Loved the video, have noticed that quite a few shooters at matches don’t do load development. They pick a recipe from an article, or web site, or a buddy and that’s it. When I develop a load for a particular bullet I use a similar chicken scratch board, and use a 3 or 5 shot group. And after I find the best group I’ll use the chronograph on another range date. I use LC brass, some times mixed,some times same lot and date, powders are Reloader 15: AA2520, or MR2000. Primers are REM 7/12, or CCI 450. Bullets are Sierra or Hornady. Great videos good shooting this year.
Thanks! I used mixed brass last year on 200/300. Used straight Lapua loaded long on 600. This year, I got a boat-load of Starline for 200/300, sticking with the Lapua for 600. A buddy convinced me that the Lapua for 200/300 wasn't worth the cost vs reward. SMK 77 HPBT for 200/300 and switching to Nosler 77 RDFs for 600
Purchased 200 rounds of Norma match 223, SMK 77 grain loaded ammo just to shoot up in a 223 Ackley Imp.got 1- 1/4 inch groups at 300 out of a bolt gun velocity was only around 2500. Figure that out was not a one time deal I did have 200 rounds. My question about using the graph and the velocities. How do you know if you're at one end of the other of an extreme spread when you're using one shot?
@@stephenkrampert3430 once I have the most accurate loading, I load up about 10 then run them through a chronograph. And hope foe a good standard deviation.
After many years of loading development, I settled on the following method to identify a practical node. It is more or less a compromise between lowest SD and smallest groups. To verify my method, I observed many reloaders independently develop their loads and the same exact phenom happens. The smallest SD load, then followed a smaller group size. The theory of accurate loading process: In Physics, there is no free lunch. In closed thermodynamics systems such as the internal ballistic solution, the goal is to get: 1) A very low MV SD vs powder charge load 2) Small groups vs powder charge load 3) MV velocity stability vs powder temperature 4) MV velocity stability vs small powder variations 5) MV velocity stability vs primer choice 6) Low vertical dispersion at very long and extremely long ranges vs bullet selection First, let us solve the issues related to goals that we can control pretty easily. More specifically, 3) 4) 5) and 6) 3) Use temperature stable powder such as IMR endurance, Hodgdon Extreme Powder, etc. There are many online tests that you can search and find what powders are the most temperature stable (e.g., H4350) 4) Measure each powder drop to less than 0.1gr accuracy. It is easy to get to 0.02gr (1 extruded kernel) which is worth 0.3fps out of typical load 5) Make a small ladder test and see if the selected primers would produce a smoothly rising curve, if not, do not use those primers. There was a test in this video, do not use the primers that generate seesaw graphs. 6) Use VLD bullets with very low variations in G7 BC. For example, pick VLD bullets with less than 1% variation in G7 BC. Now, here we finished the goals that are virtually 100% influenced by the components Now, let us focus on the loading for the node. What is the node after all? Optimum Barrel Time, OBT node: It is the node (with respect to time) where the bullet leaves the barrel when the muzzle is subjected to the least dilation/contraction due to the powder explosion shock waves Optimum Charge Weight, OCW node: it is the node (with respect to time) where the bullet leaves the barrel when the muzzle is pointing to the same point of impact due to the powder explosion shock waves Optimum Feet per sec, OFPS node: it is the node (with respect to time) where the bullet leaves the barrel with the minimum SD of MV due to the powder explosion shock waves Keeping all parameters the same, changing the powder charge can change the MV and inversely the actual barrel time of the bullet Note: OFPS is my theory why MV SD would shrink for the same powder but by just changing the powder charge. What node are we after? Goal 1) is solved with OFPS node, a theory I introduced in September 2018. Goal 2) is solved with OBT time. The good news, OBT is numerically computed. With the advancement of very accurate radar-based chronographs and internal ballistic solvers, the OBT charge load can be accurately calculated. I had success doing that for few competitive shooters as proof of concept. How about Goal 1) the best way to find it in my experience is to shoot a group of 3-5 shots in a ladder test such as the 6.5group spreadsheet test and find the lowest MV SD The bad news is OBT node (smallest group) and OFPS node (lowest MV SD) don't overlap. Remember, in Physics, there is no free lunch. The good news is both nodes are adjacent and in my experience, if you find the OBT node, the OFPS node is the next step load in the ladder. As groups shrink MV SD will increase and vice versa. So, the best is to find a compromise load between OBT/OFPS nodes that works for the shooter.
Great info and thanks for sharing! I'm going to have to read this a few times to get my head completely wrapped around it. Also could you reference and or link some of the places where one can find searchable online tests that you mention that list powders/temperature stability?
Man, that was a great video in depth yet simplified, been doing this for 60 years try to keep up with new stuff ;old dog keeps going back to three and five shot groups change the charge weight try to learn and have fun doing it! Brass prep is a pain in the butt
I too have been loading and shooting for hunting for 55 years! after trying several of these methods, I'm going back to my 3 shot groups with 5 shot confirmation groups! I also know that a 2 MOA group is more than adequate for a hunting load especially under 200 yds but I really like a 1/2 MOA because it truly raises my confidence level and gives me more room for error!
I try to choose a powder to achieve the velocity I want, that will achieve close to 100% case fill. Nosler data has case fill percentages in their load data. Had good luck with this method.
That is a good method, I also prefer near 100% fill as it minimizes any inconsistent burn across "flat spots" in the powder lying in the case. I would also add seeking the powder that is most temperature tolerant with minimal variations across temp ranges
I develop loads for hunting and defense of dangerous game. I use Hornady's ballistic calculator for initial load development, then 3 shot groups at the range to check accuracy, then a swinging bucket of sand similar to the one in the back of P.O. Ackleys book to test performance. I consider barrel harmonics when building a rifle but never in regards to my reloads but have fired a friends Safary grade Browning in 338 with the Boss system and was quite impressed. I think I'll have to look into that aspect further. Consistent trajectory is more important to me than flat shooting. Not being a competitive shooter my accuracy only needs to match down range performance. My loads vary to the task at hand and the best depends on it's purpose. There always seems to be a trade off.
Sounds like a good process. In reality rounds for hunting aren't that dissimilar than those for competition except perhaps for competition we'll spend more time and resources looking for "perfection" that doesn't exist...lol For hunting and dangerous game, I think knowing a round will shoot well and RELIABLE would be the top concern. And for you in Alaska, temperature performance would be paramount. Check out Gordan's Reloading Tool. It's a learning curve but really interesting and would give you great info on the temps you shoot in.
@@CrustyOldMarine In a quick comparison Gordan's reloading tool has graphs Hornady does not but factors in similar information. Hornady's calculator has 2 calculators built into it. One is ballistics calculator the other is a 4dof for target rounds. I'm currently comparing ELD-X 220 grain that are hunting target boat tails with a special tip designed not to melt and deform in flight and listed in 4dof calculator to my old reliable 220 grain Round nose interlock only listed in the traditional ballistics calculator. The ELD-X has a big advantage at distance but in my book is rated for hunting big game where the RN interlocks are rated for dangerous game with no further explanation. Designed for cell phone is great for field use and if I really wanted more there is a 500 dollar accessory that measures wind, temperature, air pressure, etc. Some of the factors are beyond anything I'd even considered before like bullet yawl and even latitude. Amazing what can be factored in these days quickly in the field.
@@backacresalaska2272 One of my shooting buddies has gotten into rifle with us and he uses/likes the Hornady calculator. And, I have been using 140 gr Hornady ELD Match in my 6.5 CM, a pretty decent round but going to try Nosler RDFs in 140 gr... a little longer and a higher BC
I have a 20 inch stainless barrel, shoot 77gr with 25gr of TAC. I shot a bunch of groups and that seemed to be the most consistent load for me. Funny how we ended up close to the same load.
I am 2300 rds into 300 BO 100 yd accuracy. I am not at the range my usual mon. shooting session. Cold and windy, i was looking forward to testing 168 Hornady AMAX compared to Nosler Custom competition. 10 mph 168, .76, 175 Nosler, 1". today is just cold with 10 mph done that. i use 2 shot groups at 50 yds to compare different powder levels. Check best a 100. 3 & 5 shot groups. Then i go to seating depth at 50 then 100. I had no luck with boat tails, not bad accuracy but tear drop bullet holes. E. Cortina Break solved that problem. My mish mash of what works for me.
LOVE my Cortina Tuner on my RPR !!! Curious if you're 300 BO is Sub Sonic and if that's a possible reason for the tear dropping? I use the 168 AMAX in my M1 in 30-06 & they have been GREAT so far. Thanks for watching and your comment !
i do not get the accuracy from subsonic, i am running 1700 fps or so. Flatbased not boattail. my best is 130 gr Speer Varmint HP, with 20.8 gr CFE/BLK 1 hole@@CrustyOldMarine
Excellent video. I’d go with your analysis. I liked your data acquisition technique. Plan your work and work your plan. I’ve been hand loading since 72’ still using my trusty Bonanza CoAx press I bought in 72’. I don’t shoot over 400 yards or heavy for caliber bullets. I’m old school as far as hardware goes but do go along with more scientific methods such as OBT. I bought QuickLoad several years ago and put in my loads for my 222, 244, & 7x57 and they were very close to OBT times. My loads were developed in the mid 70’s and early 80’s with no chronograph. Again your video showed a lot of thought and work went into your bench work, computer work and presentation. Kudos and thank you for your service. One of my best friends (RIP John Hilmer) was a Marine, VN Vet and got me into centerfire shooting and reloading in 72’. I was in the AF and in VN for TET 68’. Keep on keeping on. I’ll have to check out the software you’re using. 👍👍
Thanks for watching and thanks for your feedback! Sorry your Marine buddy has gone on to guards the gates of Heaven and thank you both for your service as well!
Enjoyed the video. I’ve struggled getting the OBT software to match any physical results I’m measuring to the point where I’ve completely stopped using it. There seems to be too many variables for it to work regularly.
I agree that the software is, at best, only a helpful tool. It's no substitute for real, verifiable, on the range results. Like you said, there are too many variables. I'm going to try to utilize it for some guidance on some winter testing of a great load (warmer temp developed) to attempt to adjust the charge wt t& attempt o match the known velocity node. There will be a video on that. Thanks for watching !!
@@CrustyOldMarine I shouldn’t say I’ve completely stopped using it, but I have stopped using it to help find accuracy. I still use it for bullet/powder selections and combinations.
I think you nailed in the beginning of this video.... set your parameters of what you want or need the load to do... and be realistic about your expected results. I've been chasing my tail on all these different load ideologies... decided I need to find a load that burns completely before the bullet exits the barrel without showing pressure signs & most nearly fills the case... My .308 showed me this in a very noticeable way.... the worst loads having a very noticeable muzzle flash...
GREAT point that I did not address; "a load that burns completely (or as completely as possible) before the bullet exits the barrel..." Anything more is a waste of powder. Thanks for watching and your comment & observation!
Very good video. It was great to see a head to head comparison of the various methods. It’s a science, but a lot of art too, considering the hard choices one must make in deciding on what is the optimal charge. What amazes me is how different winners use such different methods to find their way to the podium.
All true. I think Cortina nailed it with his saying/axiom of "believe the target" Doesn't matter how you "got there" what the target shows IS the unvarnished truth.
Fantastic content! Your overlay of the combined methods data is the best use of crayon cookies I’ve seen in a long time. EmpIrical data beats theory every time, so as Jacob Bynum says, believe the bullet. The OCW that Dan Newberry developed continues to prove itself and is very efficient on components.
Thanks for watching and thanks for the comment! I think that's just the way my mind works. "why not try all of them?" ...lol. Worked out well and similar with my 6.5CM. Might get around to posting a vid on that too someday.
Hi Crusty. First time seeing one of your videos. AWESOME summary, with details and data. I’ve been studying in this area for a while, very familiar with the different methods you presented, but I’ve never seen (or even considered!) them all rolled together like this. VERY CREATIVE approach, really informative. I think I’m going to do this on my next load development. 1 comment though: as long as the groups are limited to 3 shots, the statistical issue still exists. Even so, the video shows how the various methods can converge when using the same base data. Awesome, a new subscriber today!
Thanks Ken! Always appreciate good feedback and new subscribers! And, you're absolutely right about the 3 shots not being statistically significant. That's why I did/do more to verify once that velocity node appears to be found. It has held up in further testing and matches as well.
I believe you can learn a lot from 3 shot groups. Every time I go to the range I shoot several 3 shot groups. I keep a record of every trip I take after several trips and many groups I take the average. I think that works great for hunting rifles and I never fire fouling shots just like I wouldn't on a hunting scenario
I haven’t seen anyone else combine all of them in this manner. That was interesting to see them all laid out like that. I believe that will be insightful for many. I’ll be checking out your other videos.
Thanks! Yes, it revealed a few unexpexted results. I've also done the same with my 6.5 CM load, maybe I'll get time to actually edit snd upload that video too. Thanks for watching and the comment!
Great information, I know will put a couple ways into my next development for my results. I have always done a five shot group for a node and also look at velocity to what I am trying to accomplish.
I just started a proper F Class Rifle build that will be 7 PRCW. I used this on my 6.5 Creedmoor and, I will use the EXACT same load development method for the 7 PRCW. It has worked wonderfully so far
Great content sir. I get the clear information of subject" LOAD DEVELOPMENT METHOD ". I am a physics student, so its more helpful for me. Your presentation was very understandable and unique. Thank you sir❤❤
Well, I'm sort of partial to my OCW system... :) and maybe I'm wrong, but I *think* you probably concluded that the 24.3 grain charge was easy enough to find shooting the actual target (which would need to be done anyway)... let me know if I'm wrong (you can find contact info on our website). I would use .2 grain increments with the 5.56, because the accuracy nodes are going to be .6 grains apart, which means scatter nodes come only .3 grain away from the OCW nodes. So 24.0 could scatter, as could 24.6 grains, with 24.3 being on the OCW node. Also, OCW nodes are 3% apart as a rule, so if 24.3 grains is on a node, then 24.9 grains should be as well. This in interesting because it puts 25.2 grains on a scatter node and that group tossed a lulu for sure. :D Get in touch if you'd like to. Would love to have you come to a class with us and we'd certainly discount your rate significantly. :) Dan Newberry
Dan, it means a lot that you watched, commented and liked the video! 24.3 sure looks good huh? 😉 And thanks a ton for the offer. I'd LOVE to come up and shoot and/or do a class. You're not that far away so, maybe this Fall
3 shot method, lowest SD's, group size and close to bullet makers book listed velocity. Then everything changes on your next change of components. That is why it is fun to reload and test. Then of course there is shooters ability.
Bad thing about bullet mfg listed velocity is that those are fired from special built test barrels and the info for that is not often published, outside maybe barrel length.
Velocities are always changing based on atmospherics. There is no “node” or stable spot. The correlation doesn’t equal causation. Hornady has proved this if you listen to their podcasts.
Great job going through the data! Really thorough and appreciate that you tried a bunch of different methods. Quick question - since you shot this at 50yds, your 0.48 inch group is actually pretty close to 1 MOA, right? Because 1 MOA is 1 inch at 100 yards and 0.5 inches at 50yds. Either way, solid group for a gas gun and you may be able to tighten it up by adjusting the seating depth! I've been going through the same challenges you have with some .308 load development. Tried a bunch of different methods and landed on a decent powder load, then had to mess with seating depth testing.
Awesome video!. I am new to reloading and was curios once you found your charge weight how did bullet seating depth impact it. Is seating depth the final tuning method or does it completely change the harmonics and results of these tests?
Wait a minute, at 17:40 you say your group was .384 inch/moa, but if you're shooting at 50 yards then there's no way that .384 inch equals .384 moa. Maybe at 100 yds, but not 50.
Yeah at 4:07, I say the rifle was ZEROED at 50 yds. 50 yards is really close to a 200 yd zero and we start SR @ 50 yds, that's why I zero at 50, to me it's easier to get a good grouping/zero than at 200. But, the test fired in this video was done at 100 yds. Sorry for any confusion and thanks for watching!
Thanks for putting this example together and sorta overlapping the load development techniques. I've tried most of these techniques and seem to end up back with the OCW method. When using the OCW method i choose the load which has adjacent groups that impact in the same general location. In your example this would be the 24.9 to 25.2 span. Next I would try some seating depth testing to see if i can reduce the group size a little more. Sometimes i will notice the velocity change per change in powder charge weight will be less too. I look at that as a 'plus' to choosing that load. I actually don't look at sd and es until I'm done. Generally the sd is single digit which is another 'plus'. Brass prep can make a big difference in this regard. It took me a while to realize I was the biggest variable in my load development process during the range portion. Firing a consistent group was hard for me to do. I'm getting better and more consistent now so that helps load development outcome.
Thanks! Seating depth isn't a variable I could really play with for Service Rifle except on the 600 yd loads. It's interesting how the Nosler RDFs in both 77gr (SR) and 140 gr (6.5 CM) worked out to be so close on the jump. I've got a good video dealing with Seating Depth on my 6.5 Creedmoor here ruclips.net/video/YAk96gSewuw/видео.html
When i shoot 2 shot groups of 5 groups with the same horizontal line. i use desk calanders from wallmart with a 3/4" dot from office section at each line intersection. I am handicapped with no chrno. i would rather spend the money on bullets,
I disagree and agree. A 3 shot group by itself doesn't tell you a whole lot. But, a 3 shot group that also meets other parameters such as great SD/ES, an OPT and/or OCW node gives fantastic information... to go verify. Check out the 2 videos on load development and accurizing my 6.5 Creedmoor. ruclips.net/video/TeDkqUwkq1E/видео.html ruclips.net/video/YAk96gSewuw/видео.html
Ha ha. I did. It didn't give a "best." It listed 1; Ladder Test, 2; OCW,, 3; Seating Depth Testing, 4; Chronograph and Velocity Nodes, and 5; Combine Methods as well as Pros and Cons for each. Thanks for watching!
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Loved the video, have noticed that quite a few shooters at matches don’t do load development. They pick a recipe from an article, or web site, or a buddy and that’s it. When I develop a load for a particular bullet I use a similar chicken scratch board, and use a 3 or 5 shot group. And after I find the best group I’ll use the chronograph on another range date. I use LC brass, some times mixed,some times same lot and date, powders are Reloader 15: AA2520, or MR2000. Primers are REM 7/12, or CCI 450. Bullets are Sierra or Hornady. Great videos good shooting this year.
Thanks! I used mixed brass last year on 200/300. Used straight Lapua loaded long on 600. This year, I got a boat-load of Starline for 200/300, sticking with the Lapua for 600. A buddy convinced me that the Lapua for 200/300 wasn't worth the cost vs reward. SMK 77 HPBT for 200/300 and switching to Nosler 77 RDFs for 600
Purchased 200 rounds of Norma match 223, SMK 77 grain loaded ammo just to shoot up in a 223 Ackley Imp.got 1- 1/4 inch groups at 300 out of a bolt gun velocity was only around 2500. Figure that out was not a one time deal I did have 200 rounds. My question about using the graph and the velocities. How do you know if you're at one end of the other of an extreme spread when you're using one shot?
@@stephenkrampert3430 once I have the most accurate loading, I load up about 10 then run them through a chronograph. And hope foe a good standard deviation.
After many years of loading development, I settled on the following method to identify a practical node. It is more or less a compromise between lowest SD and smallest groups. To verify my method, I observed many reloaders independently develop their loads and the same exact phenom happens. The smallest SD load, then followed a smaller group size.
The theory of accurate loading process:
In Physics, there is no free lunch.
In closed thermodynamics systems such as the internal ballistic solution, the goal is to get:
1) A very low MV SD vs powder charge load
2) Small groups vs powder charge load
3) MV velocity stability vs powder temperature
4) MV velocity stability vs small powder variations
5) MV velocity stability vs primer choice
6) Low vertical dispersion at very long and extremely long ranges vs bullet selection
First, let us solve the issues related to goals that we can control pretty easily. More specifically, 3) 4) 5) and 6)
3) Use temperature stable powder such as IMR endurance, Hodgdon Extreme Powder, etc. There are many online tests that you can search and find what powders are the most temperature stable (e.g., H4350)
4) Measure each powder drop to less than 0.1gr accuracy. It is easy to get to 0.02gr (1 extruded kernel) which is worth 0.3fps out of typical load
5) Make a small ladder test and see if the selected primers would produce a smoothly rising curve, if not, do not use those primers. There was a test in this video, do not use the primers that generate seesaw graphs.
6) Use VLD bullets with very low variations in G7 BC. For example, pick VLD bullets with less than 1% variation in G7 BC.
Now, here we finished the goals that are virtually 100% influenced by the components
Now, let us focus on the loading for the node. What is the node after all?
Optimum Barrel Time, OBT node: It is the node (with respect to time) where the bullet leaves the barrel when the muzzle is subjected to the least dilation/contraction due to the powder explosion shock waves
Optimum Charge Weight, OCW node: it is the node (with respect to time) where the bullet leaves the barrel when the muzzle is pointing to the same point of impact due to the powder explosion shock waves
Optimum Feet per sec, OFPS node: it is the node (with respect to time) where the bullet leaves the barrel with the minimum SD of MV due to the powder explosion shock waves
Keeping all parameters the same, changing the powder charge can change the MV and inversely the actual barrel time of the bullet
Note: OFPS is my theory why MV SD would shrink for the same powder but by just changing the powder charge.
What node are we after? Goal 1) is solved with OFPS node, a theory I introduced in September 2018.
Goal 2) is solved with OBT time.
The good news, OBT is numerically computed. With the advancement of very accurate radar-based chronographs and internal ballistic solvers, the OBT charge load can be accurately calculated. I had success doing that for few competitive shooters as proof of concept.
How about Goal 1) the best way to find it in my experience is to shoot a group of 3-5 shots in a ladder test such as the 6.5group spreadsheet test and find the lowest MV SD
The bad news is OBT node (smallest group) and OFPS node (lowest MV SD) don't overlap. Remember, in Physics, there is no free lunch.
The good news is both nodes are adjacent and in my experience, if you find the OBT node, the OFPS node is the next step load in the ladder. As groups shrink MV SD will increase and vice versa. So, the best is to find a compromise load between OBT/OFPS nodes that works for the shooter.
Great info and thanks for sharing! I'm going to have to read this a few times to get my head completely wrapped around it. Also could you reference and or link some of the places where one can find searchable online tests that you mention that list powders/temperature stability?
As for OBT and GRT, I advice to tune to the GRT to match your actual MV measured by Labradar
Man, that was a great video in depth yet simplified, been doing this for 60 years try to keep up with new stuff ;old dog keeps going back to three and five shot groups change the charge weight try to learn and have fun doing it! Brass prep is a pain in the butt
Thanks! Yep, whatever method one uses, it's hard to argue the results of the holes on the target
I too have been loading and shooting for hunting for 55 years! after trying several of these methods, I'm going back to my 3 shot groups with 5 shot confirmation groups! I also know that a 2 MOA group is more than adequate for a hunting load especially under 200 yds but I really like a 1/2 MOA because it truly raises my confidence level and gives me more room for error!
So far I don't understand much about guns, this video made me understand more about guns. Thank you you have share will
I try to choose a powder to achieve the velocity I want, that will achieve close to 100% case fill. Nosler data has case fill percentages in their load data. Had good luck with this method.
That is a good method, I also prefer near 100% fill as it minimizes any inconsistent burn across "flat spots" in the powder lying in the case. I would also add seeking the powder that is most temperature tolerant with minimal variations across temp ranges
I also use the OCW method, I pick the two best groups then tune with seating depth.
Nice video. You could try the Cortina seating depth method, where he only changes seating depth by .003" from group to group
That's been done after this velocity node testing. It works well too !! Thanks for watching!
This is actually 'Best load development method '❤
Thanks
I develop loads for hunting and defense of dangerous game. I use Hornady's ballistic calculator for initial load development, then 3 shot groups at the range to check accuracy, then a swinging bucket of sand similar to the one in the back of P.O. Ackleys book to test performance. I consider barrel harmonics when building a rifle but never in regards to my reloads but have fired a friends Safary grade Browning in 338 with the Boss system and was quite impressed. I think I'll have to look into that aspect further. Consistent trajectory is more important to me than flat shooting. Not being a competitive shooter my accuracy only needs to match down range performance. My loads vary to the task at hand and the best depends on it's purpose. There always seems to be a trade off.
Sounds like a good process. In reality rounds for hunting aren't that dissimilar than those for competition except perhaps for competition we'll spend more time and resources looking for "perfection" that doesn't exist...lol For hunting and dangerous game, I think knowing a round will shoot well and RELIABLE would be the top concern. And for you in Alaska, temperature performance would be paramount. Check out Gordan's Reloading Tool. It's a learning curve but really interesting and would give you great info on the temps you shoot in.
@@CrustyOldMarine In a quick comparison Gordan's reloading tool has graphs Hornady does not but factors in similar information. Hornady's calculator has 2 calculators built into it. One is ballistics calculator the other is a 4dof for target rounds. I'm currently comparing ELD-X 220 grain that are hunting target boat tails with a special tip designed not to melt and deform in flight and listed in 4dof calculator to my old reliable 220 grain Round nose interlock only listed in the traditional ballistics calculator. The ELD-X has a big advantage at distance but in my book is rated for hunting big game where the RN interlocks are rated for dangerous game with no further explanation. Designed for cell phone is great for field use and if I really wanted more there is a 500 dollar accessory that measures wind, temperature, air pressure, etc. Some of the factors are beyond anything I'd even considered before like bullet yawl and even latitude. Amazing what can be factored in these days quickly in the field.
@@backacresalaska2272 One of my shooting buddies has gotten into rifle with us and he uses/likes the Hornady calculator. And, I have been using 140 gr Hornady ELD Match in my 6.5 CM, a pretty decent round but going to try Nosler RDFs in 140 gr... a little longer and a higher BC
That's amazing work 👍
I have a 20 inch stainless barrel, shoot 77gr with 25gr of TAC. I shot a bunch of groups and that seemed to be the most consistent load for me. Funny how we ended up close to the same load.
@@RedDawnCA just curious, what barrel brand?
Another very interesting video. Very detailed and easy to understand.
I am 2300 rds into 300 BO 100 yd accuracy. I am not at the range my usual mon. shooting session. Cold and windy, i was looking forward to testing 168 Hornady AMAX compared to Nosler Custom competition. 10 mph 168, .76, 175 Nosler, 1". today is just cold with 10 mph done that. i use 2 shot groups at 50 yds to compare different powder levels. Check best a 100. 3 & 5 shot groups. Then i go to seating depth at 50 then 100. I had no luck with boat tails, not bad accuracy but tear drop bullet holes. E. Cortina Break solved that problem. My mish mash of what works for me.
LOVE my Cortina Tuner on my RPR !!! Curious if you're 300 BO is Sub Sonic and if that's a possible reason for the tear dropping? I use the 168 AMAX in my M1 in 30-06 & they have been GREAT so far. Thanks for watching and your comment !
i do not get the accuracy from subsonic, i am running 1700 fps or so. Flatbased not boattail. my best is 130 gr Speer Varmint HP, with 20.8 gr CFE/BLK 1 hole@@CrustyOldMarine
Thanks for another interesting video. Everything thoroughly explained. I enjoy hearing your process!
Excellent video. I’d go with your analysis. I liked your data acquisition technique. Plan your work and work your plan. I’ve been hand loading since 72’ still using my trusty Bonanza CoAx press I bought in 72’. I don’t shoot over 400 yards or heavy for caliber bullets. I’m old school as far as hardware goes but do go along with more scientific methods such as OBT. I bought QuickLoad several years ago and put in my loads for my 222, 244, & 7x57 and they were very close to OBT times. My loads were developed in the mid 70’s and early 80’s with no chronograph. Again your video showed a lot of thought and work went into your bench work, computer work and presentation. Kudos and thank you for your service. One of my best friends (RIP John Hilmer) was a Marine, VN Vet and got me into centerfire shooting and reloading in 72’. I was in the AF and in VN for TET 68’. Keep on keeping on. I’ll have to check out the software you’re using. 👍👍
Thanks for watching and thanks for your feedback! Sorry your Marine buddy has gone on to guards the gates of Heaven and thank you both for your service as well!
Thanks for explaining in detail about load developement. Very nice information provided by you in the video. I like it.
Excellent content!
Thank You !!
you explained things quite thoroughly even though I only understood half of it, it was nice to learn to something new today. thanks for this video.
Thanks for watching!!
Enjoyed the video. I’ve struggled getting the OBT software to match any physical results I’m measuring to the point where I’ve completely stopped using it. There seems to be too many variables for it to work regularly.
I agree that the software is, at best, only a helpful tool. It's no substitute for real, verifiable, on the range results. Like you said, there are too many variables. I'm going to try to utilize it for some guidance on some winter testing of a great load (warmer temp developed) to attempt to adjust the charge wt t& attempt o match the known velocity node. There will be a video on that. Thanks for watching !!
@@CrustyOldMarine I shouldn’t say I’ve completely stopped using it, but I have stopped using it to help find accuracy. I still use it for bullet/powder selections and combinations.
I think you nailed in the beginning of this video.... set your parameters of what you want or need the load to do... and be realistic about your expected results.
I've been chasing my tail on all these different load ideologies...
decided I need to find a load that burns completely before the bullet exits the barrel without showing pressure signs & most nearly fills the case...
My .308 showed me this in a very noticeable way.... the worst loads having a very noticeable muzzle flash...
GREAT point that I did not address; "a load that burns completely (or as completely as possible) before the bullet exits the barrel..." Anything more is a waste of powder. Thanks for watching and your comment & observation!
Very good video. It was great to see a head to head comparison of the various methods. It’s a science, but a lot of art too, considering the hard choices one must make in deciding on what is the optimal charge. What amazes me is how different winners use such different methods to find their way to the podium.
All true. I think Cortina nailed it with his saying/axiom of "believe the target" Doesn't matter how you "got there" what the target shows IS the unvarnished truth.
Thanks for the insight. Your explanation about "LOAD DEVELOPMENT METHOD" is very easy to understand.
Fantastic content! Your overlay of the combined methods data is the best use of crayon cookies I’ve seen in a long time. EmpIrical data beats theory every time, so as Jacob Bynum says, believe the bullet. The OCW that Dan Newberry developed continues to prove itself and is very efficient on components.
Thanks for watching and thanks for the comment! I think that's just the way my mind works. "why not try all of them?" ...lol. Worked out well and similar with my 6.5CM. Might get around to posting a vid on that too someday.
Love this video Amazing work
Hi Crusty. First time seeing one of your videos. AWESOME summary, with details and data. I’ve been studying in this area for a while, very familiar with the different methods you presented, but I’ve never seen (or even considered!) them all rolled together like this. VERY CREATIVE approach, really informative. I think I’m going to do this on my next load development.
1 comment though: as long as the groups are limited to 3 shots, the statistical issue still exists. Even so, the video shows how the various methods can converge when using the same base data.
Awesome, a new subscriber today!
Thanks Ken! Always appreciate good feedback and new subscribers! And, you're absolutely right about the 3 shots not being statistically significant. That's why I did/do more to verify once that velocity node appears to be found. It has held up in further testing and matches as well.
Very helpful. 24.3gr then vary the seating depth if you can until you exceed mag length.
Or if single feed slow fire for matches, beyond mag length 😁
Very good job. Great learning method. Describe nicely. You are very good.
Your explanation is amazing I learned something new
Love the video, very interesting and informative. Thanks for sharing
I believe you can learn a lot from 3 shot groups. Every time I go to the range I shoot several 3 shot groups. I keep a record of every trip I take after several trips and many groups I take the average. I think that works great for hunting rifles and I never fire fouling shots just like I wouldn't on a hunting scenario
And, I like using photoshop to overlay groups on each other for comparison. You're spot on for a no-fouling, cold bore shot for hunting!
Wonderful test comparison!
Thank you and thanks for watching!
Wow! Great Video! Thanks!
@@esanchez12043 thank you and thanks for watching!
I haven’t seen anyone else combine all of them in this manner. That was interesting to see them all laid out like that. I believe that will be insightful for many. I’ll be checking out your other videos.
Thanks! Yes, it revealed a few unexpexted results. I've also done the same with my 6.5 CM load, maybe I'll get time to actually edit snd upload that video too. Thanks for watching and the comment!
Great information, I know will put a couple ways into my next development for my results. I have always done a five shot group for a node and also look at velocity to what I am trying to accomplish.
I just started a proper F Class Rifle build that will be 7 PRCW. I used this on my 6.5 Creedmoor and, I will use the EXACT same load development method for the 7 PRCW. It has worked wonderfully so far
Thanks for the great comparison.
You're welcome, thanks for watching!
Great content sir. I get the clear information of subject" LOAD DEVELOPMENT METHOD ". I am a physics student, so its more helpful for me. Your presentation was very understandable and unique. Thank you sir❤❤
Thanks !! I envy you being a Physics Student and understanding all the aspects
great content
keep it coming
thank you
Thank you !!
Well, I'm sort of partial to my OCW system... :) and maybe I'm wrong, but I *think* you probably concluded that the 24.3 grain charge was easy enough to find shooting the actual target (which would need to be done anyway)... let me know if I'm wrong (you can find contact info on our website).
I would use .2 grain increments with the 5.56, because the accuracy nodes are going to be .6 grains apart, which means scatter nodes come only .3 grain away from the OCW nodes. So 24.0 could scatter, as could 24.6 grains, with 24.3 being on the OCW node. Also, OCW nodes are 3% apart as a rule, so if 24.3 grains is on a node, then 24.9 grains should be as well. This in interesting because it puts 25.2 grains on a scatter node and that group tossed a lulu for sure. :D
Get in touch if you'd like to. Would love to have you come to a class with us and we'd certainly discount your rate significantly. :)
Dan Newberry
Dan, it means a lot that you watched, commented and liked the video! 24.3 sure looks good huh?
😉 And thanks a ton for the offer. I'd LOVE to come up and shoot and/or do a class. You're not that far away so, maybe this Fall
Your videos is really innovative
Nyc contents about development method
3 shot method, lowest SD's, group size and close to bullet makers book listed velocity. Then everything changes on your next change of components. That is why it is fun to reload and test. Then of course there is shooters ability.
Bad thing about bullet mfg listed velocity is that those are fired from special built test barrels and the info for that is not often published, outside maybe barrel length.
Very informative video thank you sir
Wow it's a really cool and outstanding method. Thanks for sharing with us❤️
24.6 gives a velocity node and accuracy node
I wouldn't argue that but, you think so from this testing and rifle or your own?
Out of YOUR gun. Lol
Velocities are always changing based on atmospherics. There is no “node” or stable spot. The correlation doesn’t equal causation. Hornady has proved this if you listen to their podcasts.
Great job going through the data! Really thorough and appreciate that you tried a bunch of different methods. Quick question - since you shot this at 50yds, your 0.48 inch group is actually pretty close to 1 MOA, right? Because 1 MOA is 1 inch at 100 yards and 0.5 inches at 50yds. Either way, solid group for a gas gun and you may be able to tighten it up by adjusting the seating depth!
I've been going through the same challenges you have with some .308 load development. Tried a bunch of different methods and landed on a decent powder load, then had to mess with seating depth testing.
No, the rifle and optic had a 50 yd zero on it but, the test was shot at 100yd. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for answering this, I had the same question!
Awesome video!. I am new to reloading and was curios once you found your charge weight how did bullet seating depth impact it. Is seating depth the final tuning method or does it completely change the harmonics and results of these tests?
In my experience, the seating depth only fine tunes it. Thanks for watching!
Your explanation is very good,very infomative content,I like it very much,well done,keep it up,thnks for sharing this informative video❤❤.
Amazing work
Wait a minute, at 17:40 you say your group was .384 inch/moa, but if you're shooting at 50 yards then there's no way that .384 inch equals .384 moa. Maybe at 100 yds, but not 50.
Yeah at 4:07, I say the rifle was ZEROED at 50 yds. 50 yards is really close to a 200 yd zero and we start SR @ 50 yds, that's why I zero at 50, to me it's easier to get a good grouping/zero than at 200. But, the test fired in this video was done at 100 yds. Sorry for any confusion and thanks for watching!
Thanks for putting this example together and sorta overlapping the load development techniques.
I've tried most of these techniques and seem to end up back with the OCW method. When using the OCW method i choose the load which has adjacent groups that impact in the same general location. In your example this would be the 24.9 to 25.2 span. Next I would try some seating depth testing to see if i can reduce the group size a little more.
Sometimes i will notice the velocity change per change in powder charge weight will be less too. I look at that as a 'plus' to choosing that load.
I actually don't look at sd and es until I'm done. Generally the sd is single digit which is another 'plus'. Brass prep can make a big difference in this regard.
It took me a while to realize I was the biggest variable in my load development process during the range portion. Firing a consistent group was hard for me to do. I'm getting better and more consistent now so that helps load development outcome.
Thanks! Seating depth isn't a variable I could really play with for Service Rifle except on the 600 yd loads. It's interesting how the Nosler RDFs in both 77gr (SR) and 140 gr (6.5 CM) worked out to be so close on the jump. I've got a good video dealing with Seating Depth on my 6.5 Creedmoor here ruclips.net/video/YAk96gSewuw/видео.html
Great informative video thanks for share
When i shoot 2 shot groups of 5 groups with the same horizontal line. i use desk calanders from wallmart with a 3/4" dot from office section at each line intersection. I am handicapped with no chrno. i would rather spend the money on bullets,
LOTS of Lab Radar Chronos on the market relatively cheap now that the Garmin is out
Very nice video
A nice video
A grain off max load, bullet seating depth to adjust group size. Send it..
Amazing
You guys make reloading so difficult when it doesnt have to me. Video should be titled "How to make yourself miserable for no reason"
😂
It is amazing
You cannot learn enough from a 3 shot group.
Unless it is a bad group. Then you may have learned all you need to know about that combo.
I disagree and agree. A 3 shot group by itself doesn't tell you a whole lot. But, a 3 shot group that also meets other parameters such as great SD/ES, an OPT and/or OCW node gives fantastic information... to go verify. Check out the 2 videos on load development and accurizing my 6.5 Creedmoor. ruclips.net/video/TeDkqUwkq1E/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/YAk96gSewuw/видео.html
Hornady found that true dispersion results can be safely calculated after shooting a 60 round group….seriously. 3 rounds ain’t enough for sure.
Ask chat gbt
Ha ha. I did. It didn't give a "best." It listed 1; Ladder Test, 2; OCW,, 3; Seating Depth Testing, 4; Chronograph and Velocity Nodes, and 5; Combine Methods as well as Pros and Cons for each. Thanks for watching!
Eat a lot of proteins??
Sure used to...
White Kevin Hall Mary Harris Dorothy
That's amazing work 👏👏