Comparison Testing at the Range

M

Montana Pete

Guest
Today's trip to the rifle range involved an interesting test. The rifle involved is a Savage Model 12 in 22-250.

I tried to test two nearly identical bullets-- the 52 gr. HPBT-Match by, respectively, Hornady and Sierra.

Everything else was identical. I used a box of 20 W-W cases that had been fired an identical number of times, and always processed throughout in an identical way. Ten of these cases were loaded with the Hornady, the other ten with the Sierra.

Same primers, same type of powder, same charge weight, same bullet seating depth . . . same everything.

Five shots were fired with the Hornady, then five with the Sierra --- then five more Hornady, then the final five Sierra. This "staggering" eliminates any skewing of the results due to variation in barrel temperature -- sometimes a hot barrel will throw bullets a bit differently than a cool one.

Before running the test, I fired five shots of some left-over ammo I happened to have -- solely for the purpose of fouling the cleaned barrel and to warm the barrel up slightly. This eliminated some variables.

The target is attached. All shooting was at 100 yds. The two groups of holes on the left -- top and bottom -- are the Hornady, and the two on the right -- top and bottom -- are the Sierra. Best group was the lower right Sierra at 5/8 inch. The upper right Sierra, four shots in about 3/8 inch.

It is pretty apparent that the Sierra did quite a bit better. I cannot explain the one shot to the left in the upper right-hand group. It could have been human error on my part, although I would not have called the shot there. Who knows? The remaining shots in that group almost look like three shots, but were actually four.

All things considered, it seems pretty clear that the Sierras did much better than the Hornadys.

All this means is that THIS rifle loaded a certain way seemed to like the Sierras on a certain day. Different powder, different load, different rifle -- who knows? However, when I need to reorder bullets, I know which brand I will order.

Any comments or suggestions welcome.
 

Attachments

  • October 25, 2008 001.jpg
    October 25, 2008 001.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 326
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you mean by the same seating depth? The bullets have different ogive shapes. Do you mean that they were actually seated with the same seater setting? Seating depth is usually defined as specific to a particular bullet in terms of longer than touch, off the lands, or possibly from jam. Using the same seater setting would virtually guarantee that they were at different seating depths.
 
Regarding the seating depth --

You are right. Just the same die setting.
 
Sierra vs Hornady?

How did you decide on the load and seating depth you used? To me your test does a nice job of demonstaring how importanat it is work up a separate load for each set of components you use.
 
pete,

Montana Pete said:
Regarding the seating depth --

You are right. Just the same die setting.
Click to expand...

you will need a bullet comparator to make sure the seating depths are equal between bullets. Sinclair has them.

That one group looks good enough for critters. Glass bedding may make things a bit more consistant too.

Good luck.

pf
<><
 
Next step, get a Sinclair seating depth measuring tool, or a Stoney Point tool and case for your caliber(s) along with one of the off the ogive OAL attachments for your dial or digital caliper. With these in hand, you can start to work up a load for each bullet. Different bullets have different "preferences" as far as seating depth (in relation to the OAL where they touch the rifling). For instance, looking at match bullets for my 6PPC, I have some Watsons, that are of a single radius ogive design, that like to have marks that are shorter than they are wide. My Tucker #3s, on the other hand, have a double radius ogive, and work better with marks that are much longer than they are wide. I generally find that my varmint rifles shoot pretty well with bullets seated .006-.010 longer than touch, as determined by my Sinclair tool. Always drop back and work up to a new powder setting when you change anything about a load. Going from jumping a bullet to touching or into the rifling will raise pressure, so you don't want to make this move with out backing off and working back up to see where you are for pressure.
 
No offense but thats a pretty inconclusive test. I have decided on a first bullet for testing using the same approach on occasion tho. I wouldn't rule out the Hornady from the results of it either.

I worked up a load for my 6BR using 60gn Bergers. One day I decided to try Sierras 60gn pills. Jammed them the same distance into the lands as the Bergs. Most horrible group that gun has ever shot.
Of course that test is just as or even more unfair than yours. The load was already optimized for the Bergs. As Boyd stated different ogives which might require different seating depths. Different bearing lengths might require different powder charges and on and on.

It might be fun and it might give you a place to start but it should'nt end there. Now if you can get the Sierras to shoot in one hole consistently your search might be over. JMO
 
Thanks for the information, folks.

Let me take some suggestions and try to answer them. This morning I ordered an electronic vernier caliper from Midway, so that I can measure and record OAL for each load. You cannot screw around with the seating depth on the die unless you can go back and re-establish what you had before.

For example, I have a good load. I start screwing around with the seating depth to prepare a different load. Now there's no way to go back to re-create the good load -- at least, without a measurement of OAL.

To go on . . . . The one guy says, "good enough for critters." Well, I would say two groups. The group he leaves out put four in one hole, with a flyer. Furthermore, he does not consider what this gun is capable of. This rifle MAY not be capable of much better than 5/8 inch groups at 100. This is yet to be determined. This is a factory rifle. Moreover, if he thinks a 5/8 inch group is mediocre, a person wonders what he is shooting. He may be doing way better, or maybe not. This rifle's best group at 100 was 3/8 inch. I have only owned this rifle since July.

One guy says "not enough information to be conclusive." Well, if you look at those four groups, it's pretty conclusive unless you are blind. The guy is right in NOT dinging the Hornady product on the basis of this test. In fact, I have some loads using a different powder where the Hornady do a lot better. I take his point. I read in the American Rifleman that you must shoot at least four 5=shot groups for each load variant to have statistical significance. Well, I do what I can. I am not the American Rifleman, just one old man sitting in the Midwest somewhere.

Someone asked me, "how did you come up with this combination?" Well, I narrowed things down using about 300 rds of testing and at least four powders, to include H414, H380, IMR4895, and H4895, and maybe one or two others. Plus about all the bullet weights. I also got some good groups with the Sierra Varminter 60 gr HP.

Due to the terrific number of rounds that would have to be loaded to test out all possibilties in an exhaustive way, I had to limit what I did to match my time and budget. I have had to shoot, record my data, and then try to intuit or infer where to go next. Then I would set up yet one more test, and record the results in my notebook. I am not the ammo testing laboratory of Hornady, just one old man sitting in the middle of nowhere with a finite budget and a limited amount of time.

Thank you very much to all of you-- I have learned a lot, which I why people post this messages. For one thing, I am going to investigate that Sinclair seating depth tool. When the digital caliper arrives from Midway, I will be at least a little more scientific about seating depths. Not that this is the best tool-- but better than what I have now.

More comments or ideas are welcome.

Pat
 
Pete,

This will be my final post.....only because your reply comes across as condescending imho for those that are trying to help you. You tell me I am not considering & assuming what the gun is capable of (your one 3/8" group does not mean you have a 3/8" gun) You tell another poster he is blind because your 4 groups are NOT conclusive.....then you tell us thanks & ask for more help??

9 shots close to 1/2" is plenty good (especially starting off) unless you are going for flies @ 100yds or plan on taking this rig to a br match. Was that one shot out of the nine because of YOU, the wind, clean / cold bbl or the gun?? Did you use wind flags?? Do you have a trusted scope with AO objective to remove the parallax?? Could bedding have eliminated that one shot or bbl warming caused it??

Again, good luck and I think you have enough info with that particular load & oal seating depth and what path to focus on as it shows plenty of promise for a factory rig.

pf
<><
 
Points taken Pete.

We all shoot for different reasons. I'm a paper puncher and a Savaholic.
Theres no critters to blast in my neck of country so the only thing I can shoot for is improving my groups.
This requires lots of work,components and barrels. Fortunately I feel I've learned a lot from every burnt out barrel I unscrew. Most loads I develop are pretty close to optimal in the next tube also after slight adjustments. Never stops me from trying something new tho. I'm not happy till every fly is at least wounded at 200yds.
No wonder I'm never very happy!

I still stand by my original post though. At least from a paper punching perspective. (say that 10 times fast, I dare ya)


Whether varminting, paper or plinking you'll be well served by getting a COL quage of any sort with a comparator to go with it. I'd be totally lost without them.
Hornady (formerly Stoney Point) might be the best bang for your buck.
Most of all enjoy the sport.

0218082104.jpg


Not bad for 200 yds in a factory Sav 204R but I do not use either the bullet or the powder used to create that group anymore. It does'nt enter the "most loads" column.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul Fielder--

Apologies if I offended you somehow. I hope you will accept my apology. There is a certain amount of frustration in some of this testing, although it should not be directed at you or others. I notice that you did give me some additional advice, even though you were a little miffed at me. Thanks. Do hope you will not avoid my postings in the future.

jo191145==

Well, thanks for the added info and advice. I also do not shoot varmints. Not saying I never would again -- I hunted all my life, but in the mid 1990's I just stopped. Decided I didn't want to kill anything.

I also like to shoot paper targets. Before getting this Savage Model 12 I got very few groups under an inch, just using some hunting type sporting rifles. Now, with the Savage, I will get a couple of sub-MOA groups every trip to the range. When I get some bad groups, it is often a test group that is a "lemon."

The group in your photo is really amazing.

You know, based on feedback from this thread -- from you and some others -- I believe I am going to repeat this test exactly. It is not that difficult since the workbench is still set up for these loads. Just load 10 Sierra and 10 Hornady. Same description-- 52 gr. HPBT Match. This would simply add more data, and increase the statistical significance. If you don't mind, I hope to share that with you. We are getting brisk winds here in Wisconsin now, and that shooting bench is starting to get pretty cold, but I do hope to get out to the range another time or two.

I am going to look at that Sinclair comparator and the other gadget you describe. If they are too expensive, I will ask for them for Christmas or something.

I have a response from Midway, and apparently my digital caliper is on its way. This will add a scientific measurement to my OAL number, which I can add to my load descriptions.
 
Bullet Sorting

Have you considered sorting your bullets? Most lots of Sierra and Hornady need to be sorted, Yes it makes a difference.

Sam
 
Montana Pete: I have just a couple of comments of a constructive nature based on the results of your tests.
First off your savage seems to really prefer the Sierra bullets over the Hornady!
The preference is so easy to see that I wouldn't hesitate to stick with the Sierra's.
I have made this type "decision" COUNTLESS times over the past 45 years!
And by this type decision I mean a decision based on just a couple of groups fired on a dead calm day.
Your groups show more horizontal dispersion (wind and trigger related?) than they do vertical dispersion.
Typical that wind and human frailty - are you left handed by any chance?
Personally for my new Rifle testing, I seek accuracy with a bullet I want to use, at a speed that will get the job done I want done - and when I achieve that speed and accuracy level I quit testing!
Period.
I think your Rifle (depending on which power scope you have on it) is shooting rather well with the Sierra's by the way!
I just went through a somewhat similar testing earlier this year when I purchased a new Remington XR-100 in caliber 22-250 Remington!
I wanted that Rifle to shoot the Berger 52 gr. MEF (Varmint) bullet!
The second powder I tried in that Rifle gave me the speeds and the accuracy I wanted and I quit testing then and there.
The Rifle has been used very successfully since then doing what I want it to do.
For comparison purposes, the last two test groups (5 shots at 100 yards) I fired with my 22-250 Rifle measured .434" and .397" respectively. I have a Leupold 6.5x20 variable power scope on this rig by the way.
For your information I am using Varget powder, Federal 210M primers and Winchester cases in this 22-250 (along with the aforementioned 52 gr. Berger MEF's).
Best of luck with the savage 22-250 by the way.
Let me go over my main point again for clarification - yes, I think its valid to make an assumption on which bullet shoots better based on a rather small sampling of group results. Especially when the differences are as graphic as yours were.
I have been happy with my decisions thus made for a very long time now.
Yes, order more Sierra's!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
 
Pete

You mentioned you were going to repeat the exact test again.
I would'nt bother if I were you seeing as you said your on a limited budget and all. The results should be pretty similar. Not much point to it.

The point I and I think others were trying to make is its quite possible you could develop a load with the Hornadys that might be more accurate than a load worked up for the Sierras. It might be a different powder, primer and seating depth on and on.
If you chose not to thats fine and understandable. Its obvious that load you now have with the Sierras would be easier to tweak than starting over with the Horns.

I won't speak for others but my objection to your first post was an arbitrary conclusion based on one test that your gun prefers Sierras.
Now if you had developed that load with the Hornadys and thats the best you could get, then stuffed some Sierras behind that same load and got those results.
Then you could easily say your gun prefers the Sierras.

Order up some Sierras and make out your Christmas list. Make sure Santa knows those Hornady tools are a requirement for accurate handloading.
 
Jo191145: I think maybe you misspoke when you posted that Montana Pete's "conclusion" was an "arbitrary conclusion"?
Arbitrary means - #1: unreasonable or unjustified - #2: chosen at random (Websters New Compact Dictionary - Thomas Nelson Publishers - 1986).
Montana Petes "conclusion" was based on that small sampling of groupings and was pretty convincing to me - based on the photos of the groupings that were shown there, side by side.
Montana Petes conclusion was reasonable and justified and NOT chosen at random.
I think Montana Petes chances of doing the same test again and the results being EXACTLY the opposite are less than 5% - maybe only 2% or even just 1%.
I again say load the Sierra's and shoot away - and it is duly noted that you posted the same thing.
I also find puzzling your "load development" contention?
Mostly because I don't understand it if in fact you defined it and I missed it.
I saw where Montana Petes RANDOM loading (powder, primer, bullet weight and the casings) which he tested, were ALL exactly the same with the only variable being the bullet brand.
It seems again clear to me that Montana Petes Rifle really prefers the Sierra bullets to the Hornady's.
And thats what Montana Pete was impressed by and was seeking comments from others on, i.e.: "it seems pretty clear that the Sierras did much better than the Hornadys. All this means is that THIS rifle loaded a certain way seemed to like the Sierras on a certain day. Different powder, different load, different rifle -- who knows"?
End of Petes quote.
If you or anyone wants to contend that Montana Petes "conclusion" was based on to small a sample of groupings then thats another thing. I would gently disagree with that and offer up again my 45+ years of shooting groups and doing load development for countless Rifles.
On a dead calm day and with a powerful scope I have made many hundreds of decisions (conclusions) just like Montana Pete did and I have been quite happy with those decisions (conclusions) regarding my searches for accuracy and consistency.
If I might be so presumptuos as to ask of you and others (here on Montana Petes interesting thread) how MANY 5 shot groups at 100 yards should Montana Pete (or any of us) make with their FACTORY/HYBRID Rifles before they can indeed come to a valid "conclusion" - one that is not arbitrary?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
 
Thanks to all the fresh info that has come along.

Answers to a few questions.

There was a wind. It was light but erratic. This may explain the horizontal dispersion.

Yes, I AM left handed. How did you guess?

One fellow wondered about my "load development" contention, and my strategy being "random." Actually, not altogether random. I was using 34 gr. of IMR 4895 in this particular load because this powder did excellent for me in my .243. Early tests also showed this rifle seemed to like it.

The bullet choice was not entirely random either, because of the 1-12 twist and the likelihood that certain weights might like that twist. I have tried 52 gr, 55, 60, and 68 so far. I knew the 68 gr was a bit heavy for this twist, but I happened to have some laying around. Best so far might be the 60 gr. Sierra Varminter HP bullet. Anyway, it has not been just blind random -- I have had some hunches or guesses I have played.

A friend has recommended IMR 4320. I would like to try that, and also the fellow here in the thread who likes Varget makes me want to try that.

I will probably take the advice given and not reduplicate the exact test again. One OTHER good idea might be a "ladder" test with the Sierra 52 gr loaded at several different charges about a grain apart. Everything else like case, primer, OAL, etc being held the same.

I will try sorting the bullets. I always weigh charges to 1/10 grain, using my measure dumped into the pan, and then the pan on the scale. Sometimes several charges throw almost exactly on the mark, but then there's the odd throw that's a bit light.

Someone asked about the scope. It is a Bushnell Trophy in 6-18 X. Duplex reticule.

Talking about all this good stuff is almost as much fun as shooting the rifle. Thanks for the tips.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VarmintGuy said:
Jo191145: I think maybe you misspoke when you posted that Montana Pete's "conclusion" was an "arbitrary conclusion"?
Arbitrary means - #1: unreasonable or unjustified - #2: chosen at random (Websters New Compact Dictionary - Thomas Nelson Publishers - 1986).
Montana Petes "conclusion" was based on that small sampling of groupings and was pretty convincing to me - based on the photos of the groupings that were shown there, side by side.
Montana Petes conclusion was reasonable and justified and NOT chosen at random.
I think Montana Petes chances of doing the same test again and the results being EXACTLY the opposite are less than 5% - maybe only 2% or even just 1%.
I again say load the Sierra's and shoot away - and it is duly noted that you posted the same thing.
I also find puzzling your "load development" contention?
Mostly because I don't understand it if in fact you defined it and I missed it.
I saw where Montana Petes RANDOM loading (powder, primer, bullet weight and the casings) which he tested, were ALL exactly the same with the only variable being the bullet brand.
It seems again clear to me that Montana Petes Rifle really prefers the Sierra bullets to the Hornady's.
And thats what Montana Pete was impressed by and was seeking comments from others on, i.e.: "it seems pretty clear that the Sierras did much better than the Hornadys. All this means is that THIS rifle loaded a certain way seemed to like the Sierras on a certain day. Different powder, different load, different rifle -- who knows"?
End of Petes quote.
If you or anyone wants to contend that Montana Petes "conclusion" was based on to small a sample of groupings then thats another thing. I would gently disagree with that and offer up again my 45+ years of shooting groups and doing load development for countless Rifles.
On a dead calm day and with a powerful scope I have made many hundreds of decisions (conclusions) just like Montana Pete did and I have been quite happy with those decisions (conclusions) regarding my searches for accuracy and consistency.
If I might be so presumptuos as to ask of you and others (here on Montana Petes interesting thread) how MANY 5 shot groups at 100 yards should Montana Pete (or any of us) make with their FACTORY/HYBRID Rifles before they can indeed come to a valid "conclusion" - one that is not arbitrary?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
Click to expand...

VG
Perhaps my grammar is a tad off, perhaps not.
I would consider that an arbitrary test. Arbitrary tests = arbitrary conclusions. I'm not an English major and I do not scour posts looking for grammatical errors.
Seeing as Pete seated the bullets without adjusting his die the distance to the lands would be different between the two. Even if he set both bullets the equal distance off the lands (or into) it still would be an arbitrary test as one bullet may prefer one distance while the other might prefer something else entirely.
Not to mention one pill might like a different charge.
You should know this stuff!!!

I'm also not looking to get into one of your 16 page arguements about this either. Neither I nor Pete deserve that. If any other folks think I'm way off base on my contentions I'd be glad to hear from them and learn the errors in my thinking. I am self taught and always looking to learn.

Its obvious by this test the Sierras did better. No one is argueing that point.
In my first post I also said I make descisions on a beginning load(bullet) by simple tests like this also. There are some calibers I do not even need to test. My 204 shoots Berger bullets for accuracy. I still try other pills from time to time because I enjoy doing so. When push comes to shove and its time to shoot small holes it must come from a Yellow box.
I will not develope a load in my 6BR or 243 using Sierra 95's at -.020 and expect 95 Bergers to outshoot that load by simply allowing my seating die to seat the Bergs wherever they end up with that setting. Still that powder charge variation concern out there.

I'm also the one who suggested Pete not reshoot the exact same test for the same reason you stated. We definately agree on that. If the results of that exact test were to turn around ninety degrees Pete has a problem.

And Yes, Now that we've learned Pete has put 400rds into getting this far I did suggest he order up some Sierras. Some tweaking is in order. Whether its the load, wind, rifle or bench habits only he will be able to deduce by more trials.
Some folks may be able to read his targets better than I I'm sure.

Nuff on that subject.

Pete I have one more suggestion that may draw some fire from all angles.
You mentioned ladder test.
Theres only one real ladder test. (thats my opinion)
Creighton Audette.

(Oh well my link will not transfer through this software correctly. Works in preview but loses some characters after submit.) I don't call this thing "the evil machine" for nothing

The best part is you really don't need to understand it all you just need to try it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jo11... wrote, If the results of that exact test were to turn around ninety degrees Pete has a problem.
Click to expand...

It is my guess that if the tests were repeated and the results turned around 90 degrees, then I mislabeled the original batches of cartridges! It is possible, since the loaded cartridges look about identical. I don't think it happened, but further testing would immediately make clear if it did.

As far as "arbitrary," I would suggest using the word "indicative." Like this-- the test is indicative of improved grouping with the Sierra vs. Hornady product.

A recent article in the American Rifleman suggests that four five-shot groups need to be averaged to get a statistically valid sample. That means I should have fired 20 of each, not 10. The same article suggests that three shot groups do not mean much. And also, that the most efficient string is neither 3 nor 5, but 7 shots. So 7 shot groups would be a statistician's preference. Alas, I don't recall ever hearing of the rifle range shooter choosing this number of shots in a string.

I suspect that none of us have the money or time to test sufficiently to come up with authoritative results. We would shoot out the barrel, and then we would be in the twilight zone indeed. "Hey Jack, I found out this barrel loves Speer 55 gr. SP the best -- except now the barrel's burned out."

It is not too amazing that some people posting here get a little bit testy, since there's some deep frustrations hiding in this sort of hobby.

I have lots of good suggestions and tips going from this thread. Thanks to all who posted.
 
Going back and forth to the range after loading at home is a great way to waste components and barrel steel, not to mention time and gas. Load at the range. Do a ladder test. Use some sort of wind flags spread out between you and the target. It's not that hard. I have a scale wind box that has a trickler inside with the handle sticking through the side, so that I can weigh outside. That is all of the additional equipment that you might need.

When you get close on powder charge, there is a lot more to be gained by working with seating depth than you will ever get by worrying about a tenth of a grain of powder. In Benchrest, only a few jump their bullets, and that has been determined by test, the rest are loading something less than jam and longer than touch. With factory chambers, I have always done better longer than touch.

One little thought, if my rest is a good one, and I have flags that tell me that the wind was the same for two rapid shots, and they are not very close to each other, a third shot is not going to make the group any smaller...so why shoot it? On the other hand, when one gets down to the loads that seem to have promise, testing with three and then five is in order.

Most of the guys that you might read in news stand magazines have no real match experience, and don't own or know how to shoot an accurate Benchrest rifle....except for Jim Carmichel.
 
Last edited:
Listen to Boyd

.........Without flags and his other recommendations your just wasting components. You seem to want that last fractional inch of accuracy.........well Boyd's telling you how to achieve that end... using the minimal amount of components.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top