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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Tentman

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.

In Science we trust

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.

Yup, stuff you buy from the shop is going to be 100% perfect and it's just how you put it together with a magic touch that makes it super accurate

There is definitely a correlation between rifle weight and precision.

There is definitely a correlation between a robust sighting system and accuracy.

The bloke doing 'load development' every range trip is unlikely to get much better results due to constant changes.

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 gimp

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"

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.

Gimp are you going to the Benchrest match at Labour weekend in Nelson?