Myths and Mysticism in Load Development

[loneranger]

A very credentialed Target Rifle shooter gave me some great advice many years ago when I first started shooting Class. This guy has won multiple Queens and is still an excellent A Grade TR shooter - his advice was, "the best wind readers are those who can shoot consistently tight groups - yes, you need how to read wind, but if your gear isn't right, you may as well be p#%%783 in the wind .
Small changes in powder weigh charge, seating depth etc... absolutely make significant differences, especially at the longs.

[Tim L]

What a great read.
I can't really argue with either side. It's true that sample sizes need to be large. It's also true that practicality demands small sample sizes.
I have more than enough anecdotal evidence to persuade myself that adjustments to powder charge and seating depth can reduce group size. 5 round groups are a practical, if not accurate.
I am more than confident that if I shoot 1000 rounds with my chosen load, it will be a smaller 1000 round group shot with a different load.
It doesn't matter if that statement is true, what matters is that I am confident it is.

[DingoDeerHunter]

I am more than confident that if I shoot 1000 rounds with my chosen load, it will be a smaller 1000 round group shot with a different load.
It doesn't matter if that statement is true, what matters is that I am confident it is.

Great point, that sense of confidence is psychologically important.

However, isn’t it equally possible to obtain the same psychological effect by being confident that small load differences, barrel tuners, neck turning, etc etc make little to no difference?

[Matt P]

I am more than confident that if I shoot 1000 rounds with my chosen load, it will be a smaller 1000 round group shot with a different load.
It doesn't matter if that statement is true, what matters is that I am confident it is.

Great point, that sense of confidence is psychologically important.

However, isn’t it equally possible to obtain the same psychological effect by being confident that small load differences, barrel tuners, neck turning, etc etc make little to no difference?

[Rich4]

I think perhaps instead of trying to convince people who have already proved a process to themselves.
You should instead prove to them that you do not require these finer points to beat them at this game.
You’ll be taken a lot more seriously then.

[DingoDeerHunter]

I think perhaps instead of trying to convince people who have already proved a process to themselves.
You should instead prove to them that you do not require these finer points to beat them at this game.
You’ll be taken a lot more seriously then.

Now apply your point to Astrology. Do I have to prove I can predict the future to assert that Astrology is nonsense? Or can I just point to rigorous studies that have shown Astrology is not predictive?

Whereas I have pointed to sources such as the Hornady test lab, Brian Litz, Blackburn defence who have all conducted large sample rigorous testing of all these “node” and “tuning” theories and found them to disappear with larger sample sizes, not one person has put forward any such study verifying these theories.

But you tell me I have to put score people who have superb technique, expensive and well manufacture rifles and decades of wind reading experience to question these theories. Interesting approach.

And to be clear, I’m not trying to convince anyone, merely putting forward information that may or may not be of interest to participants and may even lead them to re-test their “nodes” in a double blind test method. I doubt anyone could do their “node test” with 5 shot groups 3 times ina double blind test and get anything like the same result. That’s what Hornady proved with large samples. But hey, science is just an elitist conspiracy according to Sky News I guess.

Now where is my horoscope: Will I shoot well today?

[AlanF]

Hello all, just stumbled on this thread, and here's my two cents worth.

There's little doubt that a scientific approach helps enormously with all aspects of F-Class competition shooting, including with things outside of equipment and reloading, such as wind reading, marksmanship and psychology. I also believe that a basic understanding of statistical theory will save a lot of time and money with things like accuracy testing, and in statistics, sample sizes are critical to the value of the results. For example comparing two loads with a 5 shot group from each, one group has to be significantly (i.e. not just slightly) better to be confident that the load is better. This requirement for large sample sizes becomes a big problem if you're trying to test independently for multiple things, particularly with calibres where barrels are past their prime in around 1000 rounds or even less.

There is actually a roundabout way of getting very large sample sizes for all aspects of shooting. It has been there all along, and is probably used by many shooters without realising it.

What I'm referring to is competition results, and identifying those who consistently finish at or near the sharp end. The statistical sample size is huge, when you consider the number of shots fired by all shooters in all competitions over a period of years. It will not be difficult to identify a list of highly successful shooters from the results pages on this forum for example. Its then a matter of finding out from as many of them as you're able, what they do with respect to things like load development, barrel cleaning, wind reading etc. etc. You might be surprised how many will generously give that sort of information out. There will be differences, including some ideas that are completely opposed. You need to look for things that are common to all of them and lock them in. If some things are done by just a few, probably best to stick with the mainstream approach. If there are things that are done in a wide variety of ways, it suggests they are not as critical, and you can probably chose an approach that is reasonably common, but not too expensive in time and $.

I've always used this general approach when advising new shooters, by saying get plenty of opinions about all aspects, and take the middle road. However that was in the context of getting started at local club level. If you want to excel at the top level nationally, then it becomes a matter of getting advice from the cream of the crop at Queens/Kings Prize level.

Hmm, that was a bit long-winded. If you got to the end of this, well done.

[willow]

I am more than confident that if I shoot 1000 rounds with my chosen load, it will be a smaller 1000 round group shot with a different load.
It doesn't matter if that statement is true, what matters is that I am confident it is.

Great point, that sense of confidence is psychologically important.

However, isn’t it equally possible to obtain the same psychological effect by being confident that small load differences, barrel tuners, neck turning, etc etc make little to no difference?

Here's a screenshot of a target I shot at 300 metres today. The purpose of this was to improve my grouping on target and give myself a more competitive setup. One very well respected member on here who has around 17-18 Queens/Kings victories under his belt has been observing my testing over recent weeks and can verify my load data was good.

Shots 1-3 which are obscured on target are in the X ring - that was one tuner setting. Shots 4-6 was another setting and grouped significantly different. Shots 7-9 is another setting, and again, you can clearly see the difference. Shots 10-14 is another setting which clustered the X ring over the top of shots 1-3. The condition in which I shot this string was consistent. No to try and tell someone that barrel tuners (among the other aspects of reloading/load development you mention) "make little to no difference" as you put it...well you draw your own conclusion and keep doing you.

[cheech]

Sako 75 223

Top group is hand loads , bottom group factory loads

You give me anytime and place I will repeat this every time

[BATattack]

I think perhaps instead of trying to convince people who have already proved a process to themselves.
You should instead prove to them that you do not require these finer points to beat them at this game.
You’ll be taken a lot more seriously then.

Now apply your point to Astrology. Do I have to prove I can predict the future to assert that Astrology is nonsense? Or can I just point to rigorous studies that have shown Astrology is not predictive?

Whereas I have pointed to sources such as the Hornady test lab, Brian Litz, Blackburn defence who have all conducted large sample rigorous testing of all these “node” and “tuning” theories and found them to disappear with larger sample sizes, not one person has put forward any such study verifying these theories.

But you tell me I have to put score people who have superb technique, expensive and well manufacture rifles and decades of wind reading experience to question these theories. Interesting approach.

And to be clear, I’m not trying to convince anyone, merely putting forward information that may or may not be of interest to participants and may even lead them to re-test their “nodes” in a double blind test method. I doubt anyone could do their “node test” with 5 shot groups 3 times ina double blind test and get anything like the same result. That’s what Hornady proved with large samples. But hey, science is just an elitist conspiracy according to Sky News I guess.

Now where is my horoscope: Will I shoot well today?

Applied ballistics (Brian Litz) and Hornady both sell factory "match" ammo. Ill let you connect the dots

[Tim L]

I am more than confident that if I shoot 1000 rounds with my chosen load, it will be a smaller 1000 round group shot with a different load.
It doesn't matter if that statement is true, what matters is that I am confident it is.

Great point, that sense of confidence is psychologically important.

However, isn’t it equally possible to obtain the same psychological effect by being confident that small load differences, barrel tuners, neck turning, etc etc make little to no difference?

Simply put, no!

Just wait until you're shooting great, you're up at the pointy end on day 5. You're clouting the middle with 6s and Xs then pop one high in the 5, nearly a 4.
Firstly your going to have to figure out what to do with your next shot. You chose to ignore the high and throw another one just above it. Or you decide to compensate and aim 6 oclock just in the 5,,,, and land it on your cross hair.
That shot just cost you the Kings, could put you out of the medals.
Tell us then that you won't prep the bejesus out of your ammo next time.

[Tim L]

I am more than confident that if I shoot 1000 rounds with my chosen load, it will be a smaller 1000 round group shot with a different load.
It doesn't matter if that statement is true, what matters is that I am confident it is.

Great point, that sense of confidence is psychologically important.

However, isn’t it equally possible to obtain the same psychological effect by being confident that small load differences, barrel tuners, neck turning, etc etc make little to no difference?

There is a point that goes with the psychological one, and on which you seem to be in agreement with.
To quote you
""small load differences, barrel tuners, neck turning, etc etc make little to no difference?"
True, they may make little to no difference. The point I think you are missing is that this is a sport where little to no difference is the gap that seperates the winner

2017
World championships
Fopen
Rod Davies (Aus) 489
Paul Sandie (UK) 485
FTR
Derrek Rogers (USA) 473 36
Kevin Chou (Can) 473 31

Teams events
Fopen Australia 3511 USA 3506
FTR USA 3400 Australia 3394
Less than 0.2% between 1st and 2nd

Little to no difference makes ALL the difference.

[!Peter!]

Whenever statistics get brought up, particularly when applied in a shooting context, the following two quotes jump to mind for me:
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" - Mark Twain (although he attributes to someone else)
"All models are wrong, but some are useful" - George Box

My view is that the application of basic/ high school statistics isn't helpful in load development as the collection of sufficient data would result in different conditions from what was present in the first data point (i.e., first shot) to what was present in the last data point (i.e., the thousandth shot) due to things like barrel wear, temperature changes etc. Not to mention many cartridges would consume much of the useful life of the barrel with a 1000 shots.

However, the limitation on the number of shots can be dealt with when you start to consider the current state of knowledge. By current state of knowledge I mean things like we know positive compensation occurs (for those want to argue otherwise, there's academic papers, Varmint Al's finite element analysis, and many shooters who have posted their results) and we know what it looks like on paper. So with that current state of knowledge, I only need to shoot enough shots (typically 2-3) per load to identify the positive compensation pattern which then gives me sufficient information to identify the powder charge(s) where positive compensation occurs. I don't need to do 30 shots per load to get a statistically high confidence of the exact impact point. Another example is bullet jump, we know groups change and the pattern they follow.

Also statistics is not the only way to analyse data. An example of this is recently a colleague send me some data from a weekend of shooting that they had done some basic statistical analysis on and wanted my thoughts on it. I plotted the raw data chronologically and could see a clear step change in the data between day 1 and day 2. So the question I asked was what changed between the two days? If they work that out they can now reduce the group size. Sure I could have used statistical methods to identify and quantify the step change but that would have given me no additional useful information.

So for those who want to stick to basic / high school statistics, keep going.......... I'll be leveraging current knowledge, collecting and analysing my data to continually improve and monitor the size of my groups, and be content with not being able to say "I have 98 percent confidence that my group size is less than 1/2 moa"

[DingoDeerHunter]

Varmint AI’s work was interesting, albeit there a a range of assumptions in his analysis that make it doubtful, as they are extremely unlikely in any real world scenario.

However, disregarding that his conclusions are that to get positive compensation you need higher velocity, higher pressure, heavier barrel. It doesn’t support 3 shot groups showing nodes of powder charge or seating accuracy or tuner accuracy - it just supports that the heavier a barrel is the less it moves before the bullet exits and the faster the bullet gets out the less the barrel has moved.


Hence why everyone uses heavy barrels and pumps up their velocity. It’s not rocket science

[DingoDeerHunter]

I am more than confident that if I shoot 1000 rounds with my chosen load, it will be a smaller 1000 round group shot with a different load.
It doesn't matter if that statement is true, what matters is that I am confident it is.

Great point, that sense of confidence is psychologically important.

However, isn’t it equally possible to obtain the same psychological effect by being confident that small load differences, barrel tuners, neck turning, etc etc make little to no difference?

There is a point that goes with the psychological one, and on which you seem to be in agreement with.
To quote you
""small load differences, barrel tuners, neck turning, etc etc make little to no difference?"
True, they may make little to no difference. The point I think you are missing is that this is a sport where little to no difference is the gap that seperates the winner

2017
World championships
Fopen
Rod Davies (Aus) 489
Paul Sandie (UK) 485
FTR
Derrek Rogers (USA) 473 36
Kevin Chou (Can) 473 31

Teams events
Fopen Australia 3511 USA 3506
FTR USA 3400 Australia 3394
Less than 0.2% between 1st and 2nd

Little to no difference makes ALL the difference.

I’ll go with no difference for the things I mentioned but big difference for heavy barrel, velocity of projectile, BC or projectile, wind reading, recoil technique , gun set up, quality of action. Powder humidity can make up to 200fps difference - yet people want to believe they’ve tuned a load by 0.01 grains of powder, ignoring entirely the effects of humidity.

The pressure in the chamber will be effected to such a degree by environmental conditions and render any “nodes” on a particular test day irrelevant.

The 13th commandment: Thou shalt not kid thyself.

If anything the correlation between top marksmen and incredibly obsessive load development and ammunition production is the obsessiveness itself, the fastidiousness of their character makes them incredibly talented at reproducing technique and at record keeping and observation of wind effects etc. it’s no accident that these things would correlate, in fact it would be entirely surprising if they were not correlates.

I admire their effort, their attention to detail and their success on the field. It’s just obvious that the thing that yields that success is not 3 shot group nodes of powder or bullet seating or clicks of a magic barrel tuner. It’s their golfer like skill to repeat themselves and read natures undefinable whims and whisps and a whole lot of nerve. They’re great to watch.