Your Groups Are Too Small

[Gingerman]

 

[Clark33]

Could also add my test in with the optics testing, scope already took a hard impact (trail bike wreck with rifle strapped to pack), I landed on my rifle side... on a rock. Scope didn't lose zero after that. Took it to idaho on a mule deer hunt, bumpy roads and a few days in the bed of SxS and it still looks good.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

I went out and did a 20 shot group at 100 yds.

The set up and ammo (Federal GMM 105 Berger)
View attachment 497302

My POA was the orange “10”, I dialed up 0.5 mil so my POA wouldn’t get shot out. I shot 1-20 with the 0.5 mil up, returned turret to zero and shot number 21 at same POA “10”.

View attachment 497303

I don’t think I’m going to mess with anything.

How much does that setup weigh?

 

[Clark33]

@wyomingwomen44 I’d say ~9-9.5lbs

 

[INTJ]

The few guys over there that are almost always at the top of the leader board and winning often are also the guys that are shooting and testing constantly. That’s shooting and testing constantly not only load combinations but also equipment testing. This goes for short range,1K, F class, etc… I’d agree as in most forums most of the talk is just noise and you have to filter out who’s actually doing something real.

So whenever the discussion is about BR loading techniques come up, @Ryan Avery starts asking me questions then points out these threads.

I shoot LRBR. For the last two years I have been shooting with the folks at Deep Creek. A 1000 yd range that often sees excellent conditions. Before that I shot at a couple ranges in Oregon and before that I shot LRBR in Tucson.

I almost hate to say this, but you guys do need to know to what level I shoot. It's not uncommon to find me at the top of the leader board at Deep Creek. Especially in the heavy gun class which is 10-shot groups at 1000 yds. I also get my azz handed to me sometimes. We are friends and help each other out, and then we beat each other up. That's the nature of LRBR.

I also chamber my own rifles, chamber rifles for Unknown Munitions, and occasionally still do load development for UM.

I didn't watch the Hornady video, but if they really said that a grain difference in powder and/or searing depth changes don't make any difference, then they are wrong........mostly, but context is critical. In the 450 Nitro Express double rifle I had, one grain really didn't make much difference. If we have a load that likes .120" off the lands, then seating depth changes of .010 or maybe even .020" won't make much difference.

However, in my LRBR rifles, small changes do indeed make a big difference. Here is a pic of load tuning at 1000 yds, in very good conditions. with my 300 SAUM IMP heavy gun. This, like I always do, was done the day before the match at the range where I was competing the next day.

It clearly shows two distinct nodes. We see this all the time when we are tuning.



I think I picked 62.0 grains for the match. It was a two day finals and I was in first place overall until halfway through the second day. I made two bad wind calls and dropped to fifth overall. I did manage to shoot a 4.3" 10-shot group at 1000.

As to statistical significance. I don't think it works well for shooting. Every time we send a bullet down the barrel the barrel changes. Carbon and copper are deposited. The throat erodes. Despite our best efforts, every shot is taken in different conditions, we handle the rifle slightly differently, etc. We really don't have any constants.

By the time we shoot enough shots to satisfy the statisticians, the load needs to be tweaked to maintain peak precision. So we accept that all rifles are 2 MOA shooters and load tuning doesn't do anything, or maybe we take a different approach.

We constantly check our loads and tweak as needed so we can keep shooting well. It's a lot of work.

 

[Formidilosus]

So whenever the discussion is about BR loading techniques come up, @Ryan Avery starts asking me questions then points out these threads.

I shoot LRBR. For the last two years I have been shooting with the folks at Deep Creek. A 1000 yd range that often sees excellent conditions. Before that I shot at a couple ranges in Oregon and before that I shot LRBR in Tucson.

I almost hate to say this, but you guys do need to know to what level I shoot. It's not uncommon to find me at the top of the leader board at Deep Creek. Especially in the heavy gun class which is 10-shot groups at 1000 yds. I also get my azz handed to me sometimes. We are friends and help each other out, and then we beat each other up. That's the nature of LRBR.

I also chamber my own rifles, chamber rifles for Unknown Munitions, and occasionally still do load development for UM.

I didn't watch the Hornady video, but if they really said that a grain difference in powder and/or searing depth changes don't make any difference, then they are wrong........mostly, but context is critical. In the 450 Nitro Express double rifle I had, one grain really didn't make much difference. If we have a load that likes .120" off the lands, then seating depth changes of .010 or maybe even .020" won't make much difference.

However, in my LRBR rifles, small changes do indeed make a big difference. Here is a pic of load tuning at 1000 yds, in very good conditions. with my 300 SAUM IMP heavy gun. This, like I always do, was done the day before the match at the range where I was competing the next day.

It clearly shows two distinct nodes. We see this all the time when we are tuning.

View attachment 497517

I think I picked 62.0 grains for the match. It was a two day finals and I was in first place overall until halfway through the second day. I made two bad wind calls and dropped to fifth overall. I did manage to shoot a 4.3" 10-shot group at 1000.

Did you reshoot the exact same loads and have the same “node” show up?

So what size groups does that gun shoot at 62.6gr? Or any other charge weight?

As to statistical significance. I don't think it works well for shooting. Every time we send a bullet down the barrel the barrel changes. Carbon and copper are deposited. The throat erodes. Despite our best efforts, every shot is taken in different conditions, we handle the rifle slightly differently, etc. We really don't have any constants.

By the time we shoot enough shots to satisfy the statisticians, the load needs to be tweaked to maintain peak precision. So we accept that all rifles are 2 MOA shooters and load tuning doesn't do anything, or maybe we take a different approach.

We constantly check our loads and tweak as needed so we can keep shooting well. It's a lot of work.

Statistics works in everything. This is why bench rest has near zero functional use, I don’t mean that rudely. Tweaking loads constantly is not at all useful of realistic for field shooting.

 

[Formidilosus]

I find this interesting and would like more info if it is available.

I can see what you are saying - the two different methods did not move the bell enough left or right to differentiate between the two. Is that correct?

Correct. Regardless of using their load developed with whatever their method was, and then two other charge weights and seating depths for 50 round groups with all three, blind so that the shooters didn’t know which load they were shooting at a given time.

Does it take one SD shift to be significant?

Depends on the task and desire. These shooters were doing 50 round groups into +/- 1 moa. Even a group of 1.25 MOA would not be “significant” in anything other than pure benchrest.

When you say 'same components' does that include all the brass prep that was probably done - Neck turning, etc. - not to mention sorting projectiles, etc.
...or was it just the same as far as brand of products, but one set raw and one set processed.

Everything was exactly the same except powder charge weight and seating depth.

What was the average group size for their 50?
I'll assume better than the "average joe with an average rifle".

+/- 1 moa. So far beyond what anyone not shooting their respective sports could do it’s not funny.

Did the results of this make these champions change what they did for load development going forward?

Three did not change at all, as “it works for me” and they were “confident”. Literally to the tune of “how am I supposed to be confident if my gun and loads aren’t special and they just do what they do?” One, did change. Dropped all load tuning, went to max pressure and loaded- then won a major match a couple weeks later using untuned loads.

 

[Gingerman]

@Formidilosus @INTJ

If you gentlemen could post in closing argument style, like a lawyer to a jury, what would you say about the matter of load development?

 

[Jimbee]

No one has ever said "yes" to the question when asked if they had or will repeat a ladder/OCW or seating depth test....

 

[Gingerman]

No one has ever said "yes" to the question when asked if they had or will repeat a ladder/OCW or seating depth test....

I will and have repeated my cherry picked hand load over the course of a year or multiple trips to the range. I don't ladder or OCW though. FWIW

 

[Flyjunky]

No one has ever said "yes" to the question when asked if they had or will repeat a ladder/OCW or seating depth test....

If someone runs a ladder/ocw, fine tunes with seating depth after that, and then verifies those findings why would they repeat it? In other words, if the findings produce a result that satisfies the shooters requirements, why waste the components? If the next 5,10, or xx trips to the range produce expected results what was wrong with the load development? Instead of shooting a 20-30 round group in one session the person who verifies groups over many different trips to range essentially does the same thing but they are doing it under, most likely, different conditions.

As an aside, go look at tk-421's results. Those were shot with factory ammo and look at his mean 3/5 shot groups. Now, compare those to the average 3 and 5 shot groups the hornady guys mentioned they got ( I posted it above). Something doesn't add up in my mind.

Lets take tk-421's results since it's right in this thread and the visuals are easy to see. Lets say you are one of those heathens who only shoot 3/5 round groups. If you were at the range and getting those groups would you say that you have found a good load and feel confident? Or would you want to shoot a 20-30 round group because 3/5 groups don't tell you anything?

@Formidilosus @INTJ

If you gentlemen could post in closing argument style, like a lawyer to a jury, what would you say about the matter of load development?

I'll try to summarize to a few points:

1. load development doesn't matter
2. changing powder charge or seating depth won't matter
3. to see meaningful change you have to go to a different powder or bullet
----
4. load development does matter
5. changing powder charge and seating depth does have an impact
6. tuning a load over time as barrel and conditions change will be needed

Do I believe in the results from the guys at Hornady? Yes.
Do I believe guys who's entire goal is to shoot the smallest, most accurately possible, when they say that load development matters? Yes

So, who do you believe? The guys who did the test and didn't produce results as good as shown on this very thread, or guys who agg .2/.3 over many 300yard matches?

I'll say it again, if the testing isn't setup from the start to produce the most accuracy possible than you might not see a significant change through load development.

I'll continue to do what I do and shoot as much as possible. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but it seems to work for me.

Good luck to everyone this year.

 

[Jimbee]

If someone runs a ladder/ocw, fine tunes with seating depth after that, and then verifies those findings why would they repeat it? In other words, if the findings produce a result that satisfies the shooters requirements, why waste the components? If the next 5,10, or xx trips to the range produce expected results what was wrong with the load development? Instead of shooting a 20-30 round group in one session the person who verifies groups over many different trips to range essentially does the same thing but they are doing it under, most likely, different conditions.

As an aside, go look at tk-421's results. Those were shot with factory ammo and look at his mean 3/5 shot groups. Now, compare those to the average 3 and 5 shot groups the hornady guys mentioned they got ( I posted it above). Something doesn't add up in my mind.

Lets take tk-421's results since it's right in this thread and the visuals are easy to see. Lets say you are one of those heathens who only shoot 3/5 round groups. If you were at the range and getting those groups would you say that you have found a good load and feel confident? Or would you want to shoot a 20-30 round group because 3/5 groups don't tell you anything?


I'll try to summarize to a few points:

1. load development doesn't matter
2. changing powder charge or seating depth won't matter
3. to see meaningful change you have to go to a different powder or bullet
----
4. load development does matter
5. changing powder charge and seating depth does have an impact
6. tuning a load over time as barrel and conditions change will be needed

Do I believe in the results from the guys at Hornady? Yes.
Do I believe guys who's entire goal is to shoot the smallest, most accurately possible, when they say that load development matters? Yes

So, who do you believe? The guys who did the test and didn't produce results as good as shown on this very thread, or guys who agg .2/.3 over many 300yard matches?

I'll say it again, if the testing isn't setup from the start to produce the most accuracy possible than you might not see a significant change through load development.

I'll continue to do what I do and shoot as much as possible. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but it seems to work for me.

Good luck to everyone this year.

If I wanted to be confident that my load development was effective it just makes sense to me that it could be repeated and I would want to verify that. If a person gets the result they're looking for then I suppose it doesn't matter. In my limited experience with varying seating depths and powder charges, it hasn't done anything noticeable. With my ability and equipment I'd never know the difference between a load that was capable of 1 moa and .5 moa. I'd still like someone to repeat a load development and verify the results. I may try it just for funsies

 

[Rob5589]

If someone runs a ladder/ocw, fine tunes with seating depth after that, and then verifies those findings why would they repeat it? In other words, if the findings produce a result that satisfies the shooters requirements, why waste the components? If the next 5,10, or xx trips to the range produce expected results what was wrong with the load development? Instead of shooting a 20-30 round group in one session the person who verifies groups over many different trips to range essentially does the same thing but they are doing it under, most likely, different conditions.

As an aside, go look at tk-421's results. Those were shot with factory ammo and look at his mean 3/5 shot groups. Now, compare those to the average 3 and 5 shot groups the hornady guys mentioned they got ( I posted it above). Something doesn't add up in my mind.

Lets take tk-421's results since it's right in this thread and the visuals are easy to see. Lets say you are one of those heathens who only shoot 3/5 round groups. If you were at the range and getting those groups would you say that you have found a good load and feel confident? Or would you want to shoot a 20-30 round group because 3/5 groups don't tell you anything?


I'll try to summarize to a few points:

1. load development doesn't matter
2. changing powder charge or seating depth won't matter
3. to see meaningful change you have to go to a different powder or bullet
----
4. load development does matter
5. changing powder charge and seating depth does have an impact
6. tuning a load over time as barrel and conditions change will be needed

Do I believe in the results from the guys at Hornady? Yes.
Do I believe guys who's entire goal is to shoot the smallest, most accurately possible, when they say that load development matters? Yes

So, who do you believe? The guys who did the test and didn't produce results as good as shown on this very thread, or guys who agg .2/.3 over many 300yard matches?

I'll say it again, if the testing isn't setup from the start to produce the most accuracy possible than you might not see a significant change through load development.

I'll continue to do what I do and shoot as much as possible. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but it seems to work for me.

Good luck to everyone this year.

I believe the point was, the ladder/ocw will almost certainly change if it were to be done again on another day, different conditions, etc. Meaning, was that ladder "the one" or just "the one" on that particular day and atmos conditions. Even @INTJ said as much in his post; throat erosion, barrel wear, carbon/copper build up, atmos, all can change the ladder.

As far as your 1, 2, 3; of course load development matters. How would you come up with any load without it? The point of that podcast was that continuously making minute changes, burning up components and barrels, was unnecessary for the majority of shooters. Changing powder weights will make a difference, they said so on the podcast. Their point was that small changes, while making a possible small shift, didn't change the point of impact/cone/group in a meaningful way. Same with seating depth. During their testing.

Thus the reason to fire larger groups; find out the barrels capability and live with that result or swap barrels.

My take away, and they basically said as much, find an acceptable load and shoot. Stop wasting time, effort, barrels, and comps, trying to eek out another tenth. Again, for the majority of shooters.

 

[Flyjunky]

I believe the point was, the ladder/ocw will almost certainly change if it were to be done again on another day, different conditions, etc. Meaning, was that ladder "the one" or just "the one" on that particular day and atmos conditions. Even @INTJ said as much in his post; throat erosion, barrel wear, carbon/copper build up, atmos, all can change the ladder.

As far as your 1, 2, 3; of course load development matters. How would you come up with any load without it? The point of that podcast was that continuously making minute changes, burning up components and barrels, was unnecessary for the majority of shooters. Changing powder weights will make a difference, they said so on the podcast. Their point was that small changes, while making a possible small shift, didn't change the point of impact/cone/group in a meaningful way. Same with seating depth. During their testing.

Thus the reason to fire larger groups; find out the barrels capability and live with that result or swap barrels.

My take away, and they basically said as much, find an acceptable load and shoot. Stop wasting time, effort, barrels, and comps, trying to eek out another tenth. Again, for the majority of shooters.

I get it, I really do.

So, what do you do with throat erosion, barrel wear, carbon buildup, and atmos, etc? Do you refine the tune by a little bit to get back to what was shooting well? Do you adjust seating depth or adjust powder charge to that velocity that was producing good results with your setup? Or do you now just find a different powder and bullet?

Btw, did the Hornady testers take throat erosion, barrel wear, etc into account? Did they change barrels every 100+/- rounds to make things as consistent as possible? If they are firing all these test rounds in the same barrel without any adjustment how does that not affect results? Everyone who has ever had a new gun knows the barrels speed up anywhere from 75-150 rounds, usually. Brian Litz and others won't even start load development until 200 rounds are through the barrel.

 

[Rob5589]

I get it, I really do.

So, what do you do with throat erosion, barrel wear, carbon buildup, and atmos, etc? Do you refine the tune by a little bit to get back to what was shooting well? Do you adjust seating depth or adjust powder charge to that velocity that was producing good results with your setup? Or do you now just find a different powder and bullet?

Btw, did the Hornady testers take throat erosion, barrel wear, etc into account? Did they change barrels every 100+/- rounds to make things as consistent as possible? If they are firing all these test rounds in the same barrel without any adjustment how does that not affect results? Everyone who has ever had a new gun knows the barrels speed up anywhere from 75-150 rounds, usually. Brian Litz and others won't even start load development until 200 rounds are through the barrel.

Probably not for the average shooter. I never did even shooting comps. But I wasn't shooting BR, mostly PRS stuff and an occasional F for fun. Plus I wasn't good enough to pick up those minor deficiencies anyway

 

[parshal]

I believe there's a difference between benchrest and the rest of the shooting world. What they do works for them, no doubt. But, I've wasted a lot of time and components trying to tweak that little extra bit out of a load only to find it doesn't repeat later when measured with calipers. If a load will consistently shoot .75 MOA I'm going to use it. I've not seen enough difference changing charges by .2 or seating in .006" increments. I've simply quit trying to do that now. I find a load and shoot it until the barrel is toast. That's working for my competition guns.

I started doing Kraft drills this year and I'm a 1.25" MOA shooter positionally. That's standing, high kneeling, low kneeling and prone. All but prone are off a tripod. Each shot is started standing and I build the position. My components are better spent on trying to shrink that 1.25" than trying to get another .25" MOA out of a load. Would that .5" MOA load make me a 1 MOA positional shooter? Maybe but probably not.

 

[Flyjunky]

Probably not for the average shooter. I never did even shooting comps. But I wasn't shooting BR, mostly PRS stuff and an occasional F for fun. Plus I wasn't good enough to pick up those minor deficiencies anyway

I think about 5 years ago I was developing a load with Berger 215's for my 300wm. After initial development we had settled on 76.7 grains of H1000 as the charge. During seating depth testing it appeared to be between .015 and .040. Over 3 5-shot groups it was pretty evident the .015 was the better combination. I can't recall exactly but I think it was somewhere around .6 vs a .9 difference. I just remember looking at those 6 groups and being able to see the difference without bringing out the calipers. That load in that barrel shot great for around 600+/-. We ended up tweaking a touch later on but my point being that I've seen with my own eyes that seating depth makes a difference.

I would be interested to see an experiment where a good shooting setup was used to test a load 1 grain different (say 55 and 56gr) and the bullet seated at the lands and also at 100 thou off. Will we see a difference in accuracy?

 

[Flyjunky]

I believe there's a difference between benchrest and the rest of the shooting world. What they do works for them, no doubt. But, I've wasted a lot of time and components trying to tweak that little extra bit out of a load only to find it doesn't repeat later when measured with calipers. If a load will consistently shoot .75 MOA I'm going to use it. I've not seen enough difference changing charges by .2 or seating in .006" increments. I've simply quit trying to do that now. I find a load and shoot it until the barrel is toast. That's working for my competition guns.

I started doing Kraft drills this year and I'm a 1.25" MOA shooter positionally. That's standing, high kneeling, low kneeling and prone. All but prone are off a tripod. Each shot is started standing and I build the position. My components are better spent on trying to shrink that 1.25" than trying to get another .25" MOA out of a load. Would that .5" MOA load make me a 1 MOA positional shooter? Maybe but probably not.

I don't know, 1.25" moa from all those positions is pretty dam good in my mind. Is that 1.25 moa from each position or an average of all those positions? How far do you feel comfortable in those positions?

I just started shooting off a tripod a couple years ago and am still learning the fine points of body/hand position.

 

[parshal]

I should add that I do the Berger coarse seating test. .030” will make a difference. Anyone who states otherwise isn’t doing something right. I’ve never seen a repeatable difference at less then .015”.

The 1.25” is the average large group. Prone is definitely smaller.

I’ve shot elk and pronghorn standing at 350. We take shots over 600 high kneeling with a support fairly regularly in competitions. Shooting an animal is different though. I’d consider that shot on the right animal in the right conditions.

 

[INTJ]

Did you reshoot the exact same loads and have the same “node” show up?

So what size groups does that gun shoot at 62.6gr? Or any other charge weight?

Statistics works in everything. This is why bench rest has near zero functional use, I don’t mean that rudely. Tweaking loads constantly is not at all useful of realistic for field shooting.

I REALLY need to be working on the bedding for my light gun--I re-inlet the stock so the barreled action will sit a bit lower, but I did insert myself into this discussion......

Some background that will make my answers to your questions more meaningful. I found the 200 HYB load for the June match. I was shooting a 300 SAUM IMP. I had been shooting 215s but decided to test the 200s because shorter bullets often group better. In this case the 200s had about an inch less vertical than the 215s on the pre-match test (4" vs 5"). Calculated wind drift was about the same. The 215s NODE was at 2900 and the 200s NODE was 2980. Please don't try these loads in a hunting rifle. My heavy gun has a BAT M action and a 30" barrel.

For a match weekend, we shoot two light gun and two heavy gun groups each day. We compete for both group and score. During the June match, I shot the 62 grain load. All four of my heavy gun groups (10-shots groups at 1000 yds) were in the fives. I wound up first place in heavy gun both days. My score aggregate was 98 with 7Xs on Sat and 98.5 with 3Xs on Sun, on a 7" 10-ring and a 2.75" X-ring. While those are decent groups and scores, I and everyone else has shot smaller and scored higher (and worse). However, that was about as good as the conditions would allow.

I was pleased with how that load shot, so I tested it again for the July match. I don't have that test target, which is a long and humorous story. I shot the 62 grain load again in July. I wound up second overall on Sat and fell to 8th overall on Sunday. Group aggs were worse.

For the Aug match--or finals--I tested around that series again. I went from 62.0 to 61.9 grains for the match load. The Aug match is scored differently, and I wound up third overall in heavy gun over the two days. My 4 target agg was a 6.3. My groups were 4.351, 6.994, 6.366, and 7.478. I think that is pretty representative of how a well-tuned load will shoot in good to mediocre conditions.

Here is a picture of the June and Aug test ladders. I added a ruler to for scale. BTW, these are shot round robin style at the same POI at the same time to minize the effects of conditions. Meaning that on the June target, I shot one round at 61.8, 62.2, 62.2, 63.0; then repeated that sequence three more times. The bullets tips are colored and then we connect the dots. This method doesn't work well much inside 550 yds, but works great at 600 - 1000.



Some things jump out here. We look for overlap in these test loads. On the left (June) target, with a .4 grain spread on loads, 62.0 was in between the tightest overlap. On the right (Aug) target, with a .2 grain load spread, 61.9 was in between the tightest overlap. I know that .1 grains doesn't matter, but the 62.2 went out the top--perhaps because it was warmer temps in Aug or maybe the additional 200 rounds through the barrel had changed something. Regardless, 61.9 was the right call since I wound being only one wind call away from beating the 2022 IBS 1000 yd Shooter of the Year in heavy gun. Someone who is my friend, and without his help I wouldn't be anywhere nearly as competitive as I am.

BTW, at the 2021 IBS Nationals, I pulled .2 grains out of my heavy gun--then a 300 WSM shooting 215s, and went from winning one of my relays the first day to winning both relays the second and tightening my groups. Yeah I know, .2 grains doesn't make any difference........

To answer the second part of the first question, I did not shoot groups with other powder charges. 90% of the time, the load in between the two test charges with the least vertical in their overlap shoot the smallest groups. HOWEVER,...let's take the June target. Had I gone out on Saturday and shot groups like a "realistic field rifle", I would have tried 62.8 grains for Sunday. I have used that startegy before when I was struggling with a light gun (6BRA). Nothing was shooting great on test day, and the NODE I picked shot badly. So I swapped to a different load and cut my group sizes in half.

Something else to notice. Using the "realistic for field shooting" approach, I shot a 12-shot and a 15-shot group that are about 1.3 MOA over a .8 grain powder charge increments at 1000 yds. Given that bullets almost always shoot greater MOA as distance increases--I have seen this repeatedly and is one area of agreement I have with Mr Litz, these may well be 12 and 15 shot sub-moa groups at 100 yds.

Would I take that level of accuracy on a long range hunt? Absolutely! I have taken enough hunting rifles that shoot .5 to .7 MOA 3-shot groups at 100 yd rifles out to 1088 yds, and hit reasonably close to the center of the gong to know that is adequate for hunting. To be honest, we need to spending a whole lot more time learning how to read the wind than we do getting our sub-MOA hunting rifle to sub 1/2 MOA.

Now for BR, both long range and short range, EVERYTHING has to be as prefect as we can make it to be competitive. The rifle has to be chambered straight and the barrel has to be good. The stock inlet has to be straight and stress free. The scope can't have any reticle shift after firing. The front and rear rests need to be set up well and the rifle needs to track very well. The load has to be fine-tuned and constantly checked. You have to correctly read the wind and understand how temperature changes will affect your tune. You have to be dead consistent in how you handle the rifle.

That said, the statement that BR has "near zero functional use", though a common sentiment, is just wrong and completely misses the point. My apologies if that offends someone. I was a USAF pilot and a Major for 12 of my 24 years, and as such I struggle with my social filter. Statements like that are why we BR shooters rarely share our load tuning methods with non-BR shooters. We get tired of being told what we do doesn't make any difference or doesn't apply to anything else, when we know for a fact otherwise.

Without BR, we wouldn't have high accuracy bullets, we wouldn't have any idea how to clean our rifles, and we wouldn't know how to tune a load. We wouldn't have the excellent barrels that we have today either. Just about everything we have involving precision and accuracy stands mainly on the shoulders of BR shooters.

This is really beyond common sense. No one knows better what affects how a rifle shoots than a competitive BR shooter. We probably tried what ever the latest accuracy trend is well before anyone else thought of it. While the F-Class guys probably get the nod for wind reading, if you want your rifle to shoot it's best you'll talk to a BR shooter. We know how to find forgiving tunes that stay in tune longer than the high maintenance tunes we shoot often in BR. We know what parts of loading make the most difference and what doesn't. We are always experimenting with new methods, and the target is our report card.

Also, many if not most most BR shooter's don't only shoot BR. When I first started 1000 yd BR I was at the bottom for the first year. The second year I started to figure things out. That second year of BR I decided to stick my toe in NRA Highpower--they had their matches at the same range I was shooting BR. The HP guys gave me a hard time since I was a BR shooter. However, both matches I shot I finished mid pack. That was a lot better start than I had in BR.

I didn't stick with HP because it didn't have enough interest in it to put up with all the fuss. That's not to take anything away from HP shooters. Every formal shooting competition requires discipline and skill, and anyone who competes seriously will become a better marksman. I have become a much better field shot with my hunting rifles since becoming a competition shooter. BTW, lots of BR shooters hunt.

As to the way many apply statistical analysis to shooting. It's mostly wrong and leads to things like shooting 50-shot groups. Again, everything changes each time we pull the trigger. The barrel changes, the conditions change, and how we handle rifle changes (even though we try to be super consistent).

Anyone who has any real experience shooting paper at long range, like us "near zero functional use" 1000 yd BR shooters, know that it's difficult to keep a 10-shot group all in the same condition. Sometimes it's hard to keep a 5-shot group in the same condition. Generally, a 5-shot group tells us how accurate the rifle/load/shooter is and a 10-shot group tells us how good the conditions are. By the time we shoot enough rounds to satisfy the statisticians, our load needs tweaked, meaning what we just did is invalidated.

Much better than the statistics approach is the empirical analysis approach. We learn from what we did and apply it to what we are about to do. The statistics may tell us something isn't significant, the target often tells us otherwise. And no, there are nowhere near as many "1/4 minute all day" hunting rifles in real life as there are on the Internet........................