Bullets matter!

JEBruns said:
I know everyone knows that, but here is a good example. All 3 rows are using the same powder (H335) charges, 5 of each charge for each bullet. First row is 52gr SMK's. 2nd row is RMR bulk Hornady 55gr FMJ-BT with cannelure. 3rd row is RMR bulk 55gr FMF-BT. All shot out of a new Tikka T3X Super Varmint in a Whiskey-3 chassis. Groups shot right to left with the highest charges on the right.

Some decent groups in the first 2 rows I'll focus in on more. But I found it interesting how much the 3rd row opened up. I did let the gun cool down between ladders. And I shot a control group of a known very accurate load at the end. The control group was very tight at just under .300.

EDIT: 100 yards, .223

View attachment 1199919
Click to expand...
I see what you doing but may I suggest that one should run charge ladders with different powders using a chosen bullet that defines the mission while judging the overall size/performance of each group of charges.
For example, the bullets tested may not be appropriate for the powder or the mission leading to one to chasing tails.
In other words, pick a bullet first then develop a load starting with finding a powder combination the barrel likes.
J
 
Just to add three more cents.
Charge ladders can be as simple as one shot per charge and pick a charge inside the cluster. Or send two or three using one point of aim and color the bullet tips to easily identify the hits on paper, choosing the overlapping charges is a sound approach as the rounds will normally repeat the point of impact.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2380.jpeg
    IMG_2380.jpeg
    82.5 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_2461.jpeg
    IMG_2461.jpeg
    68.9 KB · Views: 10
  • IMG_2458.jpeg
    IMG_2458.jpeg
    87.8 KB · Views: 8
  • IMG_2459.jpeg
    IMG_2459.jpeg
    73 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
JEBruns said:
Ladder development might burn more bullets, but has brought me some great (or at least what *I* consider great), consistent, small grouping loads.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not trying to say anything at all to discredit the fact you've made small shooting loads in the past, and as I mentioned above, I'm NOT saying that "MY way is right and what you are doing is wrong," but what I would HOPE is that your statement "I'm always willing to learn," is true, because what I'm TRYING to describe is really, really simple, and it really eliminates a large mistake many, many, many of us make in our experimental method.

I think we'd all agree on the fundamental truth that if we shoot 5 groups of 5 shots with the same load - ANY load, we would get 5 different group sizes, and one would be smallest, and one would be largest. Are they distinct? Yes. Are they different? No.

But when we shoot the same dispersion between groups in a test with some intentional change, we suddenly assume that EVERY distinction in group size is important.

So why are we all so ready to assume that ONE small group within a test like this is really an indication of "better" than ONE larger group? (Hornady did a series of podcasts on this last year, I wanna say episode numbers in the low 50's if you're interested and have a few hours to kill), and @denton has described these details multiple times on this forum). When we end up with a bunch of groups which are roughly the same size, but ONE slightly smaller - why do we so readily believe something is RIGHT for that load and something is WRONG for the other loads which were slightly larger?

For example - compare the leftmost, smallest group in the top row to the 2nd group from right (and really the rightmost group too). The 2nd from right is much larger, but only because of ONE flyer - the other 4 shots are as tight or tighter than the leftmost group - what if the 6th shot of the smaller group would have been a flyer? What if that ONE flyer in the 2nd from right group hadn't flown out? If you shoot both of those loads in your next round of testing, what evidence do you have to KNOW that 5 groups of each of those two charges would always shoot smaller for the leftmost charge and always shoot larger for the 2nd from right?

We WANT to believe the groups are different because we made the charge weights different. We WANT to see trends and we WANT to see differences... But can you prove that smallest group is ACTUALLY better than the others? What is more likely, based on these targets alone, is that you could pick any or all of the charges in the top row and be just as likely to shoot the same average group size for 5 groups of 5 shots.

In a manner of speaking, the methods we all used for a long, long time have worked largely in spite of the inherent confirmation bias and weak experimental design - BECAUSE - we are looking for a needle in a stack of needles, rather than seeking a needle in a haystack.

(This principle also does explain why so many folks will pick a charge weight and think they're going the right direction, then say things later like "I don't know why, but the load just fell apart," when the rest of its load development looks like the larger groups on the page instead of the smaller. We gain confidence from ONE small group that it will always shoot small, but then we're baffled when it doesn't).
 
Every time I read one of these discussions it always strikes me that the one thing that is always overlooked or completely ignored if the aspect of the human element.

None on use are working up loads from a fixed position repeatable mechanical rest. At best some are shooting from a led sled but I seriously doubt the greater majority are even shooting from that.

I am now doing most of my testing between 100 and 200 yards, because of my skill set I do not trust my own ability to test at 300yds and feel confident of the results. Besides I do not have the facilities to shoot past 300yds.

Next I probably shoot more rounds than are needed to develop loads but I find it also serves another purpose as it provides much needed trigger time. Will add that over the past couple years I have been told and it has proven true that the smallest shot group is not always the best one.

BTW I am currently involved with a new rifle in a new caliber and am very curious to find what it likes or even if I will like it! New bullets, new powders, larger cases!
 
kmw1954 said:
At best some are shooting from a led sled but I seriously doubt the greater majority are even shooting from that.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I'd bet HEAVILY on many of our experienced shooters here at THR outshooting anyone which IS using a Lead Sled.

With a little more time behind this new rifle and getting more comfortable behind your 223, I'd bet you'll be one of them, if you aren't already.
 
Varminterror said:
In fairness, I'd bet HEAVILY on many of our experienced shooters here at THR outshooting anyone which IS using a Lead Sled.

With a little more time behind this new rifle and getting more comfortable behind your 223, I'd bet you'll be one of them, if you aren't already.
Click to expand...
As you know, I'm working on it!
Not to the level of a few of you all but I am hard at work. Still I don't believe that most here are working to get to this level..
I also believe it was you and a couple others that convinced me to more trust my targets and not so much the chrono at these distances. It worked!!
 
JFrank said:
I see what you doing but may I suggest that one should run charge ladders with different powders using a chosen bullet that defines the mission while judging the overall size/performance of each group of charges.
For example, the bullets tested may not be appropriate for the powder or the mission leading to one to chasing tails.
In other words, pick a bullet first then develop a load starting with finding a powder combination the barrel likes.
J
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that's normally what I do. But I decided to flip the script this time, since I've been having such a hard time finding what *I* consider a good load with H335. I had not really given H335 a fair shake in my new Tikka, so thought I'd cast a wider net.

To further explain, I do not compete with rifle. I thoroughly enjoy reloading and finding those really accurate combos for my guns. Finding them is a bit anti-climatic though. Then I'll go off and find "that" load for a new bullet and/or powder. I live for the hunt, not the kill, so to speak.
 
JFrank said:
choosing the overlapping charges is a sound approach as the rounds will normally repeat the point of impact.
Click to expand...
That is certainly not always my experience, as shown in the photo in post #1. Especially obvious in the 3rd row. Same POA, wildly different POI's. At least what I consider wildly different.
 
Varminterror said:
Don't get me wrong here - I'm not trying to say anything at all to discredit the fact you've made small shooting loads in the past, and as I mentioned above, I'm NOT saying that "MY way is right and what you are doing is wrong," but what I would HOPE is that your statement "I'm always willing to learn," is true, because what I'm TRYING to describe is really, really simple, and it really eliminates a large mistake many, many, many of us make in our experimental method.

I think we'd all agree on the fundamental truth that if we shoot 5 groups of 5 shots with the same load - ANY load, we would get 5 different group sizes, and one would be smallest, and one would be largest. Are they distinct? Yes. Are they different? No.

But when we shoot the same dispersion between groups in a test with some intentional change, we suddenly assume that EVERY distinction in group size is important.

So why are we all so ready to assume that ONE small group within a test like this is really an indication of "better" than ONE larger group? (Hornady did a series of podcasts on this last year, I wanna say episode numbers in the low 50's if you're interested and have a few hours to kill), and @denton has described these details multiple times on this forum). When we end up with a bunch of groups which are roughly the same size, but ONE slightly smaller - why do we so readily believe something is RIGHT for that load and something is WRONG for the other loads which were slightly larger?

For example - compare the leftmost, smallest group in the top row to the 2nd group from right (and really the rightmost group too). The 2nd from right is much larger, but only because of ONE flyer - the other 4 shots are as tight or tighter than the leftmost group - what if the 6th shot of the smaller group would have been a flyer? What if that ONE flyer in the 2nd from right group hadn't flown out? If you shoot both of those loads in your next round of testing, what evidence do you have to KNOW that 5 groups of each of those two charges would always shoot smaller for the leftmost charge and always shoot larger for the 2nd from right?
Click to expand...
First, thanks for taking the time. But I do consider what you are saying about "the flyer" not outright ruling out a particular load. I note it with a "needs more testing" label in my load book.
Varminterror said:
We WANT to believe the groups are different because we made the charge weights different. We WANT to see trends and we WANT to see differences... But can you prove that smallest group is ACTUALLY better than the others? What is more likely, based on these targets alone, is that you could pick any or all of the charges in the top row and be just as likely to shoot the same average group size for 5 groups of 5 shots.
Click to expand...
Except for the middle target on the first row, I think all of the 52gr SMK results were decent. My point in posting this was the difference in bullets row-to-row.
Varminterror said:
In a manner of speaking, the methods we all used for a long, long time have worked largely in spite of the inherent confirmation bias and weak experimental design - BECAUSE - we are looking for a needle in a stack of needles, rather than seeking a needle in a haystack.

(This principle also does explain why so many folks will pick a charge weight and think they're going the right direction, then say things later like "I don't know why, but the load just fell apart," when the rest of its load development looks like the larger groups on the page instead of the smaller. We gain confidence from ONE small group that it will always shoot small, but then we're baffled when it doesn't).
Click to expand...
Sure, that's possible. But once I find what I consider a good load, I test it pretty regular. If the results change, I'm okay, back to testing! Like finding out how much impact summer temps vs winter temps can have, how wind effects some bullets more than others, etc. I love the chase, but will study up on different methods when I get a little time. And again, thanks for the discussion.
 
kmw1954 said:
I am now doing most of my testing between 100 and 200 yards, because of my skill set I do not trust my own ability to test at 300yds and feel confident of the results.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this. What changes from two to three hundred that you can't shoot a group with confidence? It seems to me the further your target is, the easier to discern changes in whatever load you're testing.
 
Last edited:
MonkTx said:
I didn't understand this. What changes from two to three hundred that you can't shoot a group with confidence? It seems to me the further your target is, the easier to discern changes in whatever load your testing.
Click to expand...

In some cases, it may be the limits of the firearm. Where I can shoot peep sights fairly well to 300yds or more, some people can't. Open sights, scopes, lack of a facility to properly shoot those distances, etc, etc.
 
MonkTx said:
I don't understand this. What changes from two to three hundred that you can't shoot a group with confidence? It seems to me the further your target is, the easier to discern changes in whatever load you're testing.
Click to expand...
How about because at 300yds I have a harder time discerning if it is load or me that is off. On certain days I can shoot a decent group at 300yds and others I might as well pack it up and go home. Yes same rifle, same loads, same shooter. Highly different results. So sorry if you can't understand this.
 
JFrank said:
Agreed’ always test while using wind flags as they help interpret what you see on paper.
Click to expand...
Not a matter of reading the wind. It is a matter of reading the load. I do not shoot load developments when there are wild crazy wind gusts going on. Just do not find that I need to ad that variable into the mix.
 
kmw1954 said:
How about because at 300yds I have a harder time discerning if it is load or me that is off. On certain days I can shoot a decent group at 300yds and others I might as well pack it up and go home. Yes same rifle, same loads, same shooter. Highly different results. So sorry if you can't understand this.
Click to expand...
It was not not my intent rile you. Was just asking an honest question.
 
Last edited:
Some days we just have unfavorable conditions to collect good data, but we rarely have dead calm days and we compete in all conditions. When you see your groups shooting round one day then going vertical towards 10:00 the next day, how do you interpret that ? Do you just figure your load isn’t any good or you’re not a good shooter ? Just wondering how you approach that.
 
Last edited:
JFrank said:
Some days we just have unfavorable conditions to collect good data, but we rarely have dead calm days and we compete in all conditions. When you see your groups shooting round one day then going vertical towards 10:00 the next day, how do you interpret that ?
Click to expand...
Headwind/tailwind effect is negligible isn't it? At least at normal earth wind speeds. I'm thinking sunlight conditions changed.

On second thought, that would shift the group, not string it out.
 
MonkTx said:
Headwind/tailwind effect is negligible isn't it? At least at normal earth wind speeds. I'm thinking sunlight conditions changed.
Click to expand...
Here’s a good example, tell me what’s going in here and how to move forward ?

@kmw1954 this may interest you ~ which load do you go with ?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2448.jpeg
    IMG_2448.jpeg
    75.1 KB · Views: 11
MonkTx said:
It was not not my intent rule you. Was just asking an honest question.
Click to expand...
Not upset in the lest. But it really shouldn't be hard to understand and I thought I explained my reasoning in that post. At the same time I agree that added distance can show flaws in a load just as it can show flaws in a shooting technique.
 
JFrank said:
@kmw1954 this may interest you ~ which load do you go with ?
Click to expand...
First I would have to assume the shooting conditions would be the same that I normally test in, meaning little to no wind. Then for me it would be the load farthest to the right as it has the most consistent POI.
 
MonkTx said:
I don't understand this. What changes from two to three hundred that you can't shoot a group with confidence? It seems to me the further your target is, the easier to discern changes in whatever load you're testing.
Click to expand...
The increase in external factors changes a lot with range... having multiple wind directions in the bullet path due to terrain changes is huge depending on your location. I used to shoot in desert canyons and mountains and multiple wind directions made me want to pull out what hair I had left. This is definitely not applicable to all but was very much to me.
 
@kmw1954 @MonkTx
In reality they are all in the same node, the all shoot the same.
Group one very calm.
Group two ( 31.4 ) the wind picked up from 1:00 blowing the rounds up and to the left.
Group three (31.5) the wind changed to 12:00 pushing me down slightly stringing V
Group four again was almost zero wind.
If I hadn’t had flags out perhaps I would mis interpret a good load as unstable and walk away scratching my head.
 
Remember on post #27 I attached the original charge ladder with this combination that showed a cluster of shots from 31.4-31.6 , nothing had changed but a slight wind pushing a small caliber around.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2383.jpeg
    IMG_2383.jpeg
    76.2 KB · Views: 7
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Range Report: Rem 700 in 308- 150gr Sierra HPBT
Replies
3
Views
428
45ACPUSER
4
J
  • Locked
AR powder troubles
Replies
15
Views
1K
J_McLeod
J
N
  • Locked
Impressive ladder test - Hodgdon Superformance in 30-06
Replies
20
Views
6K
Varminterror
Varminterror
A
  • Locked
school me on heavier bullets.
Replies
23
Views
973
horsey300
H
PO2Hammer
Found a new 9mm carbine bullet - the Match Winner.
Replies
16
Views
685
Beancounter81
B
Back
Top