Your Groups Are Too Small

[Ice-kub]

An ammunition company telling you to shoot larger group sizes... Lol it's clearly a conspiracy to sell more ammo Hahaha

 

[huntnful]

An ammunition company telling you to shoot larger group sizes... Lol it's clearly a conspiracy to sell more ammo Hahaha

I don’t even shoot their bullets, so jokes on them! Hahahaha

 

[jonnyviceroy]

This is a very great discussion. Bryan Litz has been saying the same thing they’ve made of point of here for quite awhile. Really really changed my view of “load development” or the lack there of. No more time or money spent pointlessly tinkering for that “magic recipe” a very helpful discussion for all of us really

 

[Harvey_NW]

This is a very great discussion. Bryan Litz has been saying the same thing they’ve made of point of here for quite awhile. Really really changed my view of “load development” or the lack there of. No more time or money spent pointlessly tinkering for that “magic recipe” a very helpful discussion for all of us really

Keep in mind they still confirm that changes in powder charge can cause changes in dispersion, specifically they state backing the charge down typically has a positive impact on dispersion. Jayden also notes that 3 shot groups can tell you how bad something is, but not how good it is. So there is still some validity to small sample size testing for indicators, but it takes a large sample size to prove how good it is.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

Keep in mind they still confirm that changes in powder charge can cause changes in dispersion, specifically they state backing the charge down typically has a positive impact on dispersion. Jayden also notes that 3 shot groups can tell you how bad something is, but not how good it is. So there is still some validity to small sample size testing for indicators, but it takes a large sample size to prove how good it is.

Absolutely can cause changes. Especially for fellas loading near max. But they still emphasized that its weight of importance is far far less than most people think it is in the grand scheme of all other factors considered. I really liked the way he described those three shot groups I felt it was described perfectly.

 

[Harvey_NW]

But they still emphasized that its weight of importance is far far less than most people think it is in the grand scheme of all other factors considered. I really liked the way he described those three shot groups I felt it was described perfectly.

I would have to disagree. I think they emphasized that it depends on perception, and what you extrapolate from the results needs to be substantiated by a large enough sample size if you're going to run with that as a result. So if your goal is 1/2 MOA average and your first 2 or 3 shots of a combination has an ES of 1.25", you already know you need to make a change. That's a tiny sample size, but still valid and very important to the circumstances.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

I would have to disagree. I think they emphasized that it depends on perception, and what you extrapolate from the results needs to be substantiated by a large enough sample size if you're going to run with that as a result. So if your goal is 1/2 MOA average and your first 2 or 3 shots of a combination has an ES of 1.25", you already know you need to make a change. That's a tiny sample size, but still valid and very important to the circumstances.

Not sure what you disagree on. I think that’s very valid. All I was summarizing is that the average joe typically thinks slight changes in powder charge has more of an effect than reality.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Not sure what you disagree on. I think that’s very valid. All I was summarizing is that the average joe typically thinks slight changes in powder charge has more of an effect than reality.

Ah, my bad I misinterpreted that. I thought you were referring to small sample size with the weight of it's importance being far far less in the grand scheme. We're on the same page.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

A

Ah, my bad I misinterpreted that. I thought you were referring to small sample size with the weight of its importance being far far less in the grand scheme. We're on the same page.

No worries my man, I’m not great with words haha. But definitely are on the same page. How some of my coworkers can have sheer confidence based off of a single three shot group is far beyond me

 

[wind gypsy]

A

No worries my man, I’m not great with words haha. But definitely are on the same page. How some of my coworkers can have sheer confidence based off of a single three shot group is far beyond me

Their rifle shoots 0.327”, confirmed with precision calipers.

^these posts are becoming favorites. Bad enough to say your rifle shoots to 2 decimal place level accuracy from a 3 shot group but that third decimal place.. that’s something.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

Their rifle shoots 0.327”, confirmed with precision calipers.

^these posts are becoming favorites. Bad enough to say your rifle shoots to 2 decimal place level accuracy from a 3 shot group but that third decimal place.. that’s something.

My personal favorite to see/hear about is their three shot group with two touching where they place a dime or quarter over their flier in the photo and tell me the two touching are a three shot group

 

[SouthPaw]

Their rifle shoots 0.327”, confirmed with precision calipers.

^these posts are becoming favorites. Bad enough to say your rifle shoots to 2 decimal place level accuracy from a 3 shot group but that third decimal place.. that’s something.

But if they "do their part", it actually shoots .2s all day.

 

[Hondo64d]

I think I’ve tried about all of the most highly touted load development methods out there, using a lot of components and barrel life in the process. I’ve kinda come to the conclusion that the goals I am trying to accomplish with said load need to play a part in my load development method. Am I after a load that will achieve its stated purpose? Or, am I after a load that is the absolute best that rifle can shoot? The first comes much easier than the second. If hunting, shooting NRL Hunter, or PRS, a load that will keep 10 shots in 1MOA is more than plenty good. If shooting events where the smallest group wins, then you want to find the absolute best load your rifle can shoot.

The difference in load development method for the two stated goals really comes down to sample sizes during the load development process. If going for the absolute best a given barrel can shoot, I’m using 10 rounds per charge or seating depth increment. The Hornady guys are probably correct in that you need to be shooting 20 rounds or more to have a really high level of confidence, but I have generally found that if a seating depth or charge weight shoots better than another when using ten round groups, then it is usually repeatable and genuinely better than the load it beat out. Maybe not drastically so, but better. Using this method, you can generally find the best shooting load in about 100 rounds; fifty for powder charge and fifty for seating depth.

Lately, if I’m just going for good enough, I’ll start with three or five round samples per charge weight or seating depth. On powder charges, I go with .4gr increments. Ideally I’ll see three consecutive charges that group small and at the same POI. If I find this, I‘ll pick the middle charge and load up ten rounds, shoot them all into the same group and see if they fall into the “good enough” category. If they do, I’m done. If not, then it’s back to the loading bench to try something else.

The problem we run into is falling into the trap of “three shots is all I’ll ever use on a single hunting engagement, so I use three shot groups during load development,” or zeroing, etc. The problem with that philosophy is three rounds is not nearly a large enough sample size to determine if those results are repeatable. If you take that load and shoot another group, and it is the same size or smaller AND it hits the same exact POI, then that’s encouraging, but I just haven’t found that to be the case very often. Likely, the next group might have two in close proximity to each other and that pesky flyer an inch out. Or, it might shoot another tiny group but the POI is a little different when I know I’ve accounted for any change in conditions. So what’s a fella to do? I don’t want to torch my .22 Creedmoor or .257 Wby or some other barrel toasting chambering during load development or zeroing. I shoot three or five, depending on barrel contour, let the barrel cool and then send another group at the same POA, let the barrel cool, and repeat until I have one composite group of a significant sample size. The more shots in the composite group, the more confidence we can have in where the next round is going. That is demonstrated by the folks above who have tried it and found out.

Another thing. If you start this process with a faulty rifle, you’ll pull your hair out chasing your tail during load development, zeroing, or just shooting. If your rifle system isn’t capable of shooting tiny groups then you can burn a barrel, or multiple barrels out trying to get it to meet your expectations. If you don’t start with a good action, barrel, stock/chassis, bedding, scope and mounting system then you’re in for a very frustrating experience. I went down that road recently, leading to having a completely new barrel chambered up, only to discover the barrel was not the problem at all. But, that’s a long story in itself, so I’ll save it for another post.

John

 

[prm]

Three shots can be useful. I've definitely eliminated a load based on three shots!

 

[Hondo64d]

Three shots can be useful. I've definitely eliminated a load based on three shots!

Agreed. If you have a specific precision criteria and it won’t put three shots within that criteria, it certainly won’t put more than three within that criteria.

John

 

[Mule3006Elk]

I don't really focus on 100 yard groups even when developing a load.
I determine max pressure and back off in increments until I have 6 different powder charges.
I shoot them at 300 yards and I look for groups that hit the same elevation. If 2 or 3 sequential groups hit the same general elevation, usually they do, I pick the low and high charge from this group and split the charge. This has worked really well for my needs Then I dial true MV using a Kestrel out to 500-600 yards. This load work up may not be perfect, nor large enough sample size, but has worked really well for my needs.

 

[NevadaMike]

Honestly a 20 shot 1” group isn’t bad at all. I’d stick with the 55gr. load. Did you see how many shots were at the extreme ends of the ES? Like were 90% of the shots within a 30 ES with only 1 or 2 random high and low? That could be from new brass or something

I have more work to do but it was once fired brass, Forster custom honed dies and stem, CPS, 21st century mandrel and a 120i scale. Brass, powder charge and neck tension are about as consistent as I know how to make it. I will try a different powder next.

 

[Harvey_NW]

I have more work to do but it was once fired brass, Forster custom honed dies and stem, CPS, 21st century mandrel and a 120i scale. Brass, powder charge and neck tension are about as consistent as I know how to make it. I will try a different powder next.

H1000 is usually really consistent, what's the round count on the barrel, and how many rounds since last full cleaning? Curious if you might have built some pressure up from fouling over that many rounds, the PRC takes maintenance.

 

[NevadaMike]

H1000 is usually really consistent, what's the round count on the barrel, and how many rounds since last full cleaning? Curious if you might have built some pressure up from fouling over that many rounds, the PRC takes maintenance.

I use H1000 as well. I cleaned the barrel just before I started this series and I have about 140 rounds down so far.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

From International Benchrest Shooters
View attachment 500812

A post from Frank Green on Snipershide
View attachment 500813

My 10-shot groups look like trash compared to these. My 3-shot groups aren't even in this ballpark. It's all relative guys.

I was there, here in Arizona two years ago when Charles broke the 10 shot group record at 1,000 yards. He and a couple other guys absolutely smoked the field of us peasants. He shot 2.566" and beat the previous record by almost a full inch! Insanity.