OCW method , my first honest try . Come take a look and help .

Status
Not open for further replies.
I recently did a OCW test using CFE223 and 69gr Sierra TMK. Best load was 25.1 using LC brass giving me 1/3" group at the 200yd.

Fast forward a couple months, and I performed a ladder test at 400yd using the same components. My accuracy node was 25.0-25.6.

I use 25.2gr and it regularly gives me 1.5"-2" groups at 400yd.

My point is, it has nothing to do shooting a OCW at 200yd. It has to do with not doing such large jumps in the charges.

In my OCW test, I went in .2gr. In the ladder test I went in .3gr. I was able to find the same accuracy in both because I didn't jump over a possible great load.
 
In my OCW test, I went in .2gr. In the ladder test I went in .3gr. I was able to find the same accuracy in both because I didn't jump

.2 to .3 would be what I'd think appropriate for the small 223 case

223 max charges in the low to mid 20's = .2gr
6mm BR max charges in the low 30's = .3gr
308 max charges in the low to mid 40's = .4gr
30-06 max charges in the low 50's = .5gr
338 lapua mag max charges close to 100gr = close to 1 full grain increments

If one is willing to except/believe the increments in which you go up depend on the cartridge you are shooting . Then the above would seem a reasonable graduation in charges in comparison to the cartridges .

Could you imagine running this test with a 50 BMG that has a max charge of 230gr . Reduce that by 10% and work up . So that means you have 23gr worth of charges you plan to work up in .3gr increments . That's 230 rounds and 7.5lbs of powder . Well that sure shoots the whole , find your load in 20rds and save a bunch a money theory .

Now that is the extreme example but goes to the same point . If you believe a large case can have a greater spread in the increments . At what point do the increments in which you can go up , are proportionate to the cartridge/powder charge size ?
 
Last edited:
I do the same for my .308 as well and had like results as my .223 results.

In .308 I use .3gr.

The question is, do you want to come up with great results at 200yd when doing OCW test, or not good results?
 
I've done 2 OCW tests now and can't correlate the results into an accurate load. I'll probably give it one more try
 
I went ahead and went with 43gr and started loading at different COAL . I also loaded for a complete ladder test but with different primers and cases . The ladder test will be for my cheapest components for a true long range plinking load .
 
Your 4/10ths increments for that .308 Win load has about 3/8 inch less drop for each higher charge at 200 yards.

How does that correlate to each shot hole's height above the aiming point for a given charge weight?
 
These are the measurements of the center of each 3 shot group from POA . I was aiming at the center circle .

41.4 is a straight line so I'm not sure where the center is ?
41.8 - 2.340" high x .040" left
42.2 - 2.040" high x .610" right
42.6 - 3.040" high x .520" right
43.0 - 2.825" high x .255" right
43.4 - 3.045" high x .725" right

So 42.6 through 43.4 has a total vertical swing of .220 or about 1/4" from point of aim to centers .
 
I used On Target software (http://www.ontargetshooting.com/) to plot your six groups:

25617931586_0a9d60fcbf_b.jpg

Dashed line from center aiming point up to group center's shown for each load.

Charge ... group center height above point of aim

41.4 ... 1.658"
41.8 ... 2.179"
42.2 ... 2.489"
42.6 ... 3.513"
43.0 ... 2.593"
43.4 ... 3.375"

I'd bet if you ran that test again with the same loads using 3-shot groups, the data would be very different.

I've shot enough 3-shot groups of the same load at 200 yards to see their sizes and centers' distance from point of aim are not all the same. A 3X to 4X spread is typical. Here's a plot of ninety 3-shot groups; 270 shots in all. Are their sizes all the same and centers at the same place?

LC65NM270shottestgroupat600yards.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bart :

Your preaching to the choir here . My standard routine for load development is 5 and 10 round groups . That's based on no real small part on what you and others have said in the past . This was just my attempt at trying this method . I'm also going to do a ladder test and my traditional load development . I'd like to see if they all give me the same load .

I'm betting the OCW and ladder test will likely result in charges that are very close . I how ever believe my tradition test will have a completely different outcome .

One of the things the OCW is supposed to do is save money by reducing the amount of shots it takes to find a load . I'm at 41 shots right now . 21 for the first part of the test and I have 20 more loaded . I have 4 sets of 5 rounds loaded at 43gr with each set having a different COAL in .010 increments . I have not shot those yet . I may do that today or Friday .

I picked 43gr because the directions say to use 3 of the groups to base your most stable load . My by hand measurements showed that to be 42.6 through 43.4 . Your measurements say something a little different but I feel the fact two of the three are very close to one another and both are sub moa . That and the one that's a little different in in the middle of the two consistent groups leads me to believe I may have pulled the lower shot in the 43gr group .

All speculation but I went with the middle charge as my OCW . There are other factors that go into my reasoning for 43gr . Over the years 43.5 gr of 4895 and 4064 seems to come up a lot as good charge weights for the 168gr match bullets . Then there's the fact I am using LC brass and the "possibility" of the internal volume being slightly less "could" be the reason 43.0gr is showing as my OCW rather then the 43.5gr likely should . Again just speculation but that's been my reasoning to date .
 
Last edited:
I've shot 41 to 44 grains of IMR 4895 and 4064 under 168's in several .308 Win barrels and saw no significant change in accuracy through 300 yards for each powder. 4064 shot groups somewhat smaller, but it's always been a more accurate powder in .308 Win ammo with bullets from 168 to 190 grains in my tests. Tests were 20-shot groups with each charge weight in 1/2 grain increments.

I think that if 20-shot test groups with each of your loads were used, they would all be about the same size. Unless your own variables change their sizes.

'Twould be nice to repeat that test with the same loads and 3-shot groups. If the results (group sizes and center locations) were within 10% of the first one, it's a statistically significant test.
 
Last edited:
Im not trying to be a smart aleck here and Im not sure about your specific situation, but sometimes Ive found going back to square one and starting over proves to be the best idea for myself. And it never really hurts anything, just contributes experience to the whole deal.
 
but sometimes Ive found going back to square one and starting over proves to be the best idea for myself.

Can you be more specific as to why you think that may be the best course of action in this case ? I'm personally fine with where I'm at in this . The only real confusing part is all the recommendations that go against the original method of the test .

I have went back and reread the directions of Dan Neberry's OCW test . The only thing I've done that was not correct was shooting at 200yds . I how ever feel that has no impact on the test and if anything it helps to identify the vertical stringing . This test method , at least the first part is only to find the charge weights with the least vertical stringing . Wind has no factor in this because I could of had a 90* 10mph wind and that would not effect the vertical string .

It should be noted that I like to test things . I'm not doing all this because I'm actually looking for a load persay . I'm only trying it to see if it works for me . I then will run other test and see if they result in the same charges or at least very close . Although I have , I don't like to try something once and think that one result was the best or worst thing ever . I'll often run multiple test to be sure my first results were accurate . I've had no problem finding loads using a traditional 5 shot load development methods and would likely not have a problem with these components . I thought I'd try the OCW method with a completely new bullet and weight I've never used before . I felt this would be a more blind test seeing how I've never worked up loads with this weight bullet , powder , primer , case combo .

Just in case some of you have not actually read the complete directions here they are . Again this was/is my attempt at the actual method not a hybrid of it .

Dan Newberry said:
1. Decide on the bullet you want to use.

2. Choose a powder. This is probably the most important step in the whole process. As a rule, you should choose the slowest burning powder practical. There seem to be plenty of exceptions here, so if you have it on good authority that a slightly faster powder works well with the bullet/cartridge combo you're using, feel free to choose that powder. A couple of examples would be IMR 4350 in the 30-06 and IMR 3031 in the .243 Winchester. An aside: When in doubt, consult the Nosler manual for their "most accurate powder tested." That powder nearly always gives good results in the application listed.

3. Consult at least three load data sources for maximum charge weight for the powder you've selected. Powder manufacturers are the most reliable source. You must then decide on what your maximum charge will be.

4. Back away from the maximum charge by 7 to 10 percent, and load one test round with this charge. Add 2% to the charge weight, and load another cartridge with that charge. Load a third test cartridge with the next 2% graduation. You will use these three cartridges for sighters, and more importantly to determine pressure tolerance in your individual rifle.

5. Add another 2% or so to the charge level used in cartridge #3 of step 4, and load three rounds with this charge weight. Add .7% to 1% to this charge, and load three more. Add that same graduation again, and load three more. Continue adding the chosen graduation until you have moved ONE increment above your chosen maximum powder charge.

6. The seating depth for all test loads should of course be the same. I normally seat the bullet a caliber's depth into the case, or to magazine length--whichever is shorter. I don't believe loading to approach the lands is necessary, or even desirable in most situations. So long as the bullets are seated straight, with as little runout as possible, the advantages of loading close to the lands are largely over-stated. This said, be certain that the seating depth you choose does not cram the bullet into the lands. Stay at least .020" or so off the lands for these excercises.

7. The primer brand you choose is entirely up to you. Use magnum primers only with magnum chamberings, as their added pressure may distort the OCW conclusions on standard chamberings. One exeption here would be with low density loads, as I believe that magnum primers improve ignition consistency in loads where the powder only fills 85 percent or less of the case.

8. At the range, you should set up 5 to 7 targets at 100 yards. The number of targets you use will depend on how many "sets" of cartridges you loaded. Be sure the targets are identical, and level. I like to use a simple black square, drawn on a white background with a large felt tip marker. I draw the square about 3/4" (interior dimension) for my 9 power scope setting. This allows a "tight fit" of the crosshairs in the square, and thus a repeatable sight picture. For higher power scopes, draw the square smaller, and vice versa.

9. You can also put up one "sighter" target, and use the initial reduced rounds to get the POI on paper, as close to the bullseye as possible.

10. Your barrel should of course be clean before starting. Depending on the number of rounds you will fire, you may decide that it is necessary to clean half way through the string, fire a couple foulers, and allow a couple of minutes to cool before continuing. With custom barrels, you may be able to fire 25 shots or more before fouling begins spoiling group sizes. With factory barrels, I wouldn't fire more than 15 to 18 shots before cleaning... This is all relative, of course.

11. After you have fired the sighters and confirmed that there are no pressure signs (hard bolt lift, flattened primers, etc.) you allow the barrel to cool for an adequate amount of time (use common sense--the hotter it is outside, the longer it will need to cool) you will then fire your first shot from the first group of the graduated charges. You fire this shot at target number 1.

12. Allow the barrel to cool, then fire a shot from the second graduation at target number 2. Wait for cooling of the barrel, then fire a shot from the third graduation at target number 3. Continue this "round robin" sequence until you have been through all of the targets three times. At this point you will have a three shot group on each of the targets.

13. It is assumed that you are an experienced reloader, and that you know to watch for pressure signs on each of the increasing charges. Fire the subsequent charge only if there are no pressure signs on the previous charge. You can safely fire the heaviest charge you loaded so long as the next charge under it showed no pressure signs. This "heaviest charge" should be about 1% over your selected maximum charge, but will be safe so long as the next lowest graduation showed no pressure signs.

14. Triangulate the groups. This means to connect all three shots in a triangular form, and determine the center of the group, and plot that point on the target. Measure this point's distance and direction from the bullseye, and record the information somewhere on the target. Do this for all of the targets. If you have a called flyer, you should discount that shot, or replace it in the group if you have an additional round loaded with that charge.

15. You will now look for the three groups which come the closest to hitting the same POI (point of impact) on the targets. The trend of the groups should be obvious, normally going from low and favoring one side, to high and favoring the other side. But along the progression, there should be a string of at least three groups that all hit the target in the same relative point.

16. After you have carefully measured group sizes and distances and directions from the bullseye, you will know which three groups come the closest to hitting the target in the same POI. You now choose the powder charge which represents the center of this string. For example, if 34.7, 35.0, and 35.3 grains all grouped about 1.5 inches high, and about 3/4 of an inch right of the bullseye, you would choose the 35.0 grain charge as your OCW (optimal charge weight). This charge will allow 34.7 and 35.3 grain charges to group right with it. This will be a very "pressure tolerant" or "resilient" load.

17. Remember, don't get "bowled over" by a tiny group which falls outside the OCW zone. You can tune any of the groups to be tiny with bullet seating depth changes. After you have determined the OCW, you may want to try seating the bullets deeper or longer in .010" increments to see where your particular rifle does its best. I have often found that OCW recipes are so reliable that seating depth alterations--especially for hunting cartridges--often don't seem necessary.

18. Your next step would be to confirm your load recipe at the maximum range you will expect to use it. Load one round about 1% below, and another round about 1% above the OCW charge, and fire a three shot group with these two charges plus the standard charge at the maximum range you will require the load to be accurate at. You should note MOA, or very close to MOA grouping...

19. The OCW load development plan works best with rifles and shooters that are actually capable of MOA accuracy. If your rifle has not shown a propensity for reasonable accuracy, you may want to have it corrected before wasting time and material with additional load developement. If you are not confident that you are at a level where you can shoot consistent MOA groups, you may want to hold off on intricate load development until your skills are better honed. Lots of practice with a scoped .22 LR is invaluable...

20. I would sincerely recommend using shooting glasses during the firing sequences of ANY load testing. You can never be too careful here... And please know that anytime you embark on load development, you're basically on your own. Just like any provider of load data or development instructions, I must mention that I accept no responsibility whatsoever for any occurrences which are outside the realm of your expectations...
 
Last edited:
I went back and re-measured 42.6 through 43.4 . Note that my centers are in about the same places as yours Bart . My 42.6 is exact , my 43.0 is a tad higher , my 43.4 is a tad higher and a bit more right . When I say a tad . they look to be about a 1/16 or so difference .

42.6 = 3.0465

43.0 = 2.8100

43.6 = 3.1085

For a total vertical spread of .2985" measured to the centers of the groups at 200yds . Which is .14925 MOA or well under a 1/4" at 100yds very close to 1/8" at 100yds . I'm not sure I would have noticed that spread if I'd ran this test at 100yds .
 
Last edited:
If you're confident that a repeat of the test with 3 shots per charge weight would yield results within 10% of the first one for group center height above aiming point and group size, you're better at statistics than I am.
 
No that's not what I'm saying . I'm saying other then using a better rest the test was ran to my satisfaction per the directions . That's what I meant by an honest test . I've tried this test before a couple time but not to the letter . This one was to follow the instructions to the letter which I've already explained where I differed and why I feel it did not effect the results . It goes with out saying 5 is better then 3 , 10 better then 5 , 20 better then 10 etc etc .

I've had many suggestions as to how to do it different .

Been told to use more shots per charge . I agree that would be better but then you'd likely never save money as this is supposed to do ,

Been told to use smaller increments in charge weight . I stuck to the directions there and also believe if I'm moving in really small increments . It goes against the whole theory of the method .

Been told to shoot the whole load spectrum low to high consecutively let barrel cool then repeat but backwards high to low then again low to high .

There are a few others I can't think of off the top of my head . Everyone of those goes directly against the actual directions . I'm not saying I disagree with any of those or that they would not likely result in a better test result . How ever if I were to do all three would I be giving the test an honest try or really just be doing some other method of load development ?

Remember this is a test I'm conducting to see if this method will work for me . I see this going one of two ways . It ultimately works and I find a great stable load that I can have a +/- charge weight of .4gr for a total of a .8gr swing that has no effect on accuracy or POI . Or this just plain old does not work for me . I will see soon enough . I'm really only 1/3 to 1/2 way through the testing . It would be unfair of me to draw any conclusions yet .
 
Last edited:
I think your testing is pretty good. Like you I recently tried a new method (ladder test) and I can't tell you how many people told me I was doing it wrong. even though I followed the directions that the guy writing the article laid out. I don't know how many people said, " how do you get any data with one shot at that charge weight?"

Well I have developed two loads for the same rifle with that method now, and am quite impressed with how it worked. I now have an 85 grain bullet combo and a 70 grain bullet combo for my .243, both loads shoot sub MOA out to 300 yards so far.

I am about to start testing for a AR10 308 and a 300 win mag. I just need to find some of those Hornady 178 grain ELD-X bullets.

And I agree with your assumption and reasoning for shooting at 200 yards. Well let us know how your ladder test goes. Personally I am sold on that method for now.
 
I have little confidence a ladder test as Dan Newberry listed is good for best accuracy load development. Especially when he says:
18. Your next step would be to confirm your load recipe at the maximum range you will expect to use it. Load one round about 1% below, and another round about 1% above the OCW charge, and fire a three shot group with these two charges plus the standard charge at the maximum range you will require the load to be accurate at. You should note MOA, or very close to MOA grouping...

Nobody I know of shoots 3-shot groups whose center are all at the same place relative to the aiming point and are within 10% of being the same size. Their sizes vary at least 3 to 4 times as big as the first one fired to as much as little as 1/2 to 2/3 the size of the first one.

The most accurate benchrest rifle and ammo shoot 5-shot groups at 100 yards that have a 5X or more size spread from the smallest to the largest. And their group centers are all over the place relative to their aiming point.

Nor has anyone I'm aware of ever did the same ladder test several times in a row and got the same results each time. Once is enough, so they claim.

How many readers have shot ten 3-shot groups then measured their size and group centers from the aiming point? Then measured the 30-shot composite which is the best accuracy assesment of that load.
 
Gtscotty, I've never developed any "new" load for any of my rifles; match or hunting versions. Just used the same stuff the match winners and record setters use. Also used the loads Sierra Bullets used testing their stuff for accuracy.

Several different .308 Win barrels and 4 different .30-.338 Win Mag barrels; loads all shot as accurate as other folk's barrels. For hunting loads for several cartridges, used Sierra's hunting load recommendations from their manuals and they shot almost as accurate as match bullets. I use at least 20 shots evaluating a load for accuracy. Anything less is not statistically significant for me.

One exception, a new 30 caliber match bullet was prototyped by Sierra, so a few of us worked up a load that did well in our rifles. Loaded several thousand rounds of it with new unprepped .308 Win cases and it produced 20-shot strings about 1/2 MOA accuracy at 600 yards in 25 to 30 different rifles from around the world; all with different chamber, bore and groove dimensions. We first estimated about 45 grains of IMR4895 and used 45.3 grains under Sierra's then new 155-gr. Palma bullet.
 
Last edited:
BartB said:
I've never developed any "new" load for any of my rifles; match or hunting versions. Just used the same stuff the match winners and record setters use. Also used the loads Sierra Bullets used testing their stuff for accuracy.

Several different .308 Win barrels and 4 different .30-.338 Win Mag barrels; loads all shot as accurate as other folk's barrels. For hunting loads for several cartridges, used Sierra's hunting load recommendations from their manuals and they shot almost as accurate as match bullets. I use at least 20 shots evaluating a load for accuracy. Anything less is not statistically significant for me.

Bart :

Do you feel and or know if the type or quality of rifle matters in your logic/experience ?

Meaning does it matter if the firearm is semi or bolt action . Service rifle , hunting or made for benchrest . ? Type of stock , bedded , nut creating a pressure point on barrel , Free floated

It appears you are saying the same VERY good load will shot just as well in any gun as long as it's the same caliber.

Would that be an accurate conclusion of what you are saying ?
 
Last edited:
My first reloading attempt was to use Dan's OCW method. It did not work for me for two reasons;
1. I started reloading on buying my first rifle. I have only ever bought one box of factory ammo over three calibres. This meant that I had yet to learn basic nuances of hand loading.
2. I had not shot a rifle in over 30 years and needed to learn how to shoot again.

The above simply meant that there were too many variables and that I simply could never do the OCW method any justice. When I got to the point that I could consistently shoot 1MOA (trial and error with friends helping me load) I returned to the OCW method knowing that I was now testing the load and not the shooter. If you cannot consistently shoot 1MOA then you will struggle with OCW, or any load development for that matter.

As a general rule of thumb, unless the group can be triangulated and that the intersection of the three perpendiculars intersect inside the three sides of the triangle then you do not have an accurate load. Remember we accepting that the shooter can shoot, and that any vertical or lateral stringing will be a function of the load and not the shooter.

I have found the method to be highly effective.

A little know fact is that the OCW theory lead to the development of the OBT (Optimal Barrel Time) theory, QL users are well acquainted with this. Dan Newberry and Chris Long (OBT) are friends and Chris was very interested in the theory behind OCW. So they took a rifle, fitted it with strain gauges and threw lead down the range measuring parameters the primary one being the change in muzzle diameter.

What they found was that there are shock waves that travel the length of the barrel from the rear of the chamber (there is insufficient mechanical coupling to include the action) to the crown (there is insufficient mechanical coupling to the silencer if there is one). These shock waves result in the marginal change in the muzzle diameter. The point at which the change in muzzle diameter is the least is where the most accurate load can be found. There are more than one of these points for each barrel.

Chris then developed an algorithm to express these "nodes" as he erroneously called them, his words not mine. So QL users essentially use calculations rather than shot targets to get to develop an accurate load. QL removes much of the guess work in OCW and in my opinion is a natural evolution in loading technique.
 
Andrew :

Any chance you have a link explaining the correlation between OCW & OBT . I specifically interested in the theory/idea that the bore expands in diameter and the most accurate load being when the muzzle has the least amount of expansion .

I believe we've known for decades there is an OBT or dwell time so the idea OCW method lead to the other does not seem reasonable to me . I am still very interested in how they work together .

It appears my velocities leveled off at the OCW a chose 43gr . Now I don't believe I did my best in consistent hold on the rifle from shot to shot but the numbers seem to show the 42.6 through 43.4 loads leveled off in the mid to high 2600's

41.4----- FPS = 2558 , 2560 , 2598
41.8----- FPS = 2634 , 2565 , 2640
42.2----- FPS = 2628 , 2652 , 2658
42.6----- FPS = 2669 , 2663 , 2673
43.0----- FPS = 2710 , 2695 , 2679
43.4----- FPS = 2675 , 2744 , 2665

This would seem to validate the idea that the bullet leaving the barrel at the same time ( dwell time , OBT ) is very important and that the OCW method may very well be a good way to find the timing . It seems there is a zone of powder burn that becomes optimal/neutral resulting in similar velocities which intern results in the bullet leaving the barrel at the same time over a larger charge weight zone .

Although I've not ran one yet the ladder test likely does the same thing and is why you need to run it at distance because you are only firing one shot . The farther the target the easier to see the vertical string
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top