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

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?

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.

If you wait long enough everything falls out of fashion. Whether it's true or not.

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 John Duxbury

If you wait long enough everything falls out of fashion. Whether it's true or not.

And if you wait even longer it will come back into fashion again

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.

Originally Posted by blip

Next thing you know is they will be saying you sould only fl size and neck sizing is a waste of time...

Many a true word is spoken in jest.
GPM.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

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.

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

Originally Posted by blip

Next thing you know is they will be saying you sould only fl size and neck sizing is a waste of time...

They'll be right

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Some of this load development stuff can be too heavenly to be of any earthly use.

This is precisely the reason to do it as efficiently as possible! To understand "what is actually useful"



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.