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

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 Kelton

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

Fair enough it might work in lots of hunting scenarios, but I can give you two first hand instances when it doesn't. Several years ago we did some goose culling. 223s and ten shot mags. Start shooting at under, 100M, keep shooting till we got to 300+. The problem was our hit rate dropped dramatically after 5 or 6 shots. Puzzled I tried out 4 223s over a period of a year or so, a Zastava M85, a CZ527, a Remington Model 7 and a CZ600 Alfa with quite a heavy but still sporter barrel. All of them shot excellent 3 shot groups most of the time. A couple would do 5 sometimes. All of them opened right up shooting 10 shot groups.

I had a wee go at PRS (even though I'm too old and unfit/bulging in the wrong place to be competitive!!). I found the rifles I thought shot well enough fell to bits when you had to shoot 8+ shot stages.

Originally Posted by Kelton

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

It's quite a nuanced concept and I'm not sure you'veunderstood.


The whole conversation isn't really about anything particularly relevant to outcomes when hunting (except long range hunting).

It is not about barrel heat. Barrel heat should not be a problem - if your groups really "open up" when your barrel is hot from having 10 rounds through it - throw it away and get a decent barrel. I have shot dozens of groups of 10 rounds in a row with hunting weight barrels from various different rifles, custom and factory, and if the system is actually precise the heat from 10 rounds doesn't make any difference. Most groups "opening up" from barrel heat are people being fooled by small sample sizes.

It is about

1. Meaningfully measuring and characterising the precision of your system to make accurate statements about it
2. Comparing meaningful measurements - making load development efficient and meaningful


I have demonstrated repeatedly, with several different rifles, that I can shoot multiple 3 or 5 round groups where the group size average is very small, however the true mechanical precision of the rifle is much larger - this is because groups vary in size and position within the true "cone of fire". You are firing a shotgun 1 pellet at a time. You cannot confidently characterise the precision of your system or make accurate statements about it based solely on group sizes from 3-5 shot groups, even if you have "average sizes" from many groups. Including the relative position of every shot from a large "group" or multiple individual groups overlaid, regardless of firing speed, gives you much more useful data for this. https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....cision-103608/


If you are not meaningfully measuring the precision of your system you cannot meaningfully compare measurements. Load development via traditional methods is ultimately trying to "compare measurements" to select the "best load". I, and the author of this article, and others, have demonstrated that using the traditional methods with ladders, small samples, we cannot so far actually produce loads that can be assessed as meaningfully different.

I have also shown that velocity ES is a useless figure, and SD is the useful measure of velocity variation. So far I have not been able to identify that velocity SD is really any different across different powder charges and seating depths when measured meaningfully. It appears to be "what it is" as a product of the quality of components used, and the quality of the reloading process and tools.

The system I now use to select a load assumes that within the functional window of powder charge that gives the velocity required and seating depth that fits the mag/maximises case volume, loads do not produce meaningfully different precision or velocity SD. This system produces precision as good as, or better than, anything I have seen demonstrated by anyone using traditional load development methods in comparable rifles/shooting (i.e. practical) - with an absolute minimum of faff and with the byproducts of a decent velocity average and a decent zero - 2 other things that you do not get from small sample sizes.

"Meaningfully different loads" with same components seems to me to be smoke filled debating chamber. I can well recall Mr Litz suggesting seating secant ogive bullets way back and then the devopement if hybrid ogive profiles. I write this simply to imply that the actual position of that component will alter MV and group size and pressure.
Bell curves exist but the steepness of the sides and the wide or narrow range of distributuon at the peak xemonsgrate differences in the interdependence of load components in any test. Fine tuning a load involves makinf only one change at a time unless your voodoo senses come into play. Eg knowing that increading ffeebore can reduce pressure but reducing case capacity may do the opposite. Then burn rate migjt change bbl harmonics. Ergo, bring in bbl tuners
It's a never ending story andoad developement and proving is a great sporting recreational activity IMO.