HELP WITH SATERLEE VELOCITY TEST

[asd9055]

I am sure there are people here that are faithful users of one or another method and have the expertise to respond. I don't.
I do however question your method. You use randomly generated data, which in your own words, you biased in order to generate to show what? That something doesn't work?
I'd rather let the experts in this method help the OP reach his objective.

Good Shooting!
ASD

 

[338 dude]

I am working up a new load for my 6.5x284 norma.
I did a coarse bullet seating test of a Lapua Scenar 139 gr at the minimum charge weight of 48.5 gr H4831SC with 140 grain bullets from my Berger manual.
The winner was .025" off the lands.
The following pictures should tell the story of how this test went using a Magnetospeed.
Berger's first edition manual says max load is 51.1 grains of H4831SC. So, I thought I would load up to 54.5 grains thinking I would surely hit max in my rifle before then. Well, I never did hit max.
The case pictured is the 54.5 grain load.
After checking Berger's website, I see they list 53.7 grains as the max for H4831SC with 140 gr bullets.
Is there a second edition Berger manual out with new maxs? I'm not sure why the difference in max loads.
Well, back to my original question.....
From the results on the target, good speed nodes don't show good accuracy.
Should I reshoot good velocity nodes or good accuracy nodes?
In my mind, I know speed nodes are important for long range work.
Conditions were mild and the barrel was never hot to the touch before each shot.
Where would you go from here?
I am also going to continue up the powder charge until I find max in my rifle.View attachment 207628View attachment 207630View attachment 207631View attachment 207632

That slight click is the first sign of pressure

 

[338 dude]

I am working up a new load for my 6.5x284 norma.
I did a coarse bullet seating test of a Lapua Scenar 139 gr at the minimum charge weight of 48.5 gr H4831SC with 140 grain bullets from my Berger manual.
The winner was .025" off the lands.
The following pictures should tell the story of how this test went using a Magnetospeed.
Berger's first edition manual says max load is 51.1 grains of H4831SC. So, I thought I would load up to 54.5 grains thinking I would surely hit max in my rifle before then. Well, I never did hit max.
The case pictured is the 54.5 grain load.
After checking Berger's website, I see they list 53.7 grains as the max for H4831SC with 140 gr bullets.
Is there a second edition Berger manual out with new maxs? I'm not sure why the difference in max loads.
Well, back to my original question.....
From the results on the target, good speed nodes don't show good accuracy.
Should I reshoot good velocity nodes or good accuracy nodes?
In my mind, I know speed nodes are important for long range work.
Conditions were mild and the barrel was never hot to the touch before each shot.
Where would you go from here?
I am also going to continue up the powder charge until I find max in my rifle.View attachment 207628View attachment 207630View attachment 207631View attachment 207632

I have Good results and velocity with 4831 I have tried H 1000 and retumbo as well as Reloader 26

but I've had the best luck with reloader 23 give it a try if you can find some

 

[entoptics]

I am sure there are people here that are faithful users of one or another method and have the expertise to respond. I don't.
I do however question your method...

1) You say you don't have the expertise to evaluate the ladder/saterlee method, but believe it's real, but also don't seem to have the expertise to evaluate my method, but don't believe it's real...Interesting.

...You use randomly generated data, which in your own words, you biased in order to generate to show what? That something doesn't work?...

2) I didn't bias it. It is simply demonstrating the concept of normally distributed data. The whole reason we as shooters calculate and care about standard deviation.

If you aren't familiar with what Standard Deviation and normally distributed actually means, the simple version is a basic bell curve where...

68% of values will fall within ±1SD of the average
95% of values will fall within ± 2SD of the average
99.7% of values will fall within ± 3SD of the average

So, if you have ammo that has an average velocity of 2900 fps and an SD of 10 fps (quite good), and you fire 100 shots...

68 will be between 2890 and 2910
95 will be between 2880 and 2920
99 -100 will be between 2870 and 2930

I simply had excel randomly generate variation within the above limits based on a standard deviation of 10 fps, which in my opinion is pretty good for well made hand loads.

And just to be clear, the "nodes" circled in the 4 fake data sets are not actually nodes they are simply random noise, which appears to show a node. The same is almost certainly true of the OP's real data.

...I'd rather let the experts in this method help the OP reach his objective.

Good Shooting!
ASD

3) I have 10's of thousands of rounds down range, and while I wouldn't consider myself an expert, I have attempted OCW/Ladder/Saterlee type tests a few dozen times, and never had any repeatable success. It wasn't until I took the time to actually consider the statistics involved, that I realized why...

So, while maybe not an expert, I was trying to help the OP reach his objective...

 

[asd9055]

So just say, it did not work for you. Instead you could tell the OP what did work for you.

I have used OCW in the past extremely effectively for rifles and handguns. Then I sopped shooting/hunting enough or at distances where it would make a difference.

Now I have time, building shooting range and I am learning about the various methods of Ladder and other options. I plan to try them.

I understand physics and harmonics well and a node is based on physics. Thousands of shooters have been successful with either OCW or various Ladder. You, like a few others apparently have not. I bet you used a combination of those without realizing it

You could not have generated the data without biasing it. Maybe you don't realize it. Just examine what you did to generate it and you will realize that you put bias in it.

Good

 

[new2mud]

1) You say you don't have the expertise to evaluate the ladder/saterlee method, but believe it's real, but also don't seem to have the expertise to evaluate my method, but don't believe it's real...Interesting.



2) I didn't bias it. It is simply demonstrating the concept of normally distributed data. The whole reason we as shooters calculate and care about standard deviation.

If you aren't familiar with what Standard Deviation and normally distributed actually means, the simple version is a basic bell curve where...

68% of values will fall within ±1SD of the average
95% of values will fall within ± 2SD of the average
99.7% of values will fall within ± 3SD of the average

So, if you have ammo that has an average velocity of 2900 fps and an SD of 10 fps (quite good), and you fire 100 shots...

68 will be between 2890 and 2910
95 will be between 2880 and 2920
99 -100 will be between 2870 and 2930

I simply had excel randomly generate variation within the above limits based on a standard deviation of 10 fps, which in my opinion is pretty good for well made hand loads.

And just to be clear, the "nodes" circled in the 4 fake data sets are not actually nodes they are simply random noise, which appears to show a node. The same is almost certainly true of the OP's real data.


3) I have 10's of thousands of rounds down range, and while I wouldn't consider myself an expert, I have attempted OCW/Ladder/Saterlee type tests a few dozen times, and never had any repeatable success. It wasn't until I took the time to actually consider the statistics involved, that I realized why...

So, while maybe not an expert, I was trying to help the OP reach his objective...

Interesting data analysis.

What method do you find works for you to find a robust powder charge node?

 

[Mikecr]

From the results on the target, good speed nodes don't show good accuracy. Should I reshoot good velocity nodes or good accuracy nodes?

I think you're doing a great job so far. Wouldn't worry yet about a mild clicking extraction, as this may be a bolt timing issue and nothing about pressure.
Powder node methods(OCW, Satterlee) lead to FORGIVING loads.
Barrel node methods (ladders, incremental load development) lead to ACCURATE loads.

I say go for accuracy, as there is no more powerful ballistic attribute.
Also statistics won't ever predict the abstracts in accuracy.
You just shoot at enough distance to find it, and the barrel pointing and bullet directions on release will reveal the summation of it all.
In other words, shoot a plain ladder and incremental develop within the good(between the bad), shown by that ladder.
You have your velocity ranges for the test, you have your best coarse seating, your brass should be very stable by now,, time to see what it can do.
And if 'SD' doesn't end to your liking -too bad -accuracy overules all your extra thinkings.

 

[User4302021]

Seabeekin,
That is exactly right.
I am using the method Scott Saterlee devised and shared on the 6.5 guys utube channel.
I will continue with this method.

Good luck with that.

 

[Bob Wright]

I couldn't interpret my target if using a magnetospeed mounted on the barrel. Scott did this I believe, but was purely looking for velocity flats, not target dispersion and velocity flats.
So, I would shoot another ladder at 300 yards, in .2 powder increments aiming at the same point without your magnetospeed. At least you won't have an unpredictable element in this type of chronograph.
Once you locate a flat of 2 or more rounds, that is near the velocity ( you already have this data) you need for hunting performance, shoot in the middle of that with 5-10 rounds. See if it's truly a repeatable node.
Then, you can go back and check for a final speed for ballistic calculations.

 

[NW Hunter]

Good luck with that.

Funny how people thinking differently brings out the sarcastic comments.

 

[NW Hunter]

I think you're doing a great job so far. Wouldn't worry yet about a mild clicking extraction, as this may be a bolt timing issue and nothing about pressure.
Powder node methods(OCW, Satterlee) lead to FORGIVING loads.
Barrel node methods (ladders, incremental load development) lead to ACCURATE loads.

I say go for accuracy, as there is no more powerful ballistic attribute.
Also statistics won't ever predict the abstracts in accuracy.
You just shoot at enough distance to find it, and the barrel pointing and bullet directions on release will reveal the summation of it all.
In other words, shoot a plain ladder and incremental develop within the good(between the bad), shown by that ladder.
You have your velocity ranges for the test, you have your best coarse seating, your brass should be very stable by now,, time to see what it can do.
And if 'SD' doesn't end to your liking -too bad -accuracy overules all your extra thinkings.

Thanks

I think you're doing a great job so far. Wouldn't worry yet about a mild clicking extraction, as this may be a bolt timing issue and nothing about pressure.
Powder node methods(OCW, Satterlee) lead to FORGIVING loads.
Barrel node methods (ladders, incremental load development) lead to ACCURATE loads.

I say go for accuracy, as there is no more powerful ballistic attribute.
Also statistics won't ever predict the abstracts in accuracy.
You just shoot at enough distance to find it, and the barrel pointing and bullet directions on release will reveal the summation of it all.
In other words, shoot a plain ladder and incremental develop within the good(between the bad), shown by that ladder.
You have your velocity ranges for the test, you have your best coarse seating, your brass should be very stable by now,, time to see what it can do.
And if 'SD' doesn't end to your liking -too bad -accuracy overules all your extra thinkings.

Thanks Mikecr,
As a side note, I got home today and checked all my torque values on the action, bases and rings.
My middle action screw on my Savage had loosened. I increased the torque on the action.
That may explain why I was not having accuracy with the velocity nodes.

 

[NW Hunter]

I couldn't interpret my target if using a magnetospeed mounted on the barrel. Scott did this I believe, but was purely looking for velocity flats, not target dispersion and velocity flats.
So, I would shoot another ladder at 300 yards, in .2 powder increments aiming at the same point without your magnetospeed. At least you won't have an unpredictable element in this type of chronograph.
Once you locate a flat of 2 or more rounds, that is near the velocity ( you already have this data) you need for hunting performance, shoot in the middle of that with 5-10 rounds. See if it's truly a repeatable node.
Then, you can go back and check for a final speed for ballistic calculations.

Thanks for the help Bob.
I'm going that direction soon!

 

[asd9055]

NW Hunter, there are a couple of guys here that can really help you, but their method is like Plinker147 suggested. Same target, 300 yards or more. That is not to say anything against Satterlee's method. I spend the last couple of weeks getting educated about the variations and when we get cooler weather in Texas I will start evaluating them while developing new loads.
Good Luck man. Don't get discourage but the negative comments.

 

[NW Hunter]

NW Hunter, there are a couple of guys here that can really help you, but their method is like Plinker147 suggested. Same target, 300 yards or more. That is not to say anything against Satterlee's method. I spend the last couple of weeks getting educated about the variations and when we get cooler weather in Texas I will start evaluating them while developing new loads.
Good Luck man. Don't get discourage but the negative comments.

Oh I won't.
I have also used the one target at 300 for both seating depth and velocity charge.
Just trying to widen my scope of view on load development. If Saterlee doesn't work, well so be it.
Honestly, I almost didn't create the post because of the negatives you run into. Thanks for the encouraging words