Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
What’s up with Hornady’s reloading podcast?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ckleeves" data-source="post: 3078728" data-attributes="member: 83259"><p>I don't feel like that's what they are saying. They are saying that the .3 grain changes in charge don't amount to a hill of beans and it's easy to think that they do when you see a 5 shot group shoot "better" at let's say 41.5 vs 41.8. It's not repeatable over a large sample size.</p><p></p><p>I have played with this plenty trying the Satterlee method, OCW test etc and I totally get what they are saying.</p><p></p><p>The changing the major components ie bullets and powder is a very good way to do load development. I have been down this road many times thinking I could force something to shoot by fine tuning charge or jump and have one load shoot .5 but and all the others with small changes in seating/charge shoot 1" but it's not repeatable when you revisit it the next day. A major change, either powder or bullet and suddenly it's like you can do no wrong it's shooting tight from the start charge all the way up to max.</p><p></p><p>I feel like you can get a real good idea of what powder to pursue by doing exactly what he talks about, couple grains off max, 35 thou off lands and 10 shot groups of each powder.</p><p></p><p>They never state that seating has no affect on accuracy just that in the grand scheme of things with their bullets and their throat designs it doesn't play a huge role and the .005 movements aren't really doing anything. </p><p></p><p>I'm not really a Hornady fan as far as their components but I do think their podcast is interesting as far as actually testing things that have been "gospel" forever.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ckleeves, post: 3078728, member: 83259"] I don't feel like that's what they are saying. They are saying that the .3 grain changes in charge don't amount to a hill of beans and it's easy to think that they do when you see a 5 shot group shoot "better" at let's say 41.5 vs 41.8. It's not repeatable over a large sample size. I have played with this plenty trying the Satterlee method, OCW test etc and I totally get what they are saying. The changing the major components ie bullets and powder is a very good way to do load development. I have been down this road many times thinking I could force something to shoot by fine tuning charge or jump and have one load shoot .5 but and all the others with small changes in seating/charge shoot 1" but it's not repeatable when you revisit it the next day. A major change, either powder or bullet and suddenly it's like you can do no wrong it's shooting tight from the start charge all the way up to max. I feel like you can get a real good idea of what powder to pursue by doing exactly what he talks about, couple grains off max, 35 thou off lands and 10 shot groups of each powder. They never state that seating has no affect on accuracy just that in the grand scheme of things with their bullets and their throat designs it doesn't play a huge role and the .005 movements aren’t really doing anything. I'm not really a Hornady fan as far as their components but I do think their podcast is interesting as far as actually testing things that have been "gospel" forever. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
What’s up with Hornady’s reloading podcast?
Top