This changed my life. That 3% rule is the bomb. I don’t even look for tight groups anymore, easier to find two scatter nodes and go in between those. Works amazingly
I think the whole point of Bryan and Jayden's "large sample size" proclamation was strictly addressing the claims of "My rifle shoots 1/4moa" that gets thrown around a LOT. Sorry, but no it doesn't. Not CONSISTENTLY anyway. Sometimes sure, maybe more often, but the TRUE moa of your rifle is the avg of ALL groups, not just the cherry picked ones. Just because it CAN shoot sub 1/4 min groups does not make it a 1/4 min rifle. Numbers don't lie. That's what I took from it anyway.
Totally agree. I did load development and there was a screamer of a group. However the SD started to open up and the 2 charges above had worse SD. So I chose the middle of the tighter SD and I'll tune the group with seating depth. Wow this video is fascinating.
I disagree with your theory the rifle. Is capable of 1/4 moa. The human factor is the effect of the group. So. If the operator of the rifle fails. It’s not 1/4 moa gun. But we all have opinions. THANK YOU and believe the target!!!
@@jimmiller6030 I'm mainly referring to the internet warriors who claim their factory rifle w/handloads, shooting off a bipod, will shoot 1/4 moa all day long and have 1 or 2 targets to prove it. I call BS. It's capable once in a while...not consistently. I understand that top level shooters with custom comp rifles ARE capable of well under sub 1/4" consistebtly, especially under ideal conditions. It's a whole different league. That said, in "real world" conditions, even the top ranked benchrest shooters don't agg sub 1/4 over time, maybe not even a whole match according to Bryan's data.
@@ericbennett1253 my. Point is that the science guys are making a statement that there is no such thing as a 1/4 1/2 moa. Rifle. I disagree with that blank statement Shit. Happens. To discredit something. On this is ridicules with the precision equipment today. It is completely capable And no. The average person and rifle is not the norm. We should all have a open conversation and. Learn. You can teach a old dog new tricks. When you choose to not listen and learn You will never grow wise
Man, that 1.5% rule of thumb is really amazing. I did a OCW test on a really shakey bench W lots of wind so it was hard to find a great group, but the scatter node was very obvious and I had decent groups 1.5 % up and 1.5 % down in charge weights. With my 223, this lesson also convinced me to move my loads in .1 gr increments not .2 gr as those big moves are too big of a percentage move. What great insight
Great conversation! I am from a large racing background and agree a lot with the development thought processes. They are parallel in the methods for both. I just started my rifle handloading in .308 I have been building 5 shot charges of .3 grain increments. The next test will have the round robin in effect. makes sense to me. Thank you both very much!
This is one of the best conversations I have heard around predicting accuracy and WHY. The picture of the three potential nodes. One low, one high and one scatter in the middle. Perhaps it is just evidence of where I am at in my reloading Journey. Keep up the great content!
Once again pure awesomeness. For a guy that just try's to find something that works well on dozens and dozens of rifles using a simple ladder I still very much appreciate all of these angles on load development
Another great one! OCW was the first method I ever used, as I didn’t have a chronograph for a long time, it works! I hope to go through his classes at bang steel very soon!
Thank you Erik and Dan, was the best explanation of the OCW method of load development I’ve heard. It all makes sense now, your explanation of barrel resonance verses grouping was brilliant. Thank you.
I've been doing Dan's method for many many yrs now.. It flat out works. Thanks for the valuable information guys..you are both a wealth of knowledge and a very valuable asset to the shooting world..thanks guys..!!
Great interview. I really liked how candid you both are about the current limit of knowledge. We know it works, but we don't know why. I especially liked the bit where you said you don't bother with tuning your seating depth. I bought one of your tuning breaks for my 22-250 Varmint rifle, and I'm working on load development. I was about to stress out about my seating depth and do a bunch of testing, but if I can get the same result with the tuner, then I can skip that step.
Number 1, i like your channel. I've been following you when you were building barndo's. Small sampling vs large sampling, i think your methods and reasoning is a completely different end game than Jason (hornady). Jason's job and methods to help design bullets,ammunition, and other components to shoot well across the board for the whole world to use. From 30-30's to 50 bmg's. To put it in automotive terms, he's using large sampling to develop parts that work well in every Volkswagen, Camaro, and 4x4 in the world. Your the owner/mechanic of a top fuel dragster, using and modifying parts to keep it running to its best potential. He's keeping Toyota's running 300,000 miles, and your maintaining the performance of a dragster that needs to be rebuilt 4 times in 1 mile. I think you both are right. If im way off just ignore this comment, my bad
Everything I know about loading 308 came from Dan Newberry. I cant thank him enough for what he has done for the reloading community. BUT......thanks Dan
Great interview. Thank you so much to both of you. I have dabbled with the OCW method several times over the years. I just wasn't sure if I was getting it right. But after listening to Dan explain his method, I really started connecting the dots. I can't wait to get out and try it again. Thank-you very much for your help!
Thanks you both for sharing with us all again.Dan you made me laugh so hard with your comments on primers at 80.00 and will they ever come down? Up here in Canada on gun sites they are selling for 500.00 to 600.00 ! With powder at 100.00 to 140.00 a pound .Thank you’re lucky stars you are both in the USA
Never thought about these things. New to this sport. Makes sense. I now understand why velocity isn’t always the most important factor. Now I understand what to look for an use charge weight as a start. Seams like constancy for everything else after the trigger pull as far as far as how firm the shouldering is, grip, etc would all affect the harmonics and a more firmly gripped rifle will mean less absorbed energy which should equate to harmonics change.. interesting!!
I have always though of it this way. I am lazy. I will not be precise. (Reloading) I will make mistakes. (Shooting) I choose a projectile and cartridge. I’ll use quick load and GRT and estimate the points I need before taking the practical tests. I Choose a powder that will give good fill for the case at roughly a speed that will keep all the variables I need for the farthest distance I will shoot with that cartridge. I start at -0.0200 off the jam point. I find the widest (min .3gn) reasonable 1/2” group at 110y minimum. (There are usually a couple.) I play around a bit at those nodes to to check that they are actually ok. I choose the widest one not the most accurate. I use seating depth to tune the load as best I can. I reload in a haphazard half assed manner and still at matches I drop very little points. If my friend who is very meticulous loads for me I can win the comps if I don’t make any shooting errors. If I load I’ll come too 5. That’s good enough for me. The person that usually come first is both precise and does not make mistakes.
Excellent video subjects! On barrel Harmonics. If you imagine looking down your barrel as a shot is fired, a transfer of motion begins to the barrel before the "jet effect" takes place. 1. The bullet impacts the rifling which imparts CW torsion to the bullet to give the spin of some 200k+ rpm, while imparting a CCW rotation to the barrel. (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) 2. Barrel movement then is measurable in the opposite directioin, i.e. CCW. And becomes a problem when standard deviation in fps for the load exceeds a minimum %, placing the barrel end inconsistently in it's circular trajectory (Delta Time). Tho you're holding onto the stock, the barrel still whips in a rotational direction opposite the spin direction of the bullet. So, the position of the crown as the bullet leaves the barrel affects flight path at it's earliest point. Ideally, a minimal standard deviation for velocity guarantees that the barrel crown is in the exact position in space as each bullet leaves the barrel, to ensure a consistent flight path and most accurate shot placement. And have found this most important in handloading. An effect more pronounced in larger calibers and heavier bullets. Forget neck turning ...
Again it’s note taking time. I’ve seen a lot of videos on OCW but haven’t tried it. I’ve got a new batch of Lapua brass and Berger bullets that I think I’ll try the OCW. I normally just shoot 3 round groups but not in the round robin sequence. Who knows that 3% just may save me some money and time. Great interview as always Erik. Keep em small and believe the target 😊
One of the main things you are accomplishing with these podcasts, is pointing out the theories, and giving folks the chance to investigate what turns their crank, and pointing out where to go to start on it. Forums and You Tube are great for that, never know where it'll lead you next. And if a person does enough investigating, they will figure out that not very much is set in stone when it comes to reloading, and then the same with shooting. There are some basics to each, but, then there are the variables, and there are as many of them as there are people,or the shoes they choose to wear, or the car they like, or don't like.
Absolutely loved this one! I learned tons! Came here after the Alex Wheeler episode and now Im going to binge on these episodes full of knowledge and valuable information!
Thanks again Eric for the great podcast. I think where a lot of guys are mis-understanding about statistics & in particular; sample number, is that a small sample size doesn't mean the rifle & or load are no good. It simply means that with a low sample number like 3 per iteration or change somewhere in the load that, the results that you see are basically inferred or assumed & not measured. When you have all the top class equipment, it's hard to tell, even with a much higher sample number, what is actually better. If you shoot a 3 shot group in testing & see a larger group than you like, what may well have happened is that group may be the largest group that the particular load will ever shoot but, you can't know that because 3 samples are way too small a number to assess that yet. The very same thing can & does happen when a particular load shoots a tiny group. I believe the reality for you & many others is that there is probably very little difference in load performance simply because of the rifle/shooter/bullet/cartridge combination regardless of the perfect load every guy thinks they have. Small sample numbers provide very little information to make any discissions so, it must be that the rifles just good with most of what is fired.
I love this podcast, because it's all about practical application . And what really works. Believe the target!!! None of that stuff really matters at the end of the day. Were you a winner or were you a loser. Did you hit the target where you wanted to. Did you bring that game home like you intended to when you set out for it.
Again Erik awesome interview so good in fact I am watching it again. Does seating also have nodes like optimal charge weight? I keep say saying it I learn so much from your channels 👍
Elimination or at least suppressing "confirmation bias" might be helpful during testing, especially for limited round count tests. It would require an assistant to randomly supply ammo and spot and record shots. Some people can detach from "belief/ hope" and ego and some might not.
I remember Dan from a reloading forum several years ago. Called himself Green788. He took a lot of heat from people when he first coined the phrase "optimal charge weight". It wasn't a popular theory among the traditional ladder aficionados. But it works. Ive been loading that way for decades.
Another brilliant and hugely informative podcast, thank you! It has occurred to me while watching your video's that yours is a hunt for a "hummer" barrel, as well as reducing every variable that you can, and that got me wondering; has anyone looked at and compared scientifically a "hummer" barrel against an "ordinary" one? Good luck at the World Championships!!
My understanding of node and anti node. Is theres a sound wave that travels the length of the barrel , the harmonics of the sound wave has areas where theres a lot of movement off center of bore line. That's anti node. The sound wave will also have a point where its passing through the centerline of the bore. At that specific point there will be no movement. That's the node. If you pluck a guitar string especially on the base end of scale you can see it.
I think you might have it backwards. With reference to speed being the same as change, the barrel is actually moving the slowest at the top and bottom of the node because it’s reaching its Apex, it begins to slow down, and then stop before starting it’s acceleration in the opposite direction. At the centerpoint of this wave, the barrel is actually traveling the fastest, and would be the most inconsistent time for the bullet, to leave the barrel, as we would be talking about micro fractions of a second having different directions. If you can time the bullet departure at either Apex, then you have a much longer time frame and a much smaller movement. I might be wrong.
@@nicobowersock6571 , the term node and anti node applies. If you pluck a guitar string you will see where it vibrated and where it's still. The harmonic wave, can travel down the barrel causing it to do as you describe. However , if you belive in positive compensation, than you can use this in your advantage. A faster bullet leaves the barrel at the node, slower leaves later and you're trying to time it so that the barrel is rising. Poi is now that same. This must , and I mean must be tuned on at the distance that you're going to be shooting. If you tune at 100 yards or whatever is a different distance than that will be where to paths cross, and getting farther apart as you extend the range that you're shooting.
@@nicobowersock6571 , I do agree with all of the different ways that is being described. It's all the same just different ways of talking about the same things.
The Satterlee Method and Eric’s information about 3 thousands at a time seating depth test will allow you to find an excellent load very quickly. The OCW method sounds a lot like the Satterlee test that I do. 12 shots at .2 increments gives me the information on flat spots in the speeds.
Great information , thank you all for these interviews . As a air rifle shooter do these 3% accuracy nodes exist in the air rifle world too ? From what I have seen they do . But it never registered till I consumed this interview . You have made a believer (in the target) out of me . Keep on teaching and we will do are best at learning all we can from you all . Thank you again ! 🍻🍻🍻
The "opening and closing" of those groups are called "nodes". Those are based on barrel harmonics. OCW is the only way I've been handloading for the last 25 years. Maybe guys don't see this kind of stuff like others do, but it's all mechanical and mathematical in relation. I'm not an engineer, but do have friends that are aeronautical engineers that get pissed at me because of my mechanical way of thinking. In one range session, I can find an excellent load for any given rifle. The target never lies and for those guys that don't think groups matter or group dispersion doesn't matter, they have a lot to learn. I don't care what school they graduated from.
Hey Eric, your test methods are to find accurate loads for your rifles. Hornady tests to find and log data. Then they study the data to find accurate loads on a consumer basis.
Dan's visual aid is good. I don't have the space here to elaborate much, but think about this. From ignition to exit, bullet acceleration is not linear. Primer, powder burn, et al. Absolute velocity does not in and of itself determine the timing between barrel resonance and bullet exit. You know about charge effect. Seating changes length of travel and thus exit time. Tuner changes resonance and thus effects length in time of the tuning cycle. Rough tune with charge. Fine tune with seating and tuner. Some folks fine tune at the range with a hand seating tool. Too soon old and too late smart.
The OCW test target is easily my favorite @100 yd for GP load testing and precision work. Six targets on one 8x11” sheet of paper that I can print out for a few cents at my convenience… waaay better than getting a poster sized, $1 range special with only five targets on it. I remember that paper from way back… been reading on OCW and OBT since the beginning. Interesting stuff, even if I’m almost exclusively a factory ammo guy.
The node of a standing wave is the point where there is no movement. The anti-node is the point of maximum movement. The standing wave isn't a sine wave, it's an interference pattern. Better still, here's a quote (from a website that YT won't let me link to) "a standing wave is formed as the result of the perfectly timed interference of two waves passing through the same medium. A standing wave pattern is not actually a wave; rather it is the pattern resulting from the presence of two waves of the same frequency with different directions of travel within the same medium." Have you ever looked into a washing machine. It's full of standing waves. One part of the wave us sloshing up and down (antinode) and there's another part that looks like someone is pinching it and it isn't moving (node). So where do these interfering waves of the same frequency come from? At the time of the explosion (primer lighting the powder charge) a pressure wave travels down the barrel from the chamber and back. In my mind it looks like a smoke ring or donut that is attached to the barrel (actually it is the metal of the barrel) traveling down the barrel and back. The frequency of the wave or waves that combine to create a standing wave, it seems to me, is established by the speed of the pressure increase, ie the burn rate of the powder. The amplitude of the waves that combine to make the standing wave is related to the pressure spike. Lot's of things contribute to that. There's a ton of info out there on standing waves. They exist in RF signals traveling down coax, rifle barrels, etc.
I just took 3 of my best shooting loads in 2 different calibers and went 3% higher in all the loads and they all shot very, very well. 45:10 Loved this video. Lots of nuggets. 2 6.5 prc loads and 1 7 prc load . Not only that but the 3% theory went from 1 caliber to the next.
It’s a very different system than Erik’s system. Choosing powder charge for group and barrel stability harmonics. My understanding is powder charge for finding SD/ES node and seating depth or barrel tuner for tight group control.
That 3% concept seemed fishy to me. So I dug out some ladder test data I had from 3 different rifles. Son of B! My nodes are 3% apart with my 22-250, a 6.5 Creedmoor and my 300 wby. Holy cow that's legit!
Erik, my perspective is that you do shoot very large groups and your “statistics” are gathered over many firings whether they be development or matches. You shoot the same caliber many many times and you gather all that knowledge each time. So my belief is that you and all F-Class / BR shooters are doing exactly what the Hornady Scientists are looking for.
Hornady is just saying there is dispersion in every group. One guy shoots a 1/4” 3 shot group has a % of dispersion. So your 3” group at a 1000 yards is going to be part of a dispersion it could be the smallest or largest so your .2 gun could actually be a .05 gun or it could be a .5 gun. There just saying you have to shoot more ammo to come up with the true dispersion or what to expect in your gun to group.
On some of the tests that I saw, specifically from Bolt Action Reloading RUclips channel, if I recall correctly he charged all the cases exactly the same and then put each reloading tray (with open cases) into varying conditions of humidity. So initially each case had the same charge...but he showed a massive difference in velocity by altering humidity.
So by adding a Suppressor to your rifle you have kind like adding a non adjustable tuner to your barrel, Which explains why that groups tend to tighten up with some rifles?
I think large sample sizes are best when you're starting with a factory rifle, and with new powder, and with a new bullet. In this case, there are tons of variables. Benchrest shooters already know the power and bullet that works in their rifle. They usually know within .3 grains which change is optimal. They don't need a large sample size because issues that cause scatter and flyers don't exist in their setup. They're fine tuning, the rest of us normal guys are trying to get the motor started. Our data is contains a lot of noise.
I new sabot this theory but never really looked for the pattern in my data. I just checked all my old load data. It's there in every damn test. Scatter mode (the opposite of a node is mode)*1.015 and lo and behold there's a node series repeating. And I did it with 3 and 5 shot groups. It's almost like trend lines don't need huge data sets to show data patterns.
Humidity and powder. If you buy a ton of wet sand and a ton of dry sand, you will have a better deal with the dry sand!! Vihtavuori powder charts very often top out on your OCW in my experience. At least with my Creedmoor and 308, dead On max charge with a few different combinations.
So if hodgdon says their max load listed is always accurate, does that not mean I can reduce it using the 3% rule until I get near min load and that should be an accuracy node?
My 2 cents on the sample size thing: what the large sample size folks are characterizing is the population distribution and you do need a large sample size to do that accurately. This is a positive test. What a small sample size testing can indicate is, if you get a bad result, it allows you to decide that, if your population (combination of barrel and components) can have that (bad) result (or worse) in it and that result is unacceptable for your purpose, you need to change something - a negative test. This is what I hear competitors doing and Hornady even mentioned this in passing during the first interview. Note - you can be fooled in the latter if you try to read in a positive result into it but, from what I've picked up from a lot of these podcasts, is that competitors do a lot of verification testing which builds up a large sample size. Also note - there a whole world of statistics beyond the population characterization (ANOVA, P-test, Bayesian Point Estimation theory, etc.) that provide a framework for making educated guesses (within a confidence interval) with smaller sample sizes. Sorry for the rambling.
The larger the sample, the more predictive power it has. A tight five shot group could mean you have a good combination or were unlucky enough to have a bad combination result in a tight group. You'll only know which when you fire more shots. Most people think they have an X MOA rifle based on a few small groups, but in reality it is +- 30% worse than the nice groups are (One standard deviation.) The danger in small samples is that you won't actually know if it is a tight group, or even if that group is zeroed where you think it is, until you fire more shots. Whether you know it or not, we're all on team large sample, because nobody is going to stick to a load that used to shoot great, but doesn't anymore. The difference is whether you pay the cost up front with larger samples to confirm whether a combination is working, or if you do that by chasing a zero and making small adjustments, like dang I keep missing low, better click up.
@@jatollar Agree and not. Let me try a different way: if, for example, I need 0.5 MOA to be competitive and fire even 2 shots 5 MOA apart, I don't need the predictive element of large sample - as long as I called both shots good. I don't care just how bad that combination of barrel, bullet, powder, load, primer & brass are and don't need to shoot another 28+. Just cross it off of the list and change something. What small sample sizes do is to quickly eliminate obvious bad combinations and allow me to spend more time & resources on proofing the potential good combinations from the good small sample size groups. But you are correct that I would then increase the sample size (a bit) on potentials to weed out the ones trying to fool me from the small sample size. I could then iteratively repeat the process and/or use the pattern recognition from BR guys, OCW proponents or all of the above until I had the load that best meets my requirements with high confidence. High confidence = large sample size. So there is a time and place for both and, like most times, no one size fits all.
@@michaellinane212 I think I agree and see where we (were?) misunderstanding each other. Assuming 0.5MOA requirement, it doesn't make sense to fire 30 shots when you can clearly see from five shots you're shooting 2MOA. The part where I may have misunderstood your argument, is it sounds like decisions were made based on small numbers without further confirmation. So for example I'm working up a new load soon and I'll shoot five shots at a range of charges so I have enough shots to establish a decent trendline to compare to the manual for safety. I might spot some good SD's or even a good group, either could give some indication where I should start. If my goal was best accuracy, I'd make up a few more batches bracketing the charge I liked for any reason be it velocity or group, probably 10 each, and shoot groups to see if any were promising. That's about as far as I typically go, I'll pick the best group, but I typically choose higher velocity for unknown range shooting I do. I'll zero using three shots, five when I think I'm there, then shoot a larger group (10-20) to confirm.
awesome. i have a thought on the humidity/powder relationship. Dry gravel weighs more pr volume than wet gravel. It seems backwards, but it is a fact. Perhaps gunpowder does the same thing? I may try a simple test of this.
Just my opinion about shooting a bullet at a particular speed. I heard a story about a bullet that wasnt anything great in its shape, however it outshot other bullets in weather and consistancy was above average. The bullet was studied to duplicate shape but it didn't always work. They couldn't figure it out until they saw the shape of the bullet once it had left the barrel. The bullet had opturated to the barrel and it changed the shape to be something that it wasn't before. The shape had changed to something that those who study it understood as a great shape. In my mind both the starting shape as well the jacket material and pressure pushing on the bullet is changing what the bullet is as it conforms to the barrel. It makes sence to me that it would require a certain pressure to make the correct change in shape. If that's true, then pressure would matter. Hence a particular bullet would like a general speed or pressure that causes it to operate to the bore and change the shape to what the bullet likes. Some jackets, ie Burger might be more consistent because it resist change of shape more so than a bullet like Sierra that has a softer jacket.
I wonder how many shots are thru a tunnel test barrel before they change it. Bullet makers tests are for bullet makers, shooters tests are for shooters.
This vid was fantastic clarification on all the tid bits of information I have gotten from this channel. Thank you so much Eric and all the guests.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for your time Mr. Newberry! And that 3 percent tidbit was valuable info. I look forward to trying that when I need to shift. Thanks!
Thank you
This changed my life. That 3% rule is the bomb. I don’t even look for tight groups anymore, easier to find two scatter nodes and go in between those. Works amazingly
I think the whole point of Bryan and Jayden's "large sample size" proclamation was strictly addressing the claims of "My rifle shoots 1/4moa" that gets thrown around a LOT. Sorry, but no it doesn't. Not CONSISTENTLY anyway. Sometimes sure, maybe more often, but the TRUE moa of your rifle is the avg of ALL groups, not just the cherry picked ones. Just because it CAN shoot sub 1/4 min groups does not make it a 1/4 min rifle. Numbers don't lie. That's what I took from it anyway.
Totally agree. I did load development and there was a screamer of a group. However the SD started to open up and the 2 charges above had worse SD. So I chose the middle of the tighter SD and I'll tune the group with seating depth.
Wow this video is fascinating.
Thank you.
I disagree with your theory the rifle. Is capable of 1/4 moa. The human factor is the effect of the group. So. If the operator of the rifle fails. It’s not 1/4 moa gun. But we all have opinions.
THANK YOU and believe the target!!!
@@jimmiller6030 I'm mainly referring to the internet warriors who claim their factory rifle w/handloads, shooting off a bipod, will shoot 1/4 moa all day long and have 1 or 2 targets to prove it. I call BS. It's capable once in a while...not consistently. I understand that top level shooters with custom comp rifles ARE capable of well under sub 1/4" consistebtly, especially under ideal conditions. It's a whole different league. That said, in "real world" conditions, even the top ranked benchrest shooters don't agg sub 1/4 over time, maybe not even a whole match according to Bryan's data.
@@ericbennett1253 my. Point is that the science guys are making a statement that there is no such thing as a 1/4 1/2 moa. Rifle. I disagree with that blank statement Shit. Happens. To discredit something. On this is ridicules with the precision equipment today. It is completely capable And no. The average person and rifle is not the norm. We should all have a open conversation and. Learn. You can teach a old dog new tricks. When you choose to not listen and learn You will never grow wise
Man, that 1.5% rule of thumb is really amazing. I did a OCW test on a really shakey bench W lots of wind so it was hard to find a great group, but the scatter node was very obvious and I had decent groups 1.5 % up and 1.5 % down in charge weights. With my 223, this lesson also convinced me to move my loads in .1 gr increments not .2 gr as those big moves are too big of a percentage move. What great insight
Great conversation! I am from a large racing background and agree a lot with the development thought processes. They are parallel in the methods for both. I just started my rifle handloading in .308 I have been building 5 shot charges of .3 grain increments. The next test will have the round robin in effect. makes sense to me. Thank you both very much!
Thank you.
This is one of the best conversations I have heard around predicting accuracy and WHY.
The picture of the three potential nodes. One low, one high and one scatter in the middle.
Perhaps it is just evidence of where I am at in my reloading Journey.
Keep up the great content!
Once again pure awesomeness. For a guy that just try's to find something that works well on dozens and dozens of rifles using a simple ladder I still very much appreciate all of these angles on load development
Another great one! OCW was the first method I ever used, as I didn’t have a chronograph for a long time, it works! I hope to go through his classes at bang steel very soon!
Thank you Erik and Dan, was the best explanation of the OCW method of load development I’ve heard. It all makes sense now, your explanation of barrel resonance verses grouping was brilliant. Thank you.
I've been doing Dan's method for many many yrs now.. It flat out works. Thanks for the valuable information guys..you are both a wealth of knowledge and a very valuable asset to the shooting world..thanks guys..!!
Well done Erik and thank you, Dan is a star and an asset to the shooting community...
Dan is a great guy and ordered thinker.
Thank you both for a great show. I will adopt his system for non tuner barrel guns.
In 25 years I hope I have learned something cool like you guys have picked up ... Love the pod cast content, harmonics are very interesting to me.
There are harmonics in everything even electricity A/C sine waves.
Great interview. I really liked how candid you both are about the current limit of knowledge. We know it works, but we don't know why. I especially liked the bit where you said you don't bother with tuning your seating depth. I bought one of your tuning breaks for my 22-250 Varmint rifle, and I'm working on load development. I was about to stress out about my seating depth and do a bunch of testing, but if I can get the same result with the tuner, then I can skip that step.
Thank you
Number 1, i like your channel. I've been following you when you were building barndo's.
Small sampling vs large sampling, i think your methods and reasoning is a completely different end game than Jason (hornady). Jason's job and methods to help design bullets,ammunition, and other components to shoot well across the board for the whole world to use. From 30-30's to 50 bmg's. To put it in automotive terms, he's using large sampling to develop parts that work well in every Volkswagen, Camaro, and 4x4 in the world. Your the owner/mechanic of a top fuel dragster, using and modifying parts to keep it running to its best potential. He's keeping Toyota's running 300,000 miles, and your maintaining the performance of a dragster that needs to be rebuilt 4 times in 1 mile. I think you both are right. If im way off just ignore this comment, my bad
Everything I know about loading 308 came from Dan Newberry. I cant thank him enough for what he has done for the reloading community. BUT......thanks Dan
Great interview. Thank you so much to both of you. I have dabbled with the OCW method several times over the years. I just wasn't sure if I was getting it right. But after listening to Dan explain his method, I really started connecting the dots. I can't wait to get out and try it again. Thank-you very much for your help!
Team USA.!.. get that good barrel swinging !.. Pulling hard .for the team .. Learning!
Thank you
Thanks you both for sharing with us all again.Dan you made me laugh so hard with your comments on primers at 80.00 and will they ever come down? Up here in Canada on gun sites they are selling for 500.00 to 600.00 ! With powder at 100.00 to 140.00 a pound .Thank you’re lucky stars you are both in the USA
Going down to see Dan next month, Love Bangsteel
Fantastic... had to watch it twice... so much good information... 3% super tip.... going back to watch the Chris Long interview again...
Never thought about these things. New to this sport. Makes sense. I now understand why velocity isn’t always the most important factor. Now I understand what to look for an use charge weight as a start. Seams like constancy for everything else after the trigger pull as far as far as how firm the shouldering is, grip, etc would all affect the harmonics and a more firmly gripped rifle will mean less absorbed energy which should equate to harmonics change.. interesting!!
I have always though of it this way.
I am lazy.
I will not be precise. (Reloading)
I will make mistakes. (Shooting)
I choose a projectile and cartridge.
I’ll use quick load and GRT and estimate the points I need before taking the practical tests.
I Choose a powder that will give good fill for the case at roughly a speed that will keep all the variables I need for the farthest distance I will shoot with that cartridge.
I start at -0.0200 off the jam point.
I find the widest (min .3gn) reasonable 1/2” group at 110y minimum. (There are usually a couple.)
I play around a bit at those nodes to to check that they are actually ok.
I choose the widest one not the most accurate.
I use seating depth to tune the load as best I can.
I reload in a haphazard half assed manner and still at matches I drop very little points.
If my friend who is very meticulous loads for me I can win the comps if I don’t make any shooting errors.
If I load I’ll come too 5.
That’s good enough for me.
The person that usually come first is both precise and does not make mistakes.
This was so helpful. Now I understand why my TAC rifle .223 is so sensitive.
Amazing
I love these podcasts
Thank you
Great stuff. Learning so much. This is one I will watch again for sure.
Excellent video subjects! On barrel Harmonics. If you imagine looking down your barrel as a shot is fired, a transfer of motion begins to the barrel before the "jet effect" takes place.
1. The bullet impacts the rifling which imparts CW torsion to the bullet to give the spin of some 200k+ rpm, while imparting a CCW rotation to the barrel. (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)
2. Barrel movement then is measurable in the opposite directioin, i.e. CCW. And becomes a problem when standard deviation in fps for the load exceeds a minimum %, placing the barrel end inconsistently in it's circular trajectory (Delta Time). Tho you're holding onto the stock, the barrel still whips in a rotational direction opposite the spin direction of the bullet.
So, the position of the crown as the bullet leaves the barrel affects flight path at it's earliest point.
Ideally, a minimal standard deviation for velocity guarantees that the barrel crown is in the exact position in space as each bullet leaves the barrel, to ensure a consistent flight path and most accurate shot placement. And have found this most important in handloading. An effect more pronounced in larger calibers and heavier bullets. Forget neck turning ...
I just love the humbleness of these men. THANKYOU GENTLEMEN.
Again it’s note taking time. I’ve seen a lot of videos on OCW but haven’t tried it. I’ve got a new batch of Lapua brass and Berger bullets that I think I’ll try the OCW. I normally just shoot 3 round groups but not in the round robin sequence. Who knows that 3% just may save me some money and time. Great interview as always Erik. Keep em small and believe the target 😊
Thank you
I took a class with Bangsteel, great guys with a fun and very educational setup!
Remember up 3% and down 3% are different, and in either direction each 3% increment is slightly different than the one before.
One of the main things you are accomplishing with these podcasts, is pointing out the theories, and giving folks the chance to investigate what turns their crank, and pointing out where to go to start on it. Forums and You Tube are great for that, never know where it'll lead you next. And if a person does enough investigating, they will figure out that not very much is set in stone when it comes to reloading, and then the same with shooting. There are some basics to each, but, then there are the variables, and there are as many of them as there are people,or the shoes they choose to wear, or the car they like, or don't like.
Excellent content as always. 👍🏻 would like to see the testing from 1.5% and 3%...
thanks erik
You’re welcome.
👍 Good job on the ad! And thanks for the discount code
Thank you.
Absolutely loved this one! I learned tons! Came here after the Alex Wheeler episode and now Im going to binge on these episodes full of knowledge and valuable information!
Thanks again Eric for the great podcast.
I think where a lot of guys are mis-understanding about statistics & in particular; sample number, is that a small sample size doesn't mean the rifle & or load are no good. It simply means that with a low sample number like 3 per iteration or change somewhere in the load that, the results that you see are basically inferred or assumed & not measured. When you have all the top class equipment, it's hard to tell, even with a much higher sample number, what is actually better.
If you shoot a 3 shot group in testing & see a larger group than you like, what may well have happened is that group may be the largest group that the particular load will ever shoot but, you can't know that because 3 samples are way too small a number to assess that yet. The very same thing can & does happen when a particular load shoots a tiny group.
I believe the reality for you & many others is that there is probably very little difference in load performance simply because of the rifle/shooter/bullet/cartridge combination regardless of the perfect load every guy thinks they have.
Small sample numbers provide very little information to make any discissions so, it must be that the rifles just good with most of what is fired.
I love this podcast, because it's all about practical application . And what really works. Believe the target!!! None of that stuff really matters at the end of the day. Were you a winner or were you a loser. Did you hit the target where you wanted to. Did you bring that game home like you intended to when you set out for it.
Awesome interview! I've been waiting for this one for a while.
Hope you enjoyed it!
@@BelieveTheTarget Very much so, Erik!
One of your best Eric!
Thank you
Another great interview. Alot of knowledge being shared, keep them coming!
Great discussion
Thanks
I'm glad to see you getting sponsorships ‼️💯🤙
Again Erik awesome interview so good in fact I am watching it again. Does seating also have nodes like optimal charge weight? I keep say saying it I learn so much from your channels 👍
Awesome interview
Thank you
My third time watching this,... so much information to digest. Like a calculus class.
Elimination or at least suppressing "confirmation bias" might be helpful during testing, especially for limited round count tests. It would require an assistant to randomly supply ammo and spot and record shots. Some people can detach from "belief/ hope" and ego and some might not.
I remember Dan from a reloading forum several years ago. Called himself Green788. He took a lot of heat from people when he first coined the phrase "optimal charge weight". It wasn't a popular theory among the traditional ladder aficionados. But it works. Ive been loading that way for decades.
Those vibration pattern / tuning fork analogies are spot on.
Another brilliant and hugely informative podcast, thank you! It has occurred to me while watching your video's that yours is a hunt for a "hummer" barrel, as well as reducing every variable that you can, and that got me wondering; has anyone looked at and compared scientifically a "hummer" barrel against an "ordinary" one? Good luck at the World Championships!!
Thank you
My understanding of node and anti node. Is theres a sound wave that travels the length of the barrel , the harmonics of the sound wave has areas where theres a lot of movement off center of bore line. That's anti node. The sound wave will also have a point where its passing through the centerline of the bore. At that specific point there will be no movement. That's the node. If you pluck a guitar string especially on the base end of scale you can see it.
I think you might have it backwards. With reference to speed being the same as change, the barrel is actually moving the slowest at the top and bottom of the node because it’s reaching its Apex, it begins to slow down, and then stop before starting it’s acceleration in the opposite direction. At the centerpoint of this wave, the barrel is actually traveling the fastest, and would be the most inconsistent time for the bullet, to leave the barrel, as we would be talking about micro fractions of a second having different directions. If you can time the bullet departure at either Apex, then you have a much longer time frame and a much smaller movement. I might be wrong.
@@nicobowersock6571 , the term node and anti node applies. If you pluck a guitar string you will see where it vibrated and where it's still. The harmonic wave, can travel down the barrel causing it to do as you describe. However , if you belive in positive compensation, than you can use this in your advantage. A faster bullet leaves the barrel at the node, slower leaves later and you're trying to time it so that the barrel is rising. Poi is now that same. This must , and I mean must be tuned on at the distance that you're going to be shooting. If you tune at 100 yards or whatever is a different distance than that will be where to paths cross, and getting farther apart as you extend the range that you're shooting.
@@nicobowersock6571 , I do agree with all of the different ways that is being described. It's all the same just different ways of talking about the same things.
The advertisement was a surprise and fricken hilarious 😂
The Satterlee Method and Eric’s information about 3 thousands at a time seating depth test will allow you to find an excellent load very quickly. The OCW method sounds a lot like the Satterlee test that I do. 12 shots at .2 increments gives me the information on flat spots in the speeds.
Great information , thank you all for these interviews .
As a air rifle shooter do these 3% accuracy nodes exist in the air rifle world too ? From what I have seen they do . But it never registered till I consumed this interview . You have made a believer (in the target) out of me . Keep on teaching and we will do are best at learning all we can from you all . Thank you again ! 🍻🍻🍻
🤣🤣
The "opening and closing" of those groups are called "nodes". Those are based on barrel harmonics. OCW is the only way I've been handloading for the last 25 years. Maybe guys don't see this kind of stuff like others do, but it's all mechanical and mathematical in relation. I'm not an engineer, but do have friends that are aeronautical engineers that get pissed at me because of my mechanical way of thinking. In one range session, I can find an excellent load for any given rifle. The target never lies and for those guys that don't think groups matter or group dispersion doesn't matter, they have a lot to learn. I don't care what school they graduated from.
Hey Eric, your test methods are to find accurate loads for your rifles. Hornady tests to find and log data. Then they study the data to find accurate loads on a consumer basis.
Dan's visual aid is good. I don't have the space here to elaborate much, but think about this. From ignition to exit, bullet acceleration is not linear. Primer, powder burn, et al. Absolute velocity does not in and of itself determine the timing between barrel resonance and bullet exit. You know about charge effect. Seating changes length of travel and thus exit time. Tuner changes resonance and thus effects length in time of the tuning cycle. Rough tune with charge. Fine tune with seating and tuner. Some folks fine tune at the range with a hand seating tool. Too soon old and too late smart.
Erik, your creedmoor sports advert was pure class and humor. I really did have a good laugh 😆
Thank you. :)
The OCW test target is easily my favorite @100 yd for GP load testing and precision work. Six targets on one 8x11” sheet of paper that I can print out for a few cents at my convenience… waaay better than getting a poster sized, $1 range special with only five targets on it. I remember that paper from way back… been reading on OCW and OBT since the beginning. Interesting stuff, even if I’m almost exclusively a factory ammo guy.
Another informative show!
Thank you
The node of a standing wave is the point where there is no movement. The anti-node is the point of maximum movement. The standing wave isn't a sine wave, it's an interference pattern. Better still, here's a quote (from a website that YT won't let me link to) "a standing wave is formed as the result of the perfectly timed interference of two waves passing through the same medium. A standing wave pattern is not actually a wave; rather it is the pattern resulting from the presence of two waves of the same frequency with different directions of travel within the same medium."
Have you ever looked into a washing machine. It's full of standing waves. One part of the wave us sloshing up and down (antinode) and there's another part that looks like someone is pinching it and it isn't moving (node).
So where do these interfering waves of the same frequency come from? At the time of the explosion (primer lighting the powder charge) a pressure wave travels down the barrel from the chamber and back. In my mind it looks like a smoke ring or donut that is attached to the barrel (actually it is the metal of the barrel) traveling down the barrel and back. The frequency of the wave or waves that combine to create a standing wave, it seems to me, is established by the speed of the pressure increase, ie the burn rate of the powder. The amplitude of the waves that combine to make the standing wave is related to the pressure spike. Lot's of things contribute to that.
There's a ton of info out there on standing waves. They exist in RF signals traveling down coax, rifle barrels, etc.
Excellent last question
I just took 3 of my best shooting loads in 2 different calibers and went 3% higher in all the loads and they all shot very, very well. 45:10 Loved this video. Lots of nuggets. 2 6.5 prc loads and 1 7 prc load . Not only that but the 3% theory went from 1 caliber to the next.
It’s a very different system than Erik’s system. Choosing powder charge for group and barrel stability harmonics. My understanding is powder charge for finding SD/ES node and seating depth or barrel tuner for tight group control.
It is Good to think on your own, and besides it's fun!
That 3% concept seemed fishy to me. So I dug out some ladder test data I had from 3 different rifles. Son of B! My nodes are 3% apart with my 22-250, a 6.5 Creedmoor and my 300 wby. Holy cow that's legit!
Great video, keeping it small.
Erik, my perspective is that you do shoot very large groups and your “statistics” are gathered over many firings whether they be development or matches. You shoot the same caliber many many times and you gather all that knowledge each time. So my belief is that you and all F-Class / BR shooters are doing exactly what the Hornady Scientists are looking for.
Really enjoyed this one.
Great video. I enjoy learning what I can. I am curious what your 20 shot group size is though. Good luck at worlds!
Thank you
Learned something as always..Listen for those nuggets
Hornady is just saying there is dispersion in every group. One guy shoots a 1/4” 3 shot group has a % of dispersion. So your 3” group at a 1000 yards is going to be part of a dispersion it could be the smallest or largest so your .2 gun could actually be a .05 gun or it could be a .5 gun. There just saying you have to shoot more ammo to come up with the true dispersion or what to expect in your gun to group.
Awsome video
Thank you
On some of the tests that I saw, specifically from Bolt Action Reloading RUclips channel, if I recall correctly he charged all the cases exactly the same and then put each reloading tray (with open cases) into varying conditions of humidity. So initially each case had the same charge...but he showed a massive difference in velocity by altering humidity.
Great Vid... 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Thank you
Creative, unobtrusive ad.👍🏻
So by adding a Suppressor to your rifle you have kind like adding a non adjustable tuner to your barrel, Which explains why that groups tend to tighten up with some rifles?
Thanks for the knowledge
I think large sample sizes are best when you're starting with a factory rifle, and with new powder, and with a new bullet. In this case, there are tons of variables. Benchrest shooters already know the power and bullet that works in their rifle. They usually know within .3 grains which change is optimal. They don't need a large sample size because issues that cause scatter and flyers don't exist in their setup. They're fine tuning, the rest of us normal guys are trying to get the motor started. Our data is contains a lot of noise.
Very interesting! Great video 👍
I new sabot this theory but never really looked for the pattern in my data. I just checked all my old load data. It's there in every damn test. Scatter mode (the opposite of a node is mode)*1.015 and lo and behold there's a node series repeating.
And I did it with 3 and 5 shot groups. It's almost like trend lines don't need huge data sets to show data patterns.
Humidity and powder. If you buy a ton of wet sand and a ton of dry sand, you will have a better deal with the dry sand!!
Vihtavuori powder charts very often top out on your OCW in my experience. At least with my Creedmoor and 308, dead
On max charge with a few different combinations.
So if hodgdon says their max load listed is always accurate, does that not mean I can reduce it using the 3% rule until I get near min load and that should be an accuracy node?
Excellent info, thank you
Very good information!
Really enjoyed this podcast thks gentlemen
Dryfire is my secret after I got my gear and load tuned in.
Great video thank you.
Dan!!!
I've seen the Texas primer plant is shipping to their investors. Guessing they'll be on the shelves pretty soon.
Thank you
My 2 cents on the sample size thing: what the large sample size folks are characterizing is the population distribution and you do need a large sample size to do that accurately. This is a positive test. What a small sample size testing can indicate is, if you get a bad result, it allows you to decide that, if your population (combination of barrel and components) can have that (bad) result (or worse) in it and that result is unacceptable for your purpose, you need to change something - a negative test. This is what I hear competitors doing and Hornady even mentioned this in passing during the first interview. Note - you can be fooled in the latter if you try to read in a positive result into it but, from what I've picked up from a lot of these podcasts, is that competitors do a lot of verification testing which builds up a large sample size. Also note - there a whole world of statistics beyond the population characterization (ANOVA, P-test, Bayesian Point Estimation theory, etc.) that provide a framework for making educated guesses (within a confidence interval) with smaller sample sizes. Sorry for the rambling.
The larger the sample, the more predictive power it has. A tight five shot group could mean you have a good combination or were unlucky enough to have a bad combination result in a tight group. You'll only know which when you fire more shots. Most people think they have an X MOA rifle based on a few small groups, but in reality it is +- 30% worse than the nice groups are (One standard deviation.) The danger in small samples is that you won't actually know if it is a tight group, or even if that group is zeroed where you think it is, until you fire more shots. Whether you know it or not, we're all on team large sample, because nobody is going to stick to a load that used to shoot great, but doesn't anymore. The difference is whether you pay the cost up front with larger samples to confirm whether a combination is working, or if you do that by chasing a zero and making small adjustments, like dang I keep missing low, better click up.
@@jatollar Agree and not. Let me try a different way: if, for example, I need 0.5 MOA to be competitive and fire even 2 shots 5 MOA apart, I don't need the predictive element of large sample - as long as I called both shots good. I don't care just how bad that combination of barrel, bullet, powder, load, primer & brass are and don't need to shoot another 28+. Just cross it off of the list and change something. What small sample sizes do is to quickly eliminate obvious bad combinations and allow me to spend more time & resources on proofing the potential good combinations from the good small sample size groups. But you are correct that I would then increase the sample size (a bit) on potentials to weed out the ones trying to fool me from the small sample size. I could then iteratively repeat the process and/or use the pattern recognition from BR guys, OCW proponents or all of the above until I had the load that best meets my requirements with high confidence. High confidence = large sample size. So there is a time and place for both and, like most times, no one size fits all.
@@michaellinane212 I think I agree and see where we (were?) misunderstanding each other. Assuming 0.5MOA requirement, it doesn't make sense to fire 30 shots when you can clearly see from five shots you're shooting 2MOA. The part where I may have misunderstood your argument, is it sounds like decisions were made based on small numbers without further confirmation.
So for example I'm working up a new load soon and I'll shoot five shots at a range of charges so I have enough shots to establish a decent trendline to compare to the manual for safety. I might spot some good SD's or even a good group, either could give some indication where I should start.
If my goal was best accuracy, I'd make up a few more batches bracketing the charge I liked for any reason be it velocity or group, probably 10 each, and shoot groups to see if any were promising. That's about as far as I typically go, I'll pick the best group, but I typically choose higher velocity for unknown range shooting I do. I'll zero using three shots, five when I think I'm there, then shoot a larger group (10-20) to confirm.
Eric when you test the 3% drop in charge let us know your results.
awesome. i have a thought on the humidity/powder relationship. Dry gravel weighs more pr volume than wet gravel. It seems backwards, but it is a fact. Perhaps gunpowder does the same thing? I may try a simple test of this.
Just my opinion about shooting a bullet at a particular speed. I heard a story about a bullet that wasnt anything great in its shape, however it outshot other bullets in weather and consistancy was above average. The bullet was studied to duplicate shape but it didn't always work. They couldn't figure it out until they saw the shape of the bullet once it had left the barrel. The bullet had opturated to the barrel and it changed the shape to be something that it wasn't before. The shape had changed to something that those who study it understood as a great shape. In my mind both the starting shape as well the jacket material and pressure pushing on the bullet is changing what the bullet is as it conforms to the barrel. It makes sence to me that it would require a certain pressure to make the correct change in shape. If that's true, then pressure would matter. Hence a particular bullet would like a general speed or pressure that causes it to operate to the bore and change the shape to what the bullet likes. Some jackets, ie Burger might be more consistent because it resist change of shape more so than a bullet like Sierra that has a softer jacket.
Great video 🤙
I wonder how many shots are thru a tunnel test barrel before they change it. Bullet makers tests are for bullet makers, shooters tests are for shooters.
🤷♂️
"...300 rounds into the dirt. Yeah, well, there were some people that were, uh, upset." 😂
Great chat. When you refer to ‘node’ is it an accuracy node OR is it low SD node?