What’s up with Hornady’s reloading podcast?

I remember just the other day reading the outdoor life article. While I am all for less load work and more shooting fun but I want consistency regardless.
They talk about an ANTINODE (COOL WORD) being just as accurate and consistent. Not worrying too much on seating depth or powder charges. Thinks its not as important as we think it is.

Maybe I did this test wrong in Hornady eyes, but my BELOVED 6 cm seems to disagree. While I am not the best trigger puller I think I did (kind of ) what they were talking about.

Have a buddy on discord that's a long time shooter that helps discuss things over when I am doing load development. He keeps me grounded so to speak.

Had 2 loads one I really really wanted it to work as I got the speed I was looking for in my rifle. I shot this load 2. 5 shot groups. Was disappointed a bit as my rifle printed .8" told my buddy he said YOUR NOT DONE WHAT DOES THOSE 10 SHOTS TELL YOU. NOTHING HE SAID. DO THAT 5 SHOT TEST 4 MORE TIMES.
So I go load up same load 20 more rounds and those groups ave in the .7's best being .5
Being disgusted by the results I let go of what I was looking for and looked at what my barrel was telling me.
Ladder test to find pressure
OCW
then seating depth testing last.
put together my loads (10) and hit the range.

I got excited. .3's

Told my friend and he said cool, now do that 20-25 more times. His words you haven't done anything yet. Me sad face with mouth open.
Go back to reloading bench loaded 25 more rounds. Hit the range

Loads shot from .1 to .3 ave out in the .2's seeing an old guy like myself at 54 get stupid excited at the range when people looking at me saying ***.

CONCLUSION. MY friend said now you got something and congrats and we'll done.
So if I just was looking at my first set kind of like Hornady says I'm shooting a very disappointing .7" but now I am shooting .2's

.5 difference between the 2 ways means everything TO ME.

I'll never deviate from my practices that I learned here. I used to be happy 30 years ago reloading and getting just under an inch. Now that's unacceptable. This place has taught me so much and am so thankful to everyone here that I learned from.

I am just not ok with mediocre results that Hornady suggests. .5 difference between the 2 loadings. Maybe Hornady is just fine with that, and that is their point.

.2 vs .7. Hmm. I'll take .2. Thank you
 
Jud96 said:
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.
Click to expand...
nealm66 said:
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
Click to expand...

At what point in the podcast did they say that loading like that was a winning strategy for benchrest? Guess I missed that part. They are talking about what they are doing for the 2024 PRS season. Consistency and having a forgiving load wins with 200 rounds a weekend hence the talk about buying enough of the same lot of components to wear out a barrel.
 
T3ninja said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did YOU read the test? He performed a flawed test, and got a flawed answer. His test asked a question NOBODY claimed. It was a Red Herring test. He did not test tuners the way they are supposed to be used, instead, he tested his own made up method that nobody employs. His result was that tuners don't work. Surprise. He has refused to answer why his testing method went against manufacturer's instructions and why he failed to consult tuner experts before formulating his test.
 
stiff neck said:
Did YOU read the test? He performed a flawed test, and got a flawed answer. His test asked a question NOBODY claimed. It was a Red Herring test. He did not test tuners the way they are supposed to be used, instead, he tested his own made up method that nobody employs. His result was that tuners don't work. Surprise. He has refused to answer why his testing method went against manufacturer's instructions and why he failed to consult tuner experts before formulating his test.
Click to expand...
I did, and I personally believe if the tests were done the way the tuner manufacturers recommend, the results would be on the verge of useless anyway. I am now a believer that the sample size plays a big part. If you make a change after only 3 shots, you are not learning anything. Maybe 5-10 3 shot groups to get an idea of what's going on. Now you are at 15-30 rounds per setting. As I said I PERSONALLY would rather spend my time learning to read wind, and shoot practical or impractical positions for hunting. Instead of chasing that last .2-.3" in a group off a bench.
 
I think the biggest flaw in Hornady's stated testing, is that I haven't heard about any of it being done at extended range. I wouldn't consider anything at 100 yards as slam dunk data. 600-800 yards is where that .1 difference at 100 may actually turn into a .5 difference. But a .1 difference at 100 yards is somewhat meaningless, and very hard to be certain that is a true difference because of a tune. But at long range, and you cut the group size in half, that can be significant and noticeable.

I think they are right and wrong at the same time I guess.

Super CONSISTENT loading techniques, a charge 1gr. below pressure signs, and a bullet seated .020 off the lands is going to give you probably 80% of the potential accuracy you'll ever see from that bullet/powder/primer combo. In a well built rifle with premium components. I've shot countless 5 shot 1/2 MOA groups at 300 yards doing that exact thing, with several different bullets and powders. If you need your groups smaller than that, you got some work ahead of you. But I think it can be done. Just whether or not it's worth it for your application 🤷🏽‍♂️
 
T3ninja said:
As I said I PERSONALLY would rather spend my time learning to read wind, and shoot practical or impractical positions for hunting. Instead of chasing that last .2-.3" in a group off a bench.
Click to expand...

X2. I love/hate trying to get a rifle/load to shoot as good as possible and it bugs me if the best it will do is .8 but I also know it doesn't matter one bit and from field positions in the wind you can't shoot the difference between a 1" rifle and a .3 rifle. That's not why people miss. WEZ is pretty eye opening on that.
 
6.5x300 WBY said:
I remember just the other day reading the outdoor life article. While I am all for less load work and more shooting fun but I want consistency regardless.
They talk about an ANTINODE (COOL WORD) being just as accurate and consistent. Not worrying too much on seating depth or powder charges. Thinks its not as important as we think it is.

Maybe I did this test wrong in Hornady eyes, but my BELOVED 6 cm seems to disagree. While I am not the best trigger puller I think I did (kind of ) what they were talking about.

Have a buddy on discord that's a long time shooter that helps discuss things over when I am doing load development. He keeps me grounded so to speak.

Had 2 loads one I really really wanted it to work as I got the speed I was looking for in my rifle. I shot this load 2. 5 shot groups. Was disappointed a bit as my rifle printed .8" told my buddy he said YOUR NOT DONE WHAT DOES THOSE 10 SHOTS TELL YOU. NOTHING HE SAID. DO THAT 5 SHOT TEST 4 MORE TIMES.
So I go load up same load 20 more rounds and those groups ave in the .7's best being .5
Being disgusted by the results I let go of what I was looking for and looked at what my barrel was telling me.
Ladder test to find pressure
OCW
then seating depth testing last.
put together my loads (10) and hit the range.

I got excited. .3's

Told my friend and he said cool, now do that 20-25 more times. His words you haven't done anything yet. Me sad face with mouth open.
Go back to reloading bench loaded 25 more rounds. Hit the range

Loads shot from .1 to .3 ave out in the .2's seeing an old guy like myself at 54 get stupid excited at the range when people looking at me saying ***.

CONCLUSION. MY friend said now you got something and congrats and we'll done.
So if I just was looking at my first set kind of like Hornady says I'm shooting a very disappointing .7" but now I am shooting .2's

.5 difference between the 2 ways means everything TO ME.

I'll never deviate from my practices that I learned here. I used to be happy 30 years ago reloading and getting just under an inch. Now that's unacceptable. This place has taught me so much and am so thankful to everyone here that I learned from.

I am just not ok with mediocre results that Hornady suggests. .5 difference between the 2 loadings. Maybe Hornady is just fine with that, and that is their point.

.2 vs .7. Hmm. I'll take .2. Thank you
Click to expand...
Wow! Sounds like you need to be shooting some benchrest with that .2 gun!

Let's see some pictures of your .2, 20 shot groups
 
willfrye027 said:
Wow! Sounds like you need to be shooting some benchrest with that .2 gun!

Let's see some pictures of your .2, 20 shot groups
Click to expand...
I think this is the disconnect. Guys will shoot a 3-5 shot group at .25 and say I have a 1/4" gun. Then they'll shoot the same 3-5 shot and now it's .6", must be the shooter.

Hornady is saying that if you shoot a 10, 20, 30 shot group that's what your gun does. The "flier" that the 3-5 shot guy dismisses counts just as much as the 2 that go in the same hole.
 
Muddybuddy said:
I think this is the disconnect. Guys will shoot a 3-5 shot group at .25 and say I have a 1/4" gun. Then they'll shoot the same 3-5 shot and now it's .6", must be the shooter.

Hornady is saying that if you shoot a 10, 20, 30 shot group that's what your gun does. The "flier" that the 3-5 shot guy dismisses counts just as much as the 2 that go in the same hole.
Click to expand...
Yep, and if you overlay those 5, .25" groups onto the same point of impact it's no longer .25
 
YZ-80 said:
Very odd. Not consistent with my experience over 16 years of handloading, either. Poor business sense too. Why encourage people to buy less of what they need to validate a load?
Click to expand...
You guys have to remember that any company doing a podcast is doing it for marketing purposes. They don't make money by doing simple educational podcast. You have to expect that anything they do will favor their products. That's the way it's always been.
 
It really works like this. If you want to buy some stuff, do numerous load developments with things that don't work, shoot 1,2,3,5 shot groups, not count flyers, miss when there is no wind to blame, ……please ignore their results.

Using traditional load development, I have occasionally got repeatable loads that worked. More often, I got decent loads that shot 25 times produced some flyers I ignored.

Using what I believe is the "your groups are too small" method, I shot 25 shots into 0.75". 4 of 5 5 shot groups were under 0.5". Most 3 shot groups were under 0.2". This is a hunting rifle.

That load doesn't fall apart, except at temperature….the load is still good, but pressure was not. I'll be interested when I drop a percent, if it still groups!!!

You can blame Hornady that statistics shot through test barrels don't match your belief, but where are your 200 shot groups?

As a side note, I'm ****ed at Hornady not building there composite group statistics into their app. I think they also need to dive deeper into statistics to determine what the ideal sample size is. They focus on 20-40, but what is a good place for us folks that don't buy barrels by the 6 pack and chamber 6+ at a single time!
 
nealm66 said:
Someone needs to call them out on this. It's got to be very discouraging for new or inexperienced handloaders
Click to expand...
Call them out. Seriously, post a video. Show your 20, 50, 100 shot groups.

They would probably even keep the link you post in their comments.

There are lots of experts. Look at the expert Backfire invited out. Look at the guys that shoot Cortina's 500 yd know your limits videos. No disrespect, most would out shoot me, but they aren't very impressive as a whole. These people are all good shooters ….my guess is they struggle due to not enough barrels, components and rounds down range. Like Jerry says, shoot a million rounds on your own dime and someone will pay for your next million.
 

Similar threads

L
Hornady Podcast Reloading
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
mrcheesemoose
M
Jed Eckert
What’s up with Hodgdon data website?
Replies
6
Views
8K
Savage 12BVSS
Savage 12BVSS
nksmfamjp
Hornady Podcast
2 3
Replies
36
Views
3K
LocalJW
L
O
reloading set up.
Replies
8
Views
2K
jrock
jrock
K
Dream reloading set up?
Replies
5
Views
2K
kdumph
K

Recent Posts

Top