How much can i expect handloading to change the accuracy with a given bullet? And what are the performance of the average factory rifle with a variety

[Overdrive]

how come none of the hot barrel flyer disciples have identified the hot and cold barrel groups posted?

Literally, not even one single guess from people who are arguing vehemently that there are real differences. Shown some real data, ya'll cannot point out a single difference. There's a reason for that - it's because there is no difference.

The debate will never end until someone does an accurate test. Temperature should be taken on every single shoot and shot placement recorded then correspond the 2.

Were the cold bore shots in the pictures shot 1 shot every day for 5-10 consecutive days or all shot in one outing. I know by shot #3 in my magnums the barrel is a lot warmer than when I started.

 

[ssimo]

1. If the gun is shooting 2 moa, its possible that changing one of the multiple variables can make it better. But in the handloading side that means having multiple powders, primers, different brass, etc. If you’re already reloading than i feel thats just part of the load development process. I think generally if you’re not getting the best results from a bullet, its easier to try other bullets then trying to find that one magical combination. Usually if a bullet shoots like shit from the start, its going to shoot like shit the whole time. Or maybe you do find that sweet spot but then its also sensitive to pressure changes, temperature changes, seating depth variance, etc.

2. Obviously all factory ammo varies. Generally i’ll see better accuracy out of my reloads than factory. Biggest benefit to reloading is you know that each round is exactly the same. So if you’re having questionable groups it can at least rule out a variable, or it is the variable. On the factory side id buy a couple different brands and just see what holds the best precision and accuracy.

Thanks for replying, point 1 was very interesting

 

[ResearchinStuff]

The debate will never end until someone does an accurate test. Temperature should be taken on every single shoot and shot placement recorded then correspond the 2.

Were the cold bore shots in the pictures shot 1 shot every day for 5-10 consecutive days or all shot in one outing. I know by shot #3 in my magnums the barrel is a lot warmer than when I started.

there's nothing to correlate, and it's not an experimental set up issue. the 30 rounds i posted had a continually higher temperature, as the shots were all taken consecutively, with no change in dispersion. the barrel started off 85, and ended up really stinking hot.

 

[TaperPin]

I don't agree. Preparing for '21 elk hunt I shot 5 shot groups with 7 different factory loads in my Ruger American .308. These were in separate sessions and the barrel wasn't cleaned between sessions. I don't remember the exact orderr, except for the fact the Hornady loads were shot last.

Federal 165/180 TBT- Bullet weight didn't change POI, .75-1.5" at 100 yards
Federal 175 TA- .5-1" at 100 yards
Federal Fusion 180- 3-4" at 100 yards
Winchester 180 "white box"- 4" (best) at 100 yards
Hornady 168 Match ELDM- .5-1" at 100 yards
Hornady 178 PH ELDM- .75-1.5" at 100 yards
Browning 168 TMK- 5" at 100 yards

EDIT: My 5 shot groups were across a 20 round box of ammo for each load above. To @Formidilosus point, If I overlayed all 4- 5 shot groups for each box of 20, the extreme spread or standard deviation would've increased. I don't have the targets anymore, so I can't say what the overall numbers were, but I will change my approach moving forward.

To be honest, your attention to detail and thought process is quite good - this method is much more thorough than any factory testing I’ve ever done - it’s enough to change how quickly I‘d give up on a poorly shooting new rifle.

It‘s a treat when someone has really good data on a new unfamiliar rifle. I have looked at the Ruger American and thought it was a lot of bang for the buck, and as more reports come in they seem to be good shooters.

In a small town we often had any brand of factory cartridges you want as long as they were ordinary green box Remington or regular Winchester, maybe Federal Premium, so it was rare to try too many factory loads before handloading. Even handloads have typically been limited to Partitions and X bullets for hunting, and Interlocks or Ballistic tips as practice/varmint/antelope loads. I have friends that will try every bullet they can find, and they must get enjoyment out of it, but the cost adds up quickly.

 

[stanginthe11s]

Using the photos in this thread, what's the difference?

I don't know, maybe look at the pics for yourself and you tell me.

But there's not, the point is both fall within the cone. The fact that they appear slightly different is due to the random distribution of small sample size.

who decided on this cone? the fact that they appear different is the fact that they ARE different. nothing in life is random, and we cannot say with any certainty that heat is or is not a factor. at no time did I say anything about fliers or even groups for that matter.

The point is to know how much dispersion there is between any 3 shot string fired, and to have your zero be in the proven center of that cone.

I don't disagree, never did, but my question is how in the hell did you guys shoot 10 rounds or 30 rounds and manage to skip the first 3 shots? we can't just start the group size at #4. unless those first 3 were from a cold barrel lol.

If both groups fall within the established cone (the one that takes a very large sample size) then they shoot the same, you can have confidence in first round impacts.

so if I shoot at the broad side of a barn and hit it them my bench gun is the same as my shotgun? I have confidence in my first shot every time because I don't have an acceptable cone. I prefer to learn the why's.

The myth is the blanket statement hot sporter contour barrels deviate with heat. Single point cut rifled barrels, and properly stress relieved hammer forged or button rifled barrels don't "start pitching shots after the 3rd round". What people are most commonly observing in those circumstances is the exact point we're talking about, that people don't actually know the precision of their system, and it's not as precise as everyone wishes it is, so they excuse "fliers" with things like barrel heat.

I can agree with you to a point here. but you use certain exe. for what doesn't happen, what about the guy who can't afford a barrel of such precision? then, yes heat can cause a barrel to wander.
again, there is no disputing that thermal dynamics is real. there is no disputing that different metals expand and contract with heat and cold. there is no disputing grain structure changes what happens with heat.
I didn't even get into acoustics, but I'm sure many will say it doesn't exist because they don't understand it. and heat changes that also.

 

[Harvey_NW]

who decided on this cone?

Physics. Recognized and established by ballisticians and engineers. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of them, but designing tests and repeating them multiple times to prove what's fact and disprove theories is kind of their forte.

I can tell at this point you're reading replies to respond, not to understand. Hornady has a pile of podcasts going into deep dives on all of this, Bryan Litz has been on Ultimate Reloader and Erik Cortina's podcast, and talked about some of the recent data he's gathered from large scale contract work. If you dig deep enough you can find some stuff produced by the Government from a long time ago.

If that's what you believe and it works for you, that's great. But if you're going to claim it's fact, please provide proof.

 

[Overdrive]

there's nothing to correlate, and it's not an experimental set up issue. the 30 rounds i posted had a continually higher temperature, as the shots were all taken consecutively, with no change in dispersion. the barrel started off 85, and ended up really stinking hot.

Just playing devil's advocate

I think your 30 rounds is exactly an experiment or could be. Take those 30 rounds and now change the temperature to 0°F instead of 85°F and see what changes happen. But that's dealing more with ambient temp then barrel. But I'd still like someone (I don't have the time) to try and replicate 1 shot at 10 different targets for 10 consecutive days at the exact barrel and ambient temp to see the results to see if the debate is ever truly settled.

I'm not a believer in cold bore or hot bore cause like you I haven't seen significant changes that make me panic that I'll miss an animal with my first shot. If I shoot more than 5 rounds hunting I'm going to the range before I continue to hunt to resolve a problem.

Bottom line so many variables come into play that a definite answer will never come of it, so shoot on.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

shooting on a colder day would just decrease the temperature change of the barrel, because the heat loss from the barrel would be faster. testing on a hot day actually maximizes the temperature change of the barrel per shot.

 

[wind gypsy]

I don't disagree, never did, but my question is how in the hell did you guys shoot 10 rounds or 30 rounds and manage to skip the first 3 shots? we can't just start the group size at #4. unless those first 3 were from a cold barrel lol.

Nobody is denying the first 3 shots are part of the picture, they just are not the whole picture with any reasonable level of confidence in most folks' hunting rifles unless they shoot very poorly or very well.

A Possible Scenario:

Say you shoot 10 3 shot groups of a given ammo. Overlaid on top of each other, all 30 shots form a 1.5 MOA group. The first 3 round group shot measured 1.2 MOA.

Another ammo gets shot for 10 3 round groups. Overlaid on top of each other, all 30 shots form a 2 MOA group. The first 3 shot group was 0.6 MOA.

What did you learn from the first 3 round groups of each ammo? If nothing is random, what caused the largest 3 round groups to be likely double or more the size of the smaller 3 round groups?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I have friends that will try every bullet they can find, and they must get enjoyment out of it, but the cost adds up quickly.

Ugh, in the summer of '21, every load in that list save the Winchesters and Fusion were well over $50 per box. Most "premium" .308 ammo can be had in the mid to high $30s now. Compared to the total cost of that hunt, the ammo was peanuts, and I wanted confidence in what I was shooting. Ironic that after many range sessions out to 300 yards, I killed the bull in my profile pic at 80 yards.

 

[Formidilosus]

Just playing devil's advocate

I think your 30 rounds is exactly an experiment or could be. Take those 30 rounds and now change the temperature to 0°F instead of 85°F and see what changes happen.

Nothing different happens.

But that's dealing more with ambient temp then barrel. But I'd still like someone (I don't have the time) to try and replicate 1 shot at 10 different targets for 10 consecutive days at the exact barrel and ambient temp to see the results to see if the debate is ever truly settled.

It’s been done Ad nauseam. Guns that are built correctly do not have a measurable change from cold to extremely hot. The pictures I posted have 1 shot per day for 5 days in one group. There is no difference between one cold bore shot for 30 days, and 30 shots in one day.

I'm not a believer in cold bore or hot bore cause like you I haven't seen significant changes that make me panic that I'll miss an animal with my first shot. If I shoot more than 5 rounds hunting I'm going to the range before I continue to hunt to resolve a problem.

Ignoring cold bore/group size- that is a break down in logic even if it is repeated constantly. If a wounded animal happened somewhere in those 5 shots, are you just going to leave the wounded animal?

The “if I need more than 3 shots while hunting, something went wrong” crowd- yes, exactly. It’s hunting, sometimes things go wrong.

Bottom line so many variables come into play that a definite answer will never come of it, so shoot on.

That is not correct. That’s the whole point of sample size.

 

[Jimbee]

I shot this target 8 times, 8 different days at 100yds. Target 1 is 8 "cold bore" shots, target 8 is 8 shots on a barrel shot 8x as fast as I could comfortably shoot. I was going for 10 shots but kinda lost interest. The groups all look the same to me. 270 tikka superlite.

 

[TaperPin]

Ugh, in the summer of '21, every load in that list save the Winchesters and Fusion were well over $50 per box. Most "premium" .308 ammo can be had in the mid to high $30s now. Compared to the total cost of that hunt, the ammo was peanuts, and I wanted confidence in what I was shooting. Ironic that after many range sessions out to 300 yards, I killed the bull in my profile pic at 80 yards.

You did good from start to finish - that’s a fine bull and that pic made me smile before I had even read what you wrote.

 

[Overdrive]

Nothing different happens.





It’s been done Ad nauseam. Guns that are built correctly do not have a measurable change from cold to extremely hot. The pictures I posted have 1 shot per day for 5 days in one group. There is no difference between one cold bore shot for 30 days, and 30 shots in one day.




Ignoring cold bore/group size- that is a break down in logic even if it is repeated constantly. If a wounded animal happened somewhere in those 5 shots, are you just going to leave the wounded animal?

The “if I need more than 3 shots while hunting, something went wrong” crowd- yes, exactly. It’s hunting, sometimes things go wrong.





That is not correct. That’s the whole point of sample size.

Sounds like you have it all figured out, wish I hunted where everything was perfect every time, no wind, consistent elevation and temperature, flat with no steep angles, no mirage and everytime I squeezed the trigger the bullet hit the exact same spot. No variables.

 

[Formidilosus]

Sounds like you have it all figured out, wish I hunted where everything was perfect every time, no wind, consistent elevation and temperature, flat with no steep angles, no mirage and everytime I squeezed the trigger the bullet hit the exact same spot. No variables.

What are you talking about?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Sounds like you have it all figured out, wish I hunted where everything was perfect every time, no wind, consistent elevation and temperature, flat with no steep angles, no mirage and everytime I squeezed the trigger the bullet hit the exact same spot. No variables.

I think you're missing the point that Form and others are trying to communicate. The purpose of shooting "large" groups helps identify and eliminate the variables that a guy can control. Shooting mechanics, equipment deficiencies, and cartridge components can all be tested and improved. The more you sweat the details and manage/eliminate variables you can control from the bench, the less you have to worry about them on the hunt. Then you can focus on the things you can't control like the weather, angles, etc...

Form and others have also written extensively on Rokslide about practical field shooting positions and offered tips for using things like trekking poles as well as backpacks, puffy coats, etc..., to provide steady shooting platforms in the wild when nothing else is available.

The guys offering advice and evidence-based recommendations do so for the benefit of folks on this site with less experience and expertise (me). They provide science-based truth and in many cases hard facts vs. the authority, tradition, or dogma-based platitudes and theories espoused by some on here that have listened to some of the "authorities" in popular magazines and media. Some guys on here are too stubborn or have egos that are too fragile to look at anything that contradicts their closely held "truths". I'm 48 years old and was one of those guys when i first joined the site, and after reading, arguing, and reading some more, I've realized that clinging to tradition vs. embracing reality only hurts me and those I'm mentoring.

There are no cults of personalities on this site. Rather, there are some guys that shoot pallets of ammo every year across muliptle weapons systems, optics, ranges, and terrain that are happy to share their data for free.

 

[Brontosaurus]

Sounds like you have it all figured out, wish I hunted where everything was perfect every time, no wind, consistent elevation and temperature, flat with no steep angles, no mirage and everytime I squeezed the trigger the bullet hit the exact same spot. No variables.

Do you realize who you said this to?

 

[roadrunner]

LOL, no, it's absolutely not okay to be off target by several inches. A 10 round minimum group will tell you how far "off target" you are with more predicatability, due to the laws of statistics, than a 3 shot group. Moreover, a 20 shot group will have more validity than 10, and so on... The law of "small numbers" will tell you that individual data points amongst a small set of data will inappropriately skew the data one way or the other, leading people to a false belief in the outcome.

Increase the sample size, and the average for the entire data set will move to the center or "mean" with increasing statistical validity or "P-value". In statistics, there are hard laws around when a hypothesis is either accepted or thrown out based on the "P-value". The point being to eliminate special cause variation until a statistically significant conclusion can be reached.

Let's foget about shooting rifle groups. Have you never looked at polling data for elections? They give you the total number of people, re: the sample size, and the margin of error of the results based on that sample size. That is the only way to understand if the poll has any statistical validity. As sample size increases, the confidence interval or "margin of error" of the results improves. The concept is the same for shooting or any similar activity.

How many archers on here only shoot 3 arrows in a range session to determine whether the Yselected shafter, vanes, insert, and broadhead are accurate out of their setup?

let me go back to my original statement that apparently you didn't read and that Form didn't catch onto:

In a hunting rifle, the only sub MOA shot that matters is the first shot, cold barrel.

Your laws of statistics (whatever that means) are irrelevant when only one shot matters and it needs to be within whatever MOA at the distance you're shooting at. A group with as many data points is irrelevant when only one shot matters. A cold barrel doesn't mean first round, it means cold as in not the same temp you didn't your statistical analysis to test your null hypothesis with a multi-round group.

MOA is a relative term to whatever the base point of measurement is whether it's a first shot or the "X" on a paper target. I never once said group, and a group merely means more than two.

The "super moderator" immediately twisted around my statement and clearly didn't understand (good job Form!!) and you followed suit.

A hunting rifle's target is an aim point on the target animal. How far you miss that aimpoint matters only once...

 

[roadrunner]

Do you realize who you said this to?

Did they hang the moon or something? Invent sliced bread?

 

[ARK_Ginger]

let me go back to my original statement that apparently you didn't read and that Form didn't catch onto:

In a hunting rifle, the only sub MOA shot that matters is the first shot, cold barrel.

Your laws of statistics (whatever that means) are irrelevant when only one shot matters and it needs to be within whatever MOA at the distance you're shooting at. A group with as many data points is irrelevant when only one shot matters. A cold barrel doesn't mean first round, it means cold as in not the same temp you didn't your statistical analysis to test your null hypothesis with a multi-round group.

MOA is a relative term to whatever the base point of measurement is whether it's a first shot or the "X" on a paper target. I never once said group, and a group merely means more than two.

The "super moderator" immediately twisted around my statement and clearly didn't understand (good job Form!!) and you followed suit.

A hunting rifle's target is an aim point on the target animal. How far you miss that aimpoint matters only once...

How exactly are you ensuring your first round hits the X?