Ever repeat OCW to check results?

[EXPRESS]

I have used the OCW method and like the logic behind it. However I got to thinking that the best way to proove the system would be to double check it.

That means burning up twice as many components, but it would establish if it is a definitive method.

 

[drbill]

Instead of doing whole thing over I sometimes try some rounds just above and below the node(s) you have found.

Also try the node(s) you find long range and see how they do.

 

[Mikecr]

There is a lot salesmanship behind OCW.
IMO it's about finding a reliable POWDER node rather than dialing in the best cutting edge combinations. That is, it's not so comprehensive as claimed here & there.

For instance, I could take a gun fully developed in OCW, and make it shoot better or worse with bullet seating adjustments -without a bit of MV change or affect to OCW.
That's not to say OCW is in any way bad. Nothing wrong with a powder load fitting nicely in a tolerant window, -provided this is actually best for results. But at least consider the possibility that tolerant window does not actually provide the best results.
How many times do we read where somebody's best results were found with ES that was not lowest?
They worry about that of course, but there is nothing they can do about it really, and there is often more power in accuracy than ES itself can negate anyway.

I guess what I'm saying is that your re-testing notion is a good one.
You'll have as much fun burning up components this way as that way. Right?
And if you learn something, anything, consider how much that's worth!

 

[Bart B]

Statistics have proved that the more samples of the same thing used in a test, the more credible the results are. And some people still believe the world is flat.

Folks testing their stuff for accuracy using only a few shots should buddy up with a world class craps shooter to learn the odds of getting snake eyes or boxcars compared to sevens with each roll of the dice.

Closed Form Precision - ShotStat

A one-shot test of a given load in an OCW or ladder test for how its position relates to 10 or 20 or 30 more is more than a bit worse than ridiculous. But it's the popular way to do it in spite of all the shooters knowing all fired bullets do not go into the same hole.

The greatest spread in shot hole locations on target is most often caused by what's holding and aiming the rifle.

Everyone establishes their own level of credibility and statistical significance for any test they make; whether they do it knowingly is another matter.

 

[Barrelnut]

I like that. lightbulb