Thread: Testing a conventional approach to load development

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Right so I do believe there is one other test that hasn't been done that would answer more questions than most others and allow some folk to rest easy and be happy with what they are using. RUMPY has said it well above,others along same lines. The how far away was last deer poll was eye opening. Bottom line is this. Good enough is good enough. It's a personal thing how good you decide is actually enough. A deers vitals are generally considered a 8" vital area. If we halve that to try and remove some of the environmental and human factors we get 4" as ethical must be able to consistently get group size for given range....which by default tells us our own personal ethical range EG when you can't hold 4" or better you need to get closer. Your rifle n load might be good for 1" on a bench rest on bluebird day out to two hundred yards (oh the skills needed) but on steep slippery slope in howling norwester you may struggle to achieve that 4" freehand at 50 yards. So how about let's cut the crap and try one more test???? Same rifle,same shooter,same conditions and use every combination of run of the mill loads you have got access to. Cartridge doesn't really matter,the 223 is possibly cheapest beast to do this with. I may have been nice to old ladies in previous life but at hundred yards my centerfire rifles don't change enough between yards to matter at or under hundy.

What level of precision is required for hunting at conventional ranges? It's a good question - you could start a thread to discuss it and test it. I have some data to input.


It is however not the focus of this thread or line of investigation.