Having Miles on is awesome! Super smart and a true engineers approach. Erik is great with his practical path, as always. Results count. They have different perspectives but the same goals. These are two guys that make shooting sports great.
From my perspective the big thing with the “Hornady” way of doing things is to look at the significance of signal to noise. It’s very possible that both the way that they test and the “F-class” testing are both valid, given each set of circumstances. The difference in systems is likely to create a difference in the noise created by those systems. An F class rifle may have so many variables controlled that you can see the small differences in seating depth or powder charge, where another system the noise is great enough that any small change is indistinguishable. Just a thought. Both have their place, people just need to make sure they are using the right process and tools for the job. I also think that the Hornady guys are good at saying that their data reflects their testing and that people need to test things to make sure that what they are seeing is in fact causation instead of correlation and that you are able to consistently create the same results.
I tune ARs for precision, with ELDs. 90% of a load is powder charge/barrel exit timing. Get Gordon's reloading tool. I've been able to track behaviors across bullets and powder. So long as the bullets leave the barrel with similar harmonic timing to another a "good" load will be there. I've seen sinusoidal behavior with bullet impact position and patterns with powder charge and some with seating depth. I've watched tuners have the same behavior on other rifles. For it purposes, as shooters, listen to Cortina. He's got the more sophisticated answer. Hornady is right about speed nodes. That's more about picking components. I've had 100fps ESs and 9 ESs is the same rifle.
When Miles said he tested seating depth and didn't see anything definitive I thought well what did you test it in? If you test it in an off the shelf hunting rifle vs a tried and true f-class rifle you may see a change in one but not the other
Or you can look at it this way, They literally admit you will reach a wall using Hornady brass and bullets. Coming from the manufacturer themselves it's not exactly inspiring.
@@userJohnSmith GRT was an awesome project. It's a shame that development ended with the loss of Gordon. Unfortunately It's missing quite a bit of information on modern powders and bullets now. Alternative is having to order a CD-ROM with the expensive quickload software, waiting a month for it to reach you in the snail mail, and then finding someone with a computer old enough to still have a CD ROM installed to read it.
@@foonus406 Been able to program up many of the new cartridges without issues. You kind of have to be obsessive about it but it's manageable if the parent case is in the database.
What Miles does for his job at Hornady, and what he does at home for his reloading, are two different things. Miles job is to get a safe productd that is useable with "reasonable" accuracy in 100,000 different guns and shooters, with variable disciplines., that can be mass produced in a lot of up to 1millon pcs, or more.. What he does at home has commonalities to work, and what Erik and others do, but, it's the details that matter, one gun, one shooter, one discipline to start with..
One thing I've always wanted to ask the Hornady guys during these discussions when they talk about all these different tuning methods not being statistically important is: what is the statistical deviation of dimensions in Hornady bullets and why aren't Hornady bullets on the podium in the major precision shooting sports? My thoughts are that the Hornady guys won't see how a lot of these tuning methods work because the standard deviation of the quality of their components is outside of the deviation that a tuning method can reduce.
I wasted thousands buying Hornady ammo for years thinking it was good. Everything I've bought that had Hornady stamped on it has ended up in the garbage. This interview helps me explain why... Being new to the sport I was buying 285gr 338s ELD Hornady for years thinking I was buying good bullets couldn't get good groups. Then one day decided to weigh these "match grade" bullets. 282gr to 289gr and everywhere between. Complete rubbish.
Awesome! I like the contrast and perspective from both views. As an engineer, I have had to characterize very temperamental manufacturing processes using classic design of experts methods and software. You can look at the components of variation very closely and sometimes realize you weren’t turning a knob that had a massive effect on the outcome. That type of work was done with very good statisticians helping with the analysis and working on ‘it must not fail’ hardware with life and limb at stake. It’s harder than one thinks.
Thanks Erik. Great conversation. In my many years shooting I've learned the most important thing that makes the most difference, and that thing was mentioned only in passing by Miles. The most important part of accuracy and precision is the piece of meat hanging on to the back of the rifle - period. Repeatability behind the rifle is not easy, and it's perishable. Here is an interesting thing to test: Go on the net and find a right angle calculator. Just need to enter two numbers. 3600 inches (100 yards) for the distance and .005 of a degree for the angle. The result is .31416 inches. That is the impact error in elevation from just a 5 thousands of a degree of aiming error....
Elephant in the room that was never brought up is.. "Why does nobody hand load Hornady bullets for F Class competition"? but based on Miles' comments about what is acceptable deviation for "market" they sell to answered it for us. Jumped right to "hand made bullets" and right over the fact that many /most use Berger bullets.
Two different disciplines. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that short range BR is dominated by hand-made bullets. 600 or 1000yd BR I have never seen anything that would exclude A-tips or frankly even ELD-M's from being a successful product for that sport. All I have to go off of is drag data and dispersion testing that myself or my coworkers have done. When I conduct the same tests with yellow, green, or blue boxed bullets I get similar results (purely dispersion) to ours, and A-tips especially outperform in drag variability.
In the ELR world, nobody is using Bergers either and A tips will edge out other lead core or even better copper solids. With their drag variability metplat design, it really is geared for PRS and ELR where velocity variation will kill you sooner than group size. Nobody is using hand made bullets for ELR because hand made bullets can't match .tolerances base to tip with cnc machining. The benefits of handmade bullets is selecting jacket style and grain weight in super slow twist barrels on the edge of stability in 1-300 yard benchrest. Just like nobody would use copper solids in benchrest since they won't shoot the tightest groups possible, but will be more consistent in every way bullet to bullet.
I'm even a Berger fanboy but in the last year in 22 cal, eldms are shooting just as small and periodically smaller than my favorite Bergers in short range gas gun benchrest. Both are easily quarter MOA capable . I think my smallest 5 shot group was Berger at 0.23 MOA and eldm at 0.25 but both are very competitive. Yet eldm I will save 30% of cost for with indistinguishable results the last 2 years.
@@crazydubbc7 Interesting. I swore by the old A-Max in my 22-250 back in the day but then they said there was something wrong with them and discontinued them.. replaced them with the v-max and varmint which i never could get to group nearly as well. Switched to sierra's for the economy choice and they grouped little better but still not like the old A-Max. From what you are suggesting it might be time to give the 52gr ELDM's a try...
Miles, I hope you'll dive into the "not a big enough difference" that you tried to at the start. This was a good conversation. Sharing tests, results and limits of the results without having an assumed or target listener's goal or skill level in mind helps add clarity.
I love the willingness to agree more than disagree. As a reloader of 30 years I have seen many ideas come and go. You see or hear about a new reloading idea and think, I should do that too. After a few years and many hours of extra work the consensus is, this new thing doesn't really help that much. For instance primer pockets. Holly smokes I've spent a lot of time doing different processes to primer pockets and now I just clean the carbon out and put a new primer in. Full length size or neck size? Neck turn, no neck turn... I have simplified my process as much as possible to save time an money. In fact I quit reloading for a few years and used factory match ammo. Which also works pretty good. Anyways, thanks for the information, it was very interesting.
My biggest takeaway from the conversation is macro v. micro and what are you trying to do. I do think there are implied assumptions when talking to your audience which can and does lead to confusion or misinterpretation of data. Enjoyed the interview. -Thanks!
Man, I really would have liked to hear what Neville had to say but he summed it up with he's learned to never say "something can never happen". I have a lot of respect for Neville and Jayden Quinlan. Their combined knowledge could save a intro reloader or even an intermediate reload many years of trial and error on the reloading bench. I would like to hear them questioned about what affect bullet rpm has on consistency and precision on a per caliber basis. Not to be confused with bullet profile for long range shooting and stability. One of the contributors to Precision Shooting magazine (long discontinued) was doing research on this subject about the time the magazine went under. I wish one of these ballistician's would pick this up and give a modern take on this subject. Maybe Jeff Siewert?
Dunp truck and racing slicks was a wonderful analogy. Trying to fix a "dump truck" hunting rifle hunting rife with "race car" PRS processes = no effect. switching...
I thought it was an awful analogy because it compares two things that have two totally different purposes. If we're talking PRS and F class a better analogy might be a Ferrari and F1 where both would benefit from slicks on the track. Many people in the comments seem to think ballistics for one discipline are different for another, but in reality F class is just taking it further.
@@BelieveTheTarget you get your head out of the sand. 90% of people getting into reloading won’t be competing. They will be shooting paper or steel for fun. They will be shooting cheap tanget projectiles that don’t need seating depth testing. BR guys shoot vld and need seating depth testing. You’re not open to information that doesn’t make you happy. You’re beating a dead horse man. You won’t be happy until everyone who disagrees with you, starts agreeing with you. You kept badgering him until he said what you wanted to hear. You do that with everyone.
@@MrBoostin18 If you think it does not matter for the average reloader your wrong. Had a cheap hunting rifle. At 100, best i could get was 1.25in with hand loads, factory ammo was 1.5in to 1.75in. Just tuning the seating depth on my hand loads, im down to 0.75in to 1.0in.
@@jonathanrogers9961 and as litz stated seating depth only matters when running secant ogive projectiles. I’ve proved this to myself. I had tangent and secant ogive projectiles. I seated the tangents to run in a mag and left them. I had to spend more time and projectiles to get the vld to shoot as good as the tangents.
@@jonathanrogers9961 also most people out there now days can’t shoot the difference between handloads and factory ammo with the advancements in cartridge design and equipment.
Erik why have you never shown in a statistically relevant test that tuners can shrink group size when you use different settings. It would only take an afternoon. Go through your suggested testing method at 100 yards(1000 yard groups add too many uncontrolled variables) to find the "node". Then all you have to do is shoot 10 x 5 shot groups at your best setting vs 10 x 5 shot groups at the worst as shown when you found the node(alternating the tuner back and forth so fouling and barrel temp are equal for each setting). There's not a single test like this anywhere online and the only published large sample size tests show no difference. I've ran this style tests on three different heavy barrel guns that were all capable of 0.3" or better aggregates (5x5 shot groups)and saw no difference(6BR, 6PPC and a 6.5x47L). Id love to see some non-anecdotal conclusive evidence that they work because Id love experimenting with different styles, weights, materials.
This is exact test is something I have wanted to see for years. It would be a very popular video no matter the results. The more I shot the more weight I put into large sample sizes to confirm or disprove what elements of my reloading process help me the most.
@@Is_Time_A_Number After asking this question multiple times and even having Erik respond with a sarcastic remark once or twice I'm thinking they tried the test and it didn't show the results that they wanted. Factoring in how good it would be for business if they showed it working the most likely explanation at this point is that they have tried and they couldn't prove that it made a difference. There's no other reasonable explanation given that the test I've outlined would take an afternoon to complete.
Everything is relative to your rifle and shooting discipline. A decent precision rifle with top components might avg 0.75-1.25 MOA shooting legitimate 10 or 20 shot groups. Seeing a 0.1 MOA node is not possible with this rifle. There’s too much noise in that system. If, for example, Eric Cortina’s F-class rifle is capable shooting consistent 7” groups at 1000, a 0.1 MOA change gets him to 6” groups. This is only possible because his system only varies 0.1-0.2 MOA. So a 0.1 MOA node is visible to him. The Hornady guys are testing with mass produced bullets and mass produced brass, loading to magazine length and shooting rifles not quite at E. Cortina’s level. They aren’t going to see a 0.1 MOA node. Again, everything is relative to your setup.
Agreed, now prove it with statistically valid sample sizes and we'll believe it ;D The more precise the claim, the more precise the statistical validation needs to be, it doesn't just go away.
Erick, once again excellent podcast. Are you planning on hosting Chris Way on your podcast again? He's been doing a bunch of testing and has stated he only shoots factory ammo and wins. ELDM works for me.
Erik (love you man), but there is a constant 'cat and mouse' with anyone who is publishing information that doesn't align with competition shooters be it Applied Ballistics, Hornady, etc. There is a fundamental difference to testing to establish scientific patterns within sets of data to develop a relationship (with confidence interval) between a variable and given results (i.e., Top Gun Theory). Compared to shooting competitively only caring about the end result, with limited (comparatively, and perhaps not always) understanding as to the 'how' the results are achieved.
I don’t think it’s cat and mouse. We are simply studying different aspects of external ballistics IMO as discussed on this podcast. They don’t have an end result in mind, they simply test what they have. We test everything, including components from any manufacturer because we are looking for the best results possible. That includes changing actions, barrels, reamers, etc etc. to achieve our goals.
54:35 And I don't believe Hornady sees a large enough market in the small percentage of competitive shooters to alter their game plan. Some yellow box company has that covered. Then there is the custom bullet makers, the guys cranking them out in the garages or shops next to the house they have the guys that shoot "bug holes" covered.
Erik, I think the realization is your interviewing employees of Hornady manufacturing who are testing for an end result, which is multi-fold. You test for a single end result and so do the other disciplines you mention. Sure as the employees shoot competitive and want to win they prove with their testing they can be competitive and their end results proves their components can do that but not at the level you seek. That's the difference.
I think most folks are confusing accuracy with precision. PRS, NRL, and hunters care more about accuracy where the bullet hits in the same place day after day. Bench rest doesn’t typically care where on the target the bullets hit as long as they are all in the same hole. I am curious how big that bench rest record would be if all the groups were over laid on the same target.
They do, and it is truely impressive what they can do. Not trying to knock them in any way, or you F class guys. I will never be able to shoot that well. However, hunters and PRS don’t get sighters. We have to be willing to give up a degree of precision to get repeatable accuracy.
I think the biggest thing the hornady guys may be missing is component testing. Even if you assume their guns and barrels are spot on, they are still missing 2 of the 3 B’s of precision shooting.
WHAT are they "missing"? They COVER all components(bullets ,powder, etc) and the significance terms of peformance. They are really not trying to sell you a miraculous $200 gizmo to screw in the end of your barrel. They are just being honest about samole sizes anx TRUE repeatabilty of a given result.
Oh, I think the Hornady guys are good people. But at the end of the day they are giving you their results with Hornady bullets and brass. I couldn’t tune a rifle either back when I used that stuff.
@@JamesClark-lw6sw The 3 B's of accuracy are Barrels, Brass and Bullets. Thay probably have good barrels, but they are not using the most consistent brass or the most consistent bullets. By the way, the $200 "gizmo" is pretty awesome. I will not buy another rifle that does not have "gizmo" threads at the end of the barrel.
With all due respect to Hornady i don't pay too much attention to their findings, because I don't limit myself to there components. I can't buy primers or powder by the train car load like they can. And for my use there are better bullets and brass and i can choose what powder i want. I also test in small group sizes, because that's what im after... small groups. I also don't load anymore than I plan on shooting in one secession. I could never do what Hornady does by keeping ammo and bullets in every gun shop around the world and i don't expect them to do what I want to do. Everything is a test and I'm always trying to do better.
@@JamesClark-lw6sw Hornady is a brand. It's tests will never come up with a solution that will cost Hornady money. They are great for what they are good for.
@@JamesClark-lw6sw my previous comment is the truth as I see it. But this is Eric's channel and I think the purpose of this interview is to show people it's Ok to have different protocols because we all are not looking for the same results. We should embrace the fact that we enjoy shooting and the second amendment, not call each other names.
The recipe is hard to duplicate because of the wind. The rifle and shooter could certainly do it, but lining up enough days with favorable wind conditions is tough.
The answer is no. Because luck is part of the equation. Accuracy is always a range of group sizes. No aggregate records are set multiple groups that are the same size. A gun may never shoot two groups that are the exact same size to the thousandth in the entire life of the barrel. So while you still need to do everything right you still need to get lucky to shoot multiple groups that happen to end up at the bottom of the expected range.
What I find amazing is how the same handful of shooters keep getting lucky. The luckiest is Tony Boyer, the second luckiest is Wayne Campbell, Tony’s protege. Funny how “luck” works. 🙄
@@BelieveTheTarget We're talking about setting a world record not winning matches. I've shot more benchrest than you have F-CLASS. What I find amazing is how you constantly try to find the negative in everything. If there wasn't luck(or randomness if you want to call it that) involved then the same guy with the same gun should win every single time and every group out of that gun would be the same size. You literally started V2 matches to take luck out of F-CLASS due to relay draws and changing conditions. I bet you a million dollars that you can't fire 3 5 shot groups that are the exact same size to the thousandth at 100 yards in a row. I also bet you that if you did this ten times in a row one set would be significantly better than all the others. So did you screw up all the others? I wasn't disparaging anyone's skill. In fact I literally said you "have to do everything right". A quarter minute gun will shoot 5 shot groups that range from 0.09" to 0.300" and you can do the exact same thing in the exact same conditions and it won't shoot two of the same in a row. So the luck comes in because on that day you did everything right and your gun also happened to shoot a series of groups that are on the lowest end of the range of possibilities. If you were willing to learn some statistics and math you would end up being a better shooter and you are already very good.
As Miles said, "there may be things going on further down range that we don't see at 200 yds" Jayden identifys this in the BC podcasts 1 & 2. Bullets are going through multiple Mach velocities and heating changes, as it travels ; not to mention the environmental changes in play. This reminds me of the early supersonic test flights. Gen Yeager went through multiple buffeting incidents pushing the x-15. The bullet seems to be more stable at closer ranges when multiple sonic booms are stacked closer together on the length of the bullet; I perceive especially when those pressure waves are the cylindrical area of the bullet. As the velocity slows, those waves have more impact on the trajectory..Long range shooters become very adept at recognizing those things and therfore figure out how to "tune" for those variables. What I haven't heard anyone discus is what velocity F-Class guys have, at 1000 yds. Erik tells everyone, he shoots a 32" barrel for maximum velocities 😉 I think there's something there, that isn't being given away. At the end of the day, both of these gentlemen are doing their part to further the shooting sports. It's an element of business, that not revealing the easy button, makes things sell; therfore keeping the lights on at the factory and keeping people interested. 🤙
Hey Erik and Miles, odd question. Why do we not focus on "MEDIAN" values in shooting?? Statistically speaking, it is resistant to outliers(good or bad ones), especially in small sample sizes. Realistically, 99.999% of all shooters, even the pros, shoot small sample sizes, statistically speaking. Yes, in a perfect world, we would all shoot 100 shot groups of every possible variable combination and do a full and complete statistical analysis on all of it. Unfortunately, that's not realistic. Thanks Guys! Respectfully, Joe
We still need to focus on standard deviation and extreme spreads but I certainly agree the median is very important and people lie super hard about how accurate their rifles are
Median is used for non standard data. Mean is used for standard data aka bell curve. Low sample size may look non standard and give you the false impression that you should be using median.
I watch erric continuosly( think he tells more)to find ways of making my classic hunting rifle and ammo shoot better. Where are competitions for me. I dont need to shoot hundreds of rounds for or buy a comp. Rifle
The Bid difference here is at the competition level you have already weeded out bad loads and your load development for a given system has years and seasons of load develpoment already into it so your sample size is already way bigger than any novice beginner shooter ... Hornady is an amunition manufaturer who is trying to develop a sample size to fit many systems not one proven system that is the difference .... as a competition shooter you are not changing things you stick with a given caliber cartridge combo you change barrels as needed you keep the system the same .
And positive compensation doesn't exist either........... Tell that to the long range bench rest shooters who reproduce nodes via a charge weight ladder using only a few shots, and then go on the win. The hornady guys need to get out more and see what the rest of the world, especially the winners , are doing.
I see all these Hornady ballisticians on here preaching to me about" it doesn't make a statesticle difference" Lets get a statistician on here and show how one can manipulate the numbers to say or do anything. ( #spoileralert) it would be a very dry podcast)I appreciate Hornady for there outside the box thinking on social media, and embracing discussions on all things gun. However, they are not the authority. Or "end all be all. " Hornady......talking directly to you. Study Mr. W. Edwards Deming. Many of you are young. You think that you are the first or best. Particularly, his theory on management. Keep learning, and you will not have to " spin" your answers. If you are always learning and changing, quality is a bi-product. Not thee only idea/product you will sell.
I watch the full interviews but sometimes those short will have an emphasis on something that really helps me out. Thank you Erik for putting this out there and make your money. I dont mind at all🇺🇲
@@BelieveTheTarget Don't take these people serious, they are jealous of you. I love this free content that nobody else is doing. It's very obvious you don't have to do these podcasts and share your knowledge, but you do it for the love of the sport. You are getting people interested in the sport with these videos.
I'm sorry but this new concept hornady keeps trying to explain I have zero fk'n clue what in the Sam H.....E double L they are talking about. Please forgive me Erik for saying you are very humble in entertaining hornady's explanation of what I consider to be complete nonsense and while you can't say it publicly I can't help but think that privately you are dying listening to this
I completely agree with you. These guys are almost impossible to listen to. I've never heard anyone spend so many words to actually say nothing of value at all. Baffle them with bullshit is the phrase that comes to mind.
If their information was nonsense, then the DOD and applied ballistics wouldn't have declared that Hornadys bullets have the closest advertisement of BC than any other bullet manufacturers including Berger. 2 outside independent agency's confirmed with their own doppler radar that Hornadys BC is close to their advertised BC. Moreover, the last 2 years I have been able to replicate group size of Berger bullets with hornady ELDM bullets but at a 30% savings to cost. With cartridges going over 3200 fps or past 1000 yards time of flight, the heat shield tip and A tips actually does perform better but I'm not sure if you have the 1000 yard range like I do to test this. That's why in ELR discipline, nobody is using Bergers anymore. They either use Hornady A tips or copper solids because of the CNC machining of the tip. We are talking at minimum 2000 yards to 4k. In the 50 BMG, hornady A max performs better than any lead core bullets. Copper solids are the preferred choice. Nor would I use A tips or copper solids to shoot the smallest groups at 1-300 yards where berger, eldm, or handmade bullets will out perform. At extreme ranges, cnc machines bullets will always win. Additionally, without the 6.5 creedmore cartridge designed by Hornady, people would still think that a 308 Winchester with a 168 grain match king would be a solid 1000 yard cartridge or they would be shooting Wildcats like the 6.5/284 win or a 300 win mag instead of a PRC. Without hornady, F class shooters like Eric would be shooting Wildcats instead of the 7PRCW. Lapua wouldn't offer PRC brass if Hornady was nonsense. Just watch Primal rights where he calls out anyone hating on hornady as Hornady has does more innovation in the last 20 years than any other small cal manufacturer. Will I use Hornady brass instead of Lapua? No. Is all their stuff a A+ ? No. Do they make bullets that can shoot quarter minute 5 shot groups with boring regularity like Berger? Yes. Gone are the days of paying $45 for 100 22 cal bullets instead of $30 for indistinguishable results.
@@crazydubbc7 Interesting, I didn't know that about DOD & AB. That being said, .308 was dead when D. Tubb started shooting 7-08 & 260 & 243 back in the mid 80s & early 90s. Mid & Nancy Tompkins and her daughters were shooting 6.5/284s way back when, long before Creedmoor got dreamed up by Dennis DeMille. I had an AR10 in a 6.5 wildcat back in 97 and was shooting 142s with great results. That being said, the Hornady bullets are very good and I have been quite pleased at the price to performance ratio, but I don't shoot F-Class or Benchrest. I have several thousand Bergers on the shelf, but I've been very happy with how the Hornady's shoot.
Thank you for having the very intelligent Miles Neville on your show.
Having Miles on is awesome! Super smart and a true engineers approach. Erik is great with his practical path, as always. Results count. They have different perspectives but the same goals. These are two guys that make shooting sports great.
From my perspective the big thing with the “Hornady” way of doing things is to look at the significance of signal to noise. It’s very possible that both the way that they test and the “F-class” testing are both valid, given each set of circumstances. The difference in systems is likely to create a difference in the noise created by those systems. An F class rifle may have so many variables controlled that you can see the small differences in seating depth or powder charge, where another system the noise is great enough that any small change is indistinguishable. Just a thought.
Both have their place, people just need to make sure they are using the right process and tools for the job. I also think that the Hornady guys are good at saying that their data reflects their testing and that people need to test things to make sure that what they are seeing is in fact causation instead of correlation and that you are able to consistently create the same results.
I tune ARs for precision, with ELDs. 90% of a load is powder charge/barrel exit timing. Get Gordon's reloading tool. I've been able to track behaviors across bullets and powder. So long as the bullets leave the barrel with similar harmonic timing to another a "good" load will be there. I've seen sinusoidal behavior with bullet impact position and patterns with powder charge and some with seating depth. I've watched tuners have the same behavior on other rifles.
For it purposes, as shooters, listen to Cortina. He's got the more sophisticated answer. Hornady is right about speed nodes. That's more about picking components. I've had 100fps ESs and 9 ESs is the same rifle.
When Miles said he tested seating depth and didn't see anything definitive I thought well what did you test it in? If you test it in an off the shelf hunting rifle vs a tried and true f-class rifle you may see a change in one but not the other
Or you can look at it this way, They literally admit you will reach a wall using Hornady brass and bullets. Coming from the manufacturer themselves it's not exactly inspiring.
@@userJohnSmith GRT was an awesome project. It's a shame that development ended with the loss of Gordon. Unfortunately It's missing quite a bit of information on modern powders and bullets now. Alternative is having to order a CD-ROM with the expensive quickload software, waiting a month for it to reach you in the snail mail, and then finding someone with a computer old enough to still have a CD ROM installed to read it.
@@foonus406 Been able to program up many of the new cartridges without issues. You kind of have to be obsessive about it but it's manageable if the parent case is in the database.
What Miles does for his job at Hornady, and what he does at home for his reloading, are two different things. Miles job is to get a safe productd that is useable with "reasonable" accuracy in 100,000 different guns and shooters, with variable disciplines., that can be mass produced in a lot of up to 1millon pcs, or more.. What he does at home has commonalities to work, and what Erik and others do, but, it's the details that matter, one gun, one shooter, one discipline to start with..
One thing I've always wanted to ask the Hornady guys during these discussions when they talk about all these different tuning methods not being statistically important is: what is the statistical deviation of dimensions in Hornady bullets and why aren't Hornady bullets on the podium in the major precision shooting sports?
My thoughts are that the Hornady guys won't see how a lot of these tuning methods work because the standard deviation of the quality of their components is outside of the deviation that a tuning method can reduce.
Look at how many of the top shooters are sponsored by the yellow box.
Hornady bullets win a lot in PRS and belly matches. The a-tips are very popular.
I wasted thousands buying Hornady ammo for years thinking it was good. Everything I've bought that had Hornady stamped on it has ended up in the garbage. This interview helps me explain why... Being new to the sport I was buying 285gr 338s ELD Hornady for years thinking I was buying good bullets couldn't get good groups. Then one day decided to weigh these "match grade" bullets. 282gr to 289gr and everywhere between. Complete rubbish.
Awesome! I like the contrast and perspective from both views. As an engineer, I have had to characterize very temperamental manufacturing processes using classic design of experts methods and software. You can look at the components of variation very closely and sometimes realize you weren’t turning a knob that had a massive effect on the outcome. That type of work was done with very good statisticians helping with the analysis and working on ‘it must not fail’ hardware with life and limb at stake. It’s harder than one thinks.
In Miles we Trust
Thanks Erik. Great conversation. In my many years shooting I've learned the most important thing that makes the most difference, and that thing was mentioned only in passing by Miles. The most important part of accuracy and precision is the piece of meat hanging on to the back of the rifle - period. Repeatability behind the rifle is not easy, and it's perishable. Here is an interesting thing to test: Go on the net and find a right angle calculator. Just need to enter two numbers. 3600 inches (100 yards) for the distance and .005 of a degree for the angle. The result is .31416 inches. That is the impact error in elevation from just a 5 thousands of a degree of aiming error....
Elephant in the room that was never brought up is.. "Why does nobody hand load Hornady bullets for F Class competition"? but based on Miles' comments about what is acceptable deviation for "market" they sell to answered it for us. Jumped right to "hand made bullets" and right over the fact that many /most use Berger bullets.
Two different disciplines. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that short range BR is dominated by hand-made bullets. 600 or 1000yd BR I have never seen anything that would exclude A-tips or frankly even ELD-M's from being a successful product for that sport. All I have to go off of is drag data and dispersion testing that myself or my coworkers have done. When I conduct the same tests with yellow, green, or blue boxed bullets I get similar results (purely dispersion) to ours, and A-tips especially outperform in drag variability.
In the ELR world, nobody is using Bergers either and A tips will edge out other lead core or even better copper solids. With their drag variability metplat design, it really is geared for PRS and ELR where velocity variation will kill you sooner than group size. Nobody is using hand made bullets for ELR because hand made bullets can't match .tolerances base to tip with cnc machining. The benefits of handmade bullets is selecting jacket style and grain weight in super slow twist barrels on the edge of stability in 1-300 yard benchrest. Just like nobody would use copper solids in benchrest since they won't shoot the tightest groups possible, but will be more consistent in every way bullet to bullet.
I'm even a Berger fanboy but in the last year in 22 cal, eldms are shooting just as small and periodically smaller than my favorite Bergers in short range gas gun benchrest. Both are easily quarter MOA capable . I think my smallest 5 shot group was Berger at 0.23 MOA and eldm at 0.25 but both are very competitive. Yet eldm I will save 30% of cost for with indistinguishable results the last 2 years.
@@crazydubbc7 Interesting. I swore by the old A-Max in my 22-250 back in the day but then they said there was something wrong with them and discontinued them.. replaced them with the v-max and varmint which i never could get to group nearly as well. Switched to sierra's for the economy choice and they grouped little better but still not like the old A-Max. From what you are suggesting it might be time to give the 52gr ELDM's a try...
Miles, I hope you'll dive into the "not a big enough difference" that you tried to at the start.
This was a good conversation. Sharing tests, results and limits of the results without having an assumed or target listener's goal or skill level in mind helps add clarity.
Each episode is like opening a Christmas present, nailed it again Eric 👍👏
Happy holidays! 😂
I love the willingness to agree more than disagree. As a reloader of 30 years I have seen many ideas come and go. You see or hear about a new reloading idea and think, I should do that too. After a few years and many hours of extra work the consensus is, this new thing doesn't really help that much. For instance primer pockets. Holly smokes I've spent a lot of time doing different processes to primer pockets and now I just clean the carbon out and put a new primer in. Full length size or neck size? Neck turn, no neck turn... I have simplified my process as much as possible to save time an money. In fact I quit reloading for a few years and used factory match ammo. Which also works pretty good. Anyways, thanks for the information, it was very interesting.
You teach me so much just by watching your videos . God bless y'all
Thanks so much
Erik your digging in a smart pile of rocks with the Hornady crew ! Great podcast
Thanks 👍
My biggest takeaway from the conversation is macro v. micro and what are you trying to do. I do think there are implied assumptions when talking to your audience which can and does lead to confusion or misinterpretation of data.
Enjoyed the interview.
-Thanks!
Man, I really would have liked to hear what Neville had to say but he summed it up with he's learned to never say "something can never happen". I have a lot of respect for Neville and Jayden Quinlan. Their combined knowledge could save a intro reloader or even an intermediate reload many years of trial and error on the reloading bench. I would like to hear them questioned about what affect bullet rpm has on consistency and precision on a per caliber basis. Not to be confused with bullet profile for long range shooting and stability. One of the contributors to Precision Shooting magazine (long discontinued) was doing research on this subject about the time the magazine went under. I wish one of these ballistician's would pick this up and give a modern take on this subject. Maybe Jeff Siewert?
Dunp truck and racing slicks was a wonderful analogy. Trying to fix a "dump truck" hunting rifle hunting rife with "race car" PRS processes = no effect. switching...
I thought it was an awful analogy because it compares two things that have two totally different purposes. If we're talking PRS and F class a better analogy might be a Ferrari and F1 where both would benefit from slicks on the track. Many people in the comments seem to think ballistics for one discipline are different for another, but in reality F class is just taking it further.
He puppeted miles to say what he wanted to hear
😂😂😂
Get your head out of the sand dude.
@@BelieveTheTarget you get your head out of the sand. 90% of people getting into reloading won’t be competing. They will be shooting paper or steel for fun. They will be shooting cheap tanget projectiles that don’t need seating depth testing. BR guys shoot vld and need seating depth testing. You’re not open to information that doesn’t make you happy. You’re beating a dead horse man. You won’t be happy until everyone who disagrees with you, starts agreeing with you. You kept badgering him until he said what you wanted to hear. You do that with everyone.
@@MrBoostin18 If you think it does not matter for the average reloader your wrong. Had a cheap hunting rifle. At 100, best i could get was 1.25in with hand loads, factory ammo was 1.5in to 1.75in. Just tuning the seating depth on my hand loads, im down to 0.75in to 1.0in.
@@jonathanrogers9961 and as litz stated seating depth only matters when running secant ogive projectiles. I’ve proved this to myself. I had tangent and secant ogive projectiles. I seated the tangents to run in a mag and left them. I had to spend more time and projectiles to get the vld to shoot as good as the tangents.
@@jonathanrogers9961 also most people out there now days can’t shoot the difference between handloads and factory ammo with the advancements in cartridge design and equipment.
Erik why have you never shown in a statistically relevant test that tuners can shrink group size when you use different settings. It would only take an afternoon. Go through your suggested testing method at 100 yards(1000 yard groups add too many uncontrolled variables) to find the "node". Then all you have to do is shoot 10 x 5 shot groups at your best setting vs 10 x 5 shot groups at the worst as shown when you found the node(alternating the tuner back and forth so fouling and barrel temp are equal for each setting). There's not a single test like this anywhere online and the only published large sample size tests show no difference. I've ran this style tests on three different heavy barrel guns that were all capable of 0.3" or better aggregates (5x5 shot groups)and saw no difference(6BR, 6PPC and a 6.5x47L). Id love to see some non-anecdotal conclusive evidence that they work because Id love experimenting with different styles, weights, materials.
This is exact test is something I have wanted to see for years. It would be a very popular video no matter the results. The more I shot the more weight I put into large sample sizes to confirm or disprove what elements of my reloading process help me the most.
@@Is_Time_A_Number After asking this question multiple times and even having Erik respond with a sarcastic remark once or twice I'm thinking they tried the test and it didn't show the results that they wanted. Factoring in how good it would be for business if they showed it working the most likely explanation at this point is that they have tried and they couldn't prove that it made a difference. There's no other reasonable explanation given that the test I've outlined would take an afternoon to complete.
Awesome. Thanks for the great content! I was hoping for some tuner talk 😂.
😂
I'm just a construction guy from idaho. But I find that tunners are like turbos. They do the same thing in my eyes. Just on a different system.
I think the better a rifle shoots the bigger difference you will see with smaller changes.
Excited for this one! Thanks erik
You bet!
Everything is relative to your rifle and shooting discipline. A decent precision rifle with top components might avg 0.75-1.25 MOA shooting legitimate 10 or 20 shot groups. Seeing a 0.1 MOA node is not possible with this rifle. There’s too much noise in that system. If, for example, Eric Cortina’s F-class rifle is capable shooting consistent 7” groups at 1000, a 0.1 MOA change gets him to 6” groups. This is only possible because his system only varies 0.1-0.2 MOA. So a 0.1 MOA node is visible to him. The Hornady guys are testing with mass produced bullets and mass produced brass, loading to magazine length and shooting rifles not quite at E. Cortina’s level. They aren’t going to see a 0.1 MOA node. Again, everything is relative to your setup.
Agreed, now prove it with statistically valid sample sizes and we'll believe it ;D The more precise the claim, the more precise the statistical validation needs to be, it doesn't just go away.
Pure . Gold 🙌
Ive never seen Eric try so hard to disprove someone. Im sorry, but Ill believe valid statistics over reading tea leaves and chicken guts any day.
Erick, once again excellent podcast. Are you planning on hosting Chris Way on your podcast again? He's been doing a bunch of testing and has stated he only shoots factory ammo and wins.
ELDM works for me.
Erik (love you man), but there is a constant 'cat and mouse' with anyone who is publishing information that doesn't align with competition shooters be it Applied Ballistics, Hornady, etc. There is a fundamental difference to testing to establish scientific patterns within sets of data to develop a relationship (with confidence interval) between a variable and given results (i.e., Top Gun Theory). Compared to shooting competitively only caring about the end result, with limited (comparatively, and perhaps not always) understanding as to the 'how' the results are achieved.
I don’t think it’s cat and mouse. We are simply studying different aspects of external ballistics IMO as discussed on this podcast. They don’t have an end result in mind, they simply test what they have. We test everything, including components from any manufacturer because we are looking for the best results possible. That includes changing actions, barrels, reamers, etc etc. to achieve our goals.
54:35 And I don't believe Hornady sees a large enough market in the small percentage of competitive shooters to alter their game plan. Some yellow box company has that covered. Then there is the custom bullet makers, the guys cranking them out in the garages or shops next to the house they have the guys that shoot "bug holes" covered.
Erik, I think the realization is your interviewing employees of Hornady manufacturing who are testing for an end result, which is multi-fold. You test for a single end result and so do the other disciplines you mention. Sure as the employees shoot competitive and want to win they prove with their testing they can be competitive and their end results proves their components can do that but not at the level you seek. That's the difference.
Im feeling good about my .6 moa 20 shot strings on a stable table with bipod! If the wind is calm I can do it every time with a rebarreled tikka.
Reminds me of antennae tech! The black arts!
I think most folks are confusing accuracy with precision. PRS, NRL, and hunters care more about accuracy where the bullet hits in the same place day after day. Bench rest doesn’t typically care where on the target the bullets hit as long as they are all in the same hole. I am curious how big that bench rest record would be if all the groups were over laid on the same target.
They have Benchrest for score as well. They don’t do too bad either.
They do, and it is truely impressive what they can do. Not trying to knock them in any way, or you F class guys. I will never be able to shoot that well. However, hunters and PRS don’t get sighters. We have to be willing to give up a degree of precision to get repeatable accuracy.
You don’t get sighters but you get hit targets. 🤷♂️
I think the biggest thing the hornady guys may be missing is component testing. Even if you assume their guns and barrels are spot on, they are still missing 2 of the 3 B’s of precision shooting.
WHAT are they "missing"?
They COVER all components(bullets ,powder, etc) and the significance terms of peformance. They are really not trying to sell you a miraculous $200 gizmo to screw in the end of your barrel. They are just being honest about samole sizes anx TRUE repeatabilty of a given result.
Oh, I think the Hornady guys are good people. But at the end of the day they are giving you their results with Hornady bullets and brass. I couldn’t tune a rifle either back when I used that stuff.
@@JamesClark-lw6sw The 3 B's of accuracy are Barrels, Brass and Bullets. Thay probably have good barrels, but they are not using the most consistent brass or the most consistent bullets. By the way, the $200 "gizmo" is pretty awesome. I will not buy another rifle that does not have "gizmo" threads at the end of the barrel.
With all due respect to Hornady i don't pay too much attention to their findings, because I don't limit myself to there components. I can't buy primers or powder by the train car load like they can. And for my use there are better bullets and brass and i can choose what powder i want. I also test in small group sizes, because that's what im after... small groups. I also don't load anymore than I plan on shooting in one secession.
I could never do what Hornady does by keeping ammo and bullets in every gun shop around the world and i don't expect them to do what I want to do.
Everything is a test and I'm always trying to do better.
You are pretty dense if thats all you got from Hornady. Their test protocols apply to ANY component combination
@@JamesClark-lw6sw Hornady is a brand. It's tests will never come up with a solution that will cost Hornady money. They are great for what they are good for.
@@JamesClark-lw6sw my previous comment is the truth as I see it. But this is Eric's channel and I think the purpose of this interview is to show people it's Ok to have different protocols because we all are not looking for the same results. We should embrace the fact that we enjoy shooting and the second amendment, not call each other names.
I’ll bullet it down for you ,Eric is not using anything Hornady is selling. There’s the rub.
Plenty of people win without tuners too.
Can that world record be repeated every time he shoots now since he has the recipe to do it?
The recipe is hard to duplicate because of the wind. The rifle and shooter could certainly do it, but lining up enough days with favorable wind conditions is tough.
The answer is no. Because luck is part of the equation. Accuracy is always a range of group sizes. No aggregate records are set multiple groups that are the same size. A gun may never shoot two groups that are the exact same size to the thousandth in the entire life of the barrel. So while you still need to do everything right you still need to get lucky to shoot multiple groups that happen to end up at the bottom of the expected range.
What I find amazing is how the same handful of shooters keep getting lucky. The luckiest is Tony Boyer, the second luckiest is Wayne Campbell, Tony’s protege. Funny how “luck” works. 🙄
@@BelieveTheTarget We're talking about setting a world record not winning matches. I've shot more benchrest than you have F-CLASS. What I find amazing is how you constantly try to find the negative in everything. If there wasn't luck(or randomness if you want to call it that) involved then the same guy with the same gun should win every single time and every group out of that gun would be the same size. You literally started V2 matches to take luck out of F-CLASS due to relay draws and changing conditions. I bet you a million dollars that you can't fire 3 5 shot groups that are the exact same size to the thousandth at 100 yards in a row. I also bet you that if you did this ten times in a row one set would be significantly better than all the others. So did you screw up all the others? I wasn't disparaging anyone's skill. In fact I literally said you "have to do everything right". A quarter minute gun will shoot 5 shot groups that range from 0.09" to 0.300" and you can do the exact same thing in the exact same conditions and it won't shoot two of the same in a row. So the luck comes in because on that day you did everything right and your gun also happened to shoot a series of groups that are on the lowest end of the range of possibilities. If you were willing to learn some statistics and math you would end up being a better shooter and you are already very good.
Ok. 😂😂😂
As Miles said, "there may be things going on further down range that we don't see at 200 yds" Jayden identifys this in the BC podcasts 1 & 2. Bullets are going through multiple Mach velocities and heating changes, as it travels ; not to mention the environmental changes in play. This reminds me of the early supersonic test flights. Gen Yeager went through multiple buffeting incidents pushing the x-15. The bullet seems to be more stable at closer ranges when multiple sonic booms are stacked closer together on the length of the bullet; I perceive especially when those pressure waves are the cylindrical area of the bullet. As the velocity slows, those waves have more impact on the trajectory..Long range shooters become very adept at recognizing those things and therfore figure out how to "tune" for those variables. What I haven't heard anyone discus is what velocity F-Class guys have, at 1000 yds. Erik tells everyone, he shoots a 32" barrel for maximum velocities 😉 I think there's something there, that isn't being given away. At the end of the day, both of these gentlemen are doing their part to further the shooting sports. It's an element of business, that not revealing the easy button, makes things sell; therfore keeping the lights on at the factory and keeping people interested. 🤙
Chuck Yeager didn't fly the X-15 he flew the predecessor X-1.
Hey Erik and Miles, odd question. Why do we not focus on "MEDIAN" values in shooting?? Statistically speaking, it is resistant to outliers(good or bad ones), especially in small sample sizes. Realistically, 99.999% of all shooters, even the pros, shoot small sample sizes, statistically speaking. Yes, in a perfect world, we would all shoot 100 shot groups of every possible variable combination and do a full and complete statistical analysis on all of it. Unfortunately, that's not realistic.
Thanks Guys!
Respectfully,
Joe
We still need to focus on standard deviation and extreme spreads but I certainly agree the median is very important and people lie super hard about how accurate their rifles are
Bottom line, made good ammo, keep your gun clean.
Median is used for non standard data. Mean is used for standard data aka bell curve. Low sample size may look non standard and give you the false impression that you should be using median.
In F-Class, you are scored on all shots, including the “flyers”, that’s why I always do ES and group size instead of SD and Mean Radius.
@@BelieveTheTarget thank you Sir
Keep kicking rocks…. So polite :)
I meant to keep kicking rocks over to see what else they can find.
😂 "were not going to get into that"
I watch erric continuosly( think he tells more)to find ways of making my classic hunting rifle and ammo shoot better. Where are competitions for me. I dont need to shoot hundreds of rounds for or buy a comp. Rifle
TWO totally different things. They are supplying info to and for the 90% and you are in the 1%.
Lol go watch the latest ak50 video and see a 50bmg barrel flop around like a wet noodle
Now I wanna buy a dump truck.
The Bid difference here is at the competition level you have already weeded out bad loads and your load development for a given system has years and seasons of load develpoment already into it so your sample size is already way bigger than any novice beginner shooter ... Hornady is an amunition manufaturer who is trying to develop a sample size to fit many systems not one proven system that is the difference .... as a competition shooter you are not changing things you stick with a given caliber cartridge combo you change barrels as needed you keep the system the same
.
And positive compensation doesn't exist either........... Tell that to the long range bench rest shooters who reproduce nodes via a charge weight ladder using only a few shots, and then go on the win. The hornady guys need to get out more and see what the rest of the world, especially the winners , are doing.
Another great interview but it's a shame Eric will bombard us with shorts. Greed ruins the fun in every sport!
Greed? WTF are you talking about?
I see all these Hornady ballisticians on here preaching to me about" it doesn't make a statesticle difference" Lets get a statistician on here and show how one can manipulate the numbers to say or do anything. ( #spoileralert) it would be a very dry podcast)I appreciate Hornady for there outside the box thinking on social media, and embracing discussions on all things gun. However, they are not the authority. Or "end all be all. " Hornady......talking directly to you. Study Mr. W. Edwards Deming. Many of you are young. You think that you are the first or best. Particularly, his theory on management. Keep learning, and you will not have to " spin" your answers. If you are always learning and changing, quality is a bi-product. Not thee only idea/product you will sell.
Here comes bombardment of short videos of this same interview to fill Eric's pockets and increase ratings otherwise this would be good content 🥴
I bet you believe that everything you say is true, don’t you?
Be careful with what you think, something you are wrong.
😢
I watch the full interviews but sometimes those short will have an emphasis on something that really helps me out. Thank you Erik for putting this out there and make your money. I dont mind at all🇺🇲
I lose money every month on this channel, but I keep doing it because I believe the info found here is very valuable to the shooting sports.
@@BelieveTheTarget Don't take these people serious, they are jealous of you. I love this free content that nobody else is doing. It's very obvious you don't have to do these podcasts and share your knowledge, but you do it for the love of the sport. You are getting people interested in the sport with these videos.
I'm sorry but this new concept hornady keeps trying to explain I have zero fk'n clue what in the Sam H.....E double L they are talking about. Please forgive me Erik for saying you are very humble in entertaining hornady's explanation of what I consider to be complete nonsense and while you can't say it publicly I can't help but think that privately you are dying listening to this
For clarity; what "new concept" are you talking about? Did I miss something? In all seriousness.
I completely agree with you. These guys are almost impossible to listen to. I've never heard anyone spend so many words to actually say nothing of value at all. Baffle them with bullshit is the phrase that comes to mind.
If their information was nonsense, then the DOD and applied ballistics wouldn't have declared that Hornadys bullets have the closest advertisement of BC than any other bullet manufacturers including Berger. 2 outside independent agency's confirmed with their own doppler radar that Hornadys BC is close to their advertised BC. Moreover, the last 2 years I have been able to replicate group size of Berger bullets with hornady ELDM bullets but at a 30% savings to cost. With cartridges going over 3200 fps or past 1000 yards time of flight, the heat shield tip and A tips actually does perform better but I'm not sure if you have the 1000 yard range like I do to test this. That's why in ELR discipline, nobody is using Bergers anymore. They either use Hornady A tips or copper solids because of the CNC machining of the tip. We are talking at minimum 2000 yards to 4k. In the 50 BMG, hornady A max performs better than any lead core bullets. Copper solids are the preferred choice. Nor would I use A tips or copper solids to shoot the smallest groups at 1-300 yards where berger, eldm, or handmade bullets will out perform. At extreme ranges, cnc machines bullets will always win. Additionally, without the 6.5 creedmore cartridge designed by Hornady, people would still think that a 308 Winchester with a 168 grain match king would be a solid 1000 yard cartridge or they would be shooting Wildcats like the 6.5/284 win or a 300 win mag instead of a PRC. Without hornady, F class shooters like Eric would be shooting Wildcats instead of the 7PRCW. Lapua wouldn't offer PRC brass if Hornady was nonsense. Just watch Primal rights where he calls out anyone hating on hornady as Hornady has does more innovation in the last 20 years than any other small cal manufacturer. Will I use Hornady brass instead of Lapua? No. Is all their stuff a A+ ? No. Do they make bullets that can shoot quarter minute 5 shot groups with boring regularity like Berger? Yes. Gone are the days of paying $45 for 100 22 cal bullets instead of $30 for indistinguishable results.
@@crazydubbc7 Interesting, I didn't know that about DOD & AB.
That being said, .308 was dead when D. Tubb started shooting 7-08 & 260 & 243 back in the mid 80s & early 90s. Mid & Nancy Tompkins and her daughters were shooting 6.5/284s way back when, long before Creedmoor got dreamed up by Dennis DeMille. I had an AR10 in a 6.5 wildcat back in 97 and was shooting 142s with great results.
That being said, the Hornady bullets are very good and I have been quite pleased at the price to performance ratio, but I don't shoot F-Class or Benchrest. I have several thousand Bergers on the shelf, but I've been very happy with how the Hornady's shoot.
I learned the hard “head” way that applying benchrest precision methodology to PRS applications didn’t help (much). I’m learning🥸