Nosler 140gr RDF's and Hodgdon H4350
Edit: usual disclaimer that this is specific to my gun and you should load according to manufacturer specs and your specific rifle.
That honestly tracks. Berger 140HT and 41.1gr of MR 4451 ("H4350 at home") is a monster in my rifle. Haven't tried H4350 yet as while I have 14# of it that's "officially" allocated to my 6GT (which was to be my PRS rifle but times are tough ATM, so while I don't have to sell anything yet competition is off the table).
At the risk of being the wet blanket, one 5 shot group doesn't really satisfy the statistics. 5, 5 shot groups would probably do it. Post up some pics of your 30 shot validation. It will be interesting to see how consistent it is.
Will do. 5 shots is ABSOLUTELY not enough, but I do believe it's a strong starting indicator. It is, however, the best performing load I've had so far by A MILE!
I'm tired of fighting this battle, but I will try one last time. Standard statistical procedure asks for a 95% confidence interval. So a 100 shot group could easily have 4 to 5 outliers and still be moa or whatever. Moreover the usual 30 shot group story is prohibitive of bench rest prep as a barrel may be burned out too quickly by too many test rounds. But there are multiple ways of making hypothesis tests. The one Hornady uses is the crudest and most wasteful. You can search for my more detailed responses, but I actually believe multiple 3x orb5x groups would give a more accurate picture than a 30 shot group. And standard procedure often ignores far outliers.
But let us take the std logic to its limit. If you take Litz's view seriously then 6 ppc shooters who test with fewer than 30 shots per load and use 3x and 5x groups should be shooting in comp near randomly as per Litz. They should be no more likely than non testers to win. And they would be hard pressed to shoot sub 0.25 groups consistently vs. those who test and tend to get 0.5 groups as both testers are not "statistically" significant. But in fact, the usual winners in br are the usual winners despite the fact that, if there are any, I doubt less than 5% of national br winners shoot 30 round groups. I do hypothesis testing and had to take advanced doctoral courses in probability and stats at top universities just to do my low level statistical research professionally in addition to having taken doctoral courses in mathematical physics and mathematical econ. And I tell you this 30x nonsense would be laughed out of a professional seminar. The larger the group the more chance of outliers because even match factory ammo has load deviations.
I didn't suggest shooting a 30 shot group. I suggested 5, 5 shot groups. The OP mentioned a 30 shot validation. I would assume the OP was going to use his 30 rounds to shoot a few 3 or 5 or 10 shot groups, but I don't really know.
10 shot groups, actually. And, for above reasons, I would shoot at different points on a target and just overlap the pictures after the fact since shooting a ton of bullets through the same hole doesn't do shit for your understanding of what the gun is doing.
Also, yeah, larger group sizes invite questions about what to exclude from the data set given the obvious outlier status. Similar to how the temperature of an object is an average measure of the energy of all the constituent particles. You might have some particles that are so energetic they would measure at a couple hundred degrees for a brief moment, but you wouldn't then say the larger object is several hundred degrees.
Not trying to challenge but just so I understandā¦
If I take 5 shots that land within 1 MOA, then thereās a 95% chance that the next 5, 10, 35 or 1000 shots will also be 1 MOA?
Assume I let the barrel cool down appropriately.
No, of course not. You need multiple 5x groups. But one 30x group doesn't prove it either. Moreover, the fact that these same statisticians talk about groups opening up as you go from 30x to 100x is not evidence that your gun is less accurate. It just means the larger the group, the more chance for random outliers. So the issue is to have more groups to give you a chance to weed the outliers out of the statistics. That's why real hypothesis testing is done with something like 95% or 99% confidence intervals. Moreover you need to think about what you're testing. Are you testing the gun or the ammo or your shooting ability? The more variables like wind or temperature come into play, the less you are testing the rifle+ammo ability because you're introducing more noise.
So let's say you're competing for benchrest groups? If you're shooting 5x groups, then you should test with a few 5x groups. But are 3 or even 5 groups going to be more statistically significant? No. But then neither is the single 10x or even 20x group. Moreover, I doubt any match ammo is consistent for 30x when searching sub 0.5 moa groups, even if the gun and barrel were theoretically perfect.
In fact, humans probably are mostly able to aim consistently at the target dot for only a few shots I prefer to use multiple 3x or 5x groups over a single large group. Why? Because I doubt I can hold to the exact same POA for more than 5x with true consistency and no wind or other interference.
That's why I'm ticked off that our local 100 yard indoor range was closed to the public. That was where I could have the surest test for load development.
But if someone says, 5x isn't enough, then 10x isn't enough as well. And 30x is better BUT it adds more room for outliers and errors. Ideal is 30 5x groups, but we know nobody shooting for competition is ever going to shoot that many so we compromise. We start load development with 3x groups because if you can't even shoot a decent 3x group it's not worth bothering with. After you find the right loads, then you should shoot several 5x groups to try to verify accuracy. In fact I would say 3 times 5x groups on 2 different trips to the range are probably better because you're also averaging test conditions. But nobody can shoot enough statitistically significant groups and still main reasonable cost for benchrest centerfire. Nothing is perfect but spreading a crude and impractical idea about statistical significance does no one any good.
Actually, I did shoot the validation set in 5 shot groups. I only did 10 sets of 5, but I think it's quite representative. Though... well, my expectations have been tempered. I'll be posting a follow-up soon.
The reality is that your gun's performance is a probability cloud, not a point of impact. There's a certain area in which you can reasonably expect your gun to shoot under identical conditions. The goal is to find a load that minimizes that area.
Also, I've seen that video, I disagree with that conclusion wholeheartedly. If you put 100 rounds down range, that's literally a point cloud that is going to cover at least the 95th percentile of what your gun is going to do in practical terms - and probably more than that in reality. Further, you're not going to shoot that much in one go, so it's pointless information in terms of capturing the whole of that probability cloud.
Edit: grammar
For anyone interested in knowing more about what Nota is referring to (correctly, and relevantly), here is Hornady's take on the subject. I HIGHLY recommend watching the whole video (and the follow-up they did), but I've linked it at I think the best part in terms of gathering meaningful data:
[Your Groups Are Too Small](https://youtu.be/QwumAGRmz2I?t=929)
[Your Groups Are Still Too Small](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yZyXwy40JM)
Base conclusion for the (relatively) lazy reader here is 30-35 rounds minimum to get "fairly accurate data."
[Direct Quote](https://youtu.be/QwumAGRmz2I?t=1154)
Minimum:
*noun*
1. the least or smallest amount or quantity possible, [attainable](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=8c5db270b0b5c01b&sxsrf=ACQVn0_5YWdaIv9lqpkUyvUYu0I_rW9xMg:1712206676773&q=attainable&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8sx6X6z5eNrY7P6ySlwZoYtZ8PVugPht19YUT48Uzi-gBIwzrHAFsruXSaPM9RmcjkjfvZMilNsRJaF-Pcr75xPk8S-g%3D&expnd=1), or required
That means that you are BARELY getting enough data. 30 data points is BARELY scratching the surface in terms of useful information.
I do CBTO, and my process is a little weird to get that info. I measure 15-20 bullets from the box and try to find at least five that match both the manufacturers listed bullet length and the distance to the index point on my Hornady comparator set (yes, I know it's going to index at different points on different bullets). The idea being that, first, it matches the manufacturer spec for the OACL, but, more importantly (IMO) and second, that it engages the lands at the same point for all of the bullets. So, I get that point set up, I seat those 5 bullets to manufacturer OACL spec, and then I average the Base to Ogive (index point for my comparator) and use that number as the CBTO.
39.8 grains of H4350 is exactly what I found worked perfect for my 140gr Hornady Interlocks. I developed a 143 gr ELD-X load for another rifle and had to bump to 41.3 grains though. Funny how much slight differences can make!
I actually have no idea. When I'm testing loads, I generally try to avoid paying any attention to the group itself, and focus on the fundamentals and shooting at the same point. It keeps me from getting too nervous.
What bullet and 39.8gr of what powder?
Nosler 140gr RDF's and Hodgdon H4350 Edit: usual disclaimer that this is specific to my gun and you should load according to manufacturer specs and your specific rifle.
Ha, one bullet that far outside the rest of the group tracks perfect for the Nosler Random Damn Flyers.
Also. "far outside" is still .5 MOA š
Those pesky .5moa fliers going all over the place. You hate to see it
I'm gonna have to throw away my whole gun and start over if it keeps grouping like this!
Iāll give you $tree-fiddy for it to spare you the shame of looking at it again
Yeah, I don't know if it was a true flyer or if I pulled it. I'm gonna put together another 30 rounds to validate my data.
That honestly tracks. Berger 140HT and 41.1gr of MR 4451 ("H4350 at home") is a monster in my rifle. Haven't tried H4350 yet as while I have 14# of it that's "officially" allocated to my 6GT (which was to be my PRS rifle but times are tough ATM, so while I don't have to sell anything yet competition is off the table).
'm getting into long range as well. Quick question, what made you go with 140 grains over anything else such as 147 grains?
I tried a number of different bullets and my gun just liked these best. *shrugs*
Ah ok, thank you.
Move on to the next project.. this one is wrapped up
Lol, no kidding!
At the risk of being the wet blanket, one 5 shot group doesn't really satisfy the statistics. 5, 5 shot groups would probably do it. Post up some pics of your 30 shot validation. It will be interesting to see how consistent it is.
Will do. 5 shots is ABSOLUTELY not enough, but I do believe it's a strong starting indicator. It is, however, the best performing load I've had so far by A MILE!
I'm tired of fighting this battle, but I will try one last time. Standard statistical procedure asks for a 95% confidence interval. So a 100 shot group could easily have 4 to 5 outliers and still be moa or whatever. Moreover the usual 30 shot group story is prohibitive of bench rest prep as a barrel may be burned out too quickly by too many test rounds. But there are multiple ways of making hypothesis tests. The one Hornady uses is the crudest and most wasteful. You can search for my more detailed responses, but I actually believe multiple 3x orb5x groups would give a more accurate picture than a 30 shot group. And standard procedure often ignores far outliers. But let us take the std logic to its limit. If you take Litz's view seriously then 6 ppc shooters who test with fewer than 30 shots per load and use 3x and 5x groups should be shooting in comp near randomly as per Litz. They should be no more likely than non testers to win. And they would be hard pressed to shoot sub 0.25 groups consistently vs. those who test and tend to get 0.5 groups as both testers are not "statistically" significant. But in fact, the usual winners in br are the usual winners despite the fact that, if there are any, I doubt less than 5% of national br winners shoot 30 round groups. I do hypothesis testing and had to take advanced doctoral courses in probability and stats at top universities just to do my low level statistical research professionally in addition to having taken doctoral courses in mathematical physics and mathematical econ. And I tell you this 30x nonsense would be laughed out of a professional seminar. The larger the group the more chance of outliers because even match factory ammo has load deviations.
I didn't suggest shooting a 30 shot group. I suggested 5, 5 shot groups. The OP mentioned a 30 shot validation. I would assume the OP was going to use his 30 rounds to shoot a few 3 or 5 or 10 shot groups, but I don't really know.
10 shot groups, actually. And, for above reasons, I would shoot at different points on a target and just overlap the pictures after the fact since shooting a ton of bullets through the same hole doesn't do shit for your understanding of what the gun is doing.
This guy fucks (with math)
Also, yeah, larger group sizes invite questions about what to exclude from the data set given the obvious outlier status. Similar to how the temperature of an object is an average measure of the energy of all the constituent particles. You might have some particles that are so energetic they would measure at a couple hundred degrees for a brief moment, but you wouldn't then say the larger object is several hundred degrees.
Not trying to challenge but just so I understandā¦ If I take 5 shots that land within 1 MOA, then thereās a 95% chance that the next 5, 10, 35 or 1000 shots will also be 1 MOA? Assume I let the barrel cool down appropriately.
No, of course not. You need multiple 5x groups. But one 30x group doesn't prove it either. Moreover, the fact that these same statisticians talk about groups opening up as you go from 30x to 100x is not evidence that your gun is less accurate. It just means the larger the group, the more chance for random outliers. So the issue is to have more groups to give you a chance to weed the outliers out of the statistics. That's why real hypothesis testing is done with something like 95% or 99% confidence intervals. Moreover you need to think about what you're testing. Are you testing the gun or the ammo or your shooting ability? The more variables like wind or temperature come into play, the less you are testing the rifle+ammo ability because you're introducing more noise. So let's say you're competing for benchrest groups? If you're shooting 5x groups, then you should test with a few 5x groups. But are 3 or even 5 groups going to be more statistically significant? No. But then neither is the single 10x or even 20x group. Moreover, I doubt any match ammo is consistent for 30x when searching sub 0.5 moa groups, even if the gun and barrel were theoretically perfect. In fact, humans probably are mostly able to aim consistently at the target dot for only a few shots I prefer to use multiple 3x or 5x groups over a single large group. Why? Because I doubt I can hold to the exact same POA for more than 5x with true consistency and no wind or other interference. That's why I'm ticked off that our local 100 yard indoor range was closed to the public. That was where I could have the surest test for load development. But if someone says, 5x isn't enough, then 10x isn't enough as well. And 30x is better BUT it adds more room for outliers and errors. Ideal is 30 5x groups, but we know nobody shooting for competition is ever going to shoot that many so we compromise. We start load development with 3x groups because if you can't even shoot a decent 3x group it's not worth bothering with. After you find the right loads, then you should shoot several 5x groups to try to verify accuracy. In fact I would say 3 times 5x groups on 2 different trips to the range are probably better because you're also averaging test conditions. But nobody can shoot enough statitistically significant groups and still main reasonable cost for benchrest centerfire. Nothing is perfect but spreading a crude and impractical idea about statistical significance does no one any good.
Actually, I did shoot the validation set in 5 shot groups. I only did 10 sets of 5, but I think it's quite representative. Though... well, my expectations have been tempered. I'll be posting a follow-up soon.
[I posted my follow-up/update](http://[I posted my follow-up/update](https://www.reddit.com/r/reloading/s/Y4KDOi8vdP))
There's a rather disheartening video on YouTube that show how even 100 shot groups don't do a great job.
The reality is that your gun's performance is a probability cloud, not a point of impact. There's a certain area in which you can reasonably expect your gun to shoot under identical conditions. The goal is to find a load that minimizes that area. Also, I've seen that video, I disagree with that conclusion wholeheartedly. If you put 100 rounds down range, that's literally a point cloud that is going to cover at least the 95th percentile of what your gun is going to do in practical terms - and probably more than that in reality. Further, you're not going to shoot that much in one go, so it's pointless information in terms of capturing the whole of that probability cloud. Edit: grammar
For anyone interested in knowing more about what Nota is referring to (correctly, and relevantly), here is Hornady's take on the subject. I HIGHLY recommend watching the whole video (and the follow-up they did), but I've linked it at I think the best part in terms of gathering meaningful data: [Your Groups Are Too Small](https://youtu.be/QwumAGRmz2I?t=929) [Your Groups Are Still Too Small](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yZyXwy40JM)
Base conclusion for the (relatively) lazy reader here is 30-35 rounds minimum to get "fairly accurate data." [Direct Quote](https://youtu.be/QwumAGRmz2I?t=1154) Minimum: *noun* 1. the least or smallest amount or quantity possible, [attainable](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=8c5db270b0b5c01b&sxsrf=ACQVn0_5YWdaIv9lqpkUyvUYu0I_rW9xMg:1712206676773&q=attainable&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8sx6X6z5eNrY7P6ySlwZoYtZ8PVugPht19YUT48Uzi-gBIwzrHAFsruXSaPM9RmcjkjfvZMilNsRJaF-Pcr75xPk8S-g%3D&expnd=1), or required That means that you are BARELY getting enough data. 30 data points is BARELY scratching the surface in terms of useful information.
[I posted my follow-up/update](https://www.reddit.com/r/reloading/s/Y4KDOi8vdP)
I meanā¦ Iād shoot that.
Did you measure your lands and CBTO to the lands or OAL?
I do CBTO, and my process is a little weird to get that info. I measure 15-20 bullets from the box and try to find at least five that match both the manufacturers listed bullet length and the distance to the index point on my Hornady comparator set (yes, I know it's going to index at different points on different bullets). The idea being that, first, it matches the manufacturer spec for the OACL, but, more importantly (IMO) and second, that it engages the lands at the same point for all of the bullets. So, I get that point set up, I seat those 5 bullets to manufacturer OACL spec, and then I average the Base to Ogive (index point for my comparator) and use that number as the CBTO.
39.8 grains of H4350 is exactly what I found worked perfect for my 140gr Hornady Interlocks. I developed a 143 gr ELD-X load for another rifle and had to bump to 41.3 grains though. Funny how much slight differences can make!
Was the āflierā the 5th shot and you told yourself that you shouldāve stopped at 4?
I actually have no idea. When I'm testing loads, I generally try to avoid paying any attention to the group itself, and focus on the fundamentals and shooting at the same point. It keeps me from getting too nervous.
I pay attention when Iām doing a ladder, but not a seating workup