Load development: Hornady podcasts on group size

[Okie_Poke]

Hello fellow handloaders. I listened/watched a couple of recent podcasts from the folks at Hornady and they got me thinking. I thought I’d share them here and see if they generated some thoughtful and enlightening discussion.

Here is part one:

And here is part two:

Fair warning: these are long podcasts, and the talking heads gore a few “sacred cows” of traditional load development. I’m going to oversimplify a bit and strip all the nuance out, but they claim in short that: (1) velocity nodes don’t exist, (2) seating depth doesn’t really matter, and (3) that you need to shoot a minimum of 20 shots at the same point of aim before you can make decent predictions about how a particular load will perform in the future. Interesting stuff. Supposedly based on a bunch of real world data, but I don’t think they’ve published or shared any data.

I’m interested in the reactions of the experienced handloaders here to Hornady’s “findings.” Are they just trying to sell bullets, or are the also onto something? I will say for my part that I’ve mostly given up trying to chase minor perceived differences in three-shot and five-shot groups because they don’t seem to be repeatable for me over time. But I don’t reload for serious matches and don’t have top shelf rifles or reloading equipment, so I’m curious to hear from the people who do. Can you prove, for example, that a seating depth change of less than .010” or a 0.5 grain powder charge change results in statistically better groups?

Please discuss and enlighten us. Thanks in advance!

 

[fxvr5]

The limitation of small round count groups for testing handguns has been discussed in the links below. Group size and round count data are provided.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/9/25/accuracy-testing-shortcomings-of-the-five-shot-group/
https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2021/2/17/accuracy-testing-how-many-shots-in-the-group

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Interesting discussion. I came around to the opposite side of practicality a long time ago. A fellow hunter who was really very successful in the field made the point that it doesn’t really matter how your rifle, handgun, load, or sighting method works for three, five or fifty shots, it’s how the combination works for one shot. You get one shot, if you’re lucky, before the game is over and you lost the shot or - worst case - you lost an animal you wounded because it’s 300yds of bramble and blackberries thickets away when you missed the flop shot. The real test is how well you can shoulder from resting and snapshot a hit inside the range of your load, with under six seconds to spot, shoulder, guesstimate distance, grip, hold for drift and rise/fall, and send the bullet. One shot in the envelope is a good load. Two shots is fine if you think it’s likely you’ll ever get a follow up but that first cold-barrel, standing, shoulder-arms shot - that’s the only one that counts.

 

[Okie_Poke]

The limitation of small round count groups for testing handguns has been discussed in the links below. Group size and round count data are provided.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/9/25/accuracy-testing-shortcomings-of-the-five-shot-group/
https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2021/2/17/accuracy-testing-how-many-shots-in-the-group

Those are interesting articles that I haven't read before, so thank you for posting. I'm curious what you do for load development, though. Do you shoot 3-shot, 5-shot, 10-shot or 20-shot groups? Something else? What variables are you playing with between different loads?

I don't think their observation that "small group sizes tell you very little" is all that groundbreaking, but I'm very interested in their conclusions that velocity nodes don't exist and seating depth doesn't matter all that much. For my target rifle, I had been trying (in vain in large part) to shoot velocity ladders to identify "flat spots" in an effort to reduce my velocity spread. I can see flat spots when I shoot ladders with 1, 3, and even 5 shots per charge weight. But the more I try it, the less confident I am that I'm actually finding a repeatable flat spot. I was wondering if it was my loading technique or if maybe my cheap Caldwell chronograph wasn't measuring accurately enough to give me repeatable results (or perhaps I am setting it up wrong/differently each time, which remains a possibility). But then these guys say that once you shoot enough shots at each powder charge, velocity average and SD both become a straight line from min to max and there aren't flat spots. If that's true, then chasing velocity nodes is pointless.

With respect to seating depth, I honestly haven't messed with it seriously in years. I find the cartridge base to ogive length at which a particular bullet is firmly into the lands in my barrel, then I back off of that 0.020" to 0.050," depending on the bullet and rifle, and just shoot that unless it doesn't work. But I also don't shoot VLDs. I'm very curious what others due on this front and how confident they are that what they do is actually better than an alternative.

 

[JFrank]

Brian Litz touch’s on the subject in one of his books, might be fine for shooting steel with a magazine fed 308 and plenty of barrel life but for a target shooter we are judged on group and score and while chronographs are a useful tool the best ES/SD do not ensure the smallest group. Added: flat spots do exist, overlap exists, and increasing powder doesn’t always mean point of impact shift. I only need three shots per increment to identify a node whether it’s powder or seating depth testing as we continue to tune through the changes in climate and altitude during the shooting season.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Interesting discussion. I came around to the opposite side of practicality a long time ago. A fellow hunter who was really very successful in the field made the point that it doesn’t really matter how your rifle, handgun, load, or sighting method works for three, five or fifty shots, it’s how the combination works for one shot. You get one shot, if you’re lucky, before the game is over and you lost the shot or - worst case - you lost an animal you wounded because it’s 300yds of bramble and blackberries thickets away when you missed the flop shot. The real test is how well you can shoulder from resting and snapshot a hit inside the range of your load, with under six seconds to spot, shoulder, guesstimate distance, grip, hold for drift and rise/fall, and send the bullet. One shot in the envelope is a good load. Two shots is fine if you think it’s likely you’ll ever get a follow up but that first cold-barrel, standing, shoulder-arms shot - that’s the only one that counts.

I agree with the premise that, when hunting, the first shot is all that matters and so you should practice accordingly. However, I'm not sure that translates well to load development. The point of load development for a hunting rifle, in my mind, is to develop a load in which I am confident that first shot is going to go reasonably close to exactly where I aim it. To know that, I have to shoot more than once. If I shoot one time and I hit the bullseye, I don't know whether that was a fluke or if that's where my load in my rifle is likely going to shoot on the next shot. But if I shoot at the same point of aim 10 times (or 20 or 30) and they all (or most all) clump around the bullseye to an acceptable degree, then I'm confident in the load and rifle. Now it's time to get off the bench and shoot from field positions. And then I agree---only the first shot counts.

All of that said, my load development for a hunting rifle is fairly abbreviated. I decide ahead of time what bullet I want to use (based on the intended game and range) and what velocity I'd like to hit for my intended purpose. I then pick a powder that will push that bullet to that velocity safely. I load a ladder, starting low and working up to max, to confirm velocity of various powder charges from my rifle and that I'm under max pressure. Then I pick a couple of powder charges around the velocity I want and shoot 9-10 of each (typically in 3 shot groups, letting the barrel cool between strings). If I have "good enough accuracy" for my purpose, I stop and pick one of them. If not, I change bullets or powder and try again. I decided to do it this for hunting rifles mostly because I'm the weak link in the system and need to spend time off the bench shooting from field positions. Once the load is "good enough," it's time to stop tinkering and start practicing so that I can make that one shot count when the time comes.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Brian Litz touch’s on the subject in one of his books, might be fine for shooting steel with a magazine fed 308 and plenty of barrel life but for a target shooter we are judged on group and score and while chronographs are a useful tool the best ES/SD do not ensure the smallest group. I only need three shots per increment to identify a node whether it’s powder or seating depth testing as we continue to tune through the changes in climate and altitude during the shooting season.

I haven't read any of Litz's books but have heard good things about them. I understand he's the ballistic wizard behind Applied Ballistics and that he works for Berger.

I'm curious in what increments you test powder charge and seating depth, what range you are testing them at, and what you are seeing on the target that makes you so confident you've found a node. I'm not doubting you here so much as I'm trying to learn. What are you seeing that lets you know that you've found a node? Does it work in production rifles too, or only in custom competition rigs? Thank you!

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I agree with the premise that, when hunting, the first shot is all that matters and so you should practice accordingly. However, I'm not sure that translates well to load development. The point of load development for a hunting rifle, in my mind, is to develop a load in which I am confident that first shot is going to go reasonably close to exactly where I aim it. To know that, I have to shoot more than once. If I shoot one time and I hit the bullseye, I don't know whether that was a fluke or if that's where my load in my rifle is likely going to shoot on the next shot. But if I shoot at the same point of aim 10 times (or 20 or 30) and they all (or most all) clump around the bullseye to an acceptable degree, then I'm confident in the load and rifle. Now it's time to get off the bench and shoot from field positions. And then I agree---only the first shot counts.

All of that said, my load development for a hunting rifle is fairly abbreviated. I decide ahead of time what bullet I want to use (based on the intended game and range) and what velocity I'd like to hit for my intended purpose. I then pick a powder that will push that bullet to that velocity safely. I load a ladder, starting low and working up to max, to confirm velocity of various powder charges from my rifle and that I'm under max pressure. Then I pick a couple of powder charges around the velocity I want and shoot 9-10 of each (typically in 3 shot groups, letting the barrel cool between strings). If I have "good enough accuracy" for my purpose, I stop and pick one of them. If not, I change bullets or powder and try again. I decided to do it this for hunting rifles mostly because I'm the weak link in the system and need to spend time off the bench shooting from field positions. Once the load is "good enough," it's time to stop tinkering and start practicing so that I can make that one shot count when the time comes.

Pretty close to what I do. I figure once in the kill zone is the rifle, twice in a row is the shooter, three times running is everything working correctly. I don’t get jazzed about bullseyes - nobody is scoring me and the opinion that counts is the freezer’s. But that’s just me. It’s really up to where your comfort zone is: how many shots how close together do you have to shoot before you’re confident in that combo of gun and ammo? For me that number is three - in a row. Not necessarily one right after the other.
A really good load is just as good in several guns. The best load of all is just as good in any gun. Those are more common than most people think when your only expectation is a kill zone shot at anywhere from 5 to 50 yards snap-shooting or 50 to 300 yards from a makeshift field support.
I think the Hornady guys were more concerned with holes in paper than meat in the freezer, though.

 

[kalielkslayer]

Short answer, they want to sell bullets.

In no way am I an expert in this. But I have successfully developed loads for all 7 of my hunting rifle, a couple have a deer/antelope load and an elk/moose load.

Just old school, how I was taught 35 years ago.

Find the bullet I want to shoot. Look in a couple of manuals for min/max of the powder I want to shoot. Determine length by either as long as the magazine will allow, or find the lands with a bullet and back off .010-.015. Load 4-5 shoot groups .3 grains apart, working up from middle of the min/max.

Most times I’ll see a tightening of the group then an opening of the group.

With 22-250 recently that happened at 37.7 gr H380. 38.0 was better, 38.3 was similar to 37.7.

I repeated those 3 loads with 5 shot groups and results were the same. I loaded 10 of the 38.0 and shot them at 200. Same hole groups so I was happy. Then I got the load centered on the bullseye at 200. Actually .25”’right and .25” high but with .5 MOA adjustments I left it.

Shot at 300, accuracy was adequate. 400 I was disappointed.

Not sure if it was me, it was getting late and light was fading. Or if the bullet wasn’t fully stabilized at 400? Need to repeat that when the weather improves.

That’s how I was taught.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Every gun is different. I have an Axis 6.5cm that doesn't care about seating depth. It's the only one I have that I can say that abou. My 110 in 6.5cm does care, as does every other rifle I own. I have the targets and data to prove it, but the only one I need to prove it to is me.

 

[Nature Boy]

Before the folks at Hornady start lecturing on the subject of load development they might be better served by focusing their time on how to make a more consistent bullet.

None of what they have to say matters one iota when their premium product has variation that looks like this…..



Here’s a couple of facts.

1. Regarding load development, most top competitive precision shooters would refute what Hornady is advocating.

2. Those same top competitors don’t use Hornady bullets for reasons that are as obvious as the picture posted above.

I like their products. I use Hornady bullets. I don’t use them when the application calls for consistent accuracy and I’m also not taking their recommendations on load development seriously. Not even a little bit.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Every gun is different. I have an Axis 6.5cm that doesn't care about seating depth. It's the only one I have that I can say that abou. My 110 in 6.5cm does care, as does every other rifle I own. I have the targets and data to prove it, but the only one I need to prove it to is me.

I quite agree you have nothing to prove to me or anyone but yourself. But you have me curious. Please indulge my contrarian, inquisitive nature with a follow-up question. I'll limit to 6.5 Creedmoor since I'm familiar with that cartridge and you mentioned it: what bullets do you shoot, and what changes in seating depth is your 110 sensitive too? Thank you!

 

[NMexJim]

Brian Litz touch’s on the subject in one of his books, might be fine for shooting steel with a magazine fed 308 and plenty of barrel life but for a target shooter we are judged on group and score and while chronographs are a useful tool the best ES/SD do not ensure the smallest group. Added: flat spots do exist, overlap exists, and increasing powder doesn’t always mean point of impact shift. I only need three shots per increment to identify a node whether it’s powder or seating depth testing as we continue to tune through the changes in climate and altitude during the shooting season.

I really like Litz's books although they can be heavy slogging at times. I mean we are talking about a member of the Applied Ballistic team; it's no wonder it's heavy.

I agree w/ SPJ's comments based on my experience. I will say that reduction in ES/SD is always a good thing from my perspective, but I've seen enough weirdness to know it's not always true. 3-shot, 5-shot or whatever, I think I've used them all at one time or another, and I'm still using 3.

My best approach has been the application of patience. I allow plenty of time between shots for cooling, and I use solid rests that are micro-adjustable. But, all of this does not discuss the care that needs to be given to brass preps and neck tension and all that other stuff. You get out what you put in and sometimes it still doesn't work.

 

[dartor]

Before the folks at Hornady start lecturing on the subject of load development they might be better served by focusing their time on how to make a more consistent bullet.

None of what they have to say matters one iota when their premium product has variation that looks like this…..

View attachment 1124114

Here’s a couple of facts.

1. Regarding load development, most top competitive precision shooters would refute what Hornady is advocating.

2. Those same top competitors don’t use Hornady bullets for reasons that are as obvious as the picture posted above.

I like their products. I use Hornady bullets. I don’t use them when the application calls for consistent accuracy and I’m also not taking their recommendations on load development seriously. Not even a little bit.

Holy crap, those suck. Now I'll have to check my 147grain ELD match bullets before loading them.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Here’s a couple of facts.

1. Regarding load development, most top competitive precision shooters would refute what Hornady is advocating.

2. Those same top competitors don’t use Hornady bullets for reasons that are as obvious as the picture posted above.

I like their products. I use Hornady bullets. I don’t use them when the application calls for consistent accuracy and I’m also not taking their recommendations on load development seriously. Not even a little bit.

Thank you for responding. Please indulge my contrarian, inquisitive nature and don't take this the wrong way. I'm inclined to believe you over someone trying to sell me something, but I want to explore this further with some follow-up questions. Please don't interpret this as me attacking or even disagreeing. I'm just inquiring and trying to learn a bit more here.

• Can you help me define "when the application calls for consistent accuracy"? Big game hunting past 200 yards? Varmint hunting? PRS? F-Class? ELR? All of the above? Maybe a better way of asking this question is at what accuracy standard does this kick in? Hornady bullets good down to 0.75 MOA, but if you need to get under 0.50 MOA look elsewhere?
• In part 2 of their podcast, the Hornady folks hedged quite a bit on their "findings" and seemed to say they were limited to basically their bullets in cartridges they helped design (6mm ARC and 6.5 Creedmoor, I believe were what they tested). At one point they seemed to suggest it would be interesting to see if they held up shooting Berger bullets in other chamber types (they didn't name Berger by name, but it was pretty obvious who they were talking about). Do you think the bullet shape matters that much to seating depth sensitivity? On one hand that's a silly question---Berger developed and markets its hybrid bullet on just that premise---but is it possible that Hornady's ELD-Ms are relatively insensitive to seating depth changes but Berger's VLDs, for example, are sensitive? If I'm not shooting VLDs or something very much like it, can I ignore seating depth and still consistently get sub-3/4 or even sub-1/2 MOA accuracy?
• What is your load development technique when precision matters? How many shots per group do you shoot before you feel confident concluding that Load A is better than Load B?

Again, I'm not attacking or even disagreeing. I've spent virtually all of my time reloading hunting ammunition for production rifles. I've only recently (in the last two years) purchased a "target" rifle (still production, but intended from the beginning to be for paper and steel rather than critters) and started trying to develop loads to shoot from it out to 600 yards. Reloading for precision disciplines is not my expertise. But I've kept a lot of notes and targets over the years reloading for hunting loads, and I've seen a lot of my "pet loads" shoot pretty average the next time out. I've always gotten more mileage out of changing bullets than I have varying seating depth (again, in hunting rifles with hunting bullets). So I'm quite curious about ways to get better at handloading for more precision applications and what things are worth the effort and which are a waste of time.

Thank you for sharing your experience and expertise.

 

[Hugger-4641]

I quite agree you have nothing to prove to me or anyone but yourself. But you have me curious. Please indulge my contrarian, inquisitive nature with a follow-up question. I'll limit to 6.5 Creedmoor since I'm familiar with that cartridge and you mentioned it: what bullets do you shoot, and what changes in seating depth is your 110 sensitive too? Thank you!

Lapua Scenar 139, Hornady 143 ElDx, Hornady 140 bthp, Sierra Gameking 140 TGK are some of the bullets I've used. In the Axis the groups didn't change much no matter what as far as oal, but charge weight did matter.
I'm away from home at the moment, I'd have to look in my journal for the oals I tested, but IRC, I had three distinct nodes with the eldx in my 110 that were good: one right around 2.83 which is close to the factory length for ELDX, one around 2.72, and one that was close to jam, but I don't recall that length off top of my head.
The Scenars liked a longer jump, I think it was around 2.7 also. I don't remember what the 140bthp and the TGK's liked, but the ELDx had the best grouping of the hunting bullets, so that's what I chose to run with.

 

[Nature Boy]

Can you help me define "when the application calls for consistent accuracy"?

I’m specifically speaking in regards to precision rifle competitions. My application is F Class, however, any competitive format where small variations make a big difference in where you place can’t tolerate bullets as inconsistent as Hornady’s “match” bullets.

A google search on the subject of Hornady’s inconsistent bullet dimensions will demonstrate it’s a well known problem.

What is your load development technique when precision matters? How many shots per group do you shoot before you feel confident concluding that Load A is better than Load B?

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rifle-load-development-methods-compared.851637/

 

[Okie_Poke]

I’m specifically speaking in regards to precision rifle competitions. My application is F Class,


https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rifle-load-development-methods-compared.851637/

Thanks!

 

[Kaldor]

Before the folks at Hornady start lecturing on the subject of load development they might be better served by focusing their time on how to make a more consistent bullet.

None of what they have to say matters one iota when their premium product has variation that looks like this…..

View attachment 1124114

Here’s a couple of facts.

1. Regarding load development, most top competitive precision shooters would refute what Hornady is advocating.

2. Those same top competitors don’t use Hornady bullets for reasons that are as obvious as the picture posted above.

I like their products. I use Hornady bullets. I don’t use them when the application calls for consistent accuracy and I’m also not taking their recommendations on load development seriously. Not even a little bit.

Point 1. I absolutely agree. All of those things matter that they are discounting and Im no pro, but I can see them too.
Point 2. Seen this one first hand myself. Its kinda annoying.
I shoot their bullets too, but not in situations where I require absolute accuracy. Hunting and shooting steels are my primary uses.

I like Hornady as a company, and I think they do some great things for the shooting sports as a whole, but I think what they are saying is misleading.

 

[Ru4real]

I’ll agree with those stating Hornady doesn’t make the best bullets. Hornady only has one advantage.

In all other instances Speer, Sierra, etc. make better inexpensive cup and core bullets which is the only area Hornady can compete.

Hornady’s one advantage? Flex tip. So bullets like 160gr FTX in tube magazine 30-30 or pointed bullets in revolver to help trajectory a bit.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Eric Cortina interviewed Bryan Litz on his podcast recently. Video here. Bryan had some similar observations to the Hornady folks, though he seemed to qualify his answers a bit more. Looks like Eric is going to go on Litz’s podcast to discuss barrel tuners and that Eric is going to interview Jayden Quinlan from Hornady before long. Should be interesting if you’re in to that sort of thing and have an hour or two to burn listening to a podcast.

 

[Kaldor]

Eric Cortina interviewed Bryan Litz on his podcast recently. Video here. Bryan had some similar observations to the Hornady folks, though he seemed to qualify his answers a bit more. Looks like Eric is going to go on Litz’s podcast to discuss barrel tuners and that Eric is going to interview Jayden Quinlan from Hornady before long. Should be interesting if you’re in to that sort of thing and have an hour or two to burn listening to a podcast.

I sat thru that interview, excellent stuff.
For the most part I agree with Bryan, especially on the "+/- 30% overall group size" argument he brought up, even though some shooting disciplines might be closer to 10-20% group size variance. Im not too proud to admit, I see +/- 30% all the time variance in my group sizes