Loads shown in bold designate potentially most accurate load

  • 2.2K Views
  • Last Post 14 February 2022
  • Topic Is Solved
Millelacs posted this 02 July 2021

I've noticed that Lyman reloading manuals state selected "Loads shown in bold designate potentially most accurate load."

Any ideas how those "potentially most accurate loads" are determined?

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
John Carlson posted this 14 February 2022

I agree that large numbers of large groups will give more reliable results.  For me a typical load development session is six five shot groups with one variable.  If I can identify a superior load I will repeat that session.  If I duplicate the results I figure I'm on to something.  That happens less than 1/2 of the time, indicating that my best group was the result of something other than having developed a superior load.  It seems that my load development becomes more about weeding out the stuff that never works rather than finessing the stuff that always works.  Whether it's powder charge or seating depth, there is generally a fairly generous range which, if I stay within it, the load will do it's part if I can do mine.

Of course, there are those inexplicable fliers........................................

John Carlson. CBA Director of Military Competition.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • John Alexander
John Alexander posted this 13 February 2022

I agree with Bud I also think we make load development harder than it needs to be for an additional reason. I think there is usually more than one "best" load for most rifles as far as components are concerned.  There are at least three different powers by three manufacturers I would feel perfectly comfortable taking to the next match. Probably more would also work if the hoarders forced me into finding out. I will admit that there a couple with similar burning rates that didn't seem to do quite as well in limited testing, so I am not saying that any powder will do.

I don't shoot any hard to ignite powders for matches, but I have used several brands of small rifles primers without  being able to tell any difference and when I switch to small pistol primers the results seem the same. If it goes bang the bullets don't seem to know the difference.  

I think a lot of powders and primers are ruled out by false negative results because of the same ol' temptation -- making a judgement based on a couple of groups.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
Bud Hyett posted this 13 February 2022

Sometimes I think we work too hard for load development. The final question is. "Does the load do what I need?" 

  • For the target shooter, this is a tough requirement. Competition is tough at the shoulder-to-shoulder matches. I enjoy the challenge. 
  • For the casual shooter, the requirement is less. Whether game or tin cans, the target is bigger. Shooting hedge balls at the Windhill Range to keep them rolling is a fun challenge. 
  • Shooting matches, I work and keep records to find the one set of conditions that match the day. The greatest fun for me is in part is finding the right load.
  • Once I have a candidate good load, I proof it with three ten-shot groups, record in EXCEL along with conditions and analysis, then graph the results.

In the early days, several rifles were worn beyond their gilt-edge of accuracy potential before I was satisfied the load was the best. Many years ago, I nearly wore out the barrel on a Ruger #3 .22 Hornet before I found a load. Even went to the expense of buying a "benchrest" seater. The solution was 35 grain Berger bullets, a case full of W-W 680 powder and seating the bullet in a crunch fit into the lands. The final accuracy work was trading this rile to a "gun expert" at the Puyallup Gun Show who just had to buy it.

Then I bought a Ruger #1B .22 Hornet and a Ruger #1B .218 Bee for the fun of it. Both are better rifles.

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
Clod Hopper posted this 13 February 2022

The only way to know is to shoot ten ten shot groups of each powder, at each powder weight from 10& below to max, each bullet and each primer.  By then, you gun will be worn out and you will have to buy a new barrel.  Just kidding guys.  This is a wonderful discussion, and those of us who just copy a "good load" from Lyman or the Lee manual appreciate it.  For myself, I use loads of either WW231, or TiteGroup in handguns, because that is what I have.   My problem is I don't practice enough and I need that more than a perfect load.

Dale M. Lock

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
John Alexander posted this 13 February 2022

I agree that you can't find a good zero with one five shot group. In a string of groups some groups will be a bit lower, higher, left or right.  The centers of several groups have to be averaged to find a zero.

25 shots with two out sounds like a good method. The concept of a "cone of fire" that Larry suggested is a good way to think of rifle precision. What ever the number of shots in a group you like, the most important thing is to fire enough shots.  There is no free lunch.

John 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
  • RicinYakima
RicinYakima posted this 13 February 2022

I agree John. I still advocate for one 25-shot group, and don't count just the worse two shots. IMHO, you can't even tell if you are truly zeroed with a 5 shot group. See my "Bad bullet" test article from last year. The winner for group should be the "string" target, every shot measured from the center of the target. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 13 February 2022

The disagreement between myself and others on this thread about whether a single a three or five shot group is a reliable basis for making decisions about the load involved is unresolved. Some may think the discussion has gone on long enough. But this isn't just a difference of opinion on something that can't be proven by evidence, like which color is most pleasing to the eye, where it makes sense to agree to disagree and drop the issue.

This is a fundamental issue for shooters interested in rifle accuracy and an open forum is a good place to air different views and present evidence to support your position. We should try to find out whether single three or five shot groups, if very small and shot with a "tuned" load, are reliable indicators of the future performance of that load. If this is true, it will save a lot of scarce primers and powder in load development. If three shot groups are unreliable we should stop using them to avoid being led astray while wasting primers and powder

I have suggested that a string of ten three shot groups where all the groups are virtually identical or at least about the same size, as some have claimed possible, would be powerful evidence that three shot groups could be relied on for the final tuning of a load. However, no such string of groups has been presented.  

I have assembled evidence from match reports and other sources to support the argument that three or five shot groups are not reliable enough to base decisions on and presented it in articles in Fouling Shots #274 and 275.

I urge further discussion on this important issue especially by those not convinced by the TFS articles.  I believe that we will have better luck if we stop depending on single groups for decisions but I have been wrong before.

John

 

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 20 November 2021

"I feel strongly that one of the faults we shooters have is trying to draw conclusions from single five, or ten shot groups."

 

John

I agree 100%.  I would also add single 3 shot groups to that when developing loads, especially for precision regardless of the type of shooting.  The method 4and1 mentions is not load development.  The BR shooters that test two or more loads during warm up at a match are not "developing" loads.  They are simply testing loads already developed of known precision under the conditions of the match.   I do the same at cast bullet matches; with a known load already "developed" for precision; shoot 3 foulers then a 5 shot group on the sigher bull.  That tells me the POI vs POA and if that load is still "precise" enough for the match.   

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
RicinYakima posted this 20 November 2021

And that is the joys and interest of cast bullet shooting!

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • Spindrift
shootcast posted this 20 November 2021

I probably never will be a Benchrest shooter. I do enjoy plinking and participate in local CBA shoots. I have attended the NT more as a shooter not a competitor. With me cast bullets seem to have a mind of there own. Just when you think you got something working you go to a match and find out different. I collect targets from practice sessions. If it worked last time out I try the same thing next time out. After a period of time you begin to find some promise that takes you back to make a fool of yourself. Oh well what else will do.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 19 November 2021

4and1,

 I was just trying to make my argument as effectively as possible so you and others could see my point of view. I am sorry that you thought I was condescending.

I feel strongly that one of the faults we shooters have is trying to draw conclusions from single five, or ten shot groups. So when you recommended making judgements based on single three shot groups in your first post. I didn't think your advice should stand as the last word, and disagreed. This is a forum after all and worthless if people can't disagree.

Not being a competitive JB benchrest shooter shouldn't disqualify posters from using logic and evidence to disagree with someone who is.

We agree on one thing. Continuing this discussion is probably not productive.

John

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 19 November 2021

the above discussions were of value to me ...  it is always good to weigh what we are sure we know against what actually exists .

thanks to all who contributed.

ken

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
RicinYakima posted this 19 November 2021

 Posts #3 and #4 answered the OP's questions.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
4and1 posted this 19 November 2021

John, thank you for the condescending remarks. What my apology was for, is for me following YOU down your rabbit hole when you have no first hand experience in shooting jacketed benchrest in competition. You owe the original poster an apology for re-railing the reason for this thread, where he asked about published loads. You instead twisted it into another of your "statistical" rants, instead of offering something to help. You have offered NOTHING to the discussion towards the OP about how to find out what his gun shoots best with.

This discussion is closed for me. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 18 November 2021

4and1,

I don't think an apology is called for. I suspect it has been interesting to some, and if not, it is easy to avoid.

I have several friends who shoot JB benchrest, so I realize that most JB benchrest winners do exactly as you say. What you don't say is that the vast majority of the losers also go through this same ritual, based on the fallacy that you can tell if a load is better by looking hard at ONE THREE SHOT group. If you get a bunch of shooters all doing the same silly thing, one of them will win and be convinced that the silly thing helped. 

What you have offered as proof is "everybody does it". This tells more about how these shooters follow the leader than whether any one thing they do is needed, or helpful. At one time, most winners in CBA matches indexed their bullets and cases. The shooter who owned most of the records in the early years used only one case.  One of the very best current schuetzen shooters indexes his bullets, cases, and PRIMERS -- and wins. Practically none of recent CBA winners do any of these things. Doing something useless and winning doesn't show that it was useful. I believe this is simple logic that most can understand.

What we have here is an "The Emperor Has No Clothes" situation -- i.e. people blinded by the Emperor's position. If you will just shoot a series of three shot groups with your "tuned" load, measure them, and think about it with an open mind (this last part is important) you will be able to see that Emperor is buck naked.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Spindrift
4and1 posted this 18 November 2021

John, this thread has taken a turn way beyond what was intended, and what I had originally posted. I apologize to all for causing the distraction.

I have been shooting benchrest for over 25 years, and one thing that separates the winners from the "also ran", is their ability to tune a rifle and keep it in tune over the course of an aggregate. I have met a huge amount of good shooters over the years, and not one of them would shoot 7 or 8 shots to know if their load works or not. Most will start the day with their chosen load, shoot their group, but take 3 rounds loaded with a different load, and shoot it on the sighter to see if does better than what they just shot. Cases are reloaded for every target. And so it goes, they win.

Cast bullets present a situation where it's not as easy to learn as fast, but make  no mistake, you can still tune a rifle shooting cast bullets.  Follow which ever method you choose, I'll use my method.

Attached Files

Squid Boy posted this 17 November 2021

Those groups might not win a bench rest match but they are not that bad. The numbers tell me that the mean is .256" and anything averaging around a quarter inch isn't that bad in my book. The SD is .134" for ten groups with an extreme spread of .490". There is always room for improvement but I for one would like to see some other "better tuned" groups just to find where this is going. I don't have a jacketed gun that will beat these groups at the moment so I will just stand by and watch. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 16 November 2021

4and1

Talk is cheap. How about some evidence?  Please show us a string of three shot groups fired with the same "tuned load" that is so consistent from group to group that any one of the groups could be used to predict future performance of the load as Mr. Boyer claims to do.  

Ten consistent groups would be a fairly easy way to prove that your are right. And when you do, I will admit  I am wrong. If no such string appears any fair minded shooter will have to assume that you can't do it.

45 2.1,

I'm sure our readers would also be happy to see a string of three shot groups that you have fired with one of your properly tuned loads so we can all admire the consistency in size and shape.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
  • MarkinEllensburg
45 2.1 posted this 16 November 2021

 

 Sorry to say this John, but the only thing all that shows, is your load is not tuned for your gun. The whole reason for shooting the testing method is to weed out what works and what doesn't. That load will not win a match. Yes there are a couple groups that look good, but the rest are bad. Typical for an out of tune load. Had you run the entire test as described, you would see when the gun comes into tune, then back out again. And, I also said this will show you which load IS THE PATH TO FOLLOW. 

 

Thank You 4and1 for a very astute summary of what is basically wrong with the common path taken now.

 

 

Attached Files

4and1 posted this 16 November 2021

"4and1

 

Sorry for the long delay in getting back with what I promised. Our disagreement boils down to: can a single three shot group be trusted to predict the long term performance of a load as Mr. Boyer does in his final fine “tuning” for the very best load for that rifle and barrel, as he advocates in his book?

 

I claim that three shot groups can’t be trusted for such decision making because they aren’t repeatable.  The next one is likely to be much different.  A string of 3-shot groups will vary so much from one group to the next that it will be obvious to any open-minded shooter that a single three shot group cannot predict the load’s match performance as Boyer’s tuning method depends on.  You said that I ”have no idea if this is true or not”.  I believe I do know that it is true..

 

You claim that Boyer’s tuning method is valid because you can “hang your hat” on his individual shots and single three shot groups because he shoots in the “jacketed bullet benchrest world” and not the “cast bullet world” where there are more complications.  I believe that groups in the jacketed bullet benchrest world vary about the same from group to group as groups in our humble cast bullet world.

 

The only way we can resolve this difference of opinion is to look at strings of three shot groups fired by the same load and under the same conditions with rifles similar to Boyer’s

 

As promised, I shot a series of ten three-shot groups, (10.5 pound 6PPC rifle using the same exact load for all ten groups, 68 grain Berger bullets, WSR primers, and 25 grains of H322, seated so the bullets were 0.010 into the lands when chambered). I made no effort to adjust for changing wind conditions just as Tony insists you should. 

 

The first two groups were carelessly shot before parallax in the scope was adjusted properly and should be disregarded as not quite the same set up as the following eight groups. The eight groups averaged 0.21 inch. The groups are very small, by cast bullet standards, but vary about like cast bullet groups – just as statistics says they would. 

 

As an experienced JB benchrest shooter I have no doubt that your string of groups you post will average much smaller.  We will see if all your groups are all about the same size and shape when you post them.

 

John"


 

 Sorry to say this John, but the only thing all that shows, is your load is not tuned for your gun. The whole reason for shooting the testing method is to weed out what works and what doesn't. That load will not win a match. Yes there are a couple groups that look good, but the rest are bad. Typical for an out of tune load. Had you run the entire test as described, you would see when the gun comes into tune, then back out again. And, I also said this will show you which load IS THE PATH TO FOLLOW. 

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • 45 2.1
Show More Posts
Close