Thread: A superb article on why "node load deveopment" is toast

https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/rifle-nodes/

For those especially too busy to watch Hornardy podcast #50 or requiring further evidence to lose an entrenched mindset!

Originally Posted by Tentman

https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/rifle-nodes/

For those especially too busy to watch Hornardy podcast #50 or requiring further evidence to lose an entrenched mindset!

Good luck with that

I see what you're trying to do here, you want us all to think that the box of ammo you just brought that produced a 200mm group is only doing it because you didn't buy enough of it to prove the first 3 shot group wrong!

Greetings,
Nodes are only one of the handloading myths that need to be put out to pasture.
GPM.

I'd always considered nodes more related to barrel harmonics. How the barrel starts vibrating and the frequency was controlled primarily by barrel length, diameter, bedding points. Bullet weight and initial impulse having little effect. Barrel tuning with weights was a thing too

Good info thks. I sat and watched the podcast. I've definitely been "sucked into" the whole incremental load test thingy, looking for a low and a high node etc.

The journey they talked thru was interesting but the real gold for me is at the end when they discuss real-world applications specific first to competition shooters and then hunters. In a nutshell, the biggest impacting variables they found were change in bullet, change in powder, change in barrel. Seating depth, velocity and primer choice were least including down to inconsequential.

They gave their revised load dev practic for hunting. Define the job you want to do, e.g. humanely harvest red deer large stag to max 300m (they used a diff example), choose calibre and appropriate bullet, define adequate velocity for bullet to do job at 300m, choose 2 different backup bullets, choose 3 powders that will deliver that velocity and pick your preferred. Pick 2-3 charges that will deliver the required velocity at 1 or 1.2gn or larger increments (smaller increments are not statistically differentiated enough), load 5 of each and see how they group. Choose one you like best and do 10 more. If happy do 20 more and you begin to get statistical relevance. Etc.

They would change the bullet first if they could not get acceptable results from the first choice. Then the powder. Finally the barrel..

If you want to understand how little info you get from a small, 3 or 5 shot group, and why the info only starts to get informative above 20 shots, the podcast is worth the watch.

https://youtu.be/QwumAGRmz2I?si=yxhOBY_aMTWdtx6D

@Tentman Stirer

Are we going too have an entire week of this ?
I blame Elon Musk

Nah, soon as my foot is a goer again (Fridayish) I'll "go dark" and climb back in my cave haha

If the tester is not using "perfect" bullets and 'perfect brass' and 'perfect ptimers', then they might have point; otherwise why do the worlds tip F class shooters take such care with their component selection and handloading precision!.
Quality of components is critical and that aspect is a moot point in podcadt and article. Get those right and thrn ladder and OCW and similar tests are valid and cheaper and do allow - achieve sub 1/2 moa groups at very
long range. Just look at the scores of NZ and international medium and long
range target shooters. Virtually nil random fliers by those winning people.

I'm open to the idea that they're real. I just haven't seen convincing proof that anyone can develop loads that are actually meaningfully different with the same powder, brass, bullet and in a sensibly usable range of seating depth and powder charge, by making small adjustments to either or both.

The test isn't "can you get a good load" it's "can you get loads that are actually demonstrably different"

Originally Posted by Woody

If the tester is not using "perfect" bullets and 'perfect brass' and 'perfect ptimers', then they might have point; otherwise why do the worlds tip F class shooters take such care with their component selection and handloading precision!.
Quality of components is critical and that aspect is a moot point in podcadt and article. Get those right and thrn ladder and OCW and similar tests are valid and cheaper and do allow - achieve sub 1/2 moa groups at very
long range. Just look at the scores of NZ and international medium and long
range target shooters. Virtually nil random fliers by those winning people.

Mmm...did you actually watch the podcast?

The gains beyond my method are to be made in careful process and better components and reloading gear. My method got me to 2x loads (2 different bullets) produced 0.6/0.7 moa groups this week, with no tuning, totally random loads, mixed lot un-prepped PMC brass, old stale powder, charges weighed on a chargemaster, loaded FL sized from cheap hornady dies, shot from prone in the gravel in strong mirage on a bipod and lightweight rear bag with a hard hold in an 8lb rifle with a 2lb trigger. Oh and it took 20 rounds and about 20 minutes.


If you want good groups get a better barrel and get good bullets and brass, the precision just happens

If you want better groups than that, you're wasting time unless shooting BR, but you'll probably want to get very particular about brass prep and charge weights

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

I'd always considered nodes more related to barrel harmonics. How the barrel starts vibrating and the frequency was controlled primarily by barrel length, diameter, bedding points.

Originally Posted by gimp

If you want good groups get a better barrel and get good bullets and brass, the precision just happens

If you want better groups than that, you're wasting time unless shooting BR, but you'll probably want to get very particular about brass prep and charge weights

Yeah my understanding is the whole idea of nodes came from the belief that at certain velocities or powder charges, the barrel’s vibrations are more favourable for accuracy... therefore node load development is based on the idea of optimizing barrel harmonics.

Hornady’s scepticism of this whole 'node load development' may be due to their view of barrel harmonics, as they seem to believe this emphasis on tuning to barrel harmonics is overblown. They suggest that accuracy is more about focusing on load consistency and using quality components ie barrel, (Hornady) bullets , and powder, rather than obsessing over tiny variations in powder charge to match harmonic "sweet spots."

They base their whole argument on a statistical perspective as when using larger sample sizes the differences often attributed to "nodes" become statistically insignificant... ie larger sample sizes (e.g., 10-shot+ groups vs 3 to 5 shots) might show that the apparent advantages of a particular node are actually just the result of random variation in group size.

I'm all for saving time...get a match barrel, pick an accurate bullet and powder - as Gimp says precision is generally there.

If a node is not a thing then what is a node? No I didn’t watch the video, no I probably won’t watch the video. The latest trend of bagging nodes and seating depth doesn’t compute with me and by no means am I right but it’s a number game. Sample size as well if I can shoot 3-5 shot groups .5” 10 times over happy days if I shot a 30-50 shot group and it blows out who cares “in my case” hunting rifles 3 shots is heaps. I also go against the trend of letting barrels cool between shots go figure
Most my groups would be shot in 15-30 seconds flat. 1 I’m impatient 2 I’m simulating follow up shots

Originally Posted by Woody

If the tester is not using "perfect" bullets and 'perfect brass' and 'perfect ptimers', then they might have point; otherwise why do the worlds tip F class shooters take such care with their component selection and handloading precision!.
Quality of components is critical and that aspect is a moot point in podcadt and article. Get those right and thrn ladder and OCW and similar tests are valid and cheaper and do allow - achieve sub 1/2 moa groups at very
long range. Just look at the scores of NZ and international medium and long
range target shooters. Virtually nil random fliers by those winning people.

To be a top shooter you have to have a lot of "belief" in your abilities, probably 90%+ of what they do is in the top 2" (of their brain) and 10% equipment. If you look at the books written by the likes of Olympic coaches they focus primarily on what might be called "mental preparation", usually their books have a pretty slim section on technique and less on equipment. Pretty much the same in the top rowing primers.

So their approach to ammo is more about belief rather than science. Because they do use the very best barrels, projectiles and loading gear it works. All Hornardy ( and Litz too, although he is smart enough not to shit stir and rock the boat - thanks @akaroa1 ) are providing an absolutely science based approach. None of the node based theories have been able to be proven out by scientific method - yet that I'm aware of.