Not sure what all this means...Rifle Nodes 101

[jimmyjames8]

Rifle Nodes: How You’ve Been Wasting Your Time and Money on Load Development

Everything you know about rifle nodes and load development might be wrong. Click here to see the results for yourself.

www.outdoorlife.com

Always shot 5 shot load development groups until 2 consistent BR champs told me to do 3 shot groups to start and then refine from there using 3 to 5 shot groups. Lather rinse repeat to verify.

 

[georgel]

Hmmm....

 

[Jimbob78]

That article hurt my head and I wouldn’t be happy with his lowest SD nor his velocity in the creed. That’s a participation trophy article. He mentions ELR shooters and while we don’t always choose the loaded with the tightest group, that ES and SD in velocity matter when we are talking long time of flight with environmental effects greater as that velocity slows to subsonic. I bet his ladder was at 100 yards where I rather it be at 800. His ocw was all over the place, I’d change something if that’s the best I was getting

 

[georgel]

Ok, I watched the hour long Hornady podcast(s) he was referring to.

Basically, they're saying that the typical 3-5 shot groups that most people shoot to test their guns aren't statistically significant enough to give you an accurate representation of the real performance of the system. That it actually takes 20-50 rounds to truly represent what the gun is realistically doing. As a consequence, overall group size is increased, but "trends" emerge. We get caught up in others claiming .25 MOA, because they've shot a 5 shot group that small, but that's not truly representative of the day in, day out performance of the gun. However, they are not saying you should sit down and shoot a 20 shot string all at one time. These can be groups, say of 5, with cooling in between or even over days. But, it's not until you gather a sample of 20 or more you get enough data to really matter. I agree with this.

Now, the really interesting trends they saw were that powder charge weights did not have a significant impact on accuracy, despite most people's beliefs on "accuracy nodes". They found the "nodes" flattened or averaged out over the larger samples. That powder charges were fairly linear in performance. Lower charges were more accurate than higher charges.

There's much more to this and worthy of discussion...

 

[Downeast]

I now shoot 27 rounds for load development. I pick the average powder weight and my favorite flavor of powder. For example say min charge is 40, max is 45. Average starting charge would be 42.5. I do that because I know what velocity I need to do what I want. Then I find jam and back off .002. Then seat nine bullets, three each, at .007, .010, and .013 respectively. Repeat for 43.0 and 43.5. You will find a trend in group size for each respective powder and seating depth. Pick the group that is "small" ,concentric and somewhere in the middle. You don't want a 3 shot group that is itty bitty in size but big on each side of the charge and seating depth. That gives you no leeway at all when conditions change. You can then work around those values with your powder and seating depth if needed. Saves a lot of guesswork in the long run by combining charge weight and seating depth at the same time.

B. Norris, out of Shallotte, an avid BR shooter and handloader, showed me that trick.

 

[Toprudder]

I now shoot 27 rounds for load development. I pick the average powder weight and my favorite flavor of powder. For example say min charge is 40, max is 45. Average starting charge would be 42.5. I do that because I know what velocity I need to do what I want. Then I find jam and back off .002. Then seat nine bullets, three each, at .007, .010, and .013 respectively. Repeat for 43.0 and 43.5. You will find a trend in group size for each respective powder and seating depth. Pick the group that is "small" ,concentric and somewhere in the middle. You don't want a 3 shot group that is itty bitty in size but big on each side of the charge and seating depth. That gives you no leeway at all when conditions change. You can then work around those values with your powder and seating depth if needed. Saves a lot of guesswork in the long run by combining charge weight and seating depth at the same time.

B. Norris, out of Shallotte, an avid BR shooter and handloader, showed me that trick.

Seating depth is something I have not played with much. In most of my cases, I am limited by mag length and can't get that close to the lands to begin with.

 

[Downeast]

I about quit using mags years ago except in my AR's. Big waste of ammo. At todays prices I make every round count and try to glean as much info as I can out of every boolit. I bought some of those solid mags that turn your rifle into a single shot. So seating depth is not an issue except for AR's and hunting rigs. I now have "fun" guns, hunting guns, and target guns. I like the target guns the best. Once you get a decent hunting load then it becomes a bit boring. Same with the semi-autos. But trying to get a bullet in a gnats ass while fighting in the wind and the mirage is fun and humbling at the same time. Did anyone mention flyers?

 

[Jimbob78]

Hybrids are very forgiving with seating depth and I load 20 thou off or mag length. Then roll with a powder charge. But I like little groups so I only change one thing at a time and typically never touch seating depth.

 

[georgel]

According to the Hornady data, seating depth was not a major factor. Again, against common belief.
According to their data, bullet and powder selection were the only significant factors. Select the bullet you need for the job and then try powders. Some bullets didn't like some barrels. Some powders worked better than others.

 

[Jimbob78]

According to the Hornady data, seating depth was not a major factor. Again, against common belief.
According to their data, bullet and powder selection were the only significant factors. Select the bullet you need for the job and then try powders. Some bullets didn't like some barrels. Some powders worked better than others.

Is that with their products or in an attempt to justify their products?