Your Groups Are Too Small

[Reburn]

I guess techinally its 7 barrels. 5 for hornady, 1 blackhills, 1 custom loaded but not load deved for the gun.

barret fieldcraft 6.5 creedmoor 143 eld-x. 7.48 lbs with can

Tikka switchlug - all barrels by hells canyon, summit contour, all with thunderbeast ultra 7
300 wsm - 200 eld-x , 8.79 Lbs
6.5 prc - 147 eld-m, 8.82 Lbs
6mm creed - 108 eld-m, 8.84 Lbs
223 rem - 69 SMK Copper creek loaded, 8.89 Lbs

Factory Tikka 223, 77 TMk Blackhills, 9.12 lbs with thunderbeast ultra 7 223.

Rem 700 built by area 419, 270 win 130 sst, 10.97 Lbs with ultra 7

I havent shot the 300 wsm in a couple years due to no ammo left. When it comes back in stock I'll buy 1000 rounds. I dont have any 10 shot groups on this phone of that barrel due to this.

The pictures should say what caliber and load. Plate it at 600 yards.

6.5 PRC - 147 ELD-M

 

[huntnful]

I guess techinally its 6 barrels. 4 for hornady, 1 blackhills, 1 custom loaded but not load deved for the gun.

barret fieldcraft 6.5 creedmoor 143 eld-x. 7.48 lbs with can

Tikka switchlug - all barrels by hells canyon, summit contour, all with thunderbeast ultra 7
300 wsm - 200 eld-x , 8.79 Lbs
6.5 prc - 147 eld-m, 8.82 Lbs
6mm creed - 108 eld-m, 8.84 Lbs
223 rem - 69 SMK Copper creek loaded, 8.89 Lbs

Factory Tikka 223, 77 TMk Blackhills, 9.12 lbs with thunderbeast ultra 7 223.

I have some pictures on my phone ill scrounge some up. I havent shot the 300 wsm in a couple years due to no ammo left. When it comes back in stock I'll buy 1000 rounds.

That’s quite the spread lol. It looks like you just need a shouldered barrel torqued tight to an action haha. I’m just playing. Kind of .


Edit to say I totally misread your post and thought NONE of those rifles/barrels would shoot under 1.5 MOA. I was like WTF

 

[huntnful]

I have 5 different barrels that say this is correct. Hornady factory ammo.

I am so sorry. For some reason I thought this said INCORRECT hahaha. Totally misread that and thought “what the hell kind of guns and barrels is this guy shooting” lol. My complete apologies

 

[Reburn]

I am so sorry. For some reason I thought this said INCORRECT hahaha. Totally misread that and thought “what the hell kind of guns and barrels is this guy shooting” lol. My complete apologies

That’s quite the spread lol. It looks like you just need a shouldered barrel torqued tight to an action haha. I’m just playing. Kind of .


Edit to say I totally misread your post and thought NONE of those rifles/barrels would shoot under 1.5 MOA. I was like WTF

Your good bro.

I didnt take it as bad. Its a good exercise in proof it doesnt take 40 steps to get acceptable accuracy out of a rifle.

I have had some rifles that didnt shoot well. They just got sold.

 

[TaperPin]

This is a fair point. It's possible that the only way to achieve significant differences in bullet time are by changing components, and this is the best knob to tune a load. However, short of resolving issues with engraving or bullet imbalance, I still maintain the mechanism by which this works is by moving bullet time around relative to barrel dynamic motion.

Looking at my data only for my current combo of components, here is what I did to arrive at this load, all components and dimensions held constant.

First sweep was a powder sweep of 3 shots each in 1gr increments from 50.5 to 57.5 (24rds), groups were:

• 50.5, 0.90"
• 51.5, 0.35
• 52.5, 0.40"
• 53.5, 0.90"
• 54.5, 1.00"
• 55.5, 0.50"
• 56.5, 1.00", faint ejector marks
• 57.5, 0.70", strong ejector marks

My interpretation of this was a pattern of larger and smaller groups with nodes at or around 52.0 and 55.5. Also large differences ~100% between groups. So my next sweep was sets of 5 centered on these charge weights (30rds):

• 51.5, 0.65"
• 52.0, 0.50"
• 52.5, 0.40"
• 55.0, 0.60"
• 55.5, 0.65"
• 56.0, 0.50"

So, charges tested twice did increase in size, as one would expect going from 3 to 5 shot groups. However the accuracy was still acceptable, they didn't grow 100%, and 51.5, 52.5, and 55.5 had held up to 8 shots of testing and still showed small groups. 51.5-52.5 would likely be the most accurate, but I picked 55.5 for significantly higher MV and to stay away from pressure and poor accuracy above 56.0.

Since then I've used 55.5 and now have 51 shots banked and informing the stats I've quoted repeatedly here. Mean radius of 0.27 corresponds to a mean 3 shot group of 0.54", which I think also agrees with what this initial testing showed.

Since you’re new:
Don‘t worry, there are plenty of guys here who enjoy working loads much as you do, even if they aren’t always vocal about it. There are a number of 284 shooters here - everyone else will try to talk you into a smaller cartridge and the other half will suggest a 7 mag. *chuckle*

Some threads can turn into quite an echo chamber for one idea or another - it is what it is. There is a lot of good information here for both backpack hunting and long range shooting. The 223 thread is quite long, but worth skimming - it will challenge your idea of a big game cartridge and the role of energy, and if you drink the Koolaid or not it’s impressive to see the results.

Don’t take anything personally - you’ll get to know the personalities over time. You’ll appreciate whatever flavor of over-focus is popular that week. We’re all human, some are more human than others.

The whit and dry humor run deep.

 

[atmat]

@solarshooter , you could just do an open-ended search on posts by Formidilosus and decide for yourself, but I'll save you a little bit of time and let you know that you are always wrong. Always. If you don't agree, most of the time, others will jump in and tell you you are wrong. I think those that used to disagree no longer post much in this forum anymore.

@solarshooter — The above isn’t true. Some folks just don’t like healthy debate. Thanks for contributing to the forum (even if I think your load dev is painfully complex!)

 

[Mag_7s]

@solarshooter I really enjoyed your your work on this as well as the interview with Keith from Winning in the Wind. I'm a fan of his content and love the F-class reloading practices. They have helped me achieve more consistent loads, and maybe even more importantly confidence in those loads. Keep up the good work!

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

I think Solarshooter should start a new thread titled “My extremely painful load development” .
My only input is that I wish I had a quarter of the intelligence of this man.

 

[solarshooter]

@solarshooter — The above isn’t true. Some folks just don’t like healthy debate. Thanks for contributing to the forum (even if I think your load dev is painfully complex!)

Copy that, my feelings aren't hurt (yet) and it's great to discuss these things with experienced people who care to offer advice.

I still don't think my load dev is that complex relative to what seems to be the norm around here. The only difference is sweeping powder or not, and I'm going to test that for myself based on the recommendations in this thread.

Beyond that, everything I've presented is more on the theory and interpretation of data. If that's considered too much effort or complexity for a hunting context, that's fine, but I don't think that means it's wrong.

 

[stan_wa]

@solarshooter , you could just do an open-ended search on posts by Formidilosus and decide for yourself, but I'll save you a little bit of time and let you know that you are always wrong. Always. If you don't agree, most of the time, others will jump in and tell you you are wrong. I think those that used to disagree no longer post much in this forum anymore.

I can’t tell if this is serious or spiteful. Maybe im just dumb.

Beyond that, everything I've presented is more on the theory and interpretation of data. If that's considered too much effort or complexity for

I can agree tracking the radius really is pretty easy. If you’re good with excell otherwise it might be hard. mean radius + 2 Sd or + 3sd seems like a much more robust way to capture the worst shot then gun will fire . It’s certainly more helpful then Es even over a large group. Based on your 22 data in the video, litz book, and the hornady podcast I don’t see why anyone would say groups are better than radius and Sd. The only andvantage I can see of groups is that they are less work. But I think in the time I took to read this thread I could have logged the data for every shot my current rifle has fired haha

Im excited for you to gather more data on your worst group from the 5 x 5 spread and see how it compares.
I could see an argument to be made that if you’re gonna do the powder sweep, you either need more data or it’s kind of not worth your time. I don’t see how five shots can give You statistical significance in evaluating the differences, unless the mean radii of those groups are very different. Which a lot of this thread has argued they are very similar.

 

[stan_wa]

Sort of- what MR won’t do is tell you what size target the system will hit. Or, it won’t do it without charts, and Excel sheets, math, and general time wasters

Form, I gotta say I have learned a lot from you and really appreciate the effort you put In on the rokslide !
I think it’s is fair to take mean radius + 2 * standard deviation and say 95% of shots will fall within that.
Or Mr + 3 Sd and say 99% will fall within that.

Main radius and standard deviation will better characterize the cone of fire than large groups.

But to your point you need some math to do that.

 

[HighUintas]

I can’t tell if this is serious or spiteful. Maybe im just dumb.

Serious, but it includes an eye roll. His math checks out

 

[ResearchinStuff]

@solarshooter In your vibrational mode theory, where is the unbalanced force that initiates the oscillation of the barrel?

From a free body diagram, it seems much more likely that IF nodes exist (my experience says they don't), they would be from oscillations in the barrel diameter, like optimal barrel time theory proposes, not from cantilever beam deflection oscillations, since none of the forces act asymmetric to the long axis of the beam.

Further, if it were true that the cantilever beam oscillations were the dominant accuracy factor, adding or removing a brake or suppressor would significantly change the group size by changing the natural frequency of the beam, which again is not my experience, and is not something that anyone really recommends when troubleshooting poor accuracy.

How does your theory on what's happening accommodate these factors?

 

[eoperator]

where is the unbalanced force that initiates the oscillation of the barrel?

It was mentioned within the Hornady podcast somewhere that cg offset of the bullet induced vibration.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

And that every bullet has a different cg offset, and that the ones they intentionally modified the cg offset on by drilling dimples to achieve identical cg offsets landed at a different spot on the target but had the same overall group size.

But how could Cg offset variations change the time in the barrel, which is the most important variable to control if you're actually going to keep things in the same node?

Further, consider what's likely to be the dominant factor in the situation, 60k psi acting on a constantly changing surface area against the smallest dimension of the barrel, or a slight offset in the bullet cg offset creating meaningful and repeatable deflection in the cantilever beam?

 

[lhbackcountry]

FYI you're opening a can of worms, I see you're a new member and it might benefit you to search past posts on the forum.

“let the boy watch”

 

[Jake Leibke]

Stacks of targets from one gun. Doing all “right” things… OCW testing, seating depth testing…. Magical 3 round groups…. All I see know is lots of wasted time and money. Also looking through all this “testing” I now see basically the same results.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ResearchinStuff]

i trashed all of mine, but i spent a ton of time over the years chasing noise and making stacks of similar targets even though I should have known better.

 

[solarshooter]

@solarshooter In your vibrational mode theory, where is the unbalanced force that initiates the oscillation of the barrel?

From a free body diagram, it seems much more likely that IF nodes exist (my experience says they don't), they would be from oscillations in the barrel diameter, like optimal barrel time theory proposes, not from cantilever beam deflection oscillations, since none of the forces act asymmetric to the long axis of the beam.

Further, if it were true that the cantilever beam oscillations were the dominant accuracy factor, adding or removing a brake or suppressor would significantly change the group size by changing the natural frequency of the beam, which again is not my experience, and is not something that anyone really recommends when troubleshooting poor accuracy.

How does your theory on what's happening accommodate these factors?

The charge going off in the chamber is a shock load, like hitting the barrel with a hammer from all directions simultaneously. The energy from that shock will be dissipated into all the modes of the barrel - axial, radial, torsional, and bending. And the important thing is that this shock excitation is consistent shot to shot, so you get a repeatable bang and ring down of the barrel.

There is asymmetrical forcing due to bullet imbalance, bore non-concentricity, action thread asymmetry, action lug asymmetry, recoil lug asymmetry, etc.

This stuff has been researched thoroughly in a book called Rifle Accuracy Facts by Harold Vaughn, another foolish aerospace engineer. He first analytically modeled and then experimentally verified all these things I'm describing.

 

[solarshooter]

adding or removing a brake or suppressor would significantly change the group size by changing the natural frequency of the beam

I have absolutely had this happen, and when adding a magnetospeed to the barrel. I don't want to swerve into a discussion on tuners here, since I think that's super in the weeds and I'm aware of Litz's research on them and the skepticism. But that is the mechanism by which tuners claim to work.