Incremental Load Development Details

[dan newberry]

when was the last BENCHREST match you shot ?

...the implication of course being that the more BENCHREST (notice the caps once again) ...matches I've shot in of course the more I'll know about the ladder test's advantages over OCW.

Will shooting several BENCHREST matches raise my sperm count too, do ya reckon?

Participating in BR shoots has no bearing one way or the other toward understanding how the ladder test works, and how it compares to OCW.

Now if I came on here trying to tell you how to handle your rifle from the bench, or how to make long range wind calls using flags, then you'd have a point. But we're talking about something that I've put years of study into, and I do in fact know what I'm speaking of. Shudder to think...

I've described the advantages of OCW as clearly as I know how, and it really doesn't take a lot of studying to realize that OCW takes the ladder test a step farther by providing three times the data at each charge level, as well as factoring out potentially misleading clusters you often find in a standard ladder test.

Dan

 

[mike in co]

first on these forums, we discuss two things: BENCHREST and benchrest. BENCHREST is formal competetion, regulated classes, and the work related to getting there. benchrest is any thing else related to informal shooting of rifles off benches, as in some club matches.
not an attitude by me, just how things are done to seperate the two. of course if you had positively participated in these forums, you'd know that. one more proof that you do not understand BENCHREST shooting.

on the short range benchrest forum, someone has asked about your process. guess what.....no BENCHREST shooter has stepped up and said they follow your method.

there are NO ADVANTAGES with your method in COMPETIVE BENCHREST shooting.
again if you were a participant, you would understand, you aren't, and you don't.
enough said.
no more from me
no need to waste bandwitdth on someone with a closed mind.

 

[dan newberry]

Mike, I'm glad your ladder tests work well for you--seriously, I am.

I don't like how you've chosen to treat me here, but good for me I have thick skin.

By the way, the Iowa State Rifle and Pistol Association thinks OCW load development was worth a write up in their quarterly newsletter, linked here...
http://www.iowastateriflepistol.org/members/newsletters/Newsletter20062ndQ.pdf

So perhaps you're the one with the "closed mind"...

Dan

 

[BountyHunter]

Dan

The OCW as you preach it is absolutely not just mutiple ladders and applicable for BR but you refuse to believe that and keep hawking your snake oil.

You do not believe in neck turning, primer pocket uniforming, brass sorting, ogive checking etc etc. Your site posts always jump the bullet; that seating touching is not applicable and overrated. You do not believe a chrono is necessary or at least that is what you have said repeatedly over the years.

You and I have had the discussion (plus your site) where you say that OCW will give you loads that are top notch (1/2 MOA) in that caliber in any gun basically.

but a true OCW load will normally be MOA or better in a good rifle without seating depth tuning.

BR is not about the 1/2 MOA gun as you advocate. Here that is a tomato stake in the making!

Here are quotes just pulled from your site so all can see the relevence to BR shooting.

I don't believe loading to approach the lands is necessary, or even desirable in most situations. Stay at least .020" or so off the lands...

I have often found that OCW recipes are so reliable that seating depth alterations--especially for hunting cartridges--often don't seem necessary.

The OCW load development plan works best with rifles and shooters that are actually capable of MOA accuracy.

Case trimmer. What? A case trimmer "nice but not necessary?" Yes.

Flash hole deburring tool. Since all indications are that the benefits of flash hole deburring are questionable, I would include the flash hole deburring tool in this category. (nice but not necessary tool)

COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY TOOLS:Expensive sizing and seating dies.... Case neck turning devices.... Chamber length gauging tools-These devices are designed to allow you to find the magic "distance to the lands" of a particular bullet in your particular rifle. This practice is one of the most bizarre of them all.

Guess we will just stay with our completely unnecessary tools and bizarre practices ( according to you) that allow us to way beyond the 1/2 MOA or MOA gun.

It is nice to still believe the world is flat because all you see is flat!

BH

 

[dan newberry]

Context...context... context... BH...

Your rhetoric comes off like Democrat political spin.

This is nearly (nearly) unbelievable that you could on one hand fail to see what OCW does and at the same time espouse the ladder test. Unreal.

BH, you and I have gone round after round over this in the past (at long range hunting), and you have proven to be pretty incorrigible, unfortunately.

So for those who might be led into confusion by BH's spin... here are the facts:

Both OCW and ladder will work (though OCW works better), whether or not you are:

1. Neck Turning
2. Primer Pocket Uniforming
3. Case sorting (in normal lots)
4. Ogive testing...
5. etc...

(so what I'm saying there is that BH's tangent about how I don't advise these methods for hunting and practical accuracy is of course just smoke and mirrors)...

What I cannot understand is how anyone with a farthing of intelligence cannot see that OCW and ladder are both seeking the same goal, and it doesn't matter if it's a benchrest (or BENCHREST) rifle, or a standard hunting rifle.

The pedigree of the rifle makes absolutely no difference as to whether ladder will work, or whether OCW will work--because the two systems seek the same (SAME) accuracy node by locating a relatively broad powder charge range with minimal point of impact shift.

By identifying the "scatter node" I have shown conclusively how a standard ladder test can mislead you. You can read about the scatter node at the OCW site. This alone should be enough reason to run OCW rather than ladder--even without OCW's round robin firing factoring out the effects of heating and fouling (and BR barrels do heat and foul, don't let anyone tell you they don't)...

Has no one here ever been frustrated by a load they identified on a ladder test, which turned out to throw flyers? Tell the truth...

Seriously, do you really not see it?? Countless others have seen it (many shooting and hunting forums have adapted OCW for their pages)...

I guess perhaps if OCW had been designed by a BENCHREST shooter then the aloof in the ranks here wouldn't be so quick to turn their noses up...

Dan

 

[dan newberry]

Lynn, that's good stuff.

You are in fact able to understand that OCW is (basically) three ladders... I just fire the shots round robin to factor out error potential. I've had a couple of statisticians validate the process, and they agree that the round robin firing sequence has definite and very significant advantages. And since it's as easy to fire round robin as to fire three consecutive ladders, I say do it round robin--it can't do anything but make the results more valid.

I also shoot each powder charge at its own bullseye, so as to better note POI shift with regard to the point of aim, which I believe is important.

I understand also your point that the top end of the window is often more accurate than the center, this is often (from what I've seen) because the ES is lower with the higher density charge.

I would still hope that folks will consider the existence of the scatter node which I talk about on my site. Three consecutive ladder tests would generally identify this scatter node, and of course OCW does also.

I have further found that if you add about 1.5% to the powder charge at the scatter node, you're right in the sweet spot (or what I call the OCW, for optimal charge weight).

Loading at the top of the window for competition, or for cold weather use in a hunting rifle, is always an option. Load at the bottom of the window when you're shooting a recipe in hot weather that you developed during cooler temps.

I realize you guys put your loads together often on match day, and that you would never compete with a load you hadn't tested at the match day temperature--I understand that.

But OCW can still be used to effectively identify a stable load for match day, even from the highest dollar BR rifles (provided you ran the OCW test in the same weather conditions you'd be shooting the match in).

Lynn, we may differ a bit on some small points, but I thank you for bringing some common sense to this discussion.

Dan