Loads shown in bold designate potentially most accurate load

2.2K Views
Last Post 14 February 2022
Topic Is Solved

CBA Member

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

56 Comments

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes

CBA Member

Little Debbie posted this 02 July 2021

Read once it was based on uniform chronograph readings, can’t find the source so take this for what it’s worth.

Attached Files

CBA Member

Larry Gibson posted this 02 July 2021

Lyman CBH #3: Reloading Data Introduction chapter, page 123;

"Accuracy Loads:

When a load is noted as such in the data tables proper, it means that a given combination of components produced the most uniform internal ballistics of any load tested utilizing that particular bullet design.

Unless noted in "Comments", the accuracy load was not fired at targets. The load, however, does have a high potential - assuming all other external factors or optimum - for producing outstanding accuracy since uniform internal ballistics are critical to accuracy on target. You cannot have one without the other."

At one time Lyman also did test fire the rested loads on their 50 yard out door range. The range was closed many years back.

LMG

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

Attached Files

Liked by
and 2 others

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 02 July 2021

Larry, has it nailed. Last time I talked to Tom Griffin, editor of their books, they were still just doing internal ballistic data. Also starting loads are 10% less than maximum loads, generally. They don't actually shoot for minimum loads, just a calculation.

Attached Files

Liked by
and 4 others

CBA Member

Millelacs posted this 04 July 2021

Another mystery solved.

Many thanks.

Attached Files

CBA Member

hanover67 posted this 29 July 2021

My "most accurate load" is the last one I shot, which never matches the manual because I don't have the same powder, bullet, primer, or atmospheric conditions.

Attached Files

Standard Member

JeffinNZ posted this 29 July 2021

So it is all entirely theoretical. Similarly I could theorectically catch the eye of Cindy Crawford. BAHAHAHA.

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

4and1 posted this 29 July 2021

Theoretical is an understatement. Back when I was young and dumb, there was no internet, and nobody who shot well would pass on his secrets, you looked at this and took it for gospel. What a farce. Fast forward a number of decades, and it still holds true for many I suppose. If one assumes they have a respectable rifle, good barrel and chamber, and the ability to shoot off a rest in a consistent manner, much more can be achieved.

Accuracy boils down to vibrations, and no two guns are the same. If you want to seek an accuracy load, you have to test a number of powders. Using the same bullet sized and prepped. No two powders burn the same in your gun. I start at a seating depth where the bullet is in contact with the rifling, no jump, but a mark on the bullet it has engaged. Use this as a start. Then try different powder charges, a grain at a time, start low, go up, and shoot at least 3 shots per load. You will see a change in groups as you change loads.

Try another powder, same method. Keep your targets. Try another powder. Let the targets speak for themselves. When you have something narrowed down, then work on seating depth. Go in .005", then .010". Go back to the starting point, try .005" off, then .010". Let the targets speak for themselves. Don't believe what you see in published match results. It might not work for you.

It takes time and powder/primers/lead. But to find what you gun likes, it takes the effort. All this assuming you are keeping the barrel clean during all this.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 30 July 2021

I would like to respectfully disagree with some of the advice offered by 4in1 in the post above.

“Then try different powder charges, a grain at a time, start low, go up, and shoot at least 3 shots per load. You will see a change in groups as you change loads.”

In my opinion, this procedure, along with its following paragraph will not get you to an optimum load although you may be able to find and eliminate truly horrible loads, and it doesn’t do any harm. The fly in the ointment is that judging much of anything on one three shot group is an exercise in misdirection.

You will indeed see a change in the groups as you change the powder charge. The problem is that you will see equally substantial change in group size and shape if you DON’T change the load at all. So, thinking two consecutive three shot groups are indicating a trend is a very iffy assumption.

You don’t have to take my word for it. A simple test will show the wild variations in a string of three shot groups. Shoot a string of five - three shot groups with the same load and look at the ratio of the largest to the smallest. The ratio will vary of course from one five group string to the next five group string. But if you persist in shooting such strings with the same load you will find the AVERAGE ratio of largest to smallest group within several five group strings tending toward 2.5. Five shot groups aren’t a lot more consistent and five – five shot groups will on average produce a ratio of 1.9. This is true whether the groups average 0.15” or 1.5”

The procedure suggested above is the one that Tony Boyer uses to “tune” his loads to a barrel. Tony is the greatest short range JB benchrest who ever lived. So, I’m sure it will seem presumptious for a lowly cast bullet shooter to doubt the great man. But even Tony Boyer can’t shoot three shot groups that don’t vary wildly from one group to the next. I believe he is kidding himself in trying since his elaborate tuning exercise is based on the shaky assumption that a one three-shot group is a reliable indicator of what a series of such groups with that load will average.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

4and1 posted this 30 July 2021

John, I don't agree with your theory. I have spent time with Tony shooting side by side, using his method of tune, and if you think it is flawed, you are very mistaken. Have you done it?? The difference in what Tony shoots and what cast bullets are, is bullets.

If you followed the process out, the 3 shot method is a way to find what your gun likes with regards to vibrations. The 3 shot method gives you the path to follow. You have to start somewhere, where do you start? One of the BOLD PRINT loads? The only way to weed out the bad, is test. I think many in the cast bullet world simply load what a cast bullet load manual tells them to, using their bullet and OAL, their powder, and all will be good?

Nothing could be farther from reality. When I started cast, I used every powder listed in match results, as well as charges. They didn't work. I worked on other powders, found quite a few that would shoot much better than the listed ones. AT THIS POINT, you have to start your own way of fine tuning. So where/how would you suggest someone begin finding out what their gun likes to shoot? I would be very interested in hearing your method. Approaching a load method that is logical, repeatable, recordable, is the way to go.

I found out early, shooting a cast bullet is much different than a custom hand made jacketed bullet. With those, you can hang your hat on every shot, good or bad. Cast, not so much. But, work the method, repeat the method. The trend will show itself.

I am sure, the top cast bullet shooters will agree, consistency will win, a one off match will not. The way to find consistency is in testing, today and next week. I have sent more lead down range testing, than I have in matches. And I'm still not satisfied.

Attached Files

Standard Member

Spindrift posted this 31 July 2021

Interesting discussion.

Measuring or evaluating the accuracy of a certain load is fundamental to our hobby. Yet, there is no clear consensus how this is done. This is one of those subjects that is much more complex than it might appear, on the surface. We venture into the realm of statistics; variation, significance, statistical power.

Somewhere (don’t remember where, might be this forum) I read a treatise written by a statistician, who was also a shooter. The subject was accuracy evaluation, number of shots and statistical power.

The more shots fired, the more information you gain-naturally. But, in practice, we’d like to know few shots with every load we can get away with, yet harvest reliable information. Shooting 100 shots with every load in the ladder is just not practical. This statistician/shooter argued that 7-shot groups was the optimal compromise.

Personally, I shoot 5-shot groups- mainly to segregate horrible loads from potentially good loads. The potentially good loads are tested next time with 2-3 5-shot groups. If the load is still good, I shoot 5 groups of 5 shots the next time, and consider the average group size the «load accuracy».

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 31 July 2021

You may be talking about something I wrote some time back. I wrote in another thread about a statistician who claimed through math proofs that only seven samples were required to get the results needed for a test. I admitted being lost with regard to the math he used to prove his point but I never forgot it. However, seven is not the handiest number when testing ammo. Five or ten makes more sense because of how an ammo box is divided if nothing else. Plus, you always end up with an odd bullet or two out of a box. I load and shoot ten because it covers the value he proposed. But also to make it easier on myself. In spite of all that I think several groups are required to get good data. I will reshoot "good" loads over a period of weeks or months, even years, to verify the point. In my opinion, one thing is for sure, you will find what doesn't work fairly easily but fine tuning the best takes time and effort. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Liked by

Standard Member

TRKakaCatWhisperer posted this 31 July 2021

Statistics indicate that 30 samples are needed to have confidence that the sample correctly represents the population.

Right. So I shoot 5 shot groups in the wider spaced ladder and 7 or 10 shot groups as the rung spacing narrows. That is enough to compare several loads - showing the trend of getting wider or narrower. Repeating the 10 shot groups around the selected load verifies it. What is practical? That depends on how OCD one is.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 31 July 2021

4 in 1'

I didn't expect you to agree with my post, but this isn’t an issue of just opposing opinions. The fundamental fact my argument is based on is not a theory or an assumption. It a fact based on statistics. If you shoot strings of five-3shots as I suggested, you will find that ON AVERAGE the biggest group in a string will be about 2.5 times the size of the smallest. This ratio of largest to smallest will of course sometime be smaller and sometimes larger. Tony’s own groups in his book often vary over 100% from one group to the next with only tiny changes in load or seating depth. This large variation from one three shot group to the next makes size and shape of any one three shot group much too erratic to depend on for anything but the crudest preliminary culling of very poor loads. No elaborate procedure involving tiny changes in powder charge and seating depths and making the judgement calls based on only one single three shot group of each combination can change this inconvenient fact.

We do agree on some things. Uncritically swallowing what has been passed down from successful shooters as gospel is a farce as mentioned in your first post. Such pronouncements and procedures should be looked at critically and the assumptions, both said and unsaid, should be examined. I also agree that testing is the only way to find the best load. It is also hard to disagree that there are differences between cast and jacketed bullets.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean when you claim that in JB benchrest “you can hang your hat on every shot.” But I hope you don’t mean that the laws of probability and statistics don’t apply. The groups are smaller which may give an uncritical shooter the superficial allusion that their groups don’t vary as much or don’t have the same percentage of “fliers” as cast bullet groups, but measurements say otherwise. Look again and think about the experimental 25 shot group by Lancaster in one of the articles I sent you.

You have demanded that I confess how I think one should find a good load. I plan to work on an article suggesting a general process for finding a good load after our nationals. In the meantime, I will say that I depend on single five shot groups to weed out the really poor loads and then depend on the AVERAGE of an increasing number of five shot groups as the differences between competing loads shrink. I also don’t claim to find the perfect load or reach the 95% confidence level because for small difference between loads that would take an impractical number of groups. In other words, my approach is similar to those described by Spindrift and Squid Boy in the posts above.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

4and1 posted this 05 August 2021

I do not want to get into a he said-she said. My whole method ( is what Tony Boyer uses, and many others) of shooting 3 shot groups with varying charges and seating depths is a first step in weeding out what your gun and load likes or dislikes. It will clearly show where you need to go. I shoot using a Culver measure, and my increments are one full number, not a grain, but close to a grain. You shoot the method I describe, I can guarantee you will see a path to follow. If what you see is good enough for you, then shoot 5 shot groups, multiple 5 shot groups if it suits you. You should, you need to prove it.

I cannot stress enough to test different powders. Some work, some are complete flops. You have to start somewhere. The method I show gives a quick method of shooting different powders, and seeing what works.

If a powder, at a normal velocity (1800-2000 fps) does not show promise with the bullet touching the lands, move on. Just because match results show it is popular, it has to work in your gun, not theirs.

To another point, most people who shoot jacketed short range benchrest, have a gun that has been built by very reputable gun builders using the best components. The gun's capabilities are there, you have to find the key to unlock that door. Testing is the only way. When I say, "you can hang your hat" on a shot, I mean the anomalies of shooting a cast bullet aren't there. Weight, voids, balance, etc. are pretty much non-existent with quality jacketed bullets, so each shot can give honest reliable feedback.

How many times does a cast shooter make a shot, watching flags, seeing a very stable condition, and the shot goes opposite from where it should and cost you a point? That's part of this game.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 07 August 2021

4 in 1,

The truth cannot be determined by majority vote. Yes, many good shooters buy into Boyer’s tuning method. Shooters do all sort of things that they think helps without putting them to a test.

You again repeat a bunch of obvious things that we already agree on. Different rifles require different loads, using a load that was best in another rifle may disappoint. Firing groups is the only way to find a good load, match grade jacketed bullets will shoot better than cast bullets, cast bullet shooters have to contend with additional factors, jacketed benchrest rifles are wonders of precision. All these are true, but none disproves my simple statement that single three shot groups are very unreliable measures of how well that that load will actually preform.

The only way to know what a load will do is to shoot way more than three shots. A three shot group simply can’t tell you much, no matter what Mr. Boyers and his followers think. That he is the greatest benchrest shooter ever doesn’t change that. Yet ALL of the decisions that he makes in working through this “tuning” process are based on single three shot groups.

Using three shot groups for evaluating loads may be useful for discarding the really horrible loads early in a process. But this method is sold as a way to make the decisions between good loads to find the ultimate combination for that rifle. day, time, and maybe the phase of the moon.

I think the problem is that many shooters, not just benchrest shooters, are blinded to reality by the beauty of very small groups and think such wonders don’t obey the laws of probability, and that your really can hang your hat on single shots or single three shot groups. However, the only difference between .15” and 1.5” groups is one of scale. Both have to obey the laws of nature whether we like it or not, and both will vary from group to group by approximately the same percentage.

Please shoot a string of three shot groups, the more the better but at least half a dozen, with your best rifle and load under identical conditions, measure the groups, note that many are far from the average, the spread of some may be mostly horizontal and some not, so reading a single three shot group as indicating that load will deflect more in the wind as Boyer advocates is imaginary.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

4and1 posted this 07 August 2021

John, I never said the 3 shot group method was the end of testing. I said, "it will show you a path to follow". It will show you whether a particular powder is worth pursuing. You run a string of groups changing charge and seating depth, the groups will be different. It makes no sense to take the worst group and work with it, you use the good ones and work from there. I often reshoot the better groups to see if it repeats. If it doesn't, then you likely have a dud. If it does repeat, then you go farther.

Any load has to prove itself. Even a couple of nice 5 shot groups isn't the end. What proves it, is whether it will shoot a full match, both yardages, and do well. And again next month.

Attached Files

CBA Member

BigMan54 posted this 07 August 2021

Mortally of my load testing has been with 4 5shot groups. That's the way I was taught growing up. Dad was a hard core competitive Benchrest & Bullseye shooter. Me, no. I took that average and if it was under 1 1/2" at 100yds it was OK for Deer hunting. Later on I tried 20rds of the same accurate load at a time on one target. Got the same average or even a bit better. A 3 shot group could go under an inch. But would open up to that average 1 1/2" after 3-4 groups were fired.

Long time Caster/Reloader, Getting back into it after almost 10yrs. Life Member NRA 40+yrs, Life S.A.S.S. #375. Does this mean a description of me as a fumble-fingered knuckle-draggin' baboon. I also drool in my sleep. I firmly believe that true happiness is a warm gun. Did I mention how much I HATE auto-correct on this blasted tablet.

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 07 August 2021

4 in 1,

You say: "You run a string of groups changing charge and seating depth, the groups will be different."-- I agree.

What you show no recognition of is: If you run a string of three shot groups CHANGING NOTHING the groups will still be wildly different, some being two or three times the spread of others.

We also agree that three shot groups may be useful for the very crudest sorting to rule out very bad combinations.

However, preliminary sorting, is not the way Boyers touts his "tuning" in his book. It is for the finest of fine tuning. His example starts with a very restricted group of loads that all shoot well, one bullet, one powder, one primer, the range of powder charges from lightest to heaviest is only 2.2 grains (4%), the total range of seating depths is only 0.013". This is definitely an attempt at fine tuning -- all based on the false assumption that one three shot group reasonably represents the accuracy of the load.

After pages of describing decisions based on single three shot groups, he does mention, in one sentence, that he duplicates the last three groups of the selected seating depth with five shot groups of the three powder charges. No mention of any additional shooting of the non-selected loads to confirm that they are not as good.

John

Attached Files

CBA Member

Wineman posted this 07 August 2021

Remember statistics is a method to save time and get close to an answer without undue repetition. The first statistics was to put a black sheep with your 99 white sheep and at night, look for the black one. If you don't see it, you probably have a bunch of white sheep gone too. Otherwise you had to count the white sheep each night to find out your losses. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) attempts to help us with things group size, differences in treatments, etc. However, it only gives a confidence level and even 99% has some variation. Would I bet my life on 99%, absolutely, 95% sure, hell people try to stay alive at 50% or less. In my younger days, you needed a Mainframe computer to do it. Now I'm sure there is an app for your phone.

The entire use of statistics is to get the most information out of the fewest iterations (shots). Remember every shot is an individual, sure the case may be the same (if it is resized the same). But everything else is a variable, no mater how you classify it (including the shooter). Even the rifle is changed, with each shot doing something to the bore. I'm sure all of us have experienced a load which shoots fine one day, and less so another time.

If you superimpose all the three round groups, you will probably get a normal distribution and no one load will be the keeper.

Always fun and it beats a good day at work!

Dave

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

4and1 posted this 07 August 2021

4 in 1,

You say: "You run a string of groups changing charge and seating depth, the groups will be different."-- I agree.

What you show no recognition of is: If you run a string of three shot groups CHANGING NOTHING the groups will still be wildly different, some being two or three times the spread of others.

We also agree that three shot groups may be useful for the very crudest sorting to rule out very bad combinations.

However, preliminary sorting, is not the way Boyers touts his "tuning" in his book. It is for the finest of fine tuning. His example starts with a very restricted group of loads that all shoot well, one bullet, one powder, one primer, the range of powder charges from lightest to heaviest is only 2.2 grains (4%), the total range of seating depths is only 0.013". This is definitely an attempt at fine tuning -- all based on the false assumption that one three shot group reasonably represents the accuracy of the load.

After pages of describing decisions based on single three shot groups, he does mention, in one sentence, that he duplicates the last three groups of the selected seating depth with five shot groups of the three powder charges. No mention of any additional shooting of the non-selected loads to confirm that they are not as good.

John

[quote]
What you show no recognition of is: If you run a string of three shot groups CHANGING NOTHING the groups will still be wildly different, some being two or three times the spread of others.[/quote]

You have no idea if this is true or not. I have done it. What you need to understand, Tony does NOT live in a cast bullet world. He lives in a short range jacketed benchrest world, and these two worlds are far apart.

[quote]However, preliminary sorting, is not the way Boyers touts his "tuning" in his book. It is for the finest of fine tuning. His example starts with a very restricted group of loads that all shoot well, one bullet, one powder, one primer, the range of powder charges from lightest to heaviest is only 2.2 grains (4%), the total range of seating depths is only 0.013"[/quote]

True. He knows what should work and what won't, in his world of benchrest. But why does that enter into this discussion? I stated clearly, given a load with a given powder in a "common" velocity, should show whether it will work or not for you. You have to weed out the chaff somehow. Given the world we are in today, blowing 100's of primers and pounds of powder just to chase something you read, doesn't seem logical.

[quote]After pages of describing decisions based on single three shot groups, he does mention, in one sentence, that he duplicates the last three groups of the selected seating depth with five shot groups of the three powder charges. [/quote]

That's what I said in my last post. I never said to use 3 shot groups to bank on, it gives a "path to follow." Tuning is the key. I did it with short range jacketed benchrest, and used the same method with cast, and there are very similar results, but you have to put in the "cast" variable. I have even used a barrel tuner to further tune what powder charges and seating depth doesn't get. (uh oh, here comes another rule clarification)

My whole intent here was, with the title of the original post, was to suggest there are ways to find what an accuracy load is, for YOUR gun, and not what a book says. This has gotten way out of hand because it didn't fit conventional thinking.

Attached Files

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 08 August 2021

I say if a three shot or hundred shot group works for you then go for it. Once I have a "good" load combination figured out I will shoot it again and again over a long period and different conditions to see if it repeats. In between I always go back to try and refine them further. My biggest problem is I am never satisfied and always want better. This is a merciless sport for someone like me. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

4and1 posted this 08 August 2021

SB, "My biggest problem is I am never satisfied and always want better". Ain't that the truth. I can shoot a good match, and go right back and try for better. Never ends.

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 09 August 2021

4 in 1,

I know that your intentions were to be helpful. However, the conventional thinking by serious CB shooters is NOT to take loads out of a book, although that may give a starting place. Most CB shooters I know shoot groups while varying loads but usually with 5 or 10 shot groups.

I think our argument has gone about as far as it can until one or both of us post shooting tests to support our positions. The basic cause of our impasse is disagreement over whether strings of three shot groups of the same load fired under identical conditions vary wildly or not.

From my experience and from the advice of a statistician I believe to be competent, three shot groups usually vary a lot from one group to the next. The extent of this variation is illustrated by my contention that if you shoot strings of five 3- shot groups with the same load, the largest group in the string will tend be about 2.5 times the smallest. In some strings that ration will be smaller and in others it will be larger than 2.5. Adjacent groups will often vary by 100 percent.

In response you say: “You have no idea if this is true or not. I have done it.” This ability of Tony and his disiples to shoot three shot groups that don’t vary much, if any, apparently because the short range jacketed benchrest world is a different world from the cast bullet world.

To solve this impasse, we need evidence. I propose we both provid some based on actual actual strings of 3-shot groups. I will try and dig out some from strings I have already fired. I have asked you to shoot ten three shot groups with the same load on target sheet, as Boyer does, but with one load. After the nationals I will fire ten 3-shot groups with my 6PPC and post them.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 09 August 2021

Data is everything, according to JoeB.

Attached Files

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 09 August 2021

It seems to me that providing the proof was the subject of another hot topic not long ago. I say show the targets and let them tell the story. Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

45 2.1 posted this 09 August 2021

A lot of folks on the internet don't accept posted targets. All kinds of rhetoric ensues from them. I somehow believe that any such would not go into the record books for the CBA either..... regardless of who posts them. After all, the CBA holds matches with criteria to certify groups were witnessed and shot in a certified match.

Attached Files

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 09 August 2021

You're not insinuating that someone from this club would doctor up targets to prove a point are you? I think John Anderson offered to use ones that were shot at a match and verified. That seems honest enough to me. What's this world coming to if you can't trust a bunch of cast bullet shooters to keep things honest? Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

CBA Member

45 2.1 posted this 09 August 2021

George.... you have an E-mail

Attached Files

CBA Member

Brodie posted this 10 August 2021

I think that Dum Luk was the name of the Chinese gentleman who used to fish off the docks when I worked out of 22nd St. Landing , San Pedro, Ca. at least it was until Fish and Game descended on us with five cars full of wardens, and the only citation they wound up writing was for too many seven eleven perch in possession by the same person now known as Bum Luk.

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

CBA Member

Squid Boy posted this 10 August 2021

45 2.1, I am sorry you misinterpreted what I wrote. It was not meant to slight you but a tongue in cheek comment that no one would cheat data or targets on this forum just to prove a point. John A did offer certified targets which I think is admirable. Sorry if I offended you, it was not meant like that. Thanks, Squid Boy

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

CBA Member

45 2.1 posted this 10 August 2021

No problem George......................

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 22 August 2021

A couple of weeks ago I promised to look for strings of groups I have already shot to support my contention that three or even five shot groups vary so much from group to group they are almost useless for decision making. Since the root of the disagreement is that 3-shot groups fired with precision JB loads in high grade benchrest rifles don't vary much, only strings of groups from similar equipment would be suitable evidence.

I have recently fired one batch of twelve 5-shot groups shot with JBs in a good rifle that average .33 moa. This isn't Tony Boyer level but is getting closer. I fired four groups with each of three different loads. The average of the ratios of largest to smallest group in each strand was 1.43 which is a lot of variation over four groups. The target containing these groups was published in the March/April 2021 issue of the Fouling Shot and you can see it there.

I will fire some strings of three shot groups in September as promised.

John

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander 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

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 16 November 2021

great stuff John ... thank you.

.. and remember that this error also applies to sighting-in ... at our local range i am lately seeing more and more hunters shooting just one of their precious $3 factory rounds to establish their " perfect " zero ...

good thing Iowa deer are real big ... ( g ) ..

ken

oh:: good shootin ... dang ! ... i goota build an akrit gun ...

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 16 November 2021

Thank you John for your efforts and write up!

Attached Files

Standard Member

Spindrift posted this 16 November 2021

Thank you for a great post, good work!

Attached Files

CBA Member

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

CBA Member

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

CBA President

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

CBA Member

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

Liked by

CBA Member

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

CBA President

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

CBA Member

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

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 19 November 2021

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

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

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

CBA President

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

Liked by

Standard Member

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

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 20 November 2021

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

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

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

CBA President

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

Liked by

CBA Member

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

CBA President

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

CBA Member

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

CBA Member

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

CBA President

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

CBA Board

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