Your Groups Are Too Small

[INTJ]

Genuine question here, do you think it's possible, or even likely that if you shot 5 shot groups they would fill in something like this, and 10 shot groups even closer in size to one another? Why or why not?

It seems like all these groups would fit within the 10 shot groups you shoot for score, and any given scoring group would likely have a handful of rounds in a 2-3" cluster. In my mind, much of the 3 shot groups' differences could easily be explained by the random order of which 3 out of the 10 got pulled out of the sleeve for the rest group.

Again, these are not puffy chested, "well, what about this?" gotcha type questions. I've never even set foot into your world, and have always been a bit baffled as to how you guys read the tea leaves and load "for the conditions." Genuinely curious to know what you look for in 3 round groups and how you control for the random dispersion in a group. Like how do you know you didn't shoot the best 3 out of a poorer performing 10 shot group and then the worst 3 out of a smoking good 10 shot group?

I used to shoot non-round robin five shot groups at 1000 yds during tuning day. While that worked okay, my record groups during the match shrunk when I started shooting the round-robin "ladders"
that I showed.

The issue with shooting one group fully and then the next one and so on at 1000 yds is the conditions are always changing. So how do we know that group three didn't just happen to catch a very good or a very bad condition? Shooting round robin mitigates that. It means that if a condition is really good or really bad, it's not likely that it will make one group look good or bad. It will affect them all, and I have seen that. Also, it takes a lot less rounds to shoot the three shot round robin tests that to shoot multiple 5-shot groups.

We find that 10-shot groups don't tell us anymore about the load that 5-shot groups. 10-shot groups are more about the conditions. Remember, during the match we'd shoot 5 and 10 shot groups so we are getting a lot of feedback on our tuning approach. There are many matches where the same rifle is used for both classes, and the 5-shot groups are frequently around the same size as the 10.

Of course, there are also matches where the 10-shot groups are strung out horizontally across the target as well. That sucks, especially when you saw the condition change in the middle of your string, and then you have to decide if you stop, adjust, or keep going. I promise you that more than half the time, whatever you pick, is wrong--at least for me.......

 

[Lawnboi]

Benchrest dosnt even care if they hit what they are aiming at. If we are going to compare Atleast use f class.

 

[INTJ]

@eric1115

I need to add we look for a pair of three-shot groups that overlap and have the least amount of vertical dispersion.

Sometimes I setup the Labradar and track velocities, though I really only care about the target. The tightest ES doesn't always correspond to the tightest group, and I do sometimes see where the next higher charge has a lower velocity.

 

[INTJ]

Benchrest dosnt even care if they hit what they are aiming at. If we are going to compare Atleast use f class.

That is only true in 100 and 200 yd BR. In LRBR we compete for both score and group. A bad score takes you down as much as a bad group. Our 1000 yd 10-ring is 7" and the X-ring is 2.75". That is a lot smaller than the F-Class targets.

Because F-Class has to wait seven seconds between shots, every shot is a wind call and they can't shoot as small of groups as BR during the match. Now their rifles are certainly capable of BR level accuracy, but that isn't as important in F-Class as wind calls.

 

[INTJ]

Here are a couple of targets I shot in matches:


View attachment 498427

 

[Ram94]

Here are a couple of targets I shot in matches:

View attachment 498426
View attachment 498427

I believe those are the same target, posted twice. Regardless, nice shooting!

 

[Flyjunky]

So first- if you are not interested in having a discussing with me about this, I’ll stop as I don’t care.

His results are so far outside the norm/consistent that can be expected with hunting/non specific match built rifles that it’s a true outlier. As an example- from a Wiseman with multiple top quality barrel, in an indoor range, Hornady ELD-M 6.5cm ammo is around .9 to 1.3 MOA mechanically for 30-50 shot groups. Yes, barrel allowed to cook between 5 shot strings. And it’s not just Hornady- when shot for statistically relevant sizes, ammo and guns just aren’t that precise.





Correct.



Because people are cherry picking targets and/or cherry picking individual rifles.






You don’t know the answer to that. But the differences aren’t that great between new and once fired. Mean radius seems to tend less with once fired versus new, but ES doesn’t shrink all that much.




Not 100% on this specific tests, however on all that I have seen, yes.




How are you accounting for barrel wear between your zero confirm and your shot for hunting? This whole “the barrel is changing too much for 20-30 shots” is literally just an excuse from people that do not understand statistical relevance and that want to believe a fairytale. I watched a bartlien 1.25” straight contour chambered by one of the most respected in the business, fired from a wiseman in an indoor range, put multiple 100 round groups into 1.5’ish MOA and when overlaid the worst round made it like a 1.7 MOA group. Using an acoustic target, there was no statistical difference between 3 and 5 shot group strings at 50-100 rounds on the barrel, and the same at several hundred rounds in- bit was there any measurable POI change.




The ones they had last I saw are capable of less than 1/100th of an MOA return to battery from shot to shot.






They were talking “true” .25 MOA rifles for 30-50 round groups. BR rifles aren’t .25 MOA guns when statistically relevant shot group sizes are used. The baseline start of statistical relevance is about 30. Do not adjust zero or shift aimpiont on true BR rifles, and shoot 6 separate 5 shot groups on different targets, then overlay all 6 groups on one targets- those 30 shots are not going to be .25 MOA- or it would be few rifles, even BR guns, that will do so.




That’s been discussed here a lot. If someone Venice they have a .5 MOA rifle based on a couple/few three shot groups- they really have a 1.5+ MOA rifle. Zeroing off of 3 shots absolutely will result in errors of zero.





Do you actually think they were using savage barrels for their shooting?

I’ve made the offer, I’ll make it again- I am willing to show you in person that what you think is happening, isn’t. You can do all the shooting. The only stipulation is that all shits count- you can not for any reason throw out a “flyer”.

Thanks for the answers. I was asking questions of stuff that wasn't fully explained during either of the podcasts and since I have never been to one of these "testing" sessions I didn't know.

"Using an acoustic target, there was no statistical difference between 3 and 5 shot group strings at 50-100 rounds on the barrel, and the same at several hundred rounds in- bit was there any measurable POI change."

In regards to the statement above I'm assuming the last part was meant to say there was a measurable POI change?

If their testing apparatus is that precise but the groups vary that much is it the ammo causing it? Would more precisely loaded ammo make a meaningful difference? It seems to make a difference in other disciplines of shooting but I guess they have the best components and setups to take advantage but wouldn't those same loading techniques, to a degree, still produce better/more consistent results than factory ammo in a non-br/f-class gun? If that's not the case than why does anyone reload? If that is the case than wouldn't it show a good, consistent, load quicker than factory loads....ie, you may see a more consistent zero in 10-15 shots than 20-30?

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks for the answers. I was asking questions of stuff that wasn't fully explained during either of the podcasts and since I have never been to one of these "testing" sessions I didn't know.

Please know there is no emotion or rudeness when I write- I try to be direct to avoid confusion. Also, I’m not going to tell a BR shooter what they should or shouldn’t do- well, I’m not telling anyone what to do; just that for something to be real, it has to be repeatable and probable across rifles and time. Otherwise it’s “Mister Misers magical elixir”.

"Using an acoustic target, there was no statistical difference between 3 and 5 shot group strings at 50-100 rounds on the barrel, and the same at several hundred rounds in- bit was there any measurable POI change."

In regards to the statement above I'm assuming the last part was meant to say there was a measurable POI change?

No sir. It should have been- “nor were there any measurable POI changes” between rounds 50 through several hundred. That is once zeroed, the barrel/ammo stayed zeroed from basically the start to when the testing was finished. No zero shift as it were. Also, the velocity stabilized after about 40-50 rounds with no cleaning. On other barrels, overall stability- that is POI and MV, were much more consistent when not cleaned at all, versus cleaning any time.

If their testing apparatus is that precise but the groups vary that much is it the ammo causing it?

It’s an ammo and cartridge thing to a great extent. 6BR’a and Dashers just shoot silly small groups. Basically, if someone told me they had a true .5 MOA 8lb hunting rifle.. it would be highly suspect- to the point of almost guaranteeing that they don’t. Now, if they followed up with it being a 6 dasher, etc… I would shrug and say “sweet- it’s a Dasher”.

Would more precisely loaded ammo make a meaningful difference? It seems to make a difference in other disciplines of shooting but I guess they have the best components and setups to take advantage but wouldn't those same loading techniques, to a degree, still produce better/more consistent results than factory ammo in a non-br/f-class gun?

To an extent yes, “better” ammo makes a difference, but it’s relative. For instance my last 308 comp rifle was a legit 1 MOA rifle. That is 30 round groups were consistently between .9 and 1.1 MOA with its comp load. One of the top F class people in the nation at the time was appalled with my loading technique. So he took it and did his thing, and got the ten round group average to drop by just under .2 MOA. It’s 30 round group size was still within statistical variance- .1 MOA. However his load did result in about .2-.3 MOA less vertical past 800 yards. Significant to him, but it resulted in about .1% higher hit rates in the field on 12” targets at 800 yards- zero usable difference at all in the field for any field shooting.

To get the .2 MOA less it also took him an hour plus to load 20 rounds, then being psycho about keeping his brass; versus me loading 100+ rounds in an hour and not caring about picking up a single piece of brass.

If that's not the case than why does anyone reload?

Because before the 6.5 cm factory cartridges and chambers sucked. At this point I actually don’t know why most field shooters/hunters would reload. Any difference between the best reloads for a 6.5cm for instance, and factory ammo is so insignificant that it will have zero effect on hitting and killing game. I’d be happy to shoot matches, and hunt, and never reload again.

If that is the case than wouldn't it show a good, consistent, load quicker than factory loads....ie, you may see a more consistent zero in 10-15 shots than 20-30?

It depends on the cartridge and gun. Some cartridges/chambers are just better. That’s what the 6.5cm did- it brought custom level chambering and hand loaded ammo performance to factory guns and ammo. They rest of the CM’s and PRC’s have done that as well. I can buy a good rifle in 6 or 6.5cm, use factory Hornady, Federal, or Berger ammo an win national level matches. I can not do the same with the same rifles in 243win or 260Rem. If you are shooting a 300 Weatherby, and you are legitimately going to hunt past 600-700 yards with it- yeah reloading is probably going to help. But screw that, just shoot a 300 Norma and use factory ammo instead.

 

[INTJ]

How are you accounting for barrel wear between your zero confirm and your shot for hunting? This whole “the barrel is changing too much for 20-30 shots” is literally just an excuse from people that do not understand statistical relevance and that want to believe a fairytale. I watched a bartlien 1.25” straight contour chambered by one of the most respected in the business, fired from a wiseman in an indoor range, put multiple 100 round groups into 1.5’ish MOA and when overlaid the worst round made it like a 1.7 MOA group. Using an acoustic target, there was no statistical difference between 3 and 5 shot group strings at 50-100 rounds on the barrel, and the same at several hundred rounds in- bit was there any measurable POI change.


They were talking “true” .25 MOA rifles for 30-50 round groups. BR rifles aren’t .25 MOA guns when statistically relevant shot group sizes are used. The baseline start of statistical relevance is about 30. Do not adjust zero or shift aimpiont on true BR rifles, and shoot 6 separate 5 shot groups on different targets, then overlay all 6 groups on one targets- those 30 shots are not going to be .25 MOA- or it would be few rifles, even BR guns, that will do so.

This is a perfect illustration of the trap of thinking statistics are the end-all in determining rifle accuracy. I am not going to say that approach is of no benefit, but the statistical approach doesn't usually give us much practical and useable info.

The barrel doesn't usually change in 20-30 shots, but it can. Throat erosion isn't constant but is irregular, and many LRBR shooters have had a load go away during a match and find that the throat jumped enough to put the load out of tune. And that is usually fixed by seating the bullet longer. And acoustic targets aren't yet accurate enough for LRBR record groups............

Also, conditions will rarely hold for 20 or 30 shots. Even if you shoot six five-shot groups, they are all shot in a different condition so it becomes an apples to oranges comparison. That's why short range BR guys tune their load during the relay. And why LRBR shooters tune before each match when they can. Things constantly change and unless you make adjustments, groups get bigger. This is even true with hunting rifles. The load that works at 50 rounds of barrel life likely won't work at 500 rounds.

So when you say that a 100 round indoor group out of a BR rifle is 1.5 MOA, I say "no kiddin".

Also, the fact that it was shot at an indoor range isn't of any use, unless you plan to go hunting or compete indoors. We need to find our loads in the conditions we will be shooting. Shooting a 100 round indoor group is only useful for making statisticians happy..................

Now I am NOT saying that there isn't more variation in our rifles than we like to think. I see that all the time. A hunting rifle that will shoot a .3" 100yd group one day may well shoot a .7" the next. Even my LRBR rifles have variation, as I pointed out earlier. And in the field when hunting, we are all what, 1 MOA shooters at the absolute best? 2 MOA? And that should be our criteria for determining the distance of our shots, our field accuracy.

I hear that you and I will get to argue about this in person soon. Should be fun........................

 

[INTJ]

I believe those are the same target, posted twice. Regardless, nice shooting!

Thanks--fixed it!

 

[Formidilosus]

This is a perfect illustration of the trap of thinking statistics are the end-all in determining rifle accuracy. I am not going to say that approach is of no benefit, but the statistical approach doesn't usually give us much practical and useable info.

So conditions can hold for 5 shots or 1 shots, but not more? Then why not just measure two shot groups?

The barrel doesn't usually change in 20-30 shots, but it can. Throat erosion isn't constant but is irregular, and many LRBR shooters have had a load go away during a match and find that the throat jumped enough to put the load out of tune. And that is usually fixed by seating the bullet longer. And acoustic targets aren't yet accurate enough for LRBR record groups............

Also, conditions will rarely hold for 20 or 30 shots. Even if you shoot six five-shot groups, they are all shot in a different condition so it becomes an apples to oranges comparison. That's why short range BR guys tune their load during the relay. And why LRBR shooters tune before each match when they can. Things constantly change and unless you make adjustments, groups get bigger. This is even true with hunting rifles.

Remove bench rest. How does “tuning” loads work for actual field rifles? You tune a load, go on a couple week hunt, shoot a few rounds to check zero- and then what? Load inside the tent to “re tune” it? Field rifles have to remain static for hundreds of rounds at a minimum- or at least any field rifle I’m going to use must.

The load that works at 50 rounds of barrel life likely won't work at 500 rounds.

The 308 that I spoke about in my last post remained statistically stable from 100’ish rounds in the barrel to over 8,000 rounds of the same lot of ammo. With no cleaning ever. The last match I used it in with that load- it won Witt almsot 14,000 rounds on it. Though it had opened a bit.

So when you say that a 100 round indoor group out of a BR rifle is 1.5 MOA, I say "no kiddin".

Also, the fact that it was shot at an indoor range isn't of any use, unless you plan to go hunting or compete indoors. We need to find our loads in the conditions we will be shooting. Shooting a 100 round indoor group is only useful for making statisticians happy..................

That literally makes no logical sense. Indoor ranges remove variables- to only measure the gun and ammo precision.

 

[Flyjunky]

Please know there is no emotion or rudeness when I write- I try to be direct to avoid confusion. Also, I’m not going to tell a BR shooter what they should or shouldn’t do- well, I’m not telling anyone what to do; just that for something to be real, it has to be repeatable and probable across rifles and time. Otherwise it’s “Mister Misers magical elixir”.

No problem, forums aren't exactly the best way to discuss info like this.

No sir. It should have been- “nor were there any measurable POI changes” between rounds 50 through several hundred. That is once zeroed, the barrel/ammo stayed zeroed from basically the start to when the testing was finished. No zero shift as it were. Also, the velocity stabilized after about 40-50 rounds with no cleaning. On other barrels, overall stability- that is POI and MV, were much more consistent when not cleaned at all, versus cleaning any time.

This is interesting to me because I have had to do a little adjusting to my loads over the life of my barrels. It might be the cartridges I'm shooting though. My most used rifles are a 300wm specifically throated for the 215 and a 6.5-284 where I shoot the 140 or 156 Bergers.

It’s an ammo and cartridge thing to a great extent. 6BR’a and Dashers just shoot silly small groups. Basically, if someone told me they had a true .5 MOA 8lb hunting rifle.. it would be highly suspect- to the point of almost guaranteeing that they don’t. Now, if they followed up with it being a 6 dasher, etc… I would shrug and say “sweet- it’s a Dasher”.

I don't have a big game rifle that weighs under 9.5lbs and most are around 10-10.5. I found over time this is a great weight for me where I can shoot them consistently well. I honestly don't mind packing around the extra weight (Mostly in the larger calibers)

To an extent yes, “better” ammo makes a difference, but it’s relative. For instance my last 308 comp rifle was a legit 1 MOA rifle. That is 30 round groups were consistently between .9 and 1.1 MOA with its comp load. One of the top F class people in the nation at the time was appalled with my loading technique. So he took it and did his thing, and got the ten round group average to drop by just under .2 MOA. It’s 30 round group size was still within statistical variance- .1 MOA. However his load did result in about .2-.3 MOA less vertical past 800 yards. Significant to him, but it resulted in about .1% higher hit rates in the field on 12” targets at 800 yards- zero usable difference at all in the field for any field shooting.

To get the .2 MOA less it also took him an hour plus to load 20 rounds, then being psycho about keeping his brass; versus me loading 100+ rounds in an hour and not caring about picking up a single piece of brass.

Maybe I'm being to precise? I'll take multiple measurements (cbto, coal, etc), measure powder charges on 3 different scales, remove individual kernels with tweezers, sort cases, etc.. Maybe all that is just overkill.

Because before the 6.5 cm factory cartridges and chambers sucked. At this point I actually don’t know why most field shooters/hunters would reload. Any difference between the best reloads for a 6.5cm for instance, and factory ammo is so insignificant that it will have zero effect on hitting and killing game. I’d be happy to shoot matches, and hunt, and never reload again.

I can see that but if you don't have saami chambers factory ammo isn't really the best option. It would make life easier but I actually really like reloading, it's therapeutic and calming for me. Kind of like tying flies, it's easier to buy them but takes some of the fun away for me.

It depends on the cartridge and gun. Some cartridges/chambers are just better. That’s what the 6.5cm did- it brought custom level chambering and hand loaded ammo performance to factory guns and ammo. They rest of the CM’s and PRC’s have done that as well. I can buy a good rifle in 6 or 6.5cm, use factory Hornady, Federal, or Berger ammo an win national level matches. I can not do the same with the same rifles in 243win or 260Rem. If you are shooting a 300 Weatherby, and you are legitimately going to hunt past 600-700 yards with it- yeah reloading is probably going to help. But screw that, just shoot a 300 Norma and use factory ammo instead.

I've set a self imposed limit of 800 yards on game for both my main rifles. I feel like I've done well with load development and verify my loads enough throughout the year to feel comfortable at that distance. Once I feel comfortable enough with my wind reading skills and can feel confident shooting in a wind that's more than "vital zone size bracket" I may up that distance but for now that's where I stand.

 

[Flyjunky]

I’ll just say real quick that my post was not meant to contradict anything that I heard from either Hornady podcast. I listened to both at work, so I probably only took in about 60% while I was multitasking. From what I heard, I’m in full agreement. Statistics is a real thing. If your groups don’t follow a normal distribution, particularly at short range, that should be a clue.

In general, I think people would be far ahead if they went outside, shot more, and figured this stuff out for themselves instead of trying to find an internet Jesus to regurgitate (not saying that’s what you specifically are doing). I’ve shot enough and tracked data well enough to know what is a normal expectation, and I can smile when randos on the internet call all my barrels and all the ammo I shoot “a true outlier”.

Also, 20-30 mph winds is a fun time to go shooting.

I wasn't implying that at all, I was just using it as an example of what is possible regardless if it's an outlier or not .

20-30mph winds make for tough calling conditions though. This particular spot has a cougar that I want to get as well so I didn't want to take the chance of him becoming educated if he was in this particular area at the time.

 

[Flyjunky]

I wasn’t referring to you man, and it was mostly a joke.

I know, I think we may have joke confused each other.

Your data was posted on this thread with visuals so it made a quick easy example, and it's impressive as well which doesn't hurt the cause!

 

[INTJ]

So conditions can hold for 5 shots or 1 shots, but not more? Then why not just measure two shot groups?

Remove bench rest. How does “tuning” loads work for actual field rifles? You tune a load, go on a couple week hunt, shoot a few rounds to check zero- and then what? Load inside the tent to “re tune” it? Field rifles have to remain static for hundreds of rounds at a minimum- or at least any field rifle I’m going to use must.

The 308 that I spoke about in my last post remained statistically stable from 100’ish rounds in the barrel to over 8,000 rounds of the same lot of ammo. With no cleaning ever. The last match I used it in with that load- it won Witt almsot 14,000 rounds on it. Though it had opened a bit.

That literally makes no logical sense. Indoor ranges remove variables- to only measure the gun and ammo precision.

At long range it can be iffy for conditions to hold for 10-shots. Sometimes they do, as the targets I posted show. Conditions are much more likely to hold for five, but I have even seen conditions go away during a five-shot string. When I am sighting in a hunting rifle prior to hunting, I shoot two shots from a dead cold barrel, then let the barrel cool completely before shooting again. That's most simulates what I'll be doing in the field. We should train like we fight.................

Tuning loads for field rifle works the same way as it does for BR rifles. We find the best and most consistent load we can, then go hunt. There is often a difference between the load that gives the smallest group vs the most forgiving load. I load hunting rifles to be forgiving. If a rifle produces .3, .8, .5, .5; I am going to pick the more forgiving node of .5 and .5. It has the widest window where it will still shoot well. We usually pick forgiving loads for LRBR as well.

I never trust a single group 100 yd group as being meaningful. It has to repeat, preferably at a little longer range like at least 300 yds. That said, I have had more than one hunting rifle shoot a .3 at 100 and back it up with a 1 to 1.2 at 300 yds.

About the only hunting rifle that needs to remain static for hundreds of rounds is a varmint rifle. For a big game rifle, which is what I expect most here are interested in, we rarely need anywhere near 100 shots. What it comes down to is what level of accuracy we want and for how long? If I want a load that is likely to stay in tune for a long time, I'll seat the bullets .090 - .150 off the lands. It may not shoot the tightest, but it will likely stay in tune for a long time.

In non-precision shooting disciplines, and there are a bunch--most in fact, we don't need to try and maintain the type of accuracy a BR rifles needs. So its more forgiving as to accuracy robbing practices like not cleaning or never readjusting the load. Most big game type rifles will go at least 50-100 rounds between cleaning before accuracy falls off. Some will go longer. Same for LRBR rifles. Short range guys clean like every 20 rounds.

I got my azz chewed at a match last year by my fellow competitors for not cleaning. It was the same match that I shot the 4.3 and 3.8 that I posted pics of. I wanted to see how it would shoot without cleaning. My lasy group opened up to a 9. They basically said it was stupid of me to push a 300 WSM that far during a match. Turns out that barrel shot well to around 75 rounds, then would fall off. Of course, if I only cared about 1 MOA 1000 yd 10-shot groups, no cleaning was needed.

An LRBR barrel in 6BRA/6Dasher or 300 SAUM IMP/300 WSM will maintain BR level accuracy for 1000-1500 rounds, depending. When the conditions are poor, guys with less well tuned rifles can compete with the top shooters, because the conditions so overwhelm everything else. However, when the conditions are good, we see who knows how to tune their rifle.

Indoor ranges remove the very variables we need to tune for when outside. We will miss things that show up outside. We need loads that will better shoot through condition changes, and the only way to find that is to tune our loads in conditions. Now we do try to find the best conditions, but there is a huge difference between tuning outside in good conditions at 1000 yds vs shooting 100 rounds indoors at 100 yds in terms of useful info.

Further, tuning at 100 yds doesn't lead to the best accuracy unless we are competing at 100 yds. The best practice is to tune at the distance we want to shoot. The boys I shoot 1k BR with held a 2000 yd BR match a couple years ago. Now most of these guys did their tuning at 1000 yds. I would expect these loads would shoot 2-5" 5-shot groups at 1000, depending on conditions. These guys shot like 20-30" groups at 2000. All except one. He actually tuned his rifle at 2000 yds, and he shot like 12" and 15" groups.

For me personally, I have occasionally seen where a 200-300 yd load would shoot well at 1000. Most of the time it doesn't. What I have seen most often is that at short range ,the lower node often shoots best. At 1000 yds the higher node shoots best. The only way to know is to test at 1000 yds. The only useful info I get at short range for my LRBR rifles is to identify the nodes. Then I load up ladders around those nodes and test using the round-robin tuning method at 1000 yds.

 

[Flyjunky]

At long range it can be iffy for conditions to hold for 10-shots. Sometimes they do, as the targets I posted show. Conditions are much more likely to hold for five, but I have even seen conditions go away during a five-shot string. When I am sighting in a hunting rifle prior to hunting, I shoot two shots from a dead cold barrel, then let the barrel cool completely before shooting again. That's most simulates what I'll be doing in the field. We should train like we fight.................

Tuning loads for field rifle works the same way as it does for BR rifles. We find the best and most consistent load we can, then go hunt. There is often a difference between the load that gives the smallest group vs the most forgiving load. I load hunting rifles to be forgiving. If a rifle produces .3, .8, .5, .5; I am going to pick the more forgiving node of .5 and .5. It has the widest window where it will still shoot well. We usually pick forgiving loads for LRBR as well.

I never trust a single group 100 yd group as being meaningful. It has to repeat, preferably at a little longer range like at least 300 yds. That said, I have had more than one hunting rifle shoot a .3 at 100 and back it up with a 1 to 1.2 at 300 yds.

About the only hunting rifle that needs to remain static for hundreds of rounds is a varmint rifle. For a big game rifle, which is what I expect most here are interested in, we rarely need anywhere near 100 shots. What it comes down to is what level of accuracy we want and for how long? If I want a load that is likely to stay in tune for a long time, I'll seat the bullets .090 - .150 off the lands. It may not shoot the tightest, but it will likely stay in tune for a long time.

In non-precision shooting disciplines, and there are a bunch--most in fact, we don't need to try and maintain the type of accuracy a BR rifles needs. So its more forgiving as to accuracy robbing practices like not cleaning or never readjusting the load. Most big game type rifles will go at least 50-100 rounds between cleaning before accuracy falls off. Some will go longer. Same for LRBR rifles. Short range guys clean like every 20 rounds.

I got my azz chewed at a match last year by my fellow competitors for not cleaning. It was the same match that I shot the 4.3 and 3.8 that I posted pics of. I wanted to see how it would shoot without cleaning. My lasy group opened up to a 9. They basically said it was stupid of me to push a 300 WSM that far during a match. Turns out that barrel shot well to around 75 rounds, then would fall off. Of course, if I only cared about 1 MOA 1000 yd 10-shot groups, no cleaning was needed.

An LRBR barrel in 6BRA/6Dasher or 300 SAUM IMP/300 WSM will maintain BR level accuracy for 1000-1500 rounds, depending. When the conditions are poor, guys with less well tuned rifles can compete with the top shooters, because the conditions so overwhelm everything else. However, when the conditions are good, we see who knows how to tune their rifle.

Indoor ranges remove the very variables we need to tune for when outside. We will miss things that show up outside. We need loads that will better shoot through condition changes, and the only way to find that is to tune our loads in conditions. Now we do try to find the best conditions, but there is a huge difference between tuning outside in good conditions at 1000 yds vs shooting 100 rounds indoors at 100 yds in terms of useful info.

Further, tuning at 100 yds doesn't lead to the best accuracy unless we are competing at 100 yds. The best practice is to tune at the distance we want to shoot. The boys I shoot 1k BR with held a 2000 yd BR match a couple years ago. Now most of these guys did their tuning at 1000 yds. I would expect these loads would shoot 2-5" 5-shot groups at 1000, depending on conditions. These guys shot like 20-30" groups at 2000. All except one. He actually tuned his rifle at 2000 yds, and he shot like 12" and 15" groups.

For me personally, I have occasionally seen where a 200-300 yd load would shoot well at 1000. Most of the time it doesn't. What I have seen most often is that at short range ,the lower node often shoots best. At 1000 yds the higher node shoots best. The only way to know is to test at 1000 yds. The only useful info I get at short range for my LRBR rifles is to identify the nodes. Then I load up ladders around those nodes and test using the round-robin tuning method at 1000 yds.

Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

For your hunting rifles do you notice, or can you discern, a difference in loads of .3 grain increments across 1-1.5grains. I guess what I'm saying is that I swear I can see a difference during load development but maybe I'm just fooling myself and seeing things I expect to see.

 

[INTJ]

Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

For your hunting rifles do you notice, or can you discern, a difference in loads of .3 grain increments across 1-1.5grains. I guess what I'm saying is that I swear I can see a difference during load development but maybe I'm just fooling myself and seeing things I expect to see.

It depends on the cartridge. I'll sometimes go down to .3 grains when fine tuning a 6.5 Creed or smaller case, but most if the time I test at .5 or 1 grain increments. Often I run initial tests at 1 grain the fine tune to .5 grains.

The general rule of thumb is nodes are 2.5% of powder charge apart. That is only a rough guide. So I would expect a 6.5 Creed to show nodes at roughly one grain apart. A 300 PRC would be closer to 2 grains apart. However, like most things with shooting, there are always exceptions.

 

[BBob]

In general, I think people would be far ahead if they went outside, shot more, and figured this stuff out for themselves instead of trying to find an internet Jesus to regurgitate

Amen!!! So much is regurgitated and done blindly it’s silly. Very few actually go out and test most of the reloading bs. If they did they’d quit doing most if not all of the stuff for a typical hunting/field rifle. We’ve got some top end BR competitors that win a lot shooting no-turn necks, no primer pocket uniforming, not cleaning or brushing inside of necks, and god forbid horror of horrors not cleaning primer pockets!

 

[BBob]

My most used rifles are a 300wm specifically throated for the 215 and a 6.5-284 where I shoot the 140 or 156 Bergers.

Just curious if they are throated to be into lands or close to lands and if so are you seating them into lands or close to lands? If off lands how far off are they?

 

[Flyjunky]

Just curious if they are throated to be into lands or close to lands and if so are you seating them into lands or close to lands? If off lands how far off are they?

I have the 215's seated at 15 off and it was throated off the lands if I remember right. That was almost 750 rounds ago. This will be the last year for that rifle but I think I'm going to stick with the 300wm and use the RM reamer on a new one. I was originally toying with either a 30nos or 300nmi but I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze all things considered. Why do you ask? Do you have experience with that bullet? If so, what did you find?

The new 6.5-284 will be done in February and that gun is going to be at saami spec (.188) for right now and I'll see how it shoots. A few people were saying to push it out to .200 for the 156's but a guy who has shot the 6.5-284 for many years (both hunting and comp) said the .188 works great so I'm going to start there.