Thread: Testing a conventional approach to load development

Susan Boyle anyone???

Originally Posted by PerazziSC3

I think you might be missing a point… gimp is indicating that the old school method that you describe above is a waste of ammo and time. By your logic why not just take your own advice and pick a projectile and powder charge that will give a suitable velocity, shoot one 5 shot group and call it done?

What gimp has done above by picking the best and worst 3 shot, and replicating with 20 shots just proves that the 3 shot group load testing is a waste of time, especially when we all no it’s going to shoot “good enough ”for what a 16” 308 should be doing

Nailed it!

As for shooter fatigue, spare me. If a guy can stagger to the range I don't think their "performance" is going to decline much shooting 30, 50 or even 100 rounds from any of the common ammo testing positions, bench or prone. I don't think anyone tests a rifle /ammo combination in other than those two positions and even an old fat fart like me can easily do 50 rounds on the mound in an afternoon without a drop in capability, actually I usually get better as the day progresses.

Im a 3 shot sight in guy but totally respect and get where gimp is coming from.
It extends our thinking and challenges what we do. It's making us think and its changing my mind..

Keep going gimp. Your prep and stats is meticulous.

Originally Posted by PerazziSC3

I think you might be missing a point...gimp is indicating that the old school method that you describe above is a waste of ammo and time. By your logic why not just take your own advice and pick a projectile and powder charge that will give a suitable velocity, shoot one 5 shot group and call it done?

Yeah, I didn't think of like that. To be fair, I won't be far off developing a load like you mention above for said rifle.

It's pretty impressive the level of detail @gimp has gone too in this thread. Albeit, not my style, I still enjoyed reading it.

Originally Posted by Tentman

Nailed it!

As for shooter fatigue, spare me. If a guy can stagger to the range I don't think their "performance" is going to decline much shooting 30, 50 or even 100 rounds from any of the common ammo testing positions, bench or prone. I don't think anyone tests a rifle /ammo combination in other than those two positions and even an old fat fart like me can easily do 50 rounds on the mound in an afternoon without a drop in capability, actually I usually get better as the day progresses.

All good if it's not something that affects your shooting - certain codes it is a huge factor and one thing that can dictate how well the setup works in terms of group and results. Extreme end winter biathlon - I have no idea how those guys and girls do that I really don't. I'd go for a ski and be that rooted I couldn't hold the bangstick on target long enough to see the target! It's something I see mostly with new shooters who just don't have any real idea of what is good technique and what isn't, they look like they are lying on a bed of nails sniffing their missus's farts and hanging onto hot coals half the time. It's not uncommon to have people on the 25m or 50m with a 200m target just to see what they are doing - as they say it gives a lot of room to improve. The good thing is a lot of them vastly improve with as little as 15mins of coaching.

Makes me feel good about my load development technique. Fire 1 shot at each charge weight to get velocity idea. Usually pick the highest, safe, velocity. Load 3 and shoot. If under an inch call it good. Load some more at that weight and zero.

I'm not sure about shooter fatigue.

On another thread there's a bloke concerned that if we don't get up and run around between each shot, we'll get too comfortable, fall asleep, and the rifle will shoot a .25MOA group all by itself.

Whereas in this thread, there seems to be touching concern that I'm so physically and mentally frail that I'm unable to take the strain of squeezing a 2lb trigger 5 times while lying immobile on the ground, and it's going to cause immeasurable problems for my precision.


I don't think it's a problem here

I've been mucking around for ages trying to find a consistent load for my rifle. Lots of 3 shot groups.

The one thing I have done is keep all my targets which are printed on an A4 sheet of paper.

One day I was reviewing my targets as I seemed to be getting nowhere. I had a light bulb moment and placed a blank piece of paper on my desk and then one by one marked the holes of the old targets on the blank sheet.

The result doesn't look a whole lot diffferent to Gimps target.

I’m following this thread with interest.
This thread and a couple of others started by Gimp recently has really got me thinking about actual accuracy/precision in regards to what I do and need .
My world is Hunting/ informal target shooting .
I do subscribe and listen to a number of podcasts and have tried to decipher and understand the “ your groups are to small “ concept .
I am coming around to the idea .
But……. If you look at the tip of the spear of Benchrest world ( which is the highest degree of precision / accuracy currently available for us mere mortals of the shooting fraternity) they live and die by adjusting powder charge and sometimes seating depth between relays depending on environmental conditions etc that change throughout the day .
If powder charge isn’t important and doesn’t have a noticeable effect on performance then they need to be told they are fools and behind the times .

That puts me in a dilemma…….

I do have a suspicion that the entire sport of benchrest is based on a fallacy, and is an exercise in playing in the noise and thinking it's meaningful.

Originally Posted by gimp

I do have a suspicion that the entire sport of benchrest is based on a fallacy, and is an exercise in playing in the noise and thinking it's meaningful.

It certainly has no bearing on any practical applications. Practises from top PRS type shooters are more relevant.

Originally Posted by gimp

I do have a suspicion that the entire sport of benchrest is based on a fallacy, and is an exercise in playing in the noise and thinking it's meaningful.

Well that just adds to the Dilemma

PS - There seems to be some people in the “ Benchrest Hall of Fame “ that seem to understand and harness the “ Noise “ better than everyone else

Originally Posted by gimp

It certainly has no bearing on any practical applications. Practises from top PRS type shooters are more relevant.

I agree with that to a point , but more in regards the techniques in shooting form , not necessarily their loading prowess

Originally Posted by Ground Control

Well that just adds to the Dilemma

PS - There seems to be some people in the “ Benchrest Hall of Fame “ that seem to understand and harness the “ Noise “ better than everyone else

The most logical explanation is that they're the ones with the best gunsmiths, and develop skill at reading wind and mirage over time.

Whether they have the best gunsmiths, or can read wind and mirage or not, they all pay absolute attention to the distance to the lands (I.e. bullet seating depth) and are constantly checking throughout the life of a barrel. Because it absolutely is important and their rifle systems can resolve it.

PRS shooters have a different set of requirements, so use a projectile that is less sensitive to seating depth / jump and will hold together for several hundred rounds.