I developed the OCW loading process over a dozen years ago when I hadn't been reloading very long, and didn't have a lot of the "goodies" I have now to help with load development.
The process was, by necessity at that time, chronograph independent.
I just touched the 3rd rail of obsessive compulsive load development there, I'm sure. But let me make my case:
A properly conducted and properly interpreted OCW load test, performed at the prescribed 100 yard point, has always yielded excellent long range results. Of the long range loads I currently use (.243 Win, .308 Win, 30-06, 270 Win, and 338 Lapua Magnum), all were developed at the 100 yard line--and none failed to perform well at 1000 yards (or even farther).
In my opinion, we tend to rely way too much on chronograph data for our load development methods. Yes, there's "more than one way to skin a cat." I get that. But some would have you believe that without a chronograph, you're wasting your time. One fellow on another forum I peruse even went so far as to tell a new reloader that he shouldn't even bother starting without a chrongraph, as his results would be meaningless!
And of course that's just plain wrong. For decades, folks worked without chronographs and did just fine. And you still can today, turns out...
I have a saying I coined at the Practical Riflery forum... "the target is the final arbiter." In the end, no matter how good your numbers look, the target gets to say what works and what doesn't. I've seen loads that spit out great numbers across a chronograph stutter and stumble when paper targets are reviewed at long range. Other loads which had a lesser "chronographic pedigree" seemed to do just fine... somehow. Obviously there is a lot more that goes into a good load recipe than simply a string of tight velocity numbers off a chronograph.
By properly interpreting what we see on the target, we know what is going to work and what isn't. An MOA group at 1000 yards is an MOA group at 1000 yards... so who cares what the chronograph says about it?
The process was, by necessity at that time, chronograph independent.
I just touched the 3rd rail of obsessive compulsive load development there, I'm sure. But let me make my case:
A properly conducted and properly interpreted OCW load test, performed at the prescribed 100 yard point, has always yielded excellent long range results. Of the long range loads I currently use (.243 Win, .308 Win, 30-06, 270 Win, and 338 Lapua Magnum), all were developed at the 100 yard line--and none failed to perform well at 1000 yards (or even farther).
In my opinion, we tend to rely way too much on chronograph data for our load development methods. Yes, there's "more than one way to skin a cat." I get that. But some would have you believe that without a chronograph, you're wasting your time. One fellow on another forum I peruse even went so far as to tell a new reloader that he shouldn't even bother starting without a chrongraph, as his results would be meaningless!
And of course that's just plain wrong. For decades, folks worked without chronographs and did just fine. And you still can today, turns out...
I have a saying I coined at the Practical Riflery forum... "the target is the final arbiter." In the end, no matter how good your numbers look, the target gets to say what works and what doesn't. I've seen loads that spit out great numbers across a chronograph stutter and stumble when paper targets are reviewed at long range. Other loads which had a lesser "chronographic pedigree" seemed to do just fine... somehow.
Obviously there is a lot more that goes into a good load recipe than simply a string of tight velocity numbers off a chronograph.By properly interpreting what we see on the target, we know what is going to work and what isn't. An MOA group at 1000 yards is an MOA group at 1000 yards... so who cares what the chronograph says about it?
