Myths and Mysticism in Load Development

[Gyro]

I have reckoned for years the biggest flaw with all this barrel movement theory/speculation – during the projectiles in-bore time - is a lack of a corresponding and simultaneous monitoring of the platforms movement. With each shot !

It’s not just the barrel that moves. Just look at how much the wrong bag setup can affect precision ? Or an overly flexible stock that WILL behave erratically during recoil especially if it is loaded in any way. There’s lots of plain simple physics stuff to drill down into without looking into all the case prep stuff which I say matters too. Lots of stuff matters which is why it takes time to become a good shooter.

[Drop shot]

Bryan Litz’s test for both the 10 shot ladder test and barrel tuner were flawed.
Full load development for the cartridge/rifle combination wasn’t completed.
This was his podcast i think at the end of last year. I stopped listening and caring so I haven't kept up with exactly what he's been doing.
It seems he is working from a baseline of poor accuracy too wide to clearly identify what changes, if any, were occurring or identify stability plateaus.
The missing key element is jump.
Best jump is going to give you the best stability and accuracy.
Worst jump the worst stability and accuracy.
If we graph the muzzle velocities for a 10 shot ladder test at the worst jump, it’ll look like a heart attack on an EKG screen with erratic muzzle velocities and little to no consistency.
If we graph the best jump, we’ll see a really stable velocity plateau with minimal, if any, velocity variation as the charge is increased.
The 10 shot test is something i've spent a lot of time working with because it absolutely does work. Below image is where I tested the gun/load, found the node (best i could get as i was limited to AR10 Magazine COAL in this instance) but then simulated the effect of temperature variation by moving up and down in the "node". It performed as expected.
Also, the 223 graph i have there shows the orange line being more clean and gradual than the red line. The only difference here was seating depth (and slight increase/decrease in pressure between the 2 strings as a result) but hopefully this shows why jump is important.
These tests are repeatable - with another issue being barrel temp. Especially on that rifle as it is not necessarily designed for precision.

The tuner test inherited the poor jump as part of it’s test from what i can tell. Ack Bryan has provided more information since I watched so i don't know exactly what he's up to now, as i stopped watching.
The barrels of bolt guns are usually supported by about 1” of threading at the receiver.
The barrel tuner is a weight that sits on the end of the barrel.
During firing, the barrel is whipping and vibrating. The Tuner interrupts these processes.
In it’s resting state, the barrel is still fighting it’s own weight as the barrel wants to bend – so there is a default amount of stress the barrel is naturally under.
We then add a weight to the end of the barrel, now that stress is increased.
By incrementally adjusting how close/far away from the end of the barrel the tuner is, we can adjust how much and to a small degree, the point on the barrel to which this stress is being applied.
This is why we get changes in accuracy with a tuner.
Ambient temperature affects how readily the barrel will bleed heat - the barrel harmonics will alter as the metal heats and cools (dependant on contour this can take only a few shots, or a few belts).
This is what CAN result in a load worked with a tuner being accurate one day, and not the next. This is very dependant on barrel metal composition (stiffness or hardness) and barrel contour
Bryan is a very smart man, and he’s better resourced than all of us, but that doesn’t mean he’s infallible and in both these instances, he is wrong and all he has proven is that tuners can’t make a bad load shoot and if your jump is out, you won’t find accuracy and/or stability.

The difference between Bryan and reloaders is what we are looking for. We are looking for an outcome, he is looking for the results that lead to that outcome.

Our outcome is we want the best accuracy out of our rifle/ammo combination as possible. Bryan wants to know the results so he can understand why, by how much, and when that accuracy is happening or not happening.

To clarify the difference between outcome and results, go piss on an electric fence. Tell me if knowing the outcome is enough, or you'd like to repeat the test to get a statistically significant amount of data points so we can analyse the results.

[Drop shot]

If some luminary here can point out where Litz and Co are wrong ..... go ahead and do it......but you cant, can you.
Pete

Yes, I can.

[DingoDeerHunter]

I have reckoned for years the biggest flaw with all this barrel movement theory/speculation – during the projectiles in-bore time - is a lack of a corresponding and simultaneous monitoring of the platforms movement. With each shot !

It’s not just the barrel that moves. Just look at how much the wrong bag setup can affect precision ? Or an overly flexible stock that WILL behave erratically during recoil especially if it is loaded in any way. There’s lots of plain simple physics stuff to drill down into without looking into all the case prep stuff which I say matters too. Lots of stuff matters which is why it takes time to become a good shooter.

You're wrong. The guns they used already had proven performance and load. So you're just talking out your proverbial.

Keep on believing though... the market loves the uneducated.

[DingoDeerHunter]

If some luminary here can point out where Litz and Co are wrong ..... go ahead and do it......but you cant, can you.
Pete

Yes, I can.

No you didn't buddy. You didn't actually check their research methodology and just ripped out your own thought bubble ... aka you lied.

[Drop shot]

If some luminary here can point out where Litz and Co are wrong ..... go ahead and do it......but you cant, can you.
Pete

Yes, I can.

No you didn't buddy. You didn't actually check their research methodology and just ripped out your own thought bubble ... aka you lied.

Hmm, thats certainly AN opinion to have. Not sure why you have so much emotional investment in this topic or what you believe. You seem really angry. You alright?

[DingoDeerHunter]

Not angry, not at all - but just calling out your falsehood. They used known guns and known loads that had performed. You then just made up bunkem that they started with bad performing guns/load - clearly you haven’t even seen what they did or bothered to examine their experimental set up.

I just have a distaste for misinformation and bunkem is all. I guess it shows.


On another note - at least this thread/topic shows that this forum is still breathing.

[Gyro]

I have reckoned for years the biggest flaw with all this barrel movement theory/speculation – during the projectiles in-bore time - is a lack of a corresponding and simultaneous monitoring of the platforms movement. With each shot !

It’s not just the barrel that moves. Just look at how much the wrong bag setup can affect precision ? Or an overly flexible stock that WILL behave erratically during recoil especially if it is loaded in any way. There’s lots of plain simple physics stuff to drill down into without looking into all the case prep stuff which I say matters too. Lots of stuff matters which is why it takes time to become a good shooter.

You're wrong. The guns they used already had proven performance and load. So you're just talking out your proverbial.

Keep on believing though... the market loves the uneducated.

Mate I'm not being specific about the Litz testing. Comments like that are gonna have folk not wanting to play with u. Relax buddy, this stuff just aint that serious.

[Drop shot]

Not angry, not at all - but just calling out your falsehood. They used known guns and known loads that had performed. You then just made up bunkem that they started with bad performing guns/load - clearly you haven’t even seen what they did or bothered to examine their experimental set up.

I just have a distaste for misinformation and bunkem is all. I guess it shows.


On another note - at least this thread/topic shows that this forum is still breathing.

Well, I'd disagree that you're not angry. You certainly come across as an angry, disagreeable person. But that conclusion is drawn from what some might say is not a statistically significant amount of interaction, and may be.... bunkem.....?

This has been a pretty controversial topic since it was first voiced last year and has received a degree of criticism and investigation across a number of forums and youtube videos.

The test was first criticised because it was done by just putting together loads for the purpose of testing the ladder test theory and then firing that test multiple times - whether that test was part of the overall testing for the book or was standalone i'm not sure.

This is where the Jump issue came from. It was at this point i stopped caring, so criticism that I don't know what their full testing methodology was is fair - because i don't.

But if we take on board all this information on what DOESN'T work, what then is the method, that has a statistically significant amount of data points, with which Bryan is able to find an accurate and stable load? From memory it was go to pressure and back off a grain and a half?

What we might be seeing here is a case of analysis paralysis. There's SO MUCH information, that it's hard to quantify any of it, and therefore it looks like noise.

The reason that people are pushing back on this finding, here, youtube, snipers hide etc, is that the findings don't corroborate what people are experiencing - one line from a review of the test that i really liked is that if you do something often enough you'll accidentally do it really well as many times as you accidentally do it wrong. Without a way to validate or prove the outlier, the outlier must be kept as part of the test results. Get enough outliers and they'll start to merge with your results and you won't be able to tell the forest for the trees.

So as far as Bryans findings go, I disagree.

Whilst i'll not understand your vehement defence of Applied Ballistics' information, your sarcasm, and your shit attitude, and won't understand what it is you personally are achieving or obtaining by essentially just coming in here to be inflammatory, I take solace in the fact that how you, or Bryan Litz, or anyone else, does load development has zero impost on me - so if you use a 10 shot, OCW, GRT, or vudoo magic to get low SD's and accuracy, and it works, stay the course kings.

I'm not going to turn my back on thousands of people's experience, and knowledge to idolise and blindly follow the words of a man who's accuracy bubble is measured in feet, lol https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1632638227132037

[DingoDeerHunter]

There’s no vehement defence of anyone - but a vehement defence of empirical and evidence based decision making.

As for Brian and his accuracy - how many World Championship placing do you have?

There was no “jump issue” you’re making that up.

You just keep bringing snide comments and waffle and anecdotes and still no evidence, no reason, no method and no verification.

And you so clearly want the last word - it’s a character flaw my friend. Relax and go weigh your primers and spin that tuner, there’s a magic spot on there somewhere for your $400.

[DingoDeerHunter]

There’s no vehement defence of anyone - but a vehement defence of empirical and evidence based decision making.

As for Brian and his accuracy - how many World Championship placing do you have?

There was no “jump issue” you’re making that up.

You just keep bringing snide comments and waffle and anecdotes and still no evidence, no reason, no method and no verification.

And you so clearly want the last word - it’s a character flaw my friend. Relax and go weigh your primers and spin that tuner, there’s a magic spot on there somewhere for your $400.

PS. Here is quality of Cortina’s evidence - so much better that Applied Ballistics shoddy testing

https://youtube.com/shorts/w5zk_lRW_9I?feature=share

[Gyro]

Not angry, not at all - but just calling out your falsehood. They used known guns and known loads that had performed. You then just made up bunkem that they started with bad performing guns/load - clearly you haven’t even seen what they did or bothered to examine their experimental set up.

I just have a distaste for misinformation and bunkem is all. I guess it shows.


On another note - at least this thread/topic shows that this forum is still breathing.

Well, I'd disagree that you're not angry. You certainly come across as an angry, disagreeable person. But that conclusion is drawn from what some might say is not a statistically significant amount of interaction, and may be.... bunkem.....?

This has been a pretty controversial topic since it was first voiced last year and has received a degree of criticism and investigation across a number of forums and youtube videos.

The test was first criticised because it was done by just putting together loads for the purpose of testing the ladder test theory and then firing that test multiple times - whether that test was part of the overall testing for the book or was standalone i'm not sure.

This is where the Jump issue came from. It was at this point i stopped caring, so criticism that I don't know what their full testing methodology was is fair - because i don't.

But if we take on board all this information on what DOESN'T work, what then is the method, that has a statistically significant amount of data points, with which Bryan is able to find an accurate and stable load? From memory it was go to pressure and back off a grain and a half?

What we might be seeing here is a case of analysis paralysis. There's SO MUCH information, that it's hard to quantify any of it, and therefore it looks like noise.

The reason that people are pushing back on this finding, here, youtube, snipers hide etc, is that the findings don't corroborate what people are experiencing - one line from a review of the test that i really liked is that if you do something often enough you'll accidentally do it really well as many times as you accidentally do it wrong. Without a way to validate or prove the outlier, the outlier must be kept as part of the test results. Get enough outliers and they'll start to merge with your results and you won't be able to tell the forest for the trees.

So as far as Bryans findings go, I disagree.

Whilst i'll not understand your vehement defence of Applied Ballistics' information, your sarcasm, and your shit attitude, and won't understand what it is you personally are achieving or obtaining by essentially just coming in here to be inflammatory, I take solace in the fact that how you, or Bryan Litz, or anyone else, does load development has zero impost on me - so if you use a 10 shot, OCW, GRT, or vudoo magic to get low SD's and accuracy, and it works, stay the course kings.

I'm not going to turn my back on thousands of people's experience, and knowledge to idolise and blindly follow the words of a man who's accuracy bubble is measured in feet, lol https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1632638227132037

Just had a look at Bryan shooting that 300 Norma in that video. Having fired a couple myself I would say to the newer guys that a rear bag like he is using might be nice and light and convenient to use and manipulate for elevation and windage positioning but good luck getting consistent repeatable precision with it ! Lord knows what he's got up front ? Just sayn.

[BATattack]

DingoDeerHunter. You've paid for Brian Litz's gospel (same as 100s of your competitors) just copy his methods to the letter and you'll be unbeatable!!

People that have spend years, hundreds of hours and 10s of thousands of dollars testing for themselves in a way that is specific to being successful at f class aren't going to fight to convince you. Most are happy to teach someone that is genuinely looking to learn but why would they bother wasting time to argue with someone who would ultimately become their competition?

[Drop shot]

why would they bother wasting time to argue with someone who would ultimately become their competition?

Lol, i don't think you need to worry about him becoming competition mate.

[Tim N]

Do we have an imoge eating popcorn