Way in or way out ?

[BountyHunter]

I was wrong, I thought it was .5-1 MOA. After careful scrutiny I misquoted the 1 MOA part.

So let's see what is quoted on the OCW site.

"By "long range" rifle I mean one which can be depended on to hit a 5 gallon pail at 800 yards every time once you know what you're doing. " OCW Website

By the way that is at least 2 MOA.

"Toward that end, 1/2 MOA (minute of angle) accuracy is what I strive for." OCW Website.

Somehow "MINUTE OF 5 GALLON BUCKETS", now known as MOB, is not normally a term associated with extreme accuracy.

Using your NASCAR analogy, you are driving a Yugo at Daytona and thinking your going to win, but somehow have never entered a race, but want to tell everyone how to win!!

Go to www.long-range.com/forums where the National Fclass and Palma teams hang out. Submit a post telling them how they are all screwed up for not using OCW and you can fix their poor shooting guns. By the way, most of them are shooting 308s which by your website you say you do not even own. When they start preaching it, then I will believe. They like to use the dirty nasty chronos in load development too so you have your work cut out for you. Until then just unproven internet theory, no matter how many flies someone shoots.

Besides IF that can gun and load can repeat that performance (and is not the blind hog finding an acorn) then bring it to any match (BR, Groundhog, Egg Shoots etc) and clean up.

As for explaining why some guns and some bullets shoot better in the lands vs at mag OAL, cannot. Nor do I have to as it does not make it untrue, you cannot explain why they don't either. The match results speak for themselves.

Many of these BR guys put more rounds downrange in one year than you have ever pulled the trigger on. The short range buys shoot groups in the ZEROs and ONES and not MOB. 1K BR matches are won normally with groups under match conditions(normally windy) in the 3-4" range for LG (5 shots) and 4-5" for HG(10 shots).

Bullets are tested all up and down from .040 in the lands to .040 off. We load to where it shoots best, but 1000s of bullets downrange, certain trends start to develop that even Ray Charles can see but they cannot quote engineering theory and they do not have a website for MOB accuracy standards.

If anyone wants a MOB gun, then OCW with its grossly uninformed reloading internet theory is the place to go.

BH

 

[royinidaho]

Hear what your saying.

Another group I see emerging are those that shoot off of bipods and beanie bags pretty much exclusively, whether prone, bench or a platform in the bed of the pickup truck. These guys may be close to group 2 with rifles from 4th, 5th and 6th groups.

I find it intreging that they can put "steel on target" under so many different shooting conditions. I kind of grew into mind set that accurate shooting had to be done from a concrete bench, piano stool, pedestal front rest and an ear'd sand bag filled with the very best filler. Not So!

I was out with some buffalo gun shooters awhile back and was really impressed with their shooting. 500 meters, ram targets, cross sticks out on the barrel, heavy variable cross wind. The one ol' boy I observed shot a less than MOA group when all 5 rams were looked at. That would out shoot most on this forum and that's with a rifle w/a hammer, blackpowder cartridge and cast lead bullets and peep sights. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[green 788]

BH, you and others should be proud to shoot consistent "MOB" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif in the real world. By "real world" I mean prone over a pack or off a bi-pod. No wind flags, no bench, no mitts or matts... 2 MOA isn't a bad average across all conditions. I cannot currently do it, and in all liklihood neither can you.

My website is geared toward helping the average shooter become better able to handload for the best possibe accuracy across a variety of conditions. OCW will do that better than conventional methods because the emphasis is on pressure tolerant load recipes--the kind you don't have to monkey with because the weather changes.

You have extolled the virtues of the traditional ladder test--so I remain amazed that you still don't understand OCW and the inherent advantages thereof. Most people get it right away... Perhaps the reason you keep misunderstanding me is related to your demonstrated tendency to skim read and miss important points--and jump to conclusions as to what the writer is saying.

Classical example above... you thought I was trying to assert that BR shooters get high runout and don't even realize it. I of course did not say that, but rather was referring to practical shooters and hunters--which is the default discipline of this website--wouldn't it be? Most guys who peruse these pages aren't BR types. Accuracy goals and necessary equipment for long range practical shooting aren't compatible or comparable with the benchrest equipment and discipline.

I am glad that you at least admitted that you don't know the "whys" behind the accuracy changes which occur when seating depth is altered. You correctly point out that one doesn't need to know why; one need only know that the principle is true. Again, that is the race driver not knowing why this cam duration works better--only that it does.

For my part, I will continue to study the "whys," rather than to simply say "That's just the way it is." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dan

 

[Bart B]

BountyHunter, I like your "MOB" rifle description. It's much like the one heard back in the early 1970's when the USNRA changed their 1000-yard highpower target's high scoring ring down to 20 inches from 36 inches. It had been 36 inches since about 1900 when rifles needed to keep all their shots in it were occasionally called "wash-tub rifles." After the high scoring ring was reduced to 20 inches one might hear rifles needed to keep all the shots in it called "bushel-basket rifles." I doubt there's much difference in accuracy between a bushel-basket or MOG rifle.

Regarding how accurate the most skilled rifleman can be with their first shot at this 1000 yard target, here's what I've observed over the last four decades using both scope or aperture sights. Doesn't matter what cartridge or rifle is used, after estimating and making all the corrections for conditions the very best of them will put their first shot inide the 10-inch diameter X-ring no more than 10 to 15 percent of the time. About 30 to 40 percent of the time their first show will go inside the 20-inch 10-ring. The second shot is typically closer to center. Watching and shooting 1K-yard benchrest matches the first shot miss distance is about the same.

There are some instances where quite a bit of bullet jump didn't cause a problem. A top barrel maker was using 220-gr. Sierra HPMK's seated 1/4th inch off the lands in a 30 caliber magagnum and put over 20 consecutive shots of 'em into about 5 to 6 inches at 1000 yards shooting prone with a scope; that's about as good as 1K-yd. BR group aggregates get.

It's been my experience that ammo with case necks and seated bullets very, very straight, one can get excellent accuracy with quite a bit of bullet jump.

The bottom line for best accuracy seems to be: "Keep all the variables as close to zero as possible." Learning what those variables are and how to correct the big ones is something else.

 

[Jimm]

Hey Roy,

Went away to my loading bench only to return and find ........... ?

The distance is 100 yds. The problem may well be that I dont know how to measure the groups /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif [image]

[/image] I have shot several 3 shot groups like this one with my 243 AI. Outside at about 800 ft. elevation and no wind . The reason for only 3 shot groups is that I didn't trust myself to not " fall apart " with more shots /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Btw that 700 yd group was with my 300 winnie , my .243 went into 2.5 inches at 700( 3 shots ) I'm beginning to think I should not post any more groups /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

As you said sometimes it all comes together . Some days I can't get in the groove and groups are bigger .

Funny thing about the reason I'm seated at 40 thou off on this load. I had a defective screw thread on my sinclair seating depth checker that would seem to be tight but time revealed that it was stopping short of a solid grip on the shaft and of course this allowed the dimension to change as you read the dial caliper.

I wish our coyotes would stop like the one you saw the other day . I've fired at them at 700 plus yds only to watch them start walking /trotting just as the rifle fired /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Now if you all will excuse me I have to go take my zanax [image]

[/image]

 

[BountyHunter]

Green 788

I sure do not get where you think using a ladder and a chrono does not allow you to find a pressure insensitive load because it most certainly will and with extreme accuracy and not MOB. It is super easy to spot the nodes, record the fps nodes and see when the MV and pressure normally jump.

As you do not believe in using a chrono with OCW you might find one node but miss one to two more and not necessarily the top node if fps is your goal.

If I want to build an accuracy load for a mag gun, I simply seat at max oal, shoot the ladder and tweak the load and finally seating depth backwards.

I will let you in on a little secret that us poor uninformed LR BR guys know about seating out in the lands. If we seat out into the lands we reduce pressue with a given powder charge vs seated to a mag OAL. That has been proven time and time again with pressure strain guages and Oehler 43s. Now why would we want to seat at mag oal if we did not have to, and increase pressure. Lot more subtleties to this game than you have mastered and learned yet, but keep on trying.

As far as me being able to hit one shot what I am aiming at, do not bet too much money on that. I have spent a lot of time on unknown distance ranges and targets with 24 years in Special Forces, shooting with the Army Markmanship unit for a short time and I just happen to have a 308 with 16x IOR w/MP8 that gets a work out occasionally. Will readily admit not as good as I used to be consistently especially on the ranging ( I cheat and use the Leica 1200 now), but I am as good as I once was more than occasionally.

But anyway sure is fun talking about it. Get you a 308 and try it.

BH

 

[Jimm]

" Jimm, drop me a PM..".

Green I think the pm feature is turned of but my email addy is in my bio, you should put yours there as well.

Jim B.

 

[green 788]

"Lot more subtleties to this game than you have mastered and learned yet, but keep on trying." You're right, that is a game as far as I'm concerned, much like golf. Shooting from benches with heavy rests and bags and wind flags and such is a competitive and interesting sport, but a game, nonetheless.

Seating to magazine length is useful in the hunting field. If you cannot get a cartridge to perform well at mag length, you've got a single shot rifle (which, of course, most BR rigs are). This isn't practical for long range hunting, where a quick follow up shot may be needed.

"Get you a 308 and try it." You did it again... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif You read part of something I said about a light, practical field rifle in .308 win. I mentioned that I don't have a sporter barreled field rifle in .308 win, which I don't have. (I do have a .270 win which sort of makes getting a .308 in a light field rifle sort of superfluous). You understood this to mean that I don't own any .308's. Not true. I have two .308 tactical rifles, and I shoot them quite often...

Dan

 

[Jimm]

Roy,

Did you really ? !!! Shoot the fly that is . That is way better to me than winning the match /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif I reckon you've seen " Tin cup " the movie but if you haven't get it , you'll love it . /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

In 1972 I was fresh out of the Navy and I bought a Sako actioned Browning .243 pencil
bbl in aa safari grade rifle . I was just learning to reload and I was using , what else ? , RCBS dies and a rockchucker press .
To this day I have a couple of targets ( some dand where that my new wife witnessed and signed ) that I shot at 100 yds that went .251 and .323 . This out of a PENCIL bbl with nothing done to it other than my inept tweaking of the trigger.

Remarkably , 34 years later the same powder ( well almost , I used IMR 4350 back then and H4350 now) is providing a very accurate load within a smidgen of the load wt. I used back then. Actually , I have to make note here that the IMR 4350 will produce the same results with minor tweaks of the load .

One may like to shoot paper , another fur, one may use bipods , another sandbag rests , I submit that if you like to shoot you are a member of a fraternity that should'nt stand divided against itself. Elitism is a dead end !

So , whew !!! gotta go now , time for more zanax ( what the hair is this stuff anyway Roy? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif, they keep insisting I need it )

Jim B.

 

[4ked Horn]

Hey green. I've been following this post reading every word ( I have also read most of the info on the OCW site you link to but not every word ) and I'm not about to get into the discussion that you and Bounty Hunter are having. I will admit that I am not quite sold on the OCW way to develop a load but that is not why I am writing.

I am growing more curious as to your experience at long range hunting. I am not very experienced compared to some here but I have a good understanding of the science and skills that are involved with this activity so this is not going to turn into a wizzin' match. You might be vastly more experienced than I am.

The reason I am asking for some background is this. You seem to have come in here with an idea that makes some sence. That degree of sence depends on alot of factors but it at least sounds reasonable enough to investigate. You did however come in rather abruptly and that got the attention of a few of us I'm sure. As I read your posts here and there I notice things that make me wonder if you learned a technique that makes tons of sence to you but because your actual field experience is limited you are having a hard time selling it to others. For example from your posts above:

"Most guys who peruse these pages aren't BR types. Accuracy goals and necessary equipment for long range practical shooting aren't compatible or comparable with the benchrest equipment and discipline."

See to me this is all wrong. The people that dwell here are exactly BR types. They are hunting BR types that will use every competition trick they can to quickly kill game at as long a distance as they feel comfortable with. And a blanket statement about the gear not being comparable or compatable with BR shooting seems to contradict the photos of heavy bbl flat stocked guns that our longest range hunters and some of the sports most experienced personalities are using.

Or this quote:

"Seating to magazine length is useful in the hunting field. If you cannot get a cartridge to perform well at mag length, you've got a single shot rifle (which, of course, most BR rigs are). This isn't practical for long range hunting, where a quick follow up shot may be needed."

As I have learned, in the sport of long range hunting a quick follow up shot is an "if" to be avoided. In fact one of the benefits of hunting at these distances leaves the game unaware of the source of the noise and bewilderment of what to do with the sudden pain that is now felt. The spotter then ranges the animal if it moved and the shooter adjusts and follows up with another shot if necessary. There is often nothing quick about it. What is often prefered is the extreme accuracy to put the first (and second) bullet where it needs to be. Not the ability to jack a round into the chamber in 1 second instead of 3.

It is thoughts like these that are raised by statements like yours. This is why I am curious how much actual long range hunting you have done and at what sort of ranges? A person with a new idea is usually received more warmly when the people listening and reading and thinking have some background. It is a common tactic for those who want to succeed to pay attention to those who have succeeded, not just those that have an idea on how to succeed.

I'm hoping you will give us a chance to learn a little bit about you and where you are coming from. Heck, what sent you looking for the OCW in the first place?

 

[green 788]

4ked Horn, there are a lot of questions there, but they are good ones.

I have not been out west where 1000 yard shots on elk are common. I live in the Eastern US, and the largest critter I've shot at a distance past 600 yards has been a white tail deer at 735 yards. Most of my long range hunting has been on varmints.

You mention not wanting to get into a whizzing contest (or something like that)... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif That puts me in mind of the ~1000 yard elk thread here a while back, where a whizzing contest ensued shortly after the initial post. Some members raised concerns about whether the kill was humane or not. It turned into a full blown insult trading argument. And I think a couple of over-zealous members got shown the door...

I did not join in the commentary on that thread, but read it with interest and actually understood both sides of the debate. This forum is about long range hunting, and that elk thread was certainly about long range hunting--no debate there. But I will say that the guys who legitimately and politely questioned the manner in which that elk was taken had some good points. (I didn't say they were right--just that their points were good ones!)

Bringing up that thread is not an attempt to re-open that awful can of worms again. But that thread is a cogent and very memorable reminder of the fact that folks aren't always going to agree on the how's and the whether's of taking game at extreme range.

Now I'm going somewhere with this (I think) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif so hang with me.

Again, that relatively recent thread helps us to understand that there are strong differences of opinion in matters of range limit and technique. IIRC the rifle used on the afformentioned elk--I believe--was a factory barreled rifle. But I would say that the factory rifle was not the limiting factor there. Conditions and familiarity with the terrain were probably what kept that hunt from being ideal, and follow up shots were needed.

If you'll be fair with me, you will notice that I have not offered any advice to members here as to bullet types, chamberings, etc., that they should use on large game beyond 600 yards. I've kept to the Handloading and Optics forums, where I believe I can offer meaningful participation. I'll never speak to the things I have no personal experience with. But if you want to talk about 700+ yard shots on groundhogs and other varmints, I'll be there. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

"Hah! We've got him!" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Someone (not you, necessarily) says: "He doesn't have much long range experience on big game so his points regarding handloading, rifle types, etc., are to be taken with a grain of salt."

If my points cannot stand on their own merit, then they shouldn't be believed. I think that I've offered some useful information on load development, and I also think that I've asked some important questions which--for those who ascribe to benchrest philosophies--should be easy to answer. But rather than getting answers, I generally get derision and the dog-eared mantra "Bring that_______to the next 1000 yard BR comp and we'll see how you do." (The implication there being that when I lose the BR match the why's and wherefore's of distance to lands seating will suddendly be revealed). /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

When I said "Most guys who peruse these pages aren't BR types. Accuracy goals and necessary equipment for long range practical shooting aren't compatible or comparable with the benchrest equipment and discipline." I based that on the truth. Most members here aren't using benchrest rigs to take game at long range. An MOA group at 600 yards will lose big time in a BR comp (unless conditions are awful) but will handily take even a smallish deer at that range.

I don't believe you mean that the exact rifles used in 1000 yard BR comps are what should be prescribed for elk at 1000 yards--so I'm not putting words in your mouth. Most of these rifles are 6mm and 6.5 mm max, which would certainly take a back seat to the 30 and 33 caliber magnums for the purpose.

For my part, I don't want a single shot rifle in the field. Whether I be hunting varmints, deer, or whatever--I like the ability to chamber another cartridge immediately after the shot, so that I can get back on scope and survey the situation. I have honestly had to use follow up shots on groundhogs! Seriously, I have. I hit one twice at 540 yards last summer and he still wasn't dead when I got to him! 105 AMAX, .243 win, by the way. I would not plan to need a second shot, but I would (again, just me) like to have it immediately available should it be needed.

It is a simple matter to build a magazine fed rifle with sub MOA capability. The military sniper rilfes are such (even the 338's and the big 50 BMG's).

You also asked what led me to develop the OCW method. Since this post has already gotten a bit verbose, I'll do you and others a favor and save that explantion for later. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But one more thing: You said "As I read your posts here and there I notice things that make me wonder if you learned a technique that makes tons of sence to you but because your actual field experience is limited you are having a hard time selling it to others." I don't understand what technique you're referring to in this sentence. Are you referring to OCW load development? Or opinions I've offered about particular scopes, rifles, etc.? I'm not sure I understand that question... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Thanks for taking the time to write.

Dan

 

[4ked Horn]

[ QUOTE ]
If you'll be fair with me, you will notice that I have not offered any advice to members here as to bullet types, chamberings, etc., that they should use on large game beyond 600 yards. I've kept to the Handloading and Optics forums, where I believe I can offer meaningful participation. I'll never speak to the things I have no personal experience with. But if you want to talk about 700+ yard shots on groundhogs and other varmints, I'll be there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
I based that on the truth. Most members here aren't using benchrest rigs to take game at long range. An MOA group at 600 yards will lose big time in a BR comp (unless conditions are awful) but will handily take even a smallish deer at that range.

I don't believe you mean that the exact rifles used in 1000 yard BR comps are what should be prescribed for elk at 1000 yards--so I'm not putting words in your mouth. Most of these rifles are 6mm and 6.5 mm max, which would certainly take a back seat to the 30 and 33 caliber magnums for the purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most members are not using BR guns in the field but they are loading with BR techniques, they are having actions blueprinted and bedded and bbls crowned in BR style and are using BR / field hybrids with Nesika actions and Bat actions. It all has a very BR tone about it.

And then there are guys who are using exactly BR gear. For a while here there were so many posts about 6.5x284s that I thought the .308 had been discontinued. BR guns are spendy but there are more than just a few here that do use them in the field with bench and mechanical rests and the whole 9 yards. There are also those who shoot at the extreme ranges that employ BR guns but simply in the large calibers. The guns weigh in over 25 pounds and many going into the 50s. Good Groupers .338 is actually the second 50+ pound gun I have ever seen personally. the first was a 60 pound .308 Baer being shot at a BR match in Chalis Id. (He won the match in his class BTW). So yes I am saying exactly that BR is interwoven inextricably through the fibers of long range hunting.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what technique you're referring to in this sentence. Are you referring to OCW load development?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Maybe I should have said procedure. You are obviously a believer in the OCW idea but something just isn't clicking in to place here (in my perception) and that is why I posted. I was thinking that if even a few people knew of your experience they would know where you were coming from. It might temper the discussion. I have been visiting with guys here for some time and I am familiar with some of their accomplishments. I am going to, for the first time, try a ladder test at their reccomendation. Now you are running head to head with guys that have been ladder testing for years with great results and you want them to give your OCW a try. Why should they? Honestly it sounds interesting but is not far removed from the "shoot groups with different powder charges" method. They will listen more if you can show them how it is an improvement. If I can shoot a ladder to zoom in on a start to a fantastic load for my gun (which is all I care about) why would I shoot more bullets to get a load that is good in several rifles? I would be more inclined to listen if the person with this new procedure showed me pictures of a 600 yard deer he shot in the snow at 5000 feet altitude AND a picture of a 1000 yard coyote taken in a sage desert in rattlesnake weather using the same load.

It happens every day. There are folks with good ideas that get shut down at the door because no one knows who they are. There is no background. Yes your ideas should stand on their own merrits, but they won't. That is the same as saying "I'm tellin' ya, the engineers said it would work." If you had something to show that was different and better I think your conversations here would be easier.

But this is all just my point of view and really nothing more than a suggestion. If it helps then good. If you don't see it as helpful that is fine as well. Now work is calling so I gotta go. Have a good day. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[BountyHunter]

Dan

Your misinformation on LR BR and LR hunting is astounding. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

1. Many of the LR hunters are using rigs that could and are often used in Competition. Look at the Point Blank videos by Bobby Hart etc. Those are his comp guns.

2. Most of the LR BR guns are not 6.5s as you alledge. About 50% or more of the LR BR rigs are still 30 caliber shooting 190-240 gr bullets (in some areas much more than 50%) and a few 338s and yes the rest are 6.5-284s, and other 6,5s, 7mms and we are seeing the 6mm come in. This last year I shot my LR hunting gun, 338 Lapua Ack Imp w/300 gr SMKs, in the HG class without a muzzle brake. As it is relatively lightweight for a HG and the recoil very heavy (guys said that they had never seen the front two legs of the stool come off the ground before when someone shot), /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif I was not too fast on the repeat shots but shot two 9" 10 shot groups with a gun not tuned to shoot w/o the brake just to see what it was doing and took 2nd in both relays and it has shot a five shot in 18" at one mile.

3. As for the usefullness of a BR type LR rig vs a mag gun on a second shot. couple points need to be considered. A: A good first shot is what is prescribed for LR hunting and not quick second with a quick bolt handling for a running second shot so you supposed so your advantage of a mag gun is not factual. B: Guys with BR rigs can and do run 5 shots in under 20 seconds and 10 in 43-50 seconds, so speed of a second is not an issue as you believe.

3. As for the "incompatability of LR shooting and BR reloading techniques, wrong again. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif The exact same reloading techniques for comp will consistently give you sub moa groups in LR hunting/tactical comp guns. Most of the top tactical shooters are using BR reloading techniques only in no-neck turn chambers that are min SAAMI with match leades, same bullet sorting and brass prep techniques (You know all the things you say is not needed). They are using Neiseka actions with Borden bumps, Surgeons or others that are about .002-.004 looser in the bolt raceway but just as tight elsewhere. The trigger is 1.5 lbs vs 1.5-2 oz. Same barrels, same lug prep, firing pin/spring work, etc.

4. I know you were alluding to me with not answering simple questions as to why. Like I said, it does not matter if I cannot personally answer because that does not make it false. But I know what works and I routinely push the envelope to try new things, bullets, reloading techs to see if it works. On the flip side of that coin, you cannot personally answer the tecnical questions from your own technical research or personal knowledge either and that is substantiated by your gross misconceptions on BR and LR hunting for example. Can you answer technical questions on the G1-G7 curves on bullets or the SGy vs SGx axis based on your own technical research, yes or no? They how can you say with authority the things you do? You relied on someone elses info and simply quoted and ref us to it. So get off that horse because you cannot ride it either.

Now if you want to shoot flys, suggest you load em up and get on BR central and contact the Aussies that hang there. They have a 500m fly shoot contest all the time and they will invite you over. If you can hang with those boys and get your FLY SHOOT cap, OCW might work. Do not even think to ask if I have one, you would make me go dig it out.

If OCW is so dang good, then go to the guys who can prove it hands down as I have said repeatedly. Go to the 308 palma and Fclass F/TR guys like I suggested. When they start preaching it, I will listen and say you are on to something.

Anyway, I still say this is fun and great discussions. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

BH

 

[green 788]

4ked,

You said: "I am going to, for the first time, try a ladder test at their reccomendation. Now you are running head to head with guys that have been ladder testing for years with great results and you want them to give your OCW a try. Why should they? Honestly it sounds interesting but is not far removed from the "shoot groups with different powder charges" method."

If you'll carefully study what the OCW method is designed to accomplish, it is simply this: Three ladder tests, fired in round-robin fashion. And that's it. It has a significant statistical advantage over the results of a single ladder test, which I explain more in depth here--> http://home.earthlink.net/~dannewberry/dannewberrysoptimalchargeweightloaddevelopment/id1.html

I appreciate your advice and your patience in bearing with me here. I don't believe you're trying to be combative, and that you honestly don't yet see what OCW is all about. I'll do whatever I can to help.

Regarding photos of long kills with loads developed by the OCW method... I would respectfully have to say that if I were a shooter who had not heard of OCW load development before, I wouldn't be convinced by photos of long range kills. And I say this because, well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. I might however be convinced if I were to see some long range groups. I say "might" because you never know when some stosh is going to shoot a group at 200 yards and tell everyone it's an 800 yard group. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif But anyway, that's as much as I can offer, that is, photos of groups fired with OCW load recipes at different long ranges.

I've got many others, but I don't want to use up too much bandwidth here... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you'll do a google search on OCW load development, you will find that the method has become pretty widely known. Not all of the hits you'll see are from sites I have anything to do with. I've even seen my load development method being discussed on foreign sites, Swedish and Russian in particular. (Yeah, maybe they're giving me down the road, I don't know... I can't understand anything but my name and the acronym OCW). /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

You don't have to enter into OCW load development with the idea that you'll have a load that shoots well in other rifles. Use it simply as a way to conduct a thourough ladder test which factors out the errors caused by heating and/or fouling barrels, etc.

The long range groups shown above were fired with pretty much un-tweaked OCW load recipes which were first identified at 100 yards.

To both 4ked and Bounty Hunter: I had no idea so many folks were using bench guns to hunt long range. I stand corrected there. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif I think so long as the rifle is light enough to carry into the field without a hand-truck, you're still hunting... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Dan