Myths and Mysticism in Load Development

[Tim L]

"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."

I'm intrested in why you feel the things you mention make a difference, in particular
Heavy barrel. Why?
Projectile velocity. What do you mean? Simple "speed" of the bullet or consistancy in velocity?
No arguments on BC (although published BCs are questionable given there is no standard means used to derive the figure)
Wind reading is, for me, a seperate topic. I believe there are 2 aspects to accuracy, the gun is seperate to the shooter. Technique on the mound certainly play a big part but the best technique isn't going to make an inaccurate gun shoot accurately.
I think you may have the wrong end of the stick regarding why folks load to the accuracy they do. For me its not to sit on the peak of a tiny node, it's in order to be as close to the middle of a broad node. If my (useless) 5-10 round groups indicate a node is less than 0.5gn. I would be reluctant to use it.(assuming we agree nodes do actually exist?) I shoot 5 round groups across maybe 2 full grains of powder to find something that looks good. Then i bracket that and work up and down in 0.2 gn increments to see where the group opens up. From there I plonk myself in the middle and adjust seating depth in 5 thou jumps, 10 round groups, to see what comes in tightest. So really, 5 round groups are, for me, and most shooters, just the starting point.
I do hear what you're saying, but having done this many times I can assure you there is a repetable set of outcomes. Powder charge variations do effect group sizes and seating depth can (but not always) have a dramatic effect on group size. I would hope to have a load developed within 100 rounds. I appreciate you saying thats not statisticly viable but I'll counter that with several years of consistantly placing in Queens (invariably the bridesmade or made of honour because I can't read the wind for shit but shooting a gun that keeps <1moa elevation to maximize my score on the odd occasion I get it right.)

[Gyro]

Well said Timothy and others. Litz has taken the game to another level by making clear ( to me ) sufficient data matters … eg. a vid of some guy doing tuner adjustments with 2 shot groups is meaningless ? And not just tuners !!!!!!

The likes of EC has a “vested interest” in tuners ….. so where’s the data ? I would love to know if a tuner can help as I would simply cut a thread on the barrel and screw one on.

EC clearly knows how to shoot ! RD and MP in Oz know how to shoot too and have won heaps …..

I was lookn at a vid at the recent SA shoot and one guy’s gun is shootn no good so he gets up and adjusts the tuner and the gun now goes much better. Litz I believe would say … “but where’s the data” ? I say he makes a very good point ?

[BATattack]

Litz has a vested interest in selling books, media coverage and you know . . . .off the shelf ammo like he is suggesting is all any shooter needs.

When people say "where's the data" you need to understand that there is laboratory data and historical data. Historical data is mostly what gets used in the amature scene. Dozens and dozens of shooters burning through hundreds of barrels constantly testing and evaluating those results against each other week in and week out. Eventually the magic formula or "window" is established. You can't look at one person and one calibre in isolation. You need to multiply that by the others that they communicate with and share historical data with and that's where THOUSANDS of rounds worth of load development come from. I think it took me about 1500-2000 rounds, 2 barrels, 3 different reamers, 3 powders, 2 cases and 3 primers to work out what the 7SAUM liked but back then there was only about 3 of 4 people in Aus that I knew of shooting it and we weren't all sharing information. Now most that have burnt through a few barrels in that calibre could work out if a barrel is going to be competitive within 200 rounds. So the course range of development has already been done before that barrel has even had a shot through it.

Also load development never stops. Every time a top shooter takes that gun to the mound they are evaluating the results on target, taking notes and making adjustments. You might not see it but they are likely checking their historical data and altering their powder charge, seating depth and or tuner setting. Like Tim said it's not a about keeping it within .01gr worth of powder it's about finding that node that gives you say 30fps of leeway and understanding how much temp, barrel fouling, humidity etc is effecting your tune and how much you need to change your powder or barrel tuner to compensate. It doesn't need to be perfect but it needs to be enough to keep you in that window. 2 clicks of the tuner might not make a significant difference. Not significantly worse and not significantly better BUT if it looks slightly better then go another 2 clicks in the same direction at the next range. If it got worse then go 4 clocks in the opposite direction at the next range. It's all about balancing that window however you choose to do it. You may say these people are just bumbling around without any statistical data but truth is they are making educated guesses based on previous experience and keeping ahead of the rest of the pack.

[Gyro]

It aint easy that's for sure !!!

[KHGS]

Litz has a vested interest in selling books, media coverage and you know . . . .off the shelf ammo like he is suggesting is all any shooter needs.

When people say "where's the data" you need to understand that there is laboratory data and historical data. Historical data is mostly what gets used in the amature scene. Dozens and dozens of shooters burning through hundreds of barrels constantly testing and evaluating those results against each other week in and week out. Eventually the magic formula or "window" is established. You can't look at one person and one calibre in isolation. You need to multiply that by the others that they communicate with and share historical data with and that's where THOUSANDS of rounds worth of load development come from. I think it took me about 1500-2000 rounds, 2 barrels, 3 different reamers, 3 powders, 2 cases and 3 primers to work out what the 7SAUM liked but back then there was only about 3 of 4 people in Aus that I knew of shooting it and we weren't all sharing information. Now most that have burnt through a few barrels in that calibre could work out if a barrel is going to be competitive within 200 rounds. So the course range of development has already been done before that barrel has even had a shot through it.

Also load development never stops. Every time a top shooter takes that gun to the mound they are evaluating the results on target, taking notes and making adjustments. You might not see it but they are likely checking their historical data and altering their powder charge, seating depth and or tuner setting. Like Tim said it's not a about keeping it within .01gr worth of powder it's about finding that node that gives you say 30fps of leeway and understanding how much temp, barrel fouling, humidity etc is effecting your tune and how much you need to change your powder or barrel tuner to compensate. It doesn't need to be perfect but it needs to be enough to keep you in that window. 2 clicks of the tuner might not make a significant difference. Not significantly worse and not significantly better BUT if it looks slightly better then go another 2 clicks in the same direction at the next range. If it got worse then go 4 clocks in the opposite direction at the next range. It's all about balancing that window however you choose to do it. You may say these people are just bumbling around without any statistical data but truth is they are making educated guesses based on previous experience and keeping ahead of the rest of the pack.

For mine you have pretty much "nailed" it, I could not have said it better!!!!
Keith H.

[PeteFox]

When people say "where's the data" you need to understand that there is laboratory data and historical data. Historical data is mostly what gets used in the amature scene. Dozens and dozens of shooters burning through hundreds of barrels constantly testing and evaluating those results against each other week in and week out. Eventually the magic formula or "window" is established. You can't look at one person and one calibre in isolation.

With all due respect, the above statement demonstrates the reason why; in statistics, there are so many articles written entitled something like " the ten most common sins in data interpretation".
The enemy of meaningful data are small sample sizes followed by spurious correlations. You cannot extrapolate a large pool of small sample sizes across different conditions and then make any sort of validated conclusion(s).

Another name for " historical data" is anecdotal data or in less kind words the phrase 'old wives tales' comes to mind. Some old wives tales come true and that is why liberal doses of castor oil can cure every gut ailment known to man the ones who didn't get 'cured' were no longer around to complain.

Taking unrealted data from a pool of shooters to establish a "magic formula" sounds good because it's easier and cheaper than reality. Accepting the hard reality of data derived from a proper science based survey can be difficult to accept, particularly if you have an interest in castor oil sales, or in other words it puts years of your anecdotes to a stress test.

One way to make a story or belief come true is to take the Trumpian approach to data analysis. Bring down Covid numbers by reducing testing. or in our case, make the historical data come true by ignoring the laboratory data.

Perhaps if pesky people like Hornady and Litz did less testing or kept the results to themselves then life could go on without inconvenient truths and people would go back to belief in castor oil.

Pete

[Gyro]

The real issue I suggest is actually proving something 'works' or gives u an advantage.
Tuners may do both ? They may just make u feel better ? I truely don't know.
It's a given that top shooters go to the mound with tons of knowledge and experience and would likely win or be close with or without a tuner ?

[KHGS]

The real issue I suggest is actually proving something 'works' or gives u an advantage.
Tuners may do both ? They may just make u feel better ? I truely don't know.
It's a given that top shooters go to the mound with tons of knowledge and experience and would likely win or be close with or without a tuner ?

A tuner is just one “wrench” in the precision shooters toolbox! It is not a tool that fixes everything, but it is an aid if one takes the time to understand what it can and cannot do and of course learn how to utilise the benefits it offers.
Keith H.

[Rich4]

It’s not just Trump, there’s also the “acceptable” way of lifting Covid numbers by messing with death certificates, statistics can lie either way, unless you have rigid honesty and a deep understanding of the process being evaluated to allow intuitive leaps.
Which is often assisted by correlating data from peers.

[Gyro]

Proving something true/false or helpful/harmful in health can really matter.

Whether a tuner helps or not really doesn't matter , just be nice to really know ? And I notice something of a recent trend in the shooting world to prove stuff a lot more thoroughly than before and Litz's "body of work" has a lot to do with that ?

[BATattack]

When people say "where's the data" you need to understand that there is laboratory data and historical data. Historical data is mostly what gets used in the amature scene. Dozens and dozens of shooters burning through hundreds of barrels constantly testing and evaluating those results against each other week in and week out. Eventually the magic formula or "window" is established. You can't look at one person and one calibre in isolation.

With all due respect, the above statement demonstrates the reason why; in statistics, there are so many articles written entitled something like " the ten most common sins in data interpretation".
The enemy of meaningful data are small smaple sizes followed by spurious correlations. You cannot extrapolate a large pool of small sample sizes across different conditions and then make any sort of valid conclusion(s).

Another name for " historical data" is anecdotal data or in less kind words the phrase of 'old wives tales' comes to mind. Some old wives tales come true and that is why liberal doses of castor oil can cure every gut ailment known to man the ones who didn't get 'cured' were no longer around to complain.

Taking unrealted data from a pool of shooters to establish a "magic formula" sounds good because it's easier and cheaper than reality. Accepting the hard reality of data derived from a proper science based survey can be difficult to accept, particularly if you have an interest in castor oil sales, or in other words it puts years of your anecdotes to a stress test.

One way to make a story or belief come true is to take the Trumpian approach to data analysis. Bring down Covid numbers by reducing testing. or in our case, make the historical data come true by ignoring the laboratory data.

Perhaps if pesky people like Hornady and Litz did less testing or kept the results to themselves then life could go on without inconvenient truths and people would go back to castor oil.

Pete

No offence taken. There is a fine line between grape vine reloading and pooling knowledge. Some know how to manage that line better than others.

[jasmay]

I’ve got 1 question and a 2nd that could could be taken as a statement.

1) who is DingoDeerHunter


2) There is a reason defense stopped competing alongside F-Class and Similar competitors….


Lastly, if there is anyone who would like to go head to head using the teaspoon method for reloading, I’d be happy to take that challenge….

[DingoDeerHunter]

When people say "where's the data" you need to understand that there is laboratory data and historical data. Historical data is mostly what gets used in the amature scene. Dozens and dozens of shooters burning through hundreds of barrels constantly testing and evaluating those results against each other week in and week out. Eventually the magic formula or "window" is established. You can't look at one person and one calibre in isolation.

With all due respect, the above statement demonstrates the reason why; in statistics, there are so many articles written entitled something like " the ten most common sins in data interpretation".
The enemy of meaningful data are small sample sizes followed by spurious correlations. You cannot extrapolate a large pool of small sample sizes across different conditions and then make any sort of validated conclusion(s).

Another name for " historical data" is anecdotal data or in less kind words the phrase 'old wives tales' comes to mind. Some old wives tales come true and that is why liberal doses of castor oil can cure every gut ailment known to man the ones who didn't get 'cured' were no longer around to complain.

Taking unrealted data from a pool of shooters to establish a "magic formula" sounds good because it's easier and cheaper than reality. Accepting the hard reality of data derived from a proper science based survey can be difficult to accept, particularly if you have an interest in castor oil sales, or in other words it puts years of your anecdotes to a stress test.

One way to make a story or belief come true is to take the Trumpian approach to data analysis. Bring down Covid numbers by reducing testing. or in our case, make the historical data come true by ignoring the laboratory data.

Perhaps if pesky people like Hornady and Litz did less testing or kept the results to themselves then life could go on without inconvenient truths and people would go back to belief in castor oil.

Pete

“The Trumpian approach” - Gold, Solid Gold my friend.

[DingoDeerHunter]

I'm intrested in why you feel the things you mention make a difference, in particular
Heavy barrel. Why?
Projectile velocity. What do you mean? Simple "speed" of the bullet or consistancy in velocity?

Heavier barrel deforms less during the time it takes the bullet to leave the muzzle.

The faster the bullet the more it avoids the larger movements of the barrel. Varmint AI’s simulations and many high speed camera vids show the barrel movement increases over time and the less time the bullet is in the barrel the less it’s likely to be effected.

His conclusions all around were quite benign in the end. Despite not agreeing with his “peak” concept and positive compensation idea, his actual statement of things that matter just come down to “weight stops movement and faster bullets get out quickly from a barrel beginning to deform. No nodes, no magic spots where the magic happens, just fat barrels and fast bullets. It’s actually very funny and disowns tuners by only crediting them as a weighty door stop on the end of the barrel. Here’s his practical conclusions on how to make the magic happen:

“ Some ways to get the muzzle exit time on the Left Side of the Peak

1. Add weight to the muzzle to slow down the muzzle movement
2. High pressure/high velocity load to make the muzzle exit time earlier
3. Faster burning powder to have the bullet gain velocity early and make the exit time earlier
4. Longer barrel to slow down the muzzle movement”

PS - 4 is clearly silly as a 30inch pencil barrel’s gonna wobble like a whip.

[Tim L]

I'm intrested in why you feel the things you mention make a difference, in particular
Heavy barrel. Why?
Projectile velocity. What do you mean? Simple "speed" of the bullet or consistancy in velocity?

Heavier barrel deforms less during the time it takes the bullet to leave the muzzle.

The faster the bullet the more it avoids the larger movements of the barrel. Varmint AI’s simulations and many high speed camera vids show the barrel movement increases over time and the less time the bullet is in the barrel the less it’s likely to be effected.

His conclusions all around were quite benign in the end. Despite not agreeing with his “peak” concept and positive compensation idea, his actual statement of things that matter just come down to “weight stops movement and faster bullets get out quickly from a barrel beginning to deform. No nodes, no magic spots where the magic happens, just fat barrels and fast bullets. It’s actually very funny and disowns tuners by only crediting them as a weighty door stop on the end of the barrel. Here’s his practical conclusions on how to make the magic happen:

“ Some ways to get the muzzle exit time on the Left Side of the Peak

1. Add weight to the muzzle to slow down the muzzle movement
2. High pressure/high velocity load to make the muzzle exit time earlier
3. Faster burning powder to have the bullet gain velocity early and make the exit time earlier
4. Longer barrel to slow down the muzzle movement”

PS - 4 is clearly silly as a 30inch pencil barrel’s gonna wobble like a whip.

The reason I ask is that I'm just getting ready to do some high speed camera work on parallel barrels.
I don't know if something has been lost in the summary nature of the info (probably), but it seems a bit over simplified.
I've already got some high speed video that tends to indicate there is a combination of factors involved in getting the bullet out before the muzzle moves.
In short, you might be able to get a 155 out of a thinner barrel before movement but try and launch a 200 and the barrel has moved before exit. Obiously barrel length plays its part BUT more length =more weight and more time for angular movement. So point 4 "may" not be as silly as it sounds. The barrel is welcome to wobble, as long as it waits till the bullet has left. This might explain why 30" "pencil" barrels on target rifles work.
It may also be the major effect a barrel tuner has, simply delaying muzzle movement.
Anyway, more to follow,,, maybe,,, if I feel like sharing