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!
Printable View
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 :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
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"
Mmm...did you actually watch the podcast?Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody
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.
Yes you can, I've proved it with multiple barrels and rifles, admittedly these rifle will shoot sub 0.300 aggs for 100 rounds at 100/200yds.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Gimp are you going to the Benchrest match at Labour weekend in Nelson?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelton
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.
If you wait long enough everything falls out of fashion. Whether it's true or not.
In Science we trustQuote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
And if you wait even longer it will come back into fashion againQuote:
Originally Posted by John Duxbury
I tell you what, I've never been able to find a decent node in my shotgun. Damn thing patterns all day.
On a more serious note, I have the feeling that this was more of a hangover of older action design - namely rear locking actions like the Lee. If you do enough googling there is reporting from military testing of thousands of rounds at various ranges testing out the grouping of the Lee Enfield design with various modifications, they worked out the loadings and ammo designs for the various individual marks of the rifles based around bullet performance, rifle setup and then settling for the velocity. It's an interesting thing, as the designs got stiffer in the action as the No1MkVI and then the No4 series came along, the rifles were found to be less sensitive to variations in ammo. Various countries producing variations in the standard loading of ammo found different results in terms of grouping potential and group sizes at various ranges, this was attributed to the amount of flex or spring in the rear locking action with a long slim bolt. The longer the range, the better the packages tended to group.
More modern stiffer front locking action designs like the later Mauser series did not have this particular interesting effect going on, and my view of the node thing is it's a hang over from the older days. When you factor in the time in the barrel after hauling on the trigger, it's fractions of a fraction of a second difference you are talking. I have never been able to see how microscopic changes could make such a difference - heat buildup changing the profile and putting a curve in a stressed barrel steel - now that I could see making a huge difference and that would easily explain the variation in large shot strings. Also would explain why leaving the barrel to cool fully between shots tends to give tighter groups.
My own theory on it has always been to load to mag length and if it won't group find a new pill. Once you've got a pill to group, go for the velocity you want - which might mean a new powder - if it won't group start again. If you can't find anything to group at that point it probably won't. On a standard hunting platform, you probably don't have the precision in the action, barrel, chamber and bedding tolerances to see any further benefit from going to the nth degree in reloading precision!
Next thing you know is they will be saying you sould only fl size and neck sizing is a waste of time...
Greetings,
The Audette ladder test was fired at long range of several hundred metres with single shots at each of an ascending range of powder loads. It was done to find quiet spots where the normal upward progress in the shots on the target. Where several shots were closer together this identified a point where the barrel was in a quiet spot in its vibration cycles, really useful for shooting at long range.
Regards Grandpamac.
Many a true word is spoken in jest.Quote:
Originally Posted by blip
GPM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
It suffers the same problem that I have demonstrated with selecting "good" loads based on 3 shot groups, or "good" loads based on "flat spots in velocity" from ladders as shown in the linked article
It has not been demonstrated to produce any difference between loads when they are measured properly - with a meaningful sample size
They'll be rightQuote:
Originally Posted by blip
Ive mucked around with neck sizing but for hunting the security of knowing every round will fit the chamber is reassuring.
My load development has always been random and unsophisticated. Work towards max pressure at mag length from mid range with a couple of rounds for each load and then back off a bit when I see a sign of pressure like a change in the primer. If it groups "good enough" there job done, otherwise I pick one of the 2 shot groups that looks the best and settle there.
Sometimes I get it spot on with little groups. Sometimes hovering just under an inch for 3 shots. I don't over fuss. My head wont let me settle for anything under an inch though.
If I miss an animal from there on out it certainly isn't the load's fault.
Some of this load development stuff can be too heavenly to be of any earthly use. But I do understand the fascination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelton
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.
This is precisely the reason to do it as efficiently as possible! To understand "what is actually useful"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
It turns out much of what we've done for a long time - isn't useful - and can be done much more efficiently
I had bookmarked a thread on AccurateShooter years ago just for reference and it's relevant to this discussion as it contains the best quote on "nodes" I have seen
"A node is a mythical place, like Shangri-La or El Dorado, where all dreams come true and everything is wonderful. Despite no evidence that such places exist, many still embrace the notion and spend their lives and fortunes seeking them." from https://forum.accurateshooter.com/th.../post-37017061
there are some other gems in that thread as well such as
I sometimes wonder if load development and tuning are real except in the minds of the shooters. Don’t know. Just thoughts. Probably gonna start a food fight. I apologize in advance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Badger
Thank you but I won't make it to the match in Nelson - I'm committed to shooting a precision rifle match next month and while I am interested to learn more about the nuts and bolts of benchrest, it is largely from an interest perspective rather than practical application - as I am already achieving precision far beyond what I can practically apply in field shooting
However I am keen to make sure I understand how benchrest works - !
As I understand it - focussing on BR for Agg not score -
Within a weight class, shooters shoot 5 relays of 5 shots each at a distance for group size. The average of these group sizes is your "agg". 7 minutes per relay? Presumbly some sort of foulers or sighters permitted?
Is it safe to assume that all shooters are "tuning loads" for their rifles with powder charge and seating depth?
Are most shooters "tuning" during matches - or only some?
It looks like a "winning agg" at 100Y is about 0.3MOA and a "losing agg" is about 0.5MOA - although it is hard to find many results from NZ https://www.deerstalkers.org.nz/reso...g-champs-2024/. Is this about fair?
Does the same person win every match?
What does the total agg over a season or the good life of a barrel look like - not just the winning agg?
Yeah I had that happen once a few moons never made that mistake again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Sent from my SM-S916B using Tapatalk
Hey...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
The "Your Groups Are Too Small" series really got me thinking and changed my way of load testing and development quite a bit.
I think it was well worth to watch the two main videos and invest that time.
Awesome info in it!
Even after taking into consideration that it is a Hornady marketing show after all!
@Tentman On a completely other note:
Thank you very much indeed, for that very generous offer via mail!
Awewome...
Somehow I just can not get my answer through to you.
Mail delivery error all the time.
And being a newb here, I can also not find the right button to send you a personal message or mail via the forum.
Maybe you or someone else can help me with that...
But again:
Really cool move and much appreciated!
Cheers
Ben
After neck sizing cases I run them through the rifle seems an easy way to avoid a round not chambering...
Mind you I do it when I fl as well...
Your PMs should come on soon, we can do it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben_SK
"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.
I can't put my hand on it, but somewhere I have a 20-round target which is basically two points of impact with two distinct groups, one of about 13 rounds the other 7. Each group is about an inch, but about 3 inches apart on the diagonal (shot at 100m, single point of aim roughly in the middle of the two points of impact). Ammo was a single packet of quality hunting ammo, .308 cal. Could find no reason to explain it as far as rifle or scope. Rifle was fine as a bush hunting piece, as far as I know it's still doing the job and still set up the same.
Mechanical precision? Or something else?
Perhaps bedding or action screws totque issue. Bbl heating can influence torques if bbl is not fully free floated too. Even a small obsttuction falling into gap betwwrn mag box and inlettong can cause issues. Same if bolt handle comes in contact with a swelling stock.
A wise man once said to me he picked a load between middle n hot in manual,loaded up rounds and went hunting...not a hell of a lot different to back when we just bought box of whatever was on shelf,fired a couple of shots into a pizza box to check zero and carried on. My days of firing fifteen into paper and five at animals are long over.