Kampfjager
Well-Known Member
Rfurman, I agree with ya, I actually just loaded up some (20) at 44.1 and am going to extend the range and look for deviation and chrono the load......
Very hard read on this OCW!?
- Thread starter Kampfjager
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
jasent
Well-Known Member
Do you plan to mostly shoot this gun at 100 yards? Or do you plan to mostly shoot at long range? Personally I only shoot at 100 yards to zero or confirm zero. After that all shots will be long range. So how it groups at 100 is never a big concern to me. Any one of those groups is fine for me if it has a low es/sd
These ocw tests just don't work for my style of shooting
These ocw tests just don't work for my style of shooting
I shouldn't need to and will not. If you are going to post in a thread about the OCW do us all a favor and at least read Dan Newberry's writings.
Last edited:
Kampfjager
Well-Known Member
Picking a 308 for 100y shooting is like using a sledgehammer to drive finish nails...... it's just plain retarded...... but load development and zero I do at 100y then proof the load further out......
While I do believe, as stated countless times on this forum, that ladders are best OCW is very good at showing you a load that will be stable in all conditions and hold together long range period. One problem with them is what you see in this thread. All loads are really good enough to start with it makes it difficult to figure out which one to tune. Most do not look this "tight". A ladder at distance never lies.
User4302021
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2018
- Messages
- 0
I have read it, over and over. I was interested in your definition and understanding of it.
Kampfjager
Well-Known Member
Dan Newberrys OCW test is actually about barrel harmonics and its effect on group size and tuning those harmonics which will have a positive effect on group size/shape and velocity consistency....
jasent
Well-Known Member
It's really not hard to get a good group at 100 yards. Even if your speed is all over the place. I'm not a big fan of ladder tests either unless they are shot over a chrono at the same time. You could put 20 rounds dead center in the same hole at 100 yards but still have a 20" vertical spred at 1000.
If your dead set on the ocw method I would look closer at 44.1
Good shooting to you
If your dead set on the ocw method I would look closer at 44.1
Good shooting to you
Kampfjager
Well-Known Member
Both tests work..... I ask for opinions cause I'm human and miss things ..... confirmation from other shooters is a good thing
Yes, as is every load development method. If it is not in tune it is not in tune. I doesn't matter how you get there. Some methods are just quicker than others and insure you do not find a load in a scatter node. The end game should always be the same.
This is my last post in this thread as I see the OP is on the right path and feel he got what he was after with his post.
The ladder test absolutely does NOT need a chrono. If shot at 500(preferably 7,8,900) plus yards the paper is not going to lie. If the bullets impact with small vertical you have accomplished your goal. That is your load. It does not matter if it happened because of small es or positive compensation played a role. The end game is small vertical. You can tune any excessive horizontal with seating depth.
Your rifle is shooting well. When your gun throw that many tight groups in a row, it's hard to tell what's a good load and what may be a slightly pulled shot. Pretty much anything on the lower row could pass as your OCW. You could move it back to 150 yards but I'd be inclined to bang the bottom row loads out over a chronograph and pick the one with the lowest Extreme Spread to work with. Maybe fiddle with seating depth to suck the group in a bit more if needed.
User4302021
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2018
- Messages
- 0
The statement that amazes me on Dan Newberry site, is that the "scatter node" and the OCW have any kind of fixed relation to one another.
He states clearly that the group center is the focus of the OCW. He ties the change in group center to nodal barrel harmonics. All this makes perfect sense and is easily demonstrable.
Then he says that the "scatter node" is due to bore oscillation, and ties it to the OBT theory of Chris Long. Again, that all makes perfect sense. The bore constricts and dilates. This will obviously have an affect on the group size.
The part that makes absolutely NO sense, is that these two effects are in some fixed relationship. They are completely independent effects that have nothing to due with one another. Thier relationship to one another is affected by barrel length, barrel stiffness, seating depth of the bullet.
In any given rifle, the barrel length and stiffness are a fixed quantity. The factor that CAN be changed is seating depth. Changing seating depth does not change the position of the group center consequentially. It has a dramatic effect however, on group size and shape!
Tune the group center with powder charge.
Tune group size/shape with seating depth.
Stop relating the two.
He states clearly that the group center is the focus of the OCW. He ties the change in group center to nodal barrel harmonics. All this makes perfect sense and is easily demonstrable.
Then he says that the "scatter node" is due to bore oscillation, and ties it to the OBT theory of Chris Long. Again, that all makes perfect sense. The bore constricts and dilates. This will obviously have an affect on the group size.
The part that makes absolutely NO sense, is that these two effects are in some fixed relationship. They are completely independent effects that have nothing to due with one another. Thier relationship to one another is affected by barrel length, barrel stiffness, seating depth of the bullet.
In any given rifle, the barrel length and stiffness are a fixed quantity. The factor that CAN be changed is seating depth. Changing seating depth does not change the position of the group center consequentially. It has a dramatic effect however, on group size and shape!
Tune the group center with powder charge.
Tune group size/shape with seating depth.
Stop relating the two.
Last edited:
Blackdirt Cowboy
Well-Known Member
I'm trying to learn about load development with ocw and ladder tests. I am nowhere near an expert but would like to post what I see and get feed back if I'm on the right track.
Initially, I though 43.1 to 43.5 was the area to look at due to it having the same general POI at the 5:00 position. Then I noticed that 44.1 to 44.7 have the same POI at just past the 6:00 position. I thought this would be a higher velocity node to investigate assuming no pressure signs.
Then I looked closer and realized that 44.1-44.7 has more vertical deviation. 43.1 to 43.3 is on the same vertical plane and only has horizontal deviation. So I think that 43.1 to 43.3 should be further investigated with a seating depth test, then stretched out at long range to verify.
Am I off in how I read this? If so, please let me know how and why I'm wrong.
Initially, I though 43.1 to 43.5 was the area to look at due to it having the same general POI at the 5:00 position. Then I noticed that 44.1 to 44.7 have the same POI at just past the 6:00 position. I thought this would be a higher velocity node to investigate assuming no pressure signs.
Then I looked closer and realized that 44.1-44.7 has more vertical deviation. 43.1 to 43.3 is on the same vertical plane and only has horizontal deviation. So I think that 43.1 to 43.3 should be further investigated with a seating depth test, then stretched out at long range to verify.
Am I off in how I read this? If so, please let me know how and why I'm wrong.
