Agreed. The amount of emotion here is surprising. Instead of anger at someone challenging one's belief, I'd love to see someone calmly prove them wrong, and show their work.
What’s up with Hornady’s reloading podcast?
- Thread starter nealm66
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
nealm66
Well-Known Member
I prove the accuracy nodes in competitions and practice. I don't mess with the other nodes unless I'm running a tuner. You poor soles choosing to buy into hornady's crap and wanting someone to disprove it, just go to a shooting match that requires high level accuracy and talk to the winners
Just a thing or two about research, statistics and facts. This is not picking on them, just decades of experience. "they are paid to do this stuff for 40hrs a week." There lies the whole problem. They get paid to promote something. They will not present something contrary. I have been there, done that. Statistics, yes, significant number of points depends on number of variables. To be "statistically" significant, you will burn a barrel before you get the data. But you can get "good enough" to win competitions with a lot less. The other thing about statistical anlaysis, is called "bias". We ALL have it. Ignore points we dont think are relevant, or dont like. Again, been there, done that. And these are the reasons I don't watch "infomercials"
And with that, I am out! Have a great Sunday all!
I guess everyone that has ever developed an accurate load for thier own rifle before these guys came along is just a myth. What do we know?
nealm66
Well-Known Member
Ya, enough said on my part as well. Hopefully one of the followers puts the koolaid down
I don't think they said you can't make accurate loads
This guy must be getting kick backs from big-Hornady lobbyists
Here's my opinion on this. Hornady acts like 1/4 MOA rifles don't exist. Go to a benchrest match and see for yourself how the loading and tuning is done and the groups that are shot all weekend long. Then go to the next match and the same guys are shooting at the top, it ain't random. If you shoot a 0.250 aggregate group score, you'll be half way down the list of shooters. An aggregate in short range benchrest is x5, 5 shot groups measured for size then averaged out. The winners are shooting aggs in the 0.150-0.180 range. That's 25 shots into 3/16". I don't mean to turn this in a Benchrest conversation, I saw enough in one match to realize how things work in the real world. You couldn't go to any benchrest match, short or long, and be competitive without tuning your rifle and ammunition to be the best it can be. If you just picked a load "one grain under max and .050 off the lands" like Hornady tells you, then you're better off buying factory ammo and saving your time and don't even bother going to a match lol
To add to that, from going to matches, talking with guys in the know, and reading on these forums for years, in my opinion your load or "tune" is fluid and changes constantly. It can be a minor change that a hunter or average enthusiast wouldn't notice, or it could be a big change, but typically they start out as small problems and get worse if ignored. Things like fouling, barrel wear, brass changing, environmentals, etc are constantly changing and that's why I believe hammering 20-30 shot groups in 0.5gr increments for 10 different loads proves nothing and why the average group size for those sucks in Hornady's testing. There's a reason top level shooters are on top of their rifles and constantly tuning and testing their rifles and loads. If it was a waste of time, they wouldn't be doing it. The million dollar question is what changes the tune? What makes your "node" shift? No one knows the right answer every time, but I can tell you a lot of the top shooters I've shot with have a handle on it because a big group for them is 1/4 MOA. It's typical to change powder charge several times in one weekend in an effort to stay on top of the tune, it may be 0.2gr it might be 0.5gr. No one really understands why, but everyone at the match knows it has to be done to stay competitive and shoot tiny groups day in and day out.
To add to that, from going to matches, talking with guys in the know, and reading on these forums for years, in my opinion your load or "tune" is fluid and changes constantly. It can be a minor change that a hunter or average enthusiast wouldn't notice, or it could be a big change, but typically they start out as small problems and get worse if ignored. Things like fouling, barrel wear, brass changing, environmentals, etc are constantly changing and that's why I believe hammering 20-30 shot groups in 0.5gr increments for 10 different loads proves nothing and why the average group size for those sucks in Hornady's testing. There's a reason top level shooters are on top of their rifles and constantly tuning and testing their rifles and loads. If it was a waste of time, they wouldn't be doing it. The million dollar question is what changes the tune? What makes your "node" shift? No one knows the right answer every time, but I can tell you a lot of the top shooters I've shot with have a handle on it because a big group for them is 1/4 MOA. It's typical to change powder charge several times in one weekend in an effort to stay on top of the tune, it may be 0.2gr it might be 0.5gr. No one really understands why, but everyone at the match knows it has to be done to stay competitive and shoot tiny groups day in and day out.
Last edited:
nealm66
Well-Known Member
Well said
nealm66
Well-Known Member
If I had to choose the most important thing in hand loading it would be learning how to shoot accurately with whatever ends up in your hands that needs load development. Without that you're screwed and the Hornady technique is just fine
I have been loading for roughly 20 years and although I have come up with some absolute awesome loads, doing the "traditional" methods, it did cost a lot more time and money.
With that said, I now use a similar method to what they speak of. I pick a bullet, and usually stick with powders I have on hand in bulk, but load till I find pressure or have signs, back of a bit, then move back to 5-6-700 etc,( whatever I intend to use the rifle for) and I'll put down a 10 round group. If it's acceptable for my intended purpose, I'll put down another 10 round group and confirm. Done.
If said group is unacceptable then I move on and try a different bullet/powder/etc. This costs me about 25 rounds of ammo, vs hundreds of I tried 3-5 round groups. I've got much more consistent results this way than I have trying to chase that .2-.3 gr "node".
Also, MY opinion - Most of the people that say it's hogwash, stupid, should be banned etc, Had their mind made up before they even listened to why they were saying. If you notice they mention a BUNCH that what they are saying was from THEIR testing and experience and I vividly recall hearing them say something along the lines of "we're not saying seating depth doesn't work, but in our testing it doesn't show a meaningful effect" and they mention other bullets/manufacturers they might benefit from seating test.
I'm an accuracy nut, but since I have changed my reloading technique a little, I'm shooting more and having more fun, than I did when I was constantly "testing".
With that said, I now use a similar method to what they speak of. I pick a bullet, and usually stick with powders I have on hand in bulk, but load till I find pressure or have signs, back of a bit, then move back to 5-6-700 etc,( whatever I intend to use the rifle for) and I'll put down a 10 round group. If it's acceptable for my intended purpose, I'll put down another 10 round group and confirm. Done.
If said group is unacceptable then I move on and try a different bullet/powder/etc. This costs me about 25 rounds of ammo, vs hundreds of I tried 3-5 round groups. I've got much more consistent results this way than I have trying to chase that .2-.3 gr "node".
Also, MY opinion - Most of the people that say it's hogwash, stupid, should be banned etc, Had their mind made up before they even listened to why they were saying. If you notice they mention a BUNCH that what they are saying was from THEIR testing and experience and I vividly recall hearing them say something along the lines of "we're not saying seating depth doesn't work, but in our testing it doesn't show a meaningful effect" and they mention other bullets/manufacturers they might benefit from seating test.
I'm an accuracy nut, but since I have changed my reloading technique a little, I'm shooting more and having more fun, than I did when I was constantly "testing".
StumpyJohnson
Well-Known Member
I for one listened to episode 50 right as I was beginning load development for a new rifle. I put into practice some of their advice, which in that episode is primarily sample size, and found good results. AND I got to my final load using LESS components than normal, not more. Finally, because of larger sample sizes I was more confident than normal that I had hit on the load for the gun.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, there's some hyperbole to make a splash, and there's some solid statistics there too.
If reloading is a science, not conducting yourself in a data based scientific manner is doing yourself a disservice.
Lastly, I do think they state that they're talking about the few factors that do 80% of the work in load development for your average person.
I like that the content of the podcast is disruptive, it allows fresh ideas to flow...kinda like a freshly eaten can of beans.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, there's some hyperbole to make a splash, and there's some solid statistics there too.
If reloading is a science, not conducting yourself in a data based scientific manner is doing yourself a disservice.
Lastly, I do think they state that they're talking about the few factors that do 80% of the work in load development for your average person.
I like that the content of the podcast is disruptive, it allows fresh ideas to flow...kinda like a freshly eaten can of beans.
You mentioned earlier that titles don't mean anything (ballistician) and suggested to listen to someone that know what they're talking about. I think most of us here could agree that Bryan Litz is of of the best of our generation. Take a gander at his book volume 4 "modern advancement in precision" or whatever it is. He does a very thorough test on tuners and found that they were essentially non effective. As did hornady.
Yes I'm aware most of the top shooters use them, but do they ACTUALLY work? Erik cortina put up a short video of his tuner results. He was showing how much vertical dispersion he had at 1k. But if you look at the velocity ES, high and low, it's was literally a direct correlation where his shots landed, but he claimed it was due to the tuner.
I'm not saying they work or don't work and I was not there. This was just my observation and what I see when I dissect the details of "propaganda "
