still think the nodeless method is bunk for hunting ammo. Sure the deer will not know the difference between a 2 moa group and a .75 moa group, but allow me to sum it up this way. I’m most concerned about what my rifle does with the first couple shots so if I have a 3 shot group that measures at .80 moa vs one that measures at 1.7 moa and I’m planning on going on a hunt for pronghorn where a shot out to distances of 350-400 yards are possible (for me 400 yards is my maximum to shoot at game) which load will I use? The one that can shoot (in theory) under a 4 inch group at 400 yards or the one that would shoot (in theory again) a group over 6.5 inches? I know which I would use.
Its a never ending tail chase. Good shooting barrels, somebody who knows how to clean their good shooting barrel, a good shooter, and quality components put together correctly make nice targets. Those Hornady guys don't shoot low quality dirty barrels, and worn out cases. I really like what they have to say. I really like what you have to say as well.
I think anybody who has been at this awhile can agree we do some tail chasing at times!!!
43 years of reloading experience here.
That doesn’t make me a pro by any stretch of the imagination, but I have seen a thing or two.
My buddy shoots 5 shot, one singular hole, groups at 200 yards, more often than not, with his 6/PPC. He breaks records & wins matches routinely.
All loading traditionally.
When some “reloading wizard” can tell me, how to improve on that, I will listen.
Besides, I thoroughly enjoy traditional load development & case prep. When I get one rifle/pistol shooting good, I want to do another one.
It is possible, I am an addict.
I'm in your club.
Another fantastic video! In the words of Eric Cortina, "Believe the target".
The target is the truth (as long as the sample size is relevant). The problem here, is that ballisticians and engineers shoot 100 round groups from machine rests in a controlled environment, and they also say "believe the target". But who's target do you believe? in the end, it's the interpretation of the target that molds our perception.
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 Very true! For me, it’s about getting the best SD, ES, and group size at 100, then truing the dope at 600.
As a relatively new PRs shooter and a long time hunter I feel I have a foot in both camps.
I have no desire to try and tell f class or Benchrest shooters what is best. They will always shoot smaller groups than most of us and I love to watch them do it.
That being said there is something to the idea of limited load development. It’s all about how you allocate your time. I ask folks this, what makes you more likely to hit your next target, .2” smaller groups or 100 rounds of positional shooting practice? I lean more towards practice than development, but that’s just me.
Loved the video.
The big question this video was meant to tackle; is if nodes really exist. This is the only point of disagreement between F-Class shooters and proponents of Nodeless load development. To me, this video was inconclusive and opinions will be a matter of perspective.
When I started shooting steel at 500 yards, I realized my benchrest loads were useless, because my standard deviations were all over the place. Today, a node with the best SD is what I load for.
A lot to think about here. This presentation was frigging awesome.
Nothing else on RUclips even close to this exercise.
Oddly, I started to not care about SD so much shooting steel. As long as SD is 18 or better, the distance and drag evens things out at target. Now I just watch the SD to make sure its not getting excessive but prioritize the group size.
Best episode I have seen on this channel. Awesome.
Deserved or undeserved, after the whole 7PRC dodging and hiding I put a big question mark on anything coming out of Hornady
Absolutely loved this video. I watched the Hornady video before I saw yours and disagreed with their conclusions. I would classify myself as a hunter and recreational shooter. The traditional load development process works best for me and I work to have sub MOA groups. Achieving that gives me the confidence to go to field knowing that my equipment can do the job and I can then concentrate my efforts towards being a better hunter and not have to worry about if the rifle will perform.
One thing I noted is the way you shot when during your test. In one of your previous videos you did load development for a friend who couldn't get his rifle to shoot very well, a 300 H&H I think. You were able to develop a good load and shot it better than him. You said he was shooting the rifle "sniper style", i.e. lightly touching the rifle and squeezing the rear bag.
You said that he was under the false impression that the bullet exited before recoil and that it is better to firmly hold the fore end of the rifle for better control with which I wholeheartedly agree. However, I noticed you didn't do that while performing your test. Why?
Lastly, I would like to see you do a video on neck sizing vs. full length sizing. I neck size as I feel it makes the most "scientific" sense to me and preserves my brass. I bump the shoulder back only when the brass will not chamber easily, basically letting the rifle tell me when it's time to resize the brass.
In a vintage video I saw from Hornady, Joyce Hornady stated neck sizing was the best way to go. I would love to know your thoughts on that.
You skimmed over the reasons for my methodology with bench shooting. On a heavy rifle shooting a mild cartridge, the free recoil position is the best (as is evident in every competition). When shooting a magnum cartridge in a lightweight hunting rifle, the free-recoil position doesn't work well and you need to hang on. In this video, I was shooting a 127gr 6.5 Creed out of a 14-pound rifle (almost no recoil).
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 Makes a lot of sense....I didn't consider that. Many, many thanks for replying.
Well done! Thank you for not doing the "same old same old". I really enjoyed this video.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you for this video, great info.
One of your best videos yet. I am not a reloader yet the content was educational and accessible. Thank you for your efforts.
Another great video
I have been testing this. So far it is true. I think small changes only make a difference for benchrest and f class with top equipment. I still do pressure, seating, and powder tests but fewer shots with bigger changes. If it doesn't shoot, new powder or bullet. I shoot a 20 shot group to confirm. Its a wash cuz more practice in the wind is probably more useful than chasing .1 groups at 100.
Great video! Recent discussions about load development are very interesting, and I think that I can do significantly better with my own load development. It is good to question “conventional wisdom”.
Mean radius doesn’t mean squat if you get fliers from one load and not from another. The bigger the group, the more fliers are hidden in the data. Standard deviation on a big enough data set reveals the inconsistencies we want to avoid.
I’ve used a ladder test with 10-shot groups, but I also looked at the groups on the target. When I found a load that appeared optimal, I shot more because I knew from statistics that standard deviation on a sample size of 3, 5 or 10 was basically meaningless. That Hornady tech seems to assume that we go through our hand loading process once and then STOP. If I had a load that produced .60” 5-shot groups sometimes but 1.25” groups other times, I knew something was wrong and I needed to make adjustments.
P.S. that powder dispenser looks so 😎. I love the jigger/dipper!
We do load development. I used to just pick a load out of a manual. I never had to shoot big game past 250yds. Now I do the whole process. My 22 creedmoor wouldn't do better than half moa, with my first choice of powder. Next try, one grain of difference, went from three point five in to one hole groups
I went to gunsmithing school in Trinidad, Co. My instructor was a fourteen time bench rest champion. Learned a lot there
Thanks for taking the time to put this great video together 😀 I like that you are open minded and not just bashing Hornady (not so much anyway 😁) and calling it bs.
If I remember correctly, didn’t Miles say in #50 that they use hefty barrels like 1.25” diameter ie bull barrels in their fixture? I think that could explain partially why they don’t see so much difference between charge weights? My experience from 150 rifles or so is that fat barrels are much easier to load for than pencil thin barrels. A current Sako A1 in 222 with the infamous spaghetti straw thin barrel is a good example of this, being finicky as h-l. Until I finally added a weight in the form of a suppressor to it. This made the barrel much easier to load for. So nodes are definitely a thing for thin barrels. Or maybe it’s just my statistics that are lacking 😬😉
Thanks again 😀👍🏻
That 127 LRX is an excellent game bullet. I load it in one of my 6.5-284 Norma rifles. I used H1000
Great video!! I agree with your opinion/conclusion. I'm guessing there isnt a single PRS shooter/rifle combo that could compete with F-Class or Benchrest. Not saying they aren't good shooters, they just have a different end goal that isn't focused on small groups
As a game hunter, and occasional steel plinker, I reload for groups from starting load to max, until I find a tight one right under max with my favorite bullet for big game (hogs).
Then do the same for my medium game projectile (deer).
Then small game (rabbits\squirrels).
And once more for my varminting rounds (fox\armadillo\Coyote).
Once I note my point of impact shifts I'm set, can do all 3 in one caliber 30-06, in one rifle Mossberg Patriot, in one trip only by swapping cartridges.
I reload for flexibility, and to have fun.
This is also exactly what my father does with every one of his hunting rifles. Catalogues the type of brass, primer, bullet, powder type/amount. In order to leave for us to use someday when he is gone to get the most out of each rifle.
@@shamrock5725 yeah, I had to remember to leave notes on each box, nothing like the feeling of finding a box of reloads with no markings of any kind.
Excellent testing and takeaways from the results and analysis of the state of the field. Can’t wait until you do a repeat test at 500!
It's well over 100* every day in the summer where I live, so the mirage at 500 yards is not good for this type of testing (especially for multiple 20-round groups). I'll wait for things to cool down in the fall.
One of your best yet!
Best from Norway.
Very good! I really appreciate your effort to make this for the world!
This intro was awesome, haven’t watched the matrix in a long time.
I always did as you said and found my optimal powder charge with what produced good groups, and way back before I had a chronograph I was guessing on velocity, but it never stopped me from taking big game with my handloads. The rabbit hole does go deep though which can suck us in
I admit that I distrust engineers and Hornady. So Anything a Hornady engineer says is immediately suspect in my mind. Being in medicine we lie through statistics all the time. Its a simple matter to pick endpoints to study that will support the conclusions we are looking for. I think thats what Harnady did with looking at mean radius.
Well, when it comes to Hornady I have to ask if things like "quality control" and "consistency" are real...
I checked bullet weight on 8 boxes of their bullets, that's 800 of the same bullet from the same lot. I got a variance of 1.8 grains.
The same test with Sierra bullets produced a variance of .4 grains... All the Sierra bullets were +/- .2 grains of the target weight.
If I'm loading plinking fodder for short range then I'll save a few bucks and buy Hornady.
If I'm looking for accuracy at extended range... Ill spend the money for Sierra, or better yet, Berger.
Excellent! Thank you for doing the work to bring us such a well organized report.
What a great video! Thanks DD.
I like your buddies' inpute.
There's a method that's similar to what you're explaining done by ReloadingAllDay. Calls their method the RAD method. He focuses on case capacity and pressure over the ladder tests and seating depth.
I also just checked the Barnes Data for 6.5cm and their max is 40.4gr at 2748fps.. big difference, it seems, in CC with Lapua over Hornady cases(typically terrible Capacity in my exp, only thing worse is Federal).
Ima save this video and add it to my Playlist for into to reloading for buddies
I've been thinking about this for about a year now. I reckon a viable approach for a sub 400 yard shooter is to find a commercial ammo with the hunting projectile you want to use then fit and use a barrel-tuner to tighten up 20-round groups, with that ammo. When barrel's "don't like" a primer, powder, and bullet combination, that just means the harmonics produced by that when fired, are in an unfavourable place along the barrel's length. So tune the barrel's harmonic lengths, and not the cartridge.
Why change the ammo if a single simple physical adjustable variable, can be altered to change the 'node' locations to a more favourable length-location on the barrel, to obtain tighter groups, with the ammo you desire to use? If you have a constant supply of the same ammo, it becomes a set and forget item. And if you change the ammo, you just retune the barrel with some groups. It may drift slightly with batch number changes, but probably not enough to bother fine-tuning it.
I may be quite OK with group results from doing that and just give reloading a swerve.
That's another 'red-pill' option.
But, what about the fact that every scientific study on barrel tuners concluded that they are also doing nothing. Even Eric Cortina says that they do not work for dialing in a load or making a load better; he says he only uses them to make small adjustments during matches to account for environmental conditions; but his process is a secret.
Thankyou Sir, you have nailed Hornady. Very good video.
Great video. Need to hear that. Almost went chasing speed when I knew my node was 100fps slower with 1.5gr less in my 7mm-08.
Your wisdom is impressive.
ISSF pistol reloader without access to a chronograph here. 5 minutes , was thinking ,"I'll take the blue pill, thanks". At the end all I could say was yep I called that one right.
The major difference between what your testing vs Hornady is in😮your equipment. They will say the first easy button is to get a custom barrel. Not only do you have that you have top notch receiver, stock, and probably trigger.
I believe the majority of their focus is to help the newer guts, with factory equipment. As a personal note, I recently but on my first custom barrel and between it and the factory barrel my findings are that it will shoot a wider range of bullets with a larger range of powder variations much better. Comparing the best loads in the factory barrel though to the custom barrel I see a bit of improvement, but not earth shattering.
Love your content. Thank you
I deliberately used a great barrel in this test because people would blame my results on a sub-par barrel if I didn't. I also didn't use a competition rig, because Bubba would say the test isn't fair. This video was never about Bubba vs engineers vs F-class shooters. The Hornady guys and Brian Litz claim that powder nodes do not exist; which if true, would be a serious game-changer for ALL shooters. Claiming that nodes are imaginary is a serious claim. Personally, I'm not sold yet.
Great video mate, love the information you have in your videos, keep up the great work.
When I was young, I thought,”There is only one best way”. Now that I am 53, I realize the best way, is not always the best way for everyone.
This was a great video Dog!!!
Always nice to see somebody with a balanced view on things, keep up the good work 😎
Good video! Yes 500 would be awesome to see. Components be damned. If you can learn something.
Nice presentation 👍🏻 Many thanks👊🏻
Very well done! Thanks for the video
Another great video DD, been practical is the key in my opinion.
Thanks for another fantastic and thorough video. Can’t wait for more in this series. Have a great weekend Desert Dog!
Very interesting video D.D., thanks for posting it!
Totally agree with you. I think Hornady is partly right in most people don’t shoot enough to get a realistic group. I have seen the same thing you describe but I just follow what the competition guys do they seem to be on it.
There are two words that I have found to be 100% useless when it comes to handloading and hunting inside what most of us would agree are reasonable hunting distances. Those two words are "statistically significant." I get so tired of hearing "experts" tell us that what we do, how we load, how we test, is statistically INsignificant. They can all come visit my house and tell that to all the game I have on the wall, floor, pedestal mounts. The methods I've used for handloading for a long time have served me well. I will admit that my best shooting rifles are not factory production rifles. Most have Brux, Bartlein, Krieger, K&P, Benchmark, Hart, Broughton, and Lilja barrels, Rem clone actions, Jewel or TT triggers, and McMillan stocks. It think that makes a difference.
Bottom line regarding Hornady or similar, is when they push to convince us we need to shoot a thousand rounds to figure out what is statistically significant just wants us to buy more of their bullets and brass. It's all BS....OR I'm like you, just been REALLY LUCKY the last 4 decades.
So many variables, so little time... The reloading history was very interesting. Thanks for your great show.
Excellent video and well done .
Over the last 15 year my reloading process has gotten very simple. I live in CA, all we can use is copper, so bullets are simplified and I’ve landed on Barnes as the best. Typically I just go to the book, select the most accurate powder for the bullet weight, select charges near and/ or at book max, and I always get MOA and usually sub MOA results. I select OAL at book recommendation. Barnes Vortex loaded ammo is always great in my rifles but in price gouging California, too expensive. So I reload to copy the factory and save money.
It s fun to fuss with loading but I’m mostly over that. If you get 3/4 or 1/2 MOA why mess with that? I don’t use or pay attention to Hornady but I appreciate their research. I used hornady GMX once and got something like 6 inch groups in a very accurate rifle and never bought another hornady box of ammo or their bullets for rifles.
Good video.
I have been testing this myself. I loaded two groups of 25 rounds. One in 147 grain and one in 143 grain with a random charge weight for each group for my 6.5 CM and shot them each 5x5.
What I found is that the 5 shot groups in each 25 load test appeared to have nodes even though the charge weights were the same within the respective 25 shot test groups. One group of five even had an es of 7 and sd of 2.6. When I totaled up all 25 in each test the sd’s were 9.2 and 11.2 so not the same but not off by much. The group sizes were very similar only being off by about a tenth of an inch in total size and only a few hundredths of an inch mean radius.
My loads were all measured to the hundredth and seating force was relatively consistent and done with an arbor press with force pack and Wilson dies.
I am currently working up another batch to test this again and plan on dropping the charge weight on the 147’s some as I did get ejector swipe on three or four casings.
I believe that if nodes do exist that they do not exist to the extent that many believe and that es and sd are more of a measure of how consistent your reloading process is than a way to pick a charge weight.
Super informative video as usual. Thanks for virtually sharing so much of your knowledge.
Thanks for the timely info and tests. This will make me rethink everything, as we should. Seating depth changes pressure and case volume and jump, soooo i think its pretty important. But, cant explain how strapping a magnetospeed on the tip of the barrel is gonna play nice with harmonics.
Very cool, you earned a subscriber with this one. Excellent work man
Excellent video
Great video. I'm just a normal hunting reloader who limits my shot to less than 300 yards. I normally just do a pressure test using measuring ahead or the extractor groove. My max is the first load where I can detect swelling. Then I test with 3 shot groups with a few charges approaching the max I found. I don't mess with jump because my allowable OAL due to magazine length is usually nowhere near the touching the lands. I've developed two deer loads and one moose load that all shoot close to MOA and never looked back. Granted I almost never shoot over 200 yards but all my kill are one shot with only one moose that required some tracking but was still less than 50 yards from where I shot it.
It was a rushed close shot where the moose spotted us. Ended up being a high lung shot with no blood trail.I also shot one moose at over 200 yards quartering hard to me and it fell where I shot it. FWIW, original Remington factory loads shot about 3 inches at the time. I've since tried about 8 factory load that all shot close to MOA for 3 and 1.5 inches for 5 shot groups. They probably shoot better than that but it's all I can do with a 2X7 scope. Since factory loads are as good as my reloads now I don't reload. I still have some Federal TBT I'd like to reload but that will have to wait until I can snag a moose license.
As always, open minds and experimentation help achieve the results that work which are dependent on the goals. Great video Desert Dog
Great video for data gathering & learning. Hornady spin doctors please pull your heads in.
I love the Hornady podcast and listen to every episode. But……like Eric Cortina says, “Believe the target!” I’ve done the standard load development on all my rifles, and when you find that “node” or “sweet spot”, it’s a great feeling.
Thank you keep up the good work”good work “”
I had a 223 wssm that would push a bullet fast enough to cause disintegration due to the centrifugal force. It would sprinkle a target with shrapnel at 100 yards. I finally ended up shooting Barnes 62gr bullets, which held together and actual shot very accurately. Hand loading makes for some interesting times.
Fantastic video! Well done!
I think Hornady just wants to sell more components lol. But hey thats business I suppose. They do seem to have a great marketing team.
I think what this test reveals is that there are charges/bullet seating depths that can minimize the odd “flyer” that can come in and ruin a data set. What’s important is to find a powder, primer, and bullet combination that produces acceptable accuracy and velocity for the intended purpose. Realistically for my load development I like to just roll the dice and try a powder and bullet. If that combo is shooting like sh** from the get go at low charge weights I switch one or the other. I’m not trying to print tiny groups. I hunt in the woods so pinnacle accuracy is not worth chasing my tail over. I will go insane doing it. Check to make sure velocities are roughly where I want and I’m done. My X-bolt 308 will shoot 1 1/4” groups with the load I’m using now and I’m perfectly happy with that.
I have a personal theory. I don't claim it to be true but this is it.
Guns like velocity nodes not specifically powder nodes but if you can match up a powder node with said velocity node accuracy will result
To be clear what i am saying is that powder burn rate does not matter but the velocity the bullet obtains from said velocity does.
Obviously powder fill would still affect proper ignition and amount of powder burnt would affect velocity.
So a long heavy barrel would mitigate these affects causing less effects
Therefore people shooting competition rifles might come to the conclusion they dont matter but anyone shooting a skinny barrel knows immediately how much it matters
I completely agree with your opinion of Hornady! Also, I don't believe the tips on their bullets were "melting" in flight.
@Joe-lk6oc I was wondering about Barns tips. The tips are not centered very well. At least, I dont think so. And the tip is a softer plastic.
I guess all Hornady has to get you to do is just have a little doubt in their competitors.
@@jamesmooney5348 It was actually Hornady who "claimed" their original tips were melting in flight. I don't believe that for one second. It was more like a Hornady marketing ploy if I were to guess.
Likely just deforming to them “melting”
@Joe-lk6oc Yeah, I know.
But by the claim they made about tips, they were able to place doute in my mind about Barns tips.
I have no idea what actual temps are reached in the tip of a bullet as it travels down the barrel and then flies through the air. It's gotta be hot.
It would be interesting to find out.
And yes, Hornady is about sales, which i get sick of. But at least they have product on the shelves and they are not as expensive as Nosler. Nosler can pound sand.
Now they're claiming the tips are better if they're flat and not pointy
Awesome video. First I’m a hunter that started reloading because I wanted more consistency compared to factory ammo. I accomplished that but now I enjoy the reloading/shooting more than hunting. I do see truth in a lot that hornady said especially about powder. I realized awhile ago you can make a rifle like a powder or even a bullet but I have tried. Do I think there are nodes yes but not always. Does bullet jump matter, yes but if you are experienced enough and know bullets you should know how to set bullet length to get acceptable groups. Just like you knew to run those Barnes 50 thou back.
I am New to reloading I shoot 3 shot groups look for Best on I work up in 1/2 gn increments if the volisty is spread is under 20 I reload it again if it does about the same results I call it good. But my reloading is for hunting and just for fun shooting. Thanks for teaching
I have been reloading for 45 years, back I’m the late 1990’s Hornady did a work up on the new 9mm for the FBI after the Miami shoot out. I wanted to load some of these new rounds so I called Hornady (ballistic research department) and ask if they could mail me the work up tables for the 147 sub sonic 9mm FBI test ammo. The Guy said sure.
Two weeks later I got a brown envelope full of the all there recent 9mm work ups all hand written and water mark as Hornady propitiatory do not release or copy. This is my favorite 9mm data to load from. It has a section in my reloading binder with tab label “ Hornady Q Section” I’m very sure the data was published but my old copies still makes my day.
Great update - would be great to repeat it to see if it comes out the same. With the test was it shot on a fouled warm barrel or clean cold bore - just wondering if that impacted the numbers.
Very good video.
Love the videos keep them coming, but with Hornady there is alot of hot air coming out of that camp i just think they are trying to sell more bullets but I will say they have made some that I like right now I have a 6 arc that I won in a raffle that I am presently surprised with so idk
I love the channel I watch every episode! But I gotta say that hornady podcast was very convincing
Great vid
Thank you
Given that mean radius is never used in recording group size in competition, it isn't the standard that should be used to judge the precision of loads.
back in the day it would have mattered more but currently componants are so consistant, that now we can pretty much pick something at random and if your using name brand componants and a decent rifle and optic it will giving you 3/4 to 1 MOA. to getto 1/4 moa youll have to start upgrading the system. eg go from hornady to berger bullets, from a factory to custom/semi custom rifle. it all still matters but most of us have other limiting factors and the signal to nosie ratio is such that we cant see a diffrence.
Desert dog! Love your videos. Question: how important is shoulder bump when sizing? I have been told a few thousands bump is ideal after firing brass. But for some of my hunting loads have been bumped accidentally up to 8 thousands. Am I hurting accuracy? Thanks
I wonder similar.
Even though not stat relevant...you can soon see..better will generally shoot better ..but after 20 shots..those groups did look similar..
Velocity node for constant velocity..
But..what about vibration node...the timing of the bullet out of the barrell .is barrel at end of vibration..outer..or, central. This seems to be timing the bullet speed/barrel exit to match the barrel whip.
For some time ... I've given up on most load Dev ..too shy of barrel wear and component usage. Choosing 'moderate plus' speeds and seating with 3 thou jump.
With custom barrels..this seems to work very well. Only doing brief seating depth tests usually to no real difference found.
As you said at start...shooting very accurately and consistently is paramount...and very hard to do...and wind...finding dead still days to do this is tricky.
What I can do is very precisely measure the powder charge.
I'm waiting for case capacity air gauges to become readily available...internal volume of case is probably of more significance.
It's all very interesting.
Beautiful summary.
Well done again.
Thanks.
Looking at the groups at 5/10/20
With the velocity being erratic, the harmonics go too, so you’ll get more flyers.
It will be within the “norm” bc the norm is throwing flyers for the anti node.
Guess you covered it at the end, commenting too early! Lol second f class response said it eloquently
According to Hornady I’ve been doing it wrong for 40+ years. I don’t shoot long range, I hunt at 100 yards or so. My load development is take a bullet and work up a powder charge to give the best 3 or 5 shot group. I didn’t have access to a chronograph but the deer in the freezer never noticed. All my rifles shoot less than MOA. Job done.
But do nodes exist? That was the theme of this video. It's not backwoods hunter vs F-class shooter vs engineer. The video was never about that.
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 sorry if I went off track. I think nodes do exist, they can be found by different methods and degrees of accuracy to suit the intended purpose. As you suggested, sometimes we can use a whole lot of expensive and difficult to find components trying for the ultimate accuracy.
@@paulharding1621I agree
Good video.
Great video,but Ill stick with what Ive always done,and that is to find a load that shoots the same group,withon a quarter inch either way,for the first five shots out of a cold barrel.Im a hunter and never have gotten into match shooting.Not that I havent thought about it, but until I do,Ill load for optimum huntin accuracy.
You can just as successfully tell an adult piano tuner that "notes don't exist"....Don't choose pills, choose a drink.😂
Might be a good method for someone like me who is not interested in the absolute pinnacle of accuracy and would be happy with just a very accurate load. But it would definitely suck to have to buy small quantities of bullets and powder just to test a million combos
I ladder test with all my rifles, pistols and revolvers.
I wonder if this is Horniday trying to create a controversy to deflect from the 7 Power Reduced Cartridge controversies.
Is there any merit to actually measuring the temperature of your barrel to achieve a certain temperature goal before firing again?
Watch my video titled "point of impact shifts". I discuss the barrel heat issue and why the quality of your barrel matters. Top quality custom cut-rifled barrels almost never experience the issue.
Excellent content. Is there any chance the wind had any influence?
Not likely. 100 yards with a fast load and a 5 mph quartering wind. I also try to time my shots with breaks in the wind. The bigger issue was the mirage on this 110* day. This is why I stuck to 100 yards, turned the magnification down a little, cooled the barrel between shots, and shot up on the bench instead of prone on the ground.
Is that Hornady Red? Or what about Berger yellow?
Application determines what data collection and data production method to seek.
If you're going to make 2 significant shots on game at range, the hit zone is flexible to a point, take your meat home, be happy, then it doesn't matter as much.
If you're going to win matches at long range, be judged on group size, be firing rounds half a day, then it all starts to matter a lot more.
The big question this video was meant to tackle; is if nodes really exist. F-Class and Benchrest shooters say they do exist, and engineers say they don't. My testing was inconclusive.
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 The theory seems to revolve around the concept of barrel whip, or vibration frequency. What I have read many times and heard people talk about many times is the goal is to get the bullet to release the muzzle at a "dead" spot along that whipping frequency. If all other factors are minimized to insignificance, it seems increasing the pressure in the cartridge has affected the barrel frequency. Is this barrel whipping idea something engineers are saying is "the matrix" to use a metaphor?
Barrel tuners seem to highlight this frequency whip does exist, as small adjustments to tuning weights will tighten group size, other factors consistent. Or likewise, a moveable point of barrel support in the fore-grip of a stock has similar observed effects.
Forgive me if I'm off on rabbit trails. I did digest about half the Hornady podcast that's being referenced.
@@exothermal.sprocket Yes; they claim the entire "harmonic balance" theory is not grounded in reality when it comes to "sweet spots" or "nodes". Their testing indicates that either your barrel likes a bullet/powder combo, or it doesn't, and load development is meaningless. Brian Litz is currently on-board with this theory, and he is a very credible source. In the last year, many experienced reloaders have also embraced the nodeless methodology. Brian Litz, and most top shooters also claim that barrel tuners are a figment of our imagination. Much testing has been done with the Cortina tuners, and no statistical advantage has ever been realized during any scientific test. Like stated in the video, the reloading world is at the beginning of a big transition. The more I shoot larger-sample groups, and the more I try to repeat load results, the more doubts I have. One thing is for certain; 5-shot groups don't tell the whole story.
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 I wonder if the munition ballisticians and test engineers ever talk to mechanical engineers and metallurgists about steel harmonics and vibration frequencies, especially as it pertains to a piece of rod with a hole through the middle of it. There's ways to test theories about barrel vibration rather than obsessing over bullet impact patterns and trying to back-theory what might be happening with steel. Just a thought.
@@exothermal.sprocketNo, but they put tens of thousands of rounds on targets from a machine rest in a controlled environment to see if variables really matter. Both sides say "trust the target".
Very controversial but very very interesting.
Is 7 three round groups different than a 20 round group.
I'm pretty new to reloading, probably about 300 or rounds playing with load development, but my results seem reliably repeatable as far as the notes and seating depth compared to loads outside the notes... time will tell
Open minded and willingness, that's what I try to practice. I do know that the old 3 or 5 shot groups in different increments until u do or dont find something repeatable does work for hunting applications under 400 yrds, I've got tons of proof loaded up in the cabinet, in several calibers
But always in that rabbit hole, trying something new to get that little bit more, like the newest thing for me now is sizing mandrels, so we'll see how that goes. Mainly its good to have a good BS meter and common sense
Good job. Thanks for putting in the work
This is Science. Put a theory to the test. One thing that I think would have made this test better is if you didn’t know which group was loaded for the powder node. This would require a friend to label one lot of ammo A and the other B and have them record the velocity data. I don’t think your bias played a part in the results but theoretically it could have.
I would say based on your results, along with the results of countless others, that load development is absolutely real and I don't buy what Hornady is saying about it. After identifying the nodes you shoot a good sample of rounds to see what happens. When you shot those rounds in the node they were both more accurate and had a much lower SD than those that were in your anti node.
Me personally, I don't get this elaborate with load development because I'm not a long range competitor or long range hunter. If I was then I would want to go through this process of load development to really prove my load. But I'm just a big game hunter shooting no more than 400 yards distant, and with that in mind, plus the cost of components and the difficulty in finding them I just don't shoot anywhere near as many rounds as you did in this video.
No mention of optimum barrel time theory?
100% agree about hornady marketing. Variable drag technology? Sure maybe thats a thing but smashed tips isnt going to give you a consistent anything so there is a worthless patent. Dont get me started about the flash holes from case prep episode... i have 500+ brand new 22 arc cases that says hornady flash holes are some of the worst on the market and absolutely require deburring every single case just to attempt to get an accurate internal volume measurement.
Great video as always. I don’t know if Hornady is correct about the various parameters being insignificant but what they say about the statistics is obviously true. It is just basic math, I laugh when many youtubers take a couple 3 shot groups and declare a production rifle good or bad. It’s completely meaningless. Also, I don’t really trust the fclass shooters, many of them are taking a couple shots and fiddling with a barrel tuner, it’s all superstition. Sure, they can shoot but their silly routines are no different than rubbing a rabbit’s foot.
But F-class shooters shoot 20-round groups constantly, and the Hornady guys state that a 20-round group IS statistically relevant. Doesn't that make their case for the existence of nodes plausible as well? Look at my test in this video; pay particular attention to the SD's between my node and anti-node. People are looking for confirmation bias and skimming past the real question here; do nodes exist? My results were inconclusive and depend solely on perspective.
Too bad it’s 1 AM here… oh well, guess i’ll wake up late tomorrow
You must be in Europe. Hello from Wyoming in the USA 😁
How about the decades old method from The Real Gunsmith - 3 shot group/starting 1-2 gr below max, measuring velocity/SD, measuring for pressure, looking at your groups, than repeating the process by increasing charge for 0. 5 gr etc. ?
you'll never know the true average velocity or SDs with a 3-shot group. A 3-shot group tells you if your rifle is zeroed; that is all.
@@desertdogoutdoors1113 thanx DD
I still think the nodeless method is bunk for hunting ammo. Sure the deer will not know the difference between a 2 moa group and a .75 moa group, but allow me to sum it up this way. I’m most concerned about what my rifle does with the first couple shots so if I have a 3 shot group that measures at .80 moa vs one that measures at 1.7 moa and I’m planning on going on a hunt for pronghorn where a shot out to distances of 350-400 yards are possible (for me 400 yards is my maximum to shoot at game) which load will I use? The one that can shoot (in theory) under a 4 inch group at 400 yards or the one that would shoot (in theory again) a group over 6.5 inches? I know which I would use.
Try hitting foxes at 400 yards..then you really need sub moa performance...q
What is your experience with manuals listing accuracy loads ?
I ignore them. Every barrel is drastically different.