OCW opinions...?????

[Kampfjager]

Are you being serious...or sarcastic?

I actually think he's serious, given the nature of his responses....

 

[Buzzsaw]

Yes, I thought it was like OCDC, shooters who waste ammo shooting hundreds of rounds in a ladder test or OCW.

I just have never understood it.

I'm having a custom .22 Creedmoor being built. I go to various forums, research what loads work for other .22 Creedmoor shooters, soon, a pattern develops. narrowed down to 2-3 loads. Most of the time these work fine in my rifles too.

It does help my rifles are customs and will shoot .50 MOA with good factory stuff.

Some make it brain surgery thats all.

 

[Barrelnut]

Harris bipod

If shooting from a bench, I would ditch the bipod and use bags or an adjustable front rest with a good rear bag. I think that would take some of the horizontal stringing and flyers out and tighten the groups up in general.
I would do a bullet seating depth test first, then do the OCW.
Berger bullets can work wonders.
Like Dog Rocket's analysis!

 

[Kampfjager]

Yes, I thought it was like OCDC, shooters who waste ammo shooting hundreds of rounds in a ladder test or OCW.

I just have never understood it.

I'm having a custom .22 Creedmoor being built. I go to various forums, research what loads work for other .22 Creedmoor shooters, soon, a pattern develops. narrowed down to 2-3 loads. Most of the time these work fine in my rifles too.

It does help my rifles are customs and will shoot .50 MOA with good factory stuff.

Some make it brain surgery thats all.

It's done with less than 40-50 rounds and ends up a "custom fit" for your rifle....

 

[User4302021]

Yes, I thought it was like OCDC, shooters who waste ammo shooting hundreds of rounds in a ladder test or OCW.
I just have never understood it.
Some make it brain surgery thats all.

Many waste rounds because they:
A) Don't perform the test correctly
B) Don't know what they are looking for
C) Can't read the test even when done correctly
D) Can't give up on a combo that isn't working

 

[hunter67wa]

Amen!
I will be doing OCW on two rifles in the near future. It works.

 

[Buzzsaw]

How can you say its an accurate system when 90% of the targets I see have at least 1 "called flyer"

I will always say as long as there is a human involved, anything can happen.

40-50 rounds is not bad Kamp, but thats for one bullet buy hey, its shooting and thats what we do

 

[Kampfjager]

How can you say its an accurate system when 90% of the targets I see have at least 1 "called flyer"

I will always say as long as there is a human involved, anything can happen.

40-50 rounds is not bad Kamp, but thats for one bullet buy hey, its shooting and thats what we do

It should actually be done with 5 shot groups, but I use 3 shot groups and fine tune and confirm with 5 shot groups

 

[shinbone]

Given the targets you presented, 45.5 grains is where I would start seating depth testing if it were me.

I don't fully understand Dog Rocket's analysis, so I am just trying to learn by asking questions: To me, it looks like the 45.5 gn is the worst group in the series. Why would it be selected as the one to do seating depth tests? Wouldn't it be best to choose the tightest group to fine tune for seating depth? Sorry if this is a dumb question, and, again, just trying to learn.

 

[Ga6570]

Hopefully this may help those who don't know this method or those making comments about group size.

In my understanding and experience with the Dan Newberry OCW method, you are not necessarily looking for the best group sizes, but are looking for similar point of impact between groups with different "charge weights". (By doing the round robin shooting you take out the hot barrel factor, because you shoot one from each load before starting again at the beginning...) When this optimum is found, then you can start playing with seating depths to fine tune the group sizes. what the results of the method being done properly leave you with, is the ability to load and not require exact load charges with each pull of the lever but still get the desired level of accuracy from the loads in that rifle.

With the very similar consistency in impacts I'm seeing, #1 I can only agree with the suggestion to try it again at 200yds to see if it performs the same again, and #2 to take the very serious analysis previously provided as not just good, but great advice... seems like you are just about there with finding that node. (It just about likes the whole range of loads)

Happy shooting!

 

[Kampfjager]

A tight group could be a lucky fluke that could waste time.... dogrockets assessment is based on group center consistency compared to poa.....

 

[Ga6570]

A tight group could be a lucky fluke that could waste time.... dogrockets assessment is based on group center consistency compared to poa.....

Exactly.

I see a lot of consistency.

 

[Kampfjager]

Exactly.

I see a lot of consistency.

I'm assuming you'd be in the area of 45.5 also?

 

[shinbone]

. . . you are not necessarily looking for the best group sizes, but are looking for similar point of impact between groups with different "charge weights". . . .

If I am understanding this correctly, then, the shooter is trading off a little bit of group size for a more stable POI, i.e. less dependent on charge weight? Again, just asking . . .