The question is asked often and this is one man's anawer to it.

Lets say I have a new .270 winchester......

I pick three powders that appear to provide the best performance.

IMR-4831, H-4831, and RL-22 should work

Next I pick three bullets that typically have provided good accuracy for me. This IMO is Nosler's Ballistic Tip, Hornady's interlock and possibly Sierra's gameking.

Other bullets that have good reputations for accuracy are Barnes TSX, Swift A-Frames, NorthForks, and TBBCs.

pick the Hornady as it's the least costly...or the sierra if you wish and load starting loads with each of the three powders. Load five shots each and go to the range and fire the loads.

Pick the best group of the three groups and then use only that powder from then on.

Go back to the bench and loadall three of the bullets again with the one powder and shoot them.

Again pick the best group and now you have picked the best powder and best bullet.....from there experiment with amounts of that powder and seating depths and possibly even crimping.

If after this you still cannot find a decent grouping load maybe you should consider something drastic.....like trading it off

You can't experiment for ever and this method has worked very well for me.

To think someone will tell you what accuracy load to use is missing the point badly.....

YOU MUST FIND YOUR OWN

I find what bullet I want to use first. With that I will experiment with three or four different powders. If I find a promising load I fine tune the accuracy with the velocity.
If nothing works well, I try a different weight/brand of bullet and start again.

I invested 3 years, 8 bullets types and 7 powders into it before I found a bullet that shot well in my 7 Mag.

If I didn't want a weather resistant, left handed (SS, lamninate M77MkII) rifle so bad I'd have given up on it.

One area a lot of reloaders forget about is primers. Changing primers can sometimes really bring a load around. I tried 5 different primers in one rifle and it loved Winchester, another Federal 215, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
...YOU MUST FIND YOUR OWN

Are you infering that people just can't say, "I need a HOT Load that is accurate. What do you recommend?", and get a Load that consistently shoots below an inch and is Totally SAFE in ALL rifles of the same caliber???

Do you mean green788s Optimum Charge Weight (OCW)Method is Full-of-Beans??!!?!?!?!?

Do you mean that a person just Randomly Picking A Load (from a Manual or the Net) and thinking it will also work in every rifle ever chambered for that cartridge (regardless of the Bore, Chamber, Barrel dimensions, etc.) has as much chance of getting great accuracy as ad has of ever making a useful post?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

Vapodog
Is it your experience that if you find a powder that shoots one type of bullet well, lets say Hornady. This same powder will shoot all the bullets the best.
Or will different bullets possibly require different powders.

Hot Core,

Take it easy ok? I like Dan Newburry and I think that his OCW being tangent to the Ladder Technique is a useful variation. Also AD is quite a resource here and for that matter so are you. I don't agree with everyone all of the time nor would I expect anyone to.

The best thing about forums is that we can learn from them.

As to a specific plan on load selection I wish I could give more specifics except to say that I look at the bullet first and then powders that have worked well for me in the past and assemble the load as best that I can. If the intial load does not do well I fall back to Sierras immediatly to prove out the rifle. Many times it's the rifle however and trading it is an option for some.

quote:

Originally posted by WORLDHUNTER1:
Vapodog
Is it your experience that if you find a powder that shoots one type of bullet well, lets say Hornady. This same powder will shoot all the bullets the best.
Or will different bullets possibly require different powders.

The only things I've found consistantly is that best accuracy will likely come from the powders that also produces best performance (velocity).

While some bullets seem to be accurate they are not always best in every gun...one must try different bullets.

Bullets are the main ingredient to accuracy...it's the biggest contributor. If the bullet don't shoot well it's not likely going to shoot well with any powder at all.

If a bullet does shoot well it will likely do so with several powders but the point of impact may change surprisingly with a powder change.

Bear in mind that I'm of the opinion that 3/4" groups in a hunting rifle is not better than 1.25" groups. I can't use the difference in hunting so I tend to treat them as "good enough" and I'm not at all anal about finding 1/2" groups in a hunting rifle. I'm looking for good hunting accuracy as it's what is needed.

To answer your question....if I found IMR-4350 to be a good powder in my 180 grain Hornady loads in my .30-06, I certainly try it again for 165 and 200 grains. But I've never noticed that the powder will be the best all the time.....again, I'm looking for good enough.....not best as it never happens!!!

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
The question is asked often and this is one man's anawer to it.

Lets say I have a new .270 winchester......

I pick three powders that appear to provide the best performance.

IMR-4831, H-4831, and RL-22 should work

vapo,

Two suggestions if 270 Win. is really your objective:

1) Make up some dummy rounds and determine the max. overall cartridge length for your bulets in your rifle. If your way off this mark on your reloads you may have "missed the boat" at the getgo. Try again with OAL about 0.005 to 0.010" off lands.



If cartridge OAL wasn't your problem -

2) Try IMR-4350 in your 270. I tried all 3 powders you mentioned - None worked as well as IMR-4350 for me. Here's my 270 reload w/ IMR-4350 and 150 SGKs:

THESE LOADS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TODAY!!!
Back in the late 60's and early 70's I used the following---H-4831
130 grain...58.0 grain [Check your manual]
150 grain...58.0 grain [Check your manual]
Speer 170 grain 56.0 grain
These loads are too hot for today!

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
...Take it easy ok? I like Dan Newburry and I think that his OCW being tangent to the Ladder Technique is a useful variation. Also AD is quite a resource here ... I don't agree with everyone all of the time nor would I expect anyone to. ...

Hey Don, I sure "appreciate" the sermon.

Rookie Green's bastardization of the never improved upon Auddette Method is a disgrace and totally misleading. He even went so far as to say his "ocw loads" were SAFE IN ALL RIFLES. How in the world you can support that ignorance is beyond my ability to fathom.

I'll sleep better knowing you appreciate and look forward to input from the poorly-educated, loud-mouth, blow-hard, braggart - ad.
---

I sure hope that is "easing up" enough for you.

Personally prefer to start with one bullet and a powder that is well suited according to a variety of sources eg. manuals , internet forums etc.
Will then seat the bullet just off the lands and try a variety of powder charges with 3 shot groups , checking velocity , pressure signs and accuracy .I then progress to 5 shot groups and seating depth adjustments if I find something promising .
If that doesn't work I will try different projectiles before progressing to different powders . Projectile choice is most critical to accuracy , given a reasonably suitable powder and charge . I have found that given a good projectile , my rifles will shoot it well with a variety of powders . Often shoot best at very similar velocities with different powders in my experience .
Loads that show minimal vertical dispersion can usually be tuned with minor charge adjustments and seating depth .
IMHO the ladder test isn't great if you start with a projectile that doesn't work in your rifle or have an inaccurate rifle . Have wasted a bit of ammo with it .OCW has the advantage of 3 shots with each powder charge and can help eliminate those variables .

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
...Take it easy ok? I like Dan Newburry and I think that his OCW being tangent to the Ladder Technique is a useful variation. Also AD is quite a resource here ... I don't agree with everyone all of the time nor would I expect anyone to. ...

Hey Don, I sure "appreciate" the sermon.

Rookie Green's bastardization of the never improved upon Auddette Method is a disgrace and totally misleading. He even went so far as to say his "ocw loads" were SAFE IN ALL RIFLES. How in the world you can support that ignorance is beyond my ability to fathom.

I'll sleep better knowing you appreciate and look forward to input from the poorly-educated, loud-mouth, blow-hard, braggart - ad.
---

I sure hope that is "easing up" enough for you.

Hot Core,

I have not followed every word that Dan has written about OCW so you may have that point and others. What I would appreciate is that you make the points rather than put it the way that you do. Since OCW has been around for a while I wonder why so much heat on on it from only one core?

Rather than speak of others on this piece I would say that I have tried to improve my prose. I hope that it's appreciated. Others have improved their content as well and I find this forum quite enjoyable. I like to show my stuff and be right so to speak. Thanks for bearing with me. I think all of us have moderated quite well.

"If someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, the other person still owns that gift. The same is true of insults and verbal attacks."
Steve Pavlina, How to Win an Argument, 08-31-05

I start with a bullet that I like and try a few powders with starting loads.If I see potential,I fine tune the loads with potential.If I don't see potential,I try different powders or a different bullet.I look for a load that is quite stable in that the accuracy remains relatively consistant if the powder charge is increased or decreased by a grain or two.These loads seem to be much more consistant in changing temperatures whereas the loads whose accuracy varies dramatically with small changes to the powder charge seem to be much more inconsistant with changing temperatures.Once I have a load that I am satisfied with,I test it in both warm and cool temperatures before hunting with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
...I have tried to improve my prose. ...

Hey Don, I noticed that quite some time ago. And I will admit you are doing an excellent job with it.

One of the posts in particuler that I noticed it in was where the poorly-educated, loud-mouth, blow-hard, braggart and his merry band of stooges were on you about something, maybe WSM cases. For some reason they felt you needed to provide a Resume of your Hunting. Anyway, they were just making themselves out to be the total fools that they are.

I do remember you went the "Peace Keeping" route and they were too ignorant to back off and let you experss your opinion without constantly hammering on you.

If that makes you feel better, good for you. Just don't expect me to do the same when confronted with those simpletons.

Best of luck to you.

Okay, I'll throw my 2 cents in. I'm new to this forum, but I've been reloading for my own personal satisfaction since the mid 60's. And I learn something new all the time. I'll share something I had heard, but never fully experienced until recently.

My youngest son is a "tack-driver" with his .223, so I'm often trying different bullet/powder combinations out with him. And recently I had loaded up about 40 rounds of some new "match grade" bullets with 2 different powders that his gun likes. I took both my sons, 5 guns and several hundred rounds to the the range so that we could help to support the Barnes, Sierra, Hornady, Hodgdon, IMR and Accurate employees and their families.

Before I had touched off 5 rounds in my WSM, my young son was over complaining that I had not loaded the new bullets correctly, or something was wrong. He'd gone through 10 rounds and couldn't get any 2 together in the 8 inch ring. I suggested that he try the other batch loaded with the other powder.

Since this caused a break in my shooting, the guy next to me asked what velocity I was getting out of my WSM and we began to chat about it and his new DPMS. My son comes back with the same complaint, so I went down to his station to try a few rounds. They were all over the paper. I pulled out another box with a dozen of 'old' loads we had for his .223 and promtly threw a 2 inch group on the paper. He shot another group with those and that was just under 1 MOA. So we put that rifle away and he started plinking with the .243 we had brought.

When I returned to my station, I shared with my new friend that my son's gun "coughed" on a batch of new "match" bullets I had loaded for him. We chatted a bit and decided to try a few in his rifle, even though I had only neck sized the rounds.

I wasn't shocked when he said he couldn't see the second round he fired anywhere on the paper. But when he fired the third round and it layed next to the first, I was surprised. He fired two more 3 round groups, two of which could be covered by a dime, the other by a quarter. When we examined the paper closely, that second round he couldn't see was almost completely in the hole of the first round he shot. Needless to say, I gave him the remaining rounds, along with the notes I had for the powder loads. He's just found what he wants to "tune" for his rifle, if any at all.

And my point of this lengthy tale is that there are many components involved. In some instances all of those will work in one gun, and perhaps many others. And in other instances there may be only one piece that doesn't work well with one gun. On that day it was that one bullet in that one gun.

Keeping track of the variables enables us to better identify that one piece that may be adversely affecting performance. And keeping records often helps us to keep track of those pieces that almost always work well enough to be tried again and again.

My hope in joining this forum is that I'll continue to learn, from your experiences as well as my own. And to do that we must share with one another, whether we agree on the specifics or not.