I finished some proofing tests this morning on an OCW load I've been working on for a week or so. I wanted to "acid test" the recipe for case and primer variation tolerance.

The load is for the .243 Winchester, and consists of Hornady's 75 grain VMAX and 39.0 grains of IMR 3031. The IMR 3031 easily edged out Varget, IMR 4064, and IMR 4350 in my own testing with this bullet.

I used a Savage 110C (series J) with glass bedded action and free floated factory barrel. The scope is mounted on a two piece Weaver base (bedded to receiver with Brownell's Acraglass) in Burris Signature Zee rings, and is a Redfield (USA) 3 to 9 power, set on 9X. Factory trigger lightened to 3 1/4 pounds. No further modifications have been done to this rifle.

The groups were shot at the 100 yard range, with rifle supported from a benchrest.



Runout on all rounds was .0025" or less. These cartridges were full length sized using standard RCBS dies. All cases had been fire-formed in another rifle. The Remington cased group (#1) was the smallest, and appears to have moved toward a better harmonic node of the Savage's barrel. You will note that the other groups tend to "arc" just slightly, which I believe is evidence that these bullets are being released on a long curve of the harmonic whip. However, the consistency of ignition of the 39.0 grain charge of IMR 3031 is such that these shots still group quite well indeed.

The OAL of all nine rounds was 2.710", measured with calipers. I have not yet fine tuned with OAL changes as I recommend in the OCW load development instructions. Many times, if the powder charge is truly optimized, accuracy is more than adequate without OAL tuning. In this case, I do plan on tuning this load even tighter with OAL adjustments since I plan on using this rifle at ranges up to 450 yards on varmints.

My conclusions at this point are that the Remington cases (which weighed about 9.5 to 10 grains more than the Winchesters) created a slightly higher pressure, moving the shots toward a better harmonic node. I have found noteable quality variations in Remington .243 cases in the past, but the ones used in this test did quite well.

One might conclude that "my rifle 'likes' Remington cases better than Winchesters," but that would not actually be the "case," so to speak. The Remington cases are simply moving the bullet's exit to a more friendly harmonic node by virtue of slightly increased pressure.

I should mention that this is the third string of tests I've done with mixed components in the last couple of days, and the Remington cases had the edge in each of those tests, some of which were shot at 200 yards. But again, OAL tuning will easily move the Winchester cased loads onto a good harmonic node as well. I have more WW cases in my possesion, so I'll likely do that.

You'll note as well that groups 2 and 3 both used the Winchester cases, but group 2 used Remington 9 1/2 primers, while group 3 used CCI 200's. While I did not test the WLR primers on this target, I've noted that they print within MOA of these others at 200 yards.

I wanted to get everything together on one target, for ease of demonstration of what an OCW load can deliver. Total 9 shot group size for the hodge-podge of cases and primers was .834".

Such a load is much more pressure tolerant or "resilient" than loads developed in common fashion--especially loads that are developed with a preconceived OAL in mind, which are then manipulated with powder charges alone. Odd brass cases, odd primer lots, and even powder lots to a certain extent can be tolerated more easily with an OCW load. Such loads are more temperature tolerant for the same reason.

It is my studied opinion that this same recipe--if carefully worked up to--will shoot well in your .243 Winchester also. OAL tuning after safely reaching the 39 grain point should bring the group up to your rifle's potential.

Dan Newberry
green 788

[ 02-07-2003, 07:48: Message edited by: green 788 ]

Dan,

I have a question that I'm sure you have answered somewhere but either I havent seen it or have forgotten I've read it In developing a load using your OCW method, is the bullet type/design/brand make a difference as long as the weight of the bullt is the same?

I'm asking this because your method has really got my interest up and I seem to have either a finicky rifle (my semi-custom .35 Whelen)or my damn cases are screwed (remember...I just got my RCBS Case Master!). What I'm trying to do, and I really haven't had the chance to do much yet due to time constraints lately, is develop an accurate load with the highest velocity using the Nosler 250 Partition. I decided to use this bullet for 2 BIG upcomming hunts this year, black bears in B.C. in May and my first plains game hunt in S. Africa in July.

Would it be possible to 'get really close' using , say....a 250 Hornady to come up with the OCW and then 'fine tune' with Partitions?

[ 02-01-2003, 23:13: Message edited by: TXPO ]

In many cases, equal bullet weights won't mean equal pressures. This is basically because of the bearing surface of various bullets. (Bearing surface refers to the amount of the bullet that actually touches the rifling).

I think what I would do is go on and develop with the Hornady bullets, and see what powder charge you end up with. Then, reference credible data to see if you're within a safe limit of thier maximum load.

I will say this with regard to Nosler's data on the 250 Partition in the .35 Whelen: It looks like they are trying to stay conservative. I say this because on all of the powders tested, they note that the starting charge was most accurate. This doesn't necessarily mean that increased charges are not accurate, but in all cases (in my experience) where Nosler has listed the starting charge to be most accurate, it seems that by exceeding their maximum (with known safe data, preferrably from the powder manufacturer), you can find the OCW zone.

IMR says that the max charge with their 4320 is 55 grains. Nosler says that IMR 4320 was the most accurate powder tested in this application, but they list a mild 49 grain charge as being most accurate. They list the max at 53 grains, but remember, they were using their own bullet. I still think you can safely get to IMR's numbers, though, even with the Partition.

I would think that once you close in on IMR's listed max--the 55 grain charge--your groups will tighten and you may have what you're after. IMR's testing was done with Hornady's bullet, by the way.

Go with either W748 or the IMR 4320, use the Hornady bullets, and see what you come up with. Then back off from that charge 7 to 10 percent, load one Nosler Partition, and fire it. Move up 1.5% or so and fire another. Do this until you get to the level that worked with the Hornady's and see how the groups look.

Keep us posted on your findings...

Thanks for your interest and comments,

Dan

Hey TXPO, There are at least 4 significant flaws in the greenRookie "thing" you are planning to use. I've not wasted my time reading it lately, so there may be even more now. Here are four problems:

1. It "Rookieizes" the original Creighton Audette Method of Load Development. By doing so, it reduces the effectiveness of Mr. Audette's original Method for providing the best chance at accuracy. If you are willing to accept something "less than the best", then the greenRookie method fits the bill.

2. The "Round Robin" creates the potential for group enlarging errors due to the effect of changing Range Conditions while the shooter diddles around wasting time shooting at all the different targets. If you want the best chance at seeing how accurate a specific Load is, let your rifle cool "completely" and then fire a 3-shot controlled group at the same target in as short a time as possible BEFORE the Range environmental conditions can shift or change intensity.

Then STOP and let the rifle completely cool to ambient conditions again.

3. If at all possible, shoot your groups at 300yds as Mr. Audette intended. You can tell more about a single group shot at 300yds than you can 5 groups shot at 100yds.

4. The "greenRookie" also induces a SAFETY problem as he rambles on. As long as you ALWAYS Develop your Load from below(with every different bullet), and watch for relevant Pressure Signs. If you do this, his foolishness might not get you into trouble.

Best of luck with the Load Development.

[ 02-02-2003, 03:57: Message edited by: Hot Core ]

Hotcore,

The problems you mention are exactly the problems that most folks have with the Audette, or "ladder" method. Wind, bore heating and fouling, and shooter error often combine to skew results. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Many folks have tried my load development method and have reported good to excellent results. You should try it yourself sometime!

I'm surprised you didn't take this opportunity to attack my assertion that such loads as the ones developed via my method are good performers in most rifles so chambered. Go on and do that while you're at it--there's plenty of room at the bottom of the page!

I'll bet my OCW load will work well in your rifles, too.

Give it a rest, my man. The original Audette method works, but it is not as user friendly, and its data is often dubious. Add to this the fact that many shooters can't just hop over to a 300 yard field like you and I can to execute the Audette method.

As to the inability to hold the groups together during the round robin shooting sequence, I have never had any trouble, nor have any folks who have tried my method mentioned such.

So speak for yourself!

My website mentions that further testing of OCW recipes at 300 yards (when possible) is a good idea.

Have a good evening, Hotcore. By the way... You're so damned amusing at times I can't bring myself to dislike you...

Maybe we'll get together one of these days for one of those BBQ supper bets...

Dan Newberry
green 788

You're not missing anything...

I was basically just indicating that an OCW recipe is actually capable of using another rifle's brass (once resized), and as mentioned, odd primers and cases, and it can still print MOA.

If the cases had been fire formed in the test rifle, and were all the same headstamp from the same lot, and I had kept the primers all the same, likely the group of 9 shots would have been somewhere in the .4 to .5 inch range.

But that was a good question, and I should have clarified the reason for mentioning the cases had been fire formed in another rifle.

By the way, 200 yard tests with virgin Winchester cases netted 3/4 MOA groups of 5 shots with this recipe--this using WLR primers...

Dan

Hey Hotcore! Do you happen to have a day job pumping gas at a filling station in Mayberry?

I'll bet you do!

Look at my post once again. The words "another rifle" are italicized, for emphasis. Reason being that proof testing an OCW load should entail handicapping variables that conventionally developed loads can't tolerate.

And in case you didn't know, so long as the cases are full length sized, it is perfectly safe to use brass from one rifle in another. (There would be a lot of once fired brass distributors out of business were that not the case).

My guess is that Hotcore's loads won't pass the OCW test--and this is why he can't get the bee out of his bloomers!

Have a good morning, Hotcore! And tell Andy and Barney I said "hey!"

Dan

Hotcore,

Why do you have to be so vitriolic? There's a way to discuss this stuff that keeps the topic moving forward and helpful to everyone. Your tone makes me frown. It degrades what I like most about this site, which is openly shared info, and if warranted, reasonable debate. We can all laugh at good natured tweaking now and then, but I get the sense your grinding an axe a little too hard here. Why do you have such a hard-on for Green788?

Cheers

Roger

[ 02-02-2003, 20:20: Message edited by: rogerinneb ]

Thanks, Roger...

Dan

I must agree with rogerinneb. I respect the hell out of your experience and knowledge Hotcore, but lighten up a bit. I'm not expert enough in reloading to call either of you or green788 wrong, but I try to keep an open mind. I tried his W748 223 OCW load (with proper caution, methods, and workup) and it shot very well in my Savage 10FP. Coincidence? Maybe.

I have some doubts about OCW myself, but I'm sure that Columbus, Magellan, Edison and others were all questioned. They were all proved correct, though. Time will tell about OCW and Dan. Many question space exploration right now, but it thankfully will go on when the time is right and problems are corrected. A healthy skepticism is fine, but attack tactics seem wholly uncalled for.

Dave

Thanks, Dave...

It would be fine to discuss any issues you have with the OCW load development method here. I won't take it personally, I assure you. It is even quite possible that via input from you and others, we can "evolve" the method to be more user friendly and helpful.

Take care, (and do let us know how those .243 loads work out) ...

Dan

Dan,

I'll post my reservation about OCW later tonight. I've got a busy day ahead of me. Church, Ice fishing, trying out a used Contender I'm thinking of buying, Neices(sp?) Birthday party, Hockey parents meeting this evening. Whew, I'm tired already, and almost late for church.

Dave

Hot Core

willow

[ 02-03-2003, 13:19: Message edited by: willow ]

A couple of my personal experiences--take 'em or leave them. In my 300 wby and my 340 wby the loads that worked great with hornady bullets worked great with nosler bullets. I would say that if the velocities are very close the pressure curve would be a virtual match.

Regarding brass fired in another gun that was full length resized. Once it's full length resized it's no longer an original match to the first gun--it is now a match to the die. It shouldn't matter one bit. I've heard people say that virgin brass shoots best in their gun--I've heard 1x fired shoots best. I've also heard of a test where they gave experienced shooters 2 batches of ammo to shoot. One was match prepped but made to look old and tarnished. The other group was nice shiney looking but no where near the prep level as the first group. Guess which group shot best?? YUP--the stuff that was made to "look good". Sometimes the groups we shoot ARE AFFECTED FAR MORE BY OUR BRAIN CELLS, than the ammo itself.

PS--Whether we agree or not on all of Dan's methods we should certainly give him credit for giving us lots of material to look over and think about. How many times have we gone to the range for an afternoon of testing some idea and brought that whole afternoons time out for others to look at--hell even including pictures.
It's kind of like a Playboy magazine--if you don't think you'll like it don't read it.
ALSO--it's hard (darn hard) to disagree with the many shooters that have tried some of Dan's OCW loads and found an "instant shooter". Or the guys who come on line and say they've been using a "like load" for years and had great luck.

Good points Kraky.

As you say, Dan is backing up his ideas with data and evidence/pictures.

That's more than I can say for a lot of the

half-baked-hand-me-down-heard-it-from-a-friend-who-heard-it-from-a-friend-read-it-over-there-armchair-rangemaster-spend-more-time-typing-than-shooting-Jack-O'conner-told-P.O.-Ackle y-twenty-years-ago-over-a-scotch-and-water-when-I-was-a-(fantasy)-sniper-in-the-USMC....

advice that is strewn about most shooting forums. That's why I like this site and longrangehunting.com. Most guys here and there have more hours hunting and shooting than I do breathing, in hunting meccas like Alaska, Africa, etc.

There. I feel better now.

Lighten up Hotcore, sometimes we all need to, now is definatly your turn man.

Dan,

Have you thought that maybe two or three 3 shot groups at each load would give more validity to your findings?

I like your idea on this alot but figure this would make it difinitive, not so subjective.

I think all tests should not be at 100 yards and be in the 2-300 yard range when bullets are stabilized as well.

I would be interested to know your findings and if they were the same or different, and by how much if you performed the same tests with the same bullets in the same rifles as previously tested, this time at 300 yards with three 3 shot groups of each load instead of just 1 group of each.

Take care,

Dan,

A couple of questions. Did you work up to the 39.0 charge of 3031 or did you start there? If the latter, why did you select that weight instead of another? If the former, then what distinguishes your load developemnt procedures from what has been typically referred to as "working up a load"?

Same question also for the Varget, 4064 and 4350 loads, did you work up along the way or just pick one charge and test that?

Martindog

Thanks for all of the kind comments, guys.

I'm at work at the moment, (had to truck some diesel tonight, one more load of #2 low sulfur to go!) So if Rifleman posts his concerns tonight, I'll get around to responding in the morning...

Brent,

You're correct that the load should be ulitmately tested at the maximum range at which it will be used. At my website, I show a three shot group (one of several shot during testing) which includes a low, normal, and high charged shot in the same group. So I definitely agree with your point.

As far as the 100 yard initial test, I've found it to be very satisfactory--no load that has been selected by 100 yard OCW testing has ever failed the 300 yard test. I suppose it coule happen, hence the long range proofing is needed.

Of course Kraky is correct about the FL cases!

Anyway, you guys have been really kind, and I appreciate it.

Take care,

Dan

Hotcore,

Re-read that concentricity thread. And ask Bob, for that matter. You totally misunderstood the thread. Bob wasn't talking about me...

I left that thread after the individual I was debating made what I believed to be a fairly egregios error: He opined that the presence of vertical stringing on the target is evidence that no "positve compensation" was apparent. What the ??

I decided to let it go at that. And as far as the Rifle Accuracy Facts book, I was unaware during our discussion that Vaughn was at odds with Norma engineers, and struggling to uphold his point on moly'd bullet velocities... So it appeared time to let the whole mess go.

Give me an example of where I pretended to know something, and we'll discuss it....

Dan

Dan - Thanks for providing us with some thought provoking research. You've gone to a lot of trouble to try to share something of potential merit to many. Frankly I see no serious issue with anything you say and as the results are paying off for others as well...what's to argue with?

I don't seen any value in testing your loads at 300 yds over 100 yds. If a load will shoot at 100, it will shoot at 300...but by going to 300 yds we can sure include a lot of other variables that have NOTHING to do with the actual performance potential of a given load. The variations in wind, the optical and thermal environment and terrain features alone over 300 yds can scramble the shooting results and none relate directly to the quality of the load. IMHO.

Hotcore - You criticism has the ring of hollowness about it and your personal attacks on Dan for posting his results for our consideration only further diminish your own credibility here rather than his.

If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. Post your results as well as Green posts his and leave the analysis to us, the readers.

I suspect there are more than one paths to good accuracy for us all. If one method works good for me, that is what I should use. Same for you.

[ 02-03-2003, 05:56: Message edited by: Pecos45 ]

Pecos45,

The only reason I suggest the 2-300 yard range for testing is that I've shot plenty of groups with given loads at 100 that just equal in size at 200 yards. The theory that they follow the same angle after leaving the muzzle, I just don't buy into. For instance the last one, my 220gr SMK load in my Ultra won't do better (normally) than 1.3 moa at 100 yards. Basically a throw away load and I'd normally start over with a different powder, BUT when tested at 200 yards it NEVER goes over .9 moa, usually .7-.8 moa, still not real outstanding but enough to keep the load and work on seating depth when I get a chance.

I normally, as I said would have looked elseware but knowing this is all too often the case I tested them at 200 yds to be sure. I should have just started there in the beginning as I always swear I'm going too.

Dans test might reveal a better than expected load is all, not that his good load whould turn to a bad one, which is highly unlikely, but rather he just might find that bullets "fishtailing" like an arrow in flight often do until the go to sleep might skew the test, rulling out a good load area. I know theere are people on both sides of that claim as well, but we all have our experiences one way or the other with it. I have shot groups that did NOT show this, but unless I had checked I would never find the ones that do exibit this.

Dan seems to probe a much narrower range in his tests than I do, but that's ok if you want maximum velocity and you most certainly aren't wasting much ammo looking down low and can use the saving to investigate more powders if needed. Dan has most often found good accuracy at the higher pressure node in his rifles, it's quite a split decision with me and my experience. I tend to explore a 3-4 grain spread near max load and have found using the Oehler 43 over some time now that pressure is alot more stable in a one grain spread than most would even think. I can however live with a bit lower velocity to get good accuracy and that's why I use a larger case than really needed, lower psi gives me a wider range to find a load.

Take care,

Hotcore,

The thing is, if you believe Dan is reccomending something unsafe, your very important concern is not getting through because of way you chose to address it. Anyway, enough already, let's move on.

Pecos,

I believe the reason for using 300 yards is that sometimes the way the groups are supposed to "stack up" in the Audette method is sometimes hard to discern at 100yds. But others here are better informed about that than I.

Dan,

What's your next best powder choice for the .243? I'm getting a used model 70 Coyote that has been accurzed by Gordy Gritters this coming week...I don't have any IMR3031....but since I have 20 other powders I refuse to buy any more right now...

Grethis en788

First of all I really appreciate the effort you are puting into marketing your load method. It's good to see hoy much you believe in it, and after all, this kind of work is always conducive to great advancements.

But, after studying it for a while, I really don't catch where is the math rationale behind this simple idea ?

Again, your effort is welcomed, but any method should have an important "proof of concept", with sound principles demonstrated.

What I only see (of course this could be very well my own ignorance) is a good way to put some order in the process, in regards to powder charge, but nothing else.

Please, could you shed more light on this ?

Tks! Gustavo

Dan,

First of all, may I say that I find this medium of communication very suceptible to misunderstandings and miscommunications, so I apologize in advance if my statements are not perfectly clear.

I have little doubt that your OCW method is a way to develop a load. I also appreciate the concept that it provides what I will call a "forgiving" load for less than perfect loading or shooting circumstances and variables. These would include not trimming before every loading, outside temperature (when shooting) variables, different case brands, slight variation in powder charges and others like that.

Where you lose me is your assertion that the OCW load and I paraphrase you, Should work in any rifle and if it doesn't it is the fault of the rifle. Whether it be bedding, trigger problems.........

This seems to leave out such variables as barrel length, rifling twist rate, and plain old what any particular rifle may like as far as powder, bullets, primers, and cases. Wouldn't a rifle with a different twist rate possibly not be compatible with your load developed in your rifle?

Can you address this area of your beliefs for me?

Dave

As you may remember from a few weeks ago I tried your 223 Rem 26.6 gr W748/55 gr Nosler BT load in
my own Savage 10FP and it worked quite well. I just have some doubts that an OCW load will be universally good in any other given rifle(without your stated defects).

[ 02-03-2003, 09:44: Message edited by: rifleman ]

Rifleman,

I agree with the last part of what you said. Different rifles, different nodes, lots of variables. I can't see the universality of a given load for all rifles. The whole point of the system is to find the widest node for a given rifle, but everything including the crystalline structure of different barrles is likely to impact the nodes.

If things were that "apples to apples" from gun to gun there would be a "universal best load" that would work for all of us. Seems like we know that ain't so....

Brent - Roger - Gentlemen, you comments on 300 yds target work have merit and I confess I have seldom bothered to prove my loads out that far. For most shooters obtaining a range for this distance is difficult to impossible to achieve.

Perhaps I have been simple in my beliefs that whatever my load is doing at 100, it will do at 300...relative to the continued spread in accuracy over the increased distance and relative to the extended exposure to wind, heat, mirage etc.

I confess I am no expert on these matters and as such am probably only muddying the waters of this thread to begin with.

I do salute anyone who DOES put forth such a detailed and obviously serious effort as Dan has done here. I believe his purpose is far more to solicit our observations and suggestions for his method than it is to convert anyone.

I certainly believe Dan is a good and honest fellow and only trying to advance the sport...as I believe most of you here are as well.

Good hunting and tight groups to all! P45

Green 788;
When you say-

quote:

---

I left that thread after the individual I was debating made what I believed to be a fairly egregios error: He opined that the presence of vertical stringing on the target is evidence that no "positve compensation" was apparent. What the ??

---

I suppose you're referring to me and our discussion on the so-called "Ladder Method" thread
http://www.serveroptions.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=007312

While it's not my intent to serve you a tutorial in reading comprehension and semantics, we'll go over this one more time for your benefit. Positive Compensation (sometimes called just Compensation) is defined by the Brits as a phenomenon where rounds of differing velocities will converge at a given range (generally 800 to 1000 yards for the Enfield). Rounds slung up and down a target are not converging thus not showing Compensation. I can't make it much clearer than that for you. Sorry if you can't understand it, but please refrain from redefining Positive Compensation to suit your arguement.

quote:

---

I decided to let it go at that. And as far as the Rifle Accuracy Facts book, I was unaware during our discussion that Vaughn was at odds with Norma engineers, and struggling to uphold his point on moly'd bullet velocities... So it appeared time to let the whole mess go

---

There have been many claims made for Moly with minimal evidence to support them. Since then more work has been done. Some supporting the claims, some refuting the claims. Many of the claims remain unproven.

I suggest you read Vaughn's section on Moly before you start engaging in further discussion. If you choose to rely on the writings of "reviewers", realize that one of them is rabidly pro-moly to the point where it appears objectivity has been lost.

Now back to the subject of this thread. I find your OCW method to be just another variation of the "20 Shot Method" aka the "Audette Method" aka "Incremental Load Development" etc. I'm sure your method works no matter what the variation. I find many of your assertions in the article to be true with a few exceptions.

quote:

---

You can see from the chart above that there is a zone where the powder charge/velocity relationship flattens out. This occurs near maximum load pressure. Here is where the OCW zone is located. Beyond this point, velocity actually will begin falling as pressure rises.

---

We have found that the plateau does not always occur near maximum. Further you will that if you check a wide enough range of charge weights, there are sometimes several plateaus's. Lastly, I have never found velocities to decrease with rising pressure. (if you are finding as such, I would suspect normal vel variability overlapping with each other are giving that impression. Increasing your sample sizes (shooting more rounds for each charge weight) will show otherwise.

2) Yes, the "Round Robin" order of firing will help even out the fouling and condition effect across the various charge weights. But before deciding to do that, the shooter needs to decide what application this load will be for, and whether that application will be served by a load found by firing that many rounds.

Here's an example. You're working up a 30-378 for hunting. You find that your accuracy is decent, but falls off dramatically after 5 rounds. Fine for you because you're a hunter and hope to only need 1. By using a "Round Robin" firing order, for lets say 3 different weights, you'd reach your 5 round max before all the groups even got their 2nd shots.

An extreme example yes, but illustrative of the potential to eliminate a load for reasons other than grouping potential.

3) Lastly, I feel offering up Universal Loads even with disclaimers is dangerous. Back when I was competing with an M14, there were loads that were recognized as shooting great in every rifle. The problem was that every so often, someone's rifle wouldn't shoot it. Worse yet, there would be an odd rifle that would show dangerous pressure signs with that load that was seemingly safe in other rifles.

That is proving to be the case even more frequently with the AR Service Rifle. Different Throat Configurations, different bore/land dimensions etc are proving to be problematic in determining a Universal load (at what I see as a higher rate of failure than during the M14 days).

Federal themselves have been having difficulty producing an 80, 77 and even 69 grain load that will be safe and accurate in all rifles. When folks shooting the XM223A1 loading were blowing primers, tearing rims off and swelling pockets, I was sent some of that ammo to evaluate. In my strain equipped barrel, they registered slightly under SAAMI Max with no pressure signs on the cases.

There is no way you can account for variability in rifles or even variability in component lots. I recommend letting folk work their own loads up...lest you enrich some idiot's lawyer.

[ 02-03-2003, 12:45: Message edited by: Chris F ]

Hotcore,

If you shoot a coyote and eat good BBQ in the same day I will surely classify you as one lucky SOB since I'm working today. I was going to get some work done yesterday but I kept reading and writing on the damn internet!

What I don't want to have happen is for Dan, or anyone else to feel like "no good deed goes unpunished" and just say "to hell with it" and stop sharing because they get so much strong criticism for their efforts. I learn from reading the whole thread.

Dan put in bold "If carefully worked up to" about his load reccomendations at the start of this thread.

A disclaimer saying that "this is not reloading 101, and that if you aren't following the basics of reloading safety in applying anyone's advice on these threads, may you rest in peace" might be in order.

I'm trying to focus more on the methods and approach described here as opposed to looking for a particular load "recipe."

Anyway, I appreciate your self-deprecating humor, and you should ask my wife if I'm "patient." She'd laugh you out of the room...

Actually, I'm a management consultant and one of the things I constantly coach people on is the use of email. A lot of stuff escalates out of control in email exchanges in organizations. There is usually a time when a smart person doesn't reply and picks up the phone. It's amazing how that can diffuse (or de-fuse) a situation. Of course we don't have that luxury here. My rule (personal estimate, no real data)is that what you write will come off twice or three times as strongly as you intended.

[ 02-03-2003, 18:30: Message edited by: rogerinneb ]

HotCore and Chris F,

I'm not sure that Dan is trying to "sell loads" as much as he is trying to sell a method to "find loads"

However if you take one of his loads and treat it the way it should be as I did below:

When I read his thread (I can't even remember the board it was on) about the 223 Rem 26.6 gr W748/55 gr Nosler BT load, I thought that's great. I had some leftover W748 and 55 gr Vmaxs (similar enough to BTs) on the shelf doing nothing. I checked manuals, and found 26.6 gr/55 gr Vmax to be well below max, I still loaded 3 or 4 lower charge rounds to check for pressure on the way up to 26.6. I found no problems in my rifle and found the load to be very accurate in my rifle.

I fail to see the danger in what I did, maybe you can enlighten me?

Dave

Now, whether his method of "finding a load" has holes in it, well that will have to be determined by folks with a lot more experience than I, at this point in my reloading journey.

Well, through this whole mess I have two questions.
1) Does this process relate to rifle cartridges fired at handgun velocities?
2) Will this work using shorter than rifle barrel length tubes?

Pardon me if these were answered in previous threads - I missed them. I am an exclusive Thompson Center Contender shooter, which is the basis for the questions.

I am looking forward to using some of the processes of this load development to check what I have come up with. I don't want any arguements started over these questions - PLEASE!!

Thanks for your help.

Thanks, Rifleman... It appears I have a lot to respond to, so I'll try to be brief to each point.

The barrel twist rate issue could be a valid concern for unconventional twists. However, the Federal 69 grain GMM round shoots very well in my 1:12 twist 24" .223 rifle. Don't ask me why, it just does... That same load presumably shoots well in fast twist short barrels also. I don't know the recipe Federal uses for this round, but it must be a good one... My 175 grain Sierra Matchking/45.0 grain Varget load is doing great in 1:10 to 1:12 twist .308's in barrels from 20" to 26".

In short, I think it is a simple matter of an optimized powder charge which is doing the work. Same burn, same pressure, everytime...

This is a good one: Hotcore says of me: "A few months ago, he also refered to me as "Lying" in a post after I posted actual "experience"(not speculation) for him." Hotcore, the first and only time I've called you a liar is NOW! And I'll mail two crisp 20 dollar bills to anyone--including you, Hotcore--if you'll point me to the thead in which I call you a liar (prior to this one )... That's not my style at all.

Gustavo wrote: "What I only see (of course this could be very well my own ignorance) is a good way to put some order in the process, in regards to powder charge, but nothing else." You've pretty much got it... There isn't anything else, really. All I've sought to do is develop a user friendly load development method that we can all gain from.

I'm not marketing anything. I don't have a book to sell, and I'm giving away these ideas--good, bad, or ugly.

Martindog,

The work-up, using the OCW method of the .243 load is in the "Share your favorite loads" section here. I began well below maximum, as I always recommend, and worked through the IMR 4064 (Hornady's recommendation), the Varget, and the IMR 3031. I couldn't get consistency with the IMR 4064 at acceptable velocity levels. It would have been necessary to back down--tip of the hat to ChrisF here--to find the OCW. Not fast enough for this application. The Varget will do the trick, no doubt. I worked up just beyond 38.5 grains, and found the OCW there (Hodgdon's max, coincidentially), but the Varget load printed lower at 200 yards than the IMR 3031 which isn't surprising, it's less of a slower powder. As for the IMR 4350, I fired enough graduations only to get me to the five 46.5 grain charges I wanted to test. That's right on maximum with that load, and I figured if those five shots grouped at 200 yards, I'd go back and do it up right. But they did not, and POI was 2.5 inches below the IMR 3031 1/2 MOA group at 200 yards.

Rogerinneb... If you're going with the Hornady 75 grain VMAX, try working up to the 38.5 grain Varget charge. It should be very accurate, and plenty fast... Or the 39 grain area with 4064 should hit the spot. With the custom barrel you mention, you may see pressure signs early, and it may be necessary to break the barrel in before moving up the charges. You'll get better velocity than I achieved with my 22" factory barrel, I'm sure. Hornady seems to want these things to fly at 3250 to 3400 fps...

ChrisF,

We don't differ that much in many of our opinions. I do understand the positive compensation issue, and with regard to the 45-70 match shoots. I think that being the methodical minded person you are, you would certainly agree that the mere presence of vertical stringing on a target placed at one range cannot alone dispell the notion that positive compensation may occur with other charge weights at other ranges. The vertical stringing you observed could be explained by other more likely factors. Perhaps there was no major velocity variation, as is a prerequisite for positive compensation to occur. Presumably these folks were shooting identically weighed charges. Perhaps the point at which the target was placed was not in an area where positive compensation cold be observed. Perhaps these folks and their rifles just strung their shots as a matter of course--common with iron sighted rifle fire. But this is a tangent issue, whichever of us is correct...

You're right that the "plateau" is often realized before actual maximum pressure is reached. There can be more than one accuracy plateau, but I think the optimum plateau is at the upper end of the pressure curve. It appears that the powder manufacturers mark the point at which this plateau ends and call it thier maximum load. I found that IMR's max with the 4064 was about 2.5 grains below where I safely went with the charge, but accuracy went to the netherworld. If one were to use IMR 4064 in the application I tested the OCW would likely be found in the 39 grain range as well... But again, the 3031 is a faster powder, and I chose it because I wanted performance from the bullet.

To all,

I believe that I do stress at every opportunity the need for working up from below. I've never told anyone to go straight to an OCW recipe and fire away. Hell, folks, handloading is dangerous--we all know that, and if we don't, we shouldn't be handloading at all. Hodgdon prints maximum loads right on the powder can labels. How is my suggesting a load recipe to someone any different than that?

All I can say is, let the shooters decide. I do believe that OCW loads will shoot well in the majority of rifles chambered for them. In another thread here, I shared an email exchange I had with Paul Box, senior Sierra ballistics tech, in which he agreed that such was the case. So let's wait and see what kind of results folks end up obtaining from my load data, and we'll go from there...

Dan Newberry
green 788

T/C Nimrod... I have not tested this method in handguns at this time, but there is no reason that the same basic principle at work in the rifle cartridges won't apply to handguns as well.

You may want to test at 25 or 50 yards, and then extreme test out to the ultimate intended range...

But yes, I'm confident it will work for you.

Dan

Dan,

Sorry... selling was a poor choice of words. How about advocating?

Dave

Green 788,
What you're describing is more accurately called "Vertical Stringing". Vertical Stringing as you've noted can have many different causes.

That of course was tangential to the root discussion of why you felt the Audette method might not work with low vel rounds such as the 45-70. You felt the 45-70 "might" benefit from the "Positive Compensation" effect invalidating Audette. I offered that I've actually seen the 45-70 having greater dispersion vertically, thus negating your concern.

Different "release points" in the barrel whip is called vertical dispersion. Different release points that converge at a given distance is called Compensation. Whip is "compensating" for different trajectories caused by variations in velocity. All barrels have whip. Not all rifle systems "compensate".

Does that make sense now?

So unless you're shooting a regulated Enfield at 800 to 1000 yards, or an M14 at 600 yards(another rifle documented to benefit from a slight compensating effect), the Audette Method of load development should work.

[ 02-04-2003, 01:45: Message edited by: Chris F ]

Thanks for your continued patience with me, Chris... I understand what you were saying now, and I'll take the blame for the misunderstanding... Take care, and let's stay in touch...


Dan