My 10 rd load development

How does your desired load shoot? I would consider a seating depth ladder test to tighten up your group. Perform it at 400yards minimum
I haven't got to the desired load yet. Next I'm heading out with another 10 or so @ 73gn to see how that goes. Then seating depth if needed. I'm hoping to get a nice raged hole here @ 100 with low ES then see what it does @ 200-400. For me to get to a 50-1000yd range is 3 hrs away. I'll try and keep count of how many times I shoot the 10 rounds. ;)
 
IMG_20180716_155252.jpg
Mikecr hit it on the head. Virgin brass can give you mixed results on where the actual nodes are & it often takes two firings, or more, to fully form. A max pressure test shouldn't be overlooked, so that's more shots. Ladder tests will more likely tell the real truth about a true node. I shoot one with .5 gr increments and fine tune with .2 gr around possible nodes. Then it's multiple 5 shot groups @ 600 to confirm.

I do 50 cases at a time, so I'm shooting around 200-250 shots. As they are all hunting rifles, I have to have it right. Ten shot repeatable results are a pipe dream.

I'm currently working on a 300 wm & 215s w/H-1000. After 100 shots to fully form brass (50) and pressure test, and two ladders, I needed to change my arbitrary seating depth to fine tune. Results below:
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute now, this was supposed to be 10 shots..

My contention here is that you can't find sustainable accuracy in 10 shots.
A fleeting flat spot in velocity means nothing until more testing proves otherwise. More testing means more shots, and so the '10 shot load development' is no more than fake news.

Fair enough, although I still regard a candy bar, to be candy even before I've eaten it. Maybe a poor analogy because I don't eat candy.
 
It's difficult to disagree with what the target is telling us, but whatI I don't understand is why this method would work based on simple statistics.

If the standard deviation of the original loads was 10 (20 might be a better average) the true velocity of each load would be plus/minus 20 to be 95% confident the velocities originally reported were within the true range and plus/minus 30 to be 99.7% confident.

In other words, the differences we think we are seeing just might be due to chance. Shoot that ladder again and you are very likely to come to another conclusion.
 
It's difficult to disagree with what the target is telling us, but whatI I don't understand is why this method would work based on simple statistics.

If the standard deviation of the original loads was 10 (20 might be a better average) the true velocity of each load would be plus/minus 20 to be 95% confident the velocities originally reported were within the true range and plus/minus 30 to be 99.7% confident.

In other words, the differences we think we are seeing just might be due to chance. Shoot that ladder again and you are very likely to come to another conclusion.

It's pretty simple. Often times (certainly not all times), rifles without defect respond well harmonically within nodes of little deviation. It's not a rule but rather one of life's happy coincidences. Also, when you go to the range, was that shot that looked like a flyer, you or your load? Reciprocally, I've called shots just outside of my aimpoint that managed to sneak into a cloverleaf as part of a group. I have a tendency to ignore that type of flyer. An "accurate" chronograph provides data that isn't ill affected by the shooter or wind. I've only done it with a Magnetospeed and I doubt you'll get good data from lesser chronys. Since with a new load, your probably going to do a max-load work up anyway, your not really taking that many more shots to do this simple test that was almost included in another test you were already doing. Then load up 10 more in the middle of the node your data revealed and see how it does on the range. You might have to play with seating depth or primers later but you might not. It's basically a quick and dirty way of potentially finding a load in 10-15 shots, that you might well have found in 150 shots. Best yet, max load test or this test doesn't require much time. I typically just pull off the road as close to home as I dare, drop the tailgate, throw on the Magnetospeed and bang those shots into a dirt bank with the gun facing sideways. No target. Just a pen and paper to write the data down. In about 30 minutes from leaving my driveway to pulling back into my driveway, I'm back at the loading bench. Maybe more time if it's hot outside and I don't want a hot barrel.
 
Last edited:
Lately, there has been a lot written about "shake and bake" load development using ladders, OCW, etc. Don't get me wrong, these are viable methods, and I have used them with good success, but they should be considered one part of the process, particularly as the demand placed on the rifle is increased. I find myself using these tools most productively as a final test of my loads viability, periodic checks for throat wear, or a lot change of a component(s). A new barrel on my long range rifles "generally" sees 100+rounds before I will use them for 1000 yard hunting or competition. Many barrels(including the top makers) have required as many as 100+ rounds to stabilize velocity and/or accuracy. My criteria for a load is a minimum of 5 shot, sub .5MOA performance-hot or cold, ES<15FPS, holds zero, and is temperature stable across the encountered temperature range of use. Sometimes I have simply picked a load simply using a copied recipe, and it worked out perfectly. Most times it, took much more work to find a load to meet my requirements. Putting the effort into the optimimum choice of bullet, powder, primer, seating depth, brass prep/neck tension, etc. can make the difference between a good rifle and a great rifle. Unfortunately, most of my very best shooters did not come easy......but it was usually worth the effort. I'll give up 200 rounds and the extra work of load development for 1000+ of high confidence shots from a rifle, without hesitation.

A recent ladder test of my PRS load With a powder/bullet lot change at 1000 rounds, and actual loads used. Same as 400 round test(third photo)
B35F58B5-C8D1-41F8-A770-DFF2AB1DF81F.jpeg 3A4FBD70-034F-463D-926F-624E21AB3DFC.jpeg E0732DC0-845D-4F3D-A420-7E08EFA3B0CB.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Well im referring to l/r hunting guns, not target guns.
We could have a different debate on how much accuracy is (necessary) for hunting guns.
Fact is we can all agree that we try for the best velocity coupled with an accurate load. Most will start with a moderate load and work up because thats how weve always done it. Often the group dictates where we stop as for velocity, and we never reach the full potential of the gun/cartridge.
So why not see just how far we can go (first), then try to make the best velocity load be an accurate load? Or at least an accurate enough load?
As for the group shooting distance, its very important that the gun repeat shot after shot at the distances we hunt. If your good 100 yd groups will do that then fine, but if not then you've wasted your time. Best to test for (good enough) groups at the longer distances.
Again, were talking about hunting,
so consider also the importance of how we shoot while taking the shot, as that can be more of a factor than the group size.
 
6B9AB436-5E7A-45B2-89C4-F85148ED8543.jpeg Sometimes and more often with inherently accurate cartridges load development can be done in a limited number of shots...other times I've nearly shot a 100 rounds until I'm satisfied.
These are shots 9-14 with a load, the first 8 were a ladder test
 
View attachment 101639 Sometimes and more often with inherently accurate cartridges load development can be done in a limited number of shots...other times I've nearly shot a 100 rounds until I'm satisfied.
These are shots 9-14 with a load, the first 8 were a ladder test

I believe that this is absolutely the case. There does seem to be inherently accurate cartridges that make life a whole lot easier given a precise SAAMI chambering process with a well made barrel/action. I also believe that there are well proven bullets and powders that may take the much of the testing and speculation out of the equation. Once I had performed the initial work on my 6.5x284's and 6.5x47's(IMO, inherently accurate), subsequent load development in other rifles of the same cartridge was much faster with only minor modifications and fine tuning to my original load development. Additionally, researching and analyzing successful loads used by credible shooters has always been the single most valuable part of my load development process.
 
View attachment 101639 Sometimes and more often with inherently accurate cartridges load development can be done in a limited number of shots...other times I've nearly shot a 100 rounds until I'm satisfied.
These are shots 9-14 with a load, the first 8 were a ladder test
I thought I should add: I performed the ladder at 400 and identified a flat spot on the target that coincided with what my chronograph was telling me
 
I thought I should add: I performed the ladder at 400 and identified a flat spot on the target that coincided with what my chronograph was telling me

A fairly good example. In no way does that mean you shouldn't test, re-test and confirm to exhaustion, the "suspicion" of a good load. That doesn't in mean, in any way, the simple process didn't reveal a great load. What you do with it is up to you.

I tip my hat. Not everybody will give a straight account of how things are. Personally, I love to fiddle with a good/great load to see if I can make it better. Every time I go to the range and focus on groups, that's just a day I don't focus on real-world shooting. Real world shooting deals with wind, unknown distances, weird set-ups, not wanting to be there, picking foxtails out of my socks, and oh... nobody shot back at me. That's a big plus.

Find a load and shoot. Then shoot some more. After that, more is better. Most of knowing what you can do is beating it into yourself, what you can't or shouldn't do.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top