First OCW, your thoughts(pic heavy)

GMelahn

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
15
Location
Sacramento, CA
Okay this was my first time trying the OCW meathod for working up a load, I was wondering if I could get a little input on what I'm looking at and where to go from here. I was at an outdoor range, 100 yards, about 7 at night . I had to rush my last two strings of fire because I was running out of sunlight. Also I just got done remounting my scope and I had to re-zero and never really got it perfect; thats why the groups are high left so please take that into account. I started to notice slight pressure signs at 46grns which increased at 46.5. Please let me know if you need any more info.

Components
Rifle: Savage 10FLCP-k, 1-10vtwist, 24" barrel
Bullet: SMK 168
Powder: Varget
Case:Federal GMM(don't get upset with me for using federal cases)
Primer CCI200
OAL(ogive) 2.211 .020 off the lands

Weather
Temp: 90F
Wind: SW7mph from 5 o'clock
Pressure: 29.8

Thanks,

G-

Var434.jpg

438.jpg

442.jpg

446.jpg

45455.jpg

46465.jpg


Part 2
 
Last edited:
Looks to me like you got a steady progression upward with increased velocity as should be expected.

Other than that it is like reading tea leaves. Use any of those loads.
 
Looks to me like you got a steady progression upward with increased velocity as should be expected.

Other than that it is like reading tea leaves.

So you don't think that there is any information that could be ascertained form the above data that could lead someone to believe that one charge weight could work better than another?

How do you work up loads and decide which one is best? Im new to this whole reloading thing and I'm just trying to learn.

Anyways it has come to my attention that vertical dispersion of the groups is important to the whole OCW test, below are those numbers:

43.4......0.365"
43.8......0.642"
44.2......0.762"
44.6......0.786"
45.0......0.965"
45.5......1.232"
46.0......1.585"
46.5......1.900"

Thanks,

G-
 
I'm sorry, I don't mean to discourage you. It's just that I went through the OCW phase a couple of years ago and it did me no good, and I tried. Perhaps you can get something out of it.

That being said, just look at your targets. Excellent groups and all about the same size. If you took away the vertical (which is purely a function of increased velocity with increased charge), then you would have an excellent multi shot group all in the same place.

There is also a ladder test called the Audette which is shot at 300 yards. In that test you load one load at each powder charge. When shooting you make note of the POI on the target (spotting scope & target at the bench) so that you can number them later. Supposedly you will get a constant vertical rise until 3 or 4 of the shots are closer together. That will be your accuracy node. Now I'm not saying the Audette is the cat's meouw either, it just makes more sense to me. Here is a pic of one for illustration
DSCN0914.jpg


That one was with a 338 win mag with 225 gr TSX's, so yours with a more accurate target gun might give you better results. Even so after that test I settled on a load around the #5, 6 & 7 shots, played a little with seating depth and got good results.

But I don't use the Audette much. Mostly I will look for load data and results on the reloading forums, post a question about the caliber if I need to, consult the manuals, start lower and work up in 3 or 4 shot groups and go shooting
DSCN1833.jpg


IMO there are no magic answers, just repeated excellent results over a long span of time.
 
Great thanks for the info, I don't really know anyone who reloads and forums are my only teachers so to speak(I have learned quite a bit).

I chose the OCW method because I don't have a 300 yard range readily available. After thinking about it I now know what you mean by the "tea leaves" comment and the more I reload the more I realize I'm not reloading for benchrest but to make accurate rounds that shoot MOA or better out to 800yards and that I should just pick one and "go shoot".

Thanks again,

G-
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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