Two Views of Accuracy

[joeb33050]

So we have the two views of accuracy and how to get there; the "small increment" view and the "cookbook" view.
I'm thinking that the difference may be in the thinking and in the statistics.
The thinking, the translation of experience into general principles or rules, seems to progress in this manner:
Step 1. "I did this, and that happened." For example: " I shot five groups, five shots each, at 100 yards, with a given rifle and load, and group size averaged 1.0"."
Step 2. "I did that, and this happened." For example: "I shot five groups, five shots each, at 100 yards, with a given rifle and the same given load except that I used Zollo lube instead of Goggo lube, and group size averaged .9"."
Step 3. "Changing from "this" to "that" changes the outcome from "that" to "this". For example: "The change from Goggo lube to Zollo lube changed the accuracy from 1.0" to .9".

Here's what I think.
There's no problem with steps 1 or 2, this is experimentation or the gaining of experience.
The problem comes with Step 3. "Changing from "this" to "that" changes the outcome from "that" to "this". We've got a conclusion from the experimenting in steps 1 and 2.
Did going from one lube to another change the accuracy? If we shoot five groups with each of two loads, and one average is 1" and the other average is .9", has the accuracy changed?
The difference between 1.0" and .9" is 10%.
To be 95% sure that there's a 10% difference between two loads, we must have data on-we must shoot-38 groups with each load.
To be 90% sure, we must shoot 23 groups with each load.

In fact, Step 3 is taken without reason, far too often. We see a difference in group sizes between two loads or rifles, and assume that that difference is real. In fact, we don't know much of anything about differences between accuracy as a result of a change, until we do a great deal of shooting.
So, if we don't know THAT there is a difference, we have no rational reason to go further and explain WHY there is a difference-but I read about the WHY a lot.
This bit of statistics explains a lot of what we see on these forums.
"It shot great Monday, same load Tuesday shot poorly." Probably nothing changed, we just need more groups.
"This load works great for me, Ed can't make it shoot as well." We don't know if there's a difference without more groups.
"YMMV" , and it may look like it varies, but we don't know until we shoot enough groups.
We can see big differences pretty easily, differences in powder or charge or bullet. We can't see other changes as easily, I have yet to see any test of the effect of primer pocket uniforming, flash hole de-burring, case length variation ~.005", powder charge variation <.5 grain, concentricity, orientation of whatever, or a myriad of other variables.
Some of us believe that controlling these variables affects accuracy, but this belief is FAITH, a belief based on something other than fact.
Somewhere in here is aggregate experience, the sum of experience gained over a long time shooting and reloading. This should not be discounted, neither should it be believed absolutely. My experience is that any cartridge can be made to shoot well with Unique, from 22 Hornet to 45/70. Not shoot best, but shoot well. I can't prove this, it's my aggregate experience.
But statistics trumps aggregate experience. Detecting small accuracy differences requires shooting a lot of groups. Impossible at small differences.
Here's part of a table from the book, In Errata, "Detecting Accuracy Differences and N".
These are the numbers of five shot groups that must be shot to be 95% sure that the difference is not mere chance:

% Difference #Groups
1 4050
2 1003
3 442
4 246
5 156
6 108
7 78
8 60
9 47
10 38
15 16
20 9
25 6
It's unlikely that anyone will shoot 4050 groups with each of two loads to confirm a 1% difference in accuracy. 1% of a 1" group is .010", a change from 1" to .990".

Most people, myself included, are not happy with these numbers; with the numbers of groups that must be shot to be pretty sure that there's a difference between two loads. However, there's nothing in the statistical world that I can find to change them, to make things easier.
I think that this may explain the difference between the incrementalists and the cookbook folks.
The cookbook guys will get a load that shoots pretty well, pretty quickly, in most all situations. It's easy to get a good bolt gun to shoot 2" CB averages at 100 yards for 5 shots. And not much harder to get the average down to 1 1/2".
Below 1 1/2" the changes and their effects get fuzzy, it is difficult to prove that small differences exist, hence, difficult to prove that changes result in small differences. For example, trimming and neck-turning and primer-pocket-uniforming-and flash-hole-deburring probably reduce group size in the 1" average area, but proving that any of these techniques increases accuracy is difficult if not impossible.
So, to sum up; the cookbook approach works in the early stages of the accuracy search, and can be easily demonstrated. The incremental approach works in the later stages of the accuracy search, but the effect of any individual change is difficult to impossible to demonstrate-which does not mean that those incremental changes do not work.
joe b.

[44man]

Very good assessment! :drinks: Since I work with revolvers most, I do the mechanical things first, the way I size and expand, case tension and boolit fit. Then I work with powders. Once I find good groups and consistancy I will test the effect of primers. I do this with my standard soft Felix lube. Then I will compare lubes and believe it or not, a bad lube will blow groups to hell in a hurry. Some lubes like Felix or Carnauba Red will show no difference where LLA can be horrible as will a very hard lube. Since I shoot heavy loads for hunting I can't say what others get from these lubes but it is as important as powder choices for the loads you use.
Once I get the groups I want, I stop, record what I use for each boolit and just load them that way all the time. I refuse to tweak by 1/10 gr increments or add an ounce of tin to the alloy. I also stop weighing boolits. I have never seen any difference from deburring flash holes or fooling with the little things. A BR or long range varmint shooter will but never with a revolver. I get enough 1" or under groups at 50 and 100 yd's that if I don't once in a while, I can blame my shooting or seeing and not the gun. I have confidence when I hunt that when I shoot good, the deer is dead. That is my bottom line. The rest of the time I shoot for fun and to adjust to the violent recoil so I have control. I love to shoot pop cans at 100 yd's from the bench. Others want more and have to do more work however I agree with you that a tiny change in a group does not tell you anything and is not worth the work.

[scrapcan]

Good discussion in layman terms on sample adequacy. If you look in a statistics text book you will find formulae for determining sample adequacy.

Glad the above was posted, it is easier to read and understand than the statistics text books setting on the shelf.

[Bass Ackward]

So, to sum up; the cookbook approach works in the early stages of the accuracy search, and can be easily demonstrated. The incremental approach works in the later stages of the accuracy search, but the effect of any individual change is difficult to impossible to demonstrate-which does not mean that those incremental changes do not work.
joe b.


Joe,

Another view point, I only have one view of accuracy. When satisfaction sets in, all experimentation stops. Bingo. It ends there. This is fine of coarse. I can accept any accuracy standard you want to establish for yourself. Just don't try to make it mine or others.

A cook booker (coarse method) relies on statistics that 16 grains of 2400 will work in every military size cartridge rifle. Well I got bad news for ya, I have 3, 30-06s and it works in none of mine with any bullet. If you aren't satisfied with that accuracy, you start incrementals. How far you are willing to go with incrementals depends on when you become satisfied with .... something either accuracy or velocity.

A cook booker, to use your term, is a person that builds stereotypes based on the passed. Unique worked in this, it'll work in that. He is a "hobbyist" content with not dealing with what's in front of him to maximise it's potential. The real sin is when someone stops experimenting not because they are satisfied, but based on the fact that you "KNOW" lube " A " is only good to 2000 fps. You know this because someone told you it was true, or because it failed here for you before.

Or only hard bullets are accurate. Cause you shot soft ones once that went everywhere. Or that you only size to throat. Cause bore size once went wild. Or cast bullets are best accurate between 1600-1800 fps. PB bullets crap at 1600 fps. Or my accuracy is no good because I won't burn off 10 shots in 10 minutes or less. Or the worst of the worst, ............ RPMs got me.

Sounds like stereotypes to me. RPMs as a guide can be useful to forcing you to become even more of an icrementalist if you want to go on up. RPMs is a "guide of quality" that challenges and grades "everything" on how well "YOU" do from gun quality, to reloading, to the shooting process. If you have a substandard weapon with low rifling height or a long, larger throat, or say you load sloppier with poorer quality bullets or designs, or you shoot crappy above a certain recoil level, then you will have a lower RPM ceiling than someone else.

At the cook book level, rifling height or width means little, action type means little, action stiffness means little, barrel diameters means little, chamber alignment means little, bedding means little, whether the barrel has copper in it or not means little, or reloading standards means little, bad bullets will shoot well and on and on cause just about anything and everything works. Let's call this "easy" level, the "cook book" level where all variables are minimized.

Funny thing here is that intelligent gun men know that all these things make a difference in jacketed accuracy, but they throw up their hands and surrender when it comes to lead cause that boogie man, the RPM Monster is out there somewhere. RPMs can be a ceiling for one gun, but it can be an excuse for accepting a lower standard on another too. Just because gun " A " can't cut it, doesnt mean another one won't. Joe Starmetal turns some super high RPMs. Why? Cause he is using gas operated, semi-automatic actions to cut and elongate the pressure curve which helps with faster twists.

So .... if you have 98 guys reloading with a cook book method (stereotypes) and only two are incrementalists that exceed the "EASY" RPM ceiling established by the other 98, are they tied to your statistics? Or unbelievable? I think not. We have lever guys here shooting sub 2" inch above 2000 fps with LLA for God's sake. Some of these lever guys shoot sub inch fairly regular at lower levels. Rpms? OR harmonics? We have guys here shooting inch class groups with handguns. I can't, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Which of your two views (methods) discourages experimentation and adds to cast stereotypes?

[joeb33050]

Joe,

Another view point, I only have one view of accuracy. When satisfaction sets in, all experimentation stops. Bingo. It ends there. This is fine of coarse. I can accept any accuracy standard you want to establish for yourself. Just don't try to make it mine or others.

A cook booker (coarse method) relies on statistics that 16 grains of 2400 will work in every military size cartridge rifle. Well I got bad news for ya, I have 3, 30-06s and it works in none of mine with any bullet. If you aren't satisfied with that accuracy, you start incrementals. How far you are willing to go with incrementals depends on when you become satisfied with .... something either accuracy or velocity.

A cook booker, to use your term, is a person that builds stereotypes based on the passed. Unique worked in this, it'll work in that. He is a "hobbyist" content with not dealing with what's in front of him to maximise it's potential. The real sin is when someone stops experimenting not because they are satisfied, but based on the fact that you "KNOW" lube " A " is only good to 2000 fps. You know this because someone told you it was true, or because it failed here for you before.

Or only hard bullets are accurate. Cause you shot soft ones once that went everywhere. Or that you only size to throat. Cause bore size once went wild. Or cast bullets are best accurate between 1600-1800 fps. PB bullets crap at 1600 fps. Or my accuracy is no good because I won't burn off 10 shots in 10 minutes or less. Or the worst of the worst, ............ RPMs got me.

Sounds like stereotypes to me. RPMs as a guide can be useful to forcing you to become even more of an icrementalist if you want to go on up. RPMs is a "guide of quality" that challenges and grades "everything" on how well "YOU" do from gun quality, to reloading, to the shooting process. If you have a substandard weapon with low rifling height or a long, larger throat, or say you load sloppier with poorer quality bullets or designs, or you shoot crappy above a certain recoil level, then you will have a lower RPM ceiling than someone else.

At the cook book level, rifling height or width means little, action type means little, action stiffness means little, barrel diameters means little, chamber alignment means little, bedding means little, whether the barrel has copper in it or not means little, or reloading standards means little, bad bullets will shoot well and on and on cause just about anything and everything works. Let's call this "easy" level, the "cook book" level where all variables are minimized.

Funny thing here is that intelligent gun men know that all these things make a difference in jacketed accuracy, but they throw up their hands and surrender when it comes to lead cause that boogie man, the RPM Monster is out there somewhere. RPMs can be a ceiling for one gun, but it can be an excuse for accepting a lower standard on another too. Just because gun " A " can't cut it, doesnt mean another one won't. Joe Starmetal turns some super high RPMs. Why? Cause he is using gas operated, semi-automatic actions to cut and elongate the pressure curve which helps with faster twists.

So .... if you have 98 guys reloading with a cook book method (stereotypes) and only two are incrementalists that exceed the "EASY" RPM ceiling established by the other 98, are they tied to your statistics? Or unbelievable? I think not. We have lever guys here shooting sub 2" inch above 2000 fps with LLA for God's sake. Some of these lever guys shoot sub inch fairly regular at lower levels. Rpms? OR harmonics? We have guys here shooting inch class groups with handguns. I can't, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Which of your two views (methods) discourages experimentation and adds to cast stereotypes?


Bass;
You are the incremental man par excellence. There are many words here, no data. If you choose to believe in opinion and have faith in your results, without statistics entering the picture, God bless you. If you are able to convince others that this is just too complex a matter for all but a few to understand, God bless you, and God help them.
I have $25 for the lever gun shooter who can shoot 5 five shot 100 yard targets, 1 paper, in an inch.
The RPM business is pure conjecture as far as I can see, I can find a total of zero information suggesting any RPM barrier, and did the research-which led to my understanding that "centrifugal force" doesn't exist.
Sorry about the statistics, but they are what separates opinion and faith from fact.
joe b.

[felix]

Make it 2500 bucks, Joe, and you got a taker. Me. ... felix

[sundog]

Joe, if you don't understand about the rpm barrier, go get an issue Swede (7 1/2 twist), load it with cast, and have at it. Matter of fact, pick a load out of the 'cook book' starting at, oh, let's say 1500, and keep adding a half grain of powder. You'll run of backstop LONG before you over pressure a load with the med (starting with 2400) to slower powders. For most loads 1700 is a threshold. Don't believe me? Maybe Waksupi would spin his tale of banana boolits for us again.

Data? You want data? I've mentioned this before that I've been shooting mil bolt matches, once a month (July is alway 2 because we have a match on the 4th) for over ten years. A couple different 03A3s, a Swede, and occasionally an Enfield. Our sighter stays up and centers are posted and replaced for each 10 shot record string. Fifty record rounds. That's 50 x 12 x 10. OVER 6K rounds. At the end of the match, the sighter is a composite. A group with 50 plus rounds in it. THAT will give you an idea of accuracy. Whatever you have is what you, your equipment, and you load is capable of. If it's relatively the same, month, after bloody month, then it probably won't change until something affects it. I doubt seriously that any amount of ladder testing will give you a clue how to fix it.

Question. Have you conducted ladder tests with your same 3 rifles using a KNOWN good load (cast or jacketed) to see if the rifles (and you) are capable of conducting tests that yield valid results? If not it would kinda be like trying to grow a culture in a previously contaminated media.

Ya know, there's another way to explain this. Shoot 10-shot groups, same load on a single target. Shoot as many groups as you have loads on separate targets. Then plot the group centers from point of aim for each group on a plotter target. Not only do you get to see the group center move on the plotted target, but you get to see real live groups on each individual group target. Then your best group is nothing more that a sight adjustment to zero.

Personally, I think a ladder test won't do you any good unless you've already got 'the load'. And as far as "WE" having two views of accuracy, NO, YOU have two views of accuracy. MY view of accuracy is when I get the best out of myself, my equipment, and my load; and it doesn't really make any difference how I get there.

[waksupi]

I'll ditto the Swede suggestion, if you believe there is no RPM limitation. When experimenting with the pure tin bulets, I loaded to low end of the reloading manual listings of jacketed bullets. At one hundred yards, I can only guess, but figure the "group" was spead over at least 40 feet dispersion. Can't be certain, as I found one about 25 feet to the right of the target butts in the spring. One round hit my cabin, on the left. So, I don't know just how far that would have dispersed at 100 yards. I do know the cabin was about 20 feet at midrange from the aim point.
Go ahead. Experiment. Enjoy yourself. You seek info from others, but there is nothing like seeing for yourself.
I did have an original 1886 Winchester that would shoot into about 1.5" at a hundred, back when I could see. I suspect it would have been better with a scope.

[45 2.1]

I'll ditto the Swede suggestion, if you believe there is no RPM limitation. Interesting, the reloading manuals show that there is no RPM barrier as jacketed shot fine past that supposed barrier. It has to do with material strength of the projectile. When experimenting with the pure tin bullets I for one would like to know what the question was on this, why pure tin with a long boolit?, I loaded to low end of the reloading manual listings of jacketed bullets. At one hundred yards, I can only guess, but figure the "group" was spead over at least 40 feet dispersion. Can't be certain, as I found one about 25 feet to the right of the target butts in the spring. One round hit my cabin, on the left. So, I don't know just how far that would have dispersed at 100 yards. I do know the cabin was about 20 feet at midrange from the aim point. Go ahead. Experiment. Enjoy yourself. You seek info from others, but there is nothing like seeing for yourself. One can only wonder at your outcome if you would have used a hard ductile boolit that wasn't overly long.

[shotstring]

Before I retired, my job involved troubleshooting hardware and software as well as software design and programming. One of the first things I learned was to find a way to limit the variables of any given problem. If you can't cut down a problem's variables, you can't solve the problem.

The variables of working out a load for your regular hunting rifle or your favorite revolver or pistol was pretty simple, because you usually knew the bullet that you wanted to get to work and if it was jacketed, lube wasn't a consideration, and if it was cast, chances are the bullet and lube were supplied by the manufacturer so once you chose your bullet type, you were basically done except finding proper cartridge length and the proper powder and powder amount.

I now find myself in a quandry because as I cast all my own boolets, there are a host of designs, lengths, GC or PB, nose pour or base pour, alloys, throat widths and lengths, twist rates, rifling types, lubes and mould materials and heat sensitivities. You simply cannot test all of these possibilities and remain sane or out of the poor-house. So the answer to me seems once again to limit the variables. Find a few things that work, and stay with them. Just sort out a few extra variables when you have a problem firearm. Example, I worked out one good 45 Long Colt load that worked in 6 or my 7 Long Colt revolvers and rifles. The 7th was a problem, and I still haven't found a good load for it - still looking and working at it.:roll:

The bottom line is, I don't think you can test for everything. At some point I have to say "that's enough - I can live with that" and be done with it.

[44man]

Not enough guys realize the match of a boolits length to the twist rate. There is a narrow range for a boolit with a certain twist rate and rpm's. go either way and accuracy goes to pot. I am not going to say it is the boolits construction but at what point the particular boolit is stable at the rpm's it needs. You can overspin a boolit and it will shoot for crap at 100 yd's but just might shoot super way downrange after the spin and velocity slows. If not spun fast enough it might not shoot at any distance.
Many guns do not have the right twist for what you want to shoot and I don't care what you do, it will not work. Sometimes you need a larger boolit and some times you need a lighter one. To try and force a gun to shoot the wrong boolit will make you pull some more hair out. [smilie=1: Once you find the right boolit, then all of the load work can make it better but if the boolit is wrong, good luck!

[waksupi]

Sounds like there are some here who do not own a Swede, and are not interested in checking for thierselves. Go ahead, try your different bullet lengths, and hardnesses. I learned about hardness in the Swede, too. I'd tell you what I found, but I'm sure you already know.

[joeb33050]

Make it 2500 bucks, Joe, and you got a taker. Me. ... felix

Is it ALL about the money, Felix?
joe b.

[joeb33050]

I'll ditto the Swede suggestion, if you believe there is no RPM limitation. When experimenting with the pure tin bulets, I loaded to low end of the reloading manual listings of jacketed bullets. At one hundred yards, I can only guess, but figure the "group" was spead over at least 40 feet dispersion. Can't be certain, as I found one about 25 feet to the right of the target butts in the spring. One round hit my cabin, on the left. So, I don't know just how far that would have dispersed at 100 yards. I do know the cabin was about 20 feet at midrange from the aim point.
Go ahead. Experiment. Enjoy yourself. You seek info from others, but there is nothing like seeing for yourself.
I did have an original 1886 Winchester that would shoot into about 1.5" at a hundred, back when I could see. I suspect it would have been better with a scope.


Dear Waksupi;
I had a Swedish Mauser rifle and spent a lot of time and money on trying to get it to shoot. I finally realized that I just can't see open sights well enough to have accuracy testing make any sense.
I don't know about your tests, but noticed your pure tin bullets.
Stability of a given bullet is a function of twist, muzzle velocity, the density of the medium through which the bullet travels and the density or S.G. of the bullet. Greenhill is written around lead bullets. As the density of the bullet decreases = more tin or antimony in the mix, the stability of the bullet falls. Lead has a S.G. of 11.34, tin S.G. is 7.3.
I have never found a paper showing how much stability of a given bullet varies with twist, MV or bullet density; but the impression I'm left with is that stability varies slightly with MV, about like Greenhill with twist, and a lot with changes in S.G..
I would suspect that a long tin bullet would be unstable at lower MVs in any rifle, unless the twist was fast for the general bullets in that caliber, like 10" 30 caliber twist.
A .264" bullet a maximum of 1.394" long and weighing a maximum (est.) of 179 grains in CB form will be stabilized in a 7.5" twist.
My guess is that a tin bullet anything like this long would be wildly unstable at CB velocities.
Could it be that you ran into Greenhill rather than the ??RPM Barrier??
If RPM is some limit, then it ain't RPM but is the rotational speed of the bullet-how many feet per second is the bullet side moving. All calculations having to to with centripital force need this.

There's a calculator and workbook in the book called "TWIST MV RPM CALIBER ROTATIONAL SPEED" that allows calculation of any of these.
A .264 bullet at 1600 fps in a 7.5" twist is turning 153600 RPM and 176.9 fps rotational speed. The side of the bullet is traveling 176.9 feet in circles every second.
A .308 bullet in a 10" twist must have a MV of 1828 fps and rotate at 131616 rpm to have a rotational speed of 176.9 fps.
Yet 30 caliber CBs are shot all the time at 1828 fps and above without any untoward happening.

But make the RPMs equal.
The 30 caliber bullet must have a MV of 2134 fps to equal the RPM of the .264 bullet; and many shoot 30 caliber CBs at this speed and above.

One of the CBA guys has agreed to work on the RPM centripital force does the lead bullet blow up question, and sometime soon we'll know the answer to that question.
A few times I've seen HV 22 bullets blow up, but I've believed and with company, that a piece of copper got lifted in the rifling and that's why.

There's nothing strange or trouble-causing about those Swedish rifles or any fast twist rifle.

I think you may very well have been proving that low S.G. = instability.

Most humbly and respectfully yours;
joe b.

[Bass Ackward]

Joe,

You are a man in search of someone else's answers. Then you don't want to believe what you are told.

I take it you consider yourself a cook booker. That's fine. You defend yourself with statistics. eh .... fine if that floats your boat. BUT .... you just had a thread where you were trying to formalize load .... development .... steps used .... by ..... someone "you" now call an ..... incrementalist.

Your real problem is that you see cast differently from jacketed. It's not. Take 2400 and develop some squib loads for jacketed in a 30/30. I believe you own one and you will see they perform .... easiest at 1600 to 1800 fps too. Just like cast, the easiest accuracy is at low velocity. Is it the best accuracy? Yes and No. If your accuracy standard is based on 3 or 5 shots groups the answer is NO. If you want a 50 shots in 10 shot strings and have to deal with barrel fouling, then the answer is yes, the best accuracy with jacketed will be at low levels too.

JUST .... LIKE .... CAST!!! WHY is this? Answer: Cause you are minimizing heat, friction, fouling and thus harmonics too. Everything we do in the accuracy game from heavy barrels to stiff actions to bedding is designed to play the harmonics game. You understand that you can go up with jacketed and play the harmonics game and get an accurate load.

NEWS FLASH: It's the same with cast. It's just a little more involved because you have to throw a few more variables into the mix. The down side, the more variables, the more chances for mistakes. Mistakes are wilder at HV than low. Simple as that.

Translation: You can't be a HV cast cook booker. Your 223 taught you that.

[joeb33050]

I now find myself in a quandry because as I cast all my own boolets, there are a host of designs, lengths, GC or PB, nose pour or base pour, alloys, throat widths and lengths, twist rates, rifling types, lubes and mould materials and heat sensitivities. You simply cannot test all of these possibilities and remain sane or out of the poor-house. So the answer to me seems once again to limit the variables. Find a few things that work, and stay with them. Just sort out a few extra variables when you have a problem firearm. Example, I worked out one good 45 Long Colt load that worked in 6 or my 7 Long Colt revolvers and rifles. The 7th was a problem, and I still haven't found a good load for it - still looking and working at it.:roll:

The bottom line is, I don't think you can test for everything. At some point I have to say "that's enough - I can live with that" and be done with it.

Let's look at what you said. The incrementalists like to list many variables to demonstrate their position, yet have no objective evidence that many of these variables affect accuracy.
Here are your variables:

Bullet design or length There are good bullets in many calibers. In 30 caliber the 311291, 31141, 311299 and 311284 are good bullets, one of these will work if anything will work.

GC or PB is simply a function of MV, PB<1500, GC>1500, 1500 can be a higher or lower number, slightly.

nose pour or base pour-neither is superior

alloys-XX:1 below 1400 fps, WW 1400-1900 fps, lino 1900-2300 fps, approx. In rifles, harder is better mostly. No evidence that marginal changes affect accuracy.

throat width and length and rifling type-stock is stock, if custom, just query the match winners. Opinions among them vary, test data is sparse. No evidence that marginal changes affect accuracy.

twist rates-Greenhill or Dell or Theodore

lubes-pick a good one and stick with it. If anyone is loud, ask for data. No evidence that marginal changes affect accuracy.

Mould or mold materials-doesn't affect accuracy

heat sensitivity-?

Let's say you wanted to get a 30/06 rifle going. If the condition is good and the barrel is clean, pick a bullet from those above, pick a powder such as 2400, Unique, IMR4198, SR4759-whatever the match winners are using. Pick a set of charges 1/2 or 1 grain apart, load to max OAL, and shoot, recording everyting.
In a short time you'll be at 2", shortly after that at 1 1/2". Now it gets harder, but vary the important things first
bullet, powder, charge ?primer, ?diameter

I'd bet that I can get any 30 caliber bolt rifle to shoot 1 1/2" averages in short order, if it will ever shoot.

From 1 1/2" down it takes a lot of groups to prove most differences, although changing powder or bullet may drop you from 1 1/2 to 1 1/4 in one fell swoop.

So it isn't hard, you don't have to test everything, most variables don't matter or can't be proved to matter or matter slightly, there's no magic involved.

Follow the cookbook.
Best of luck;
joe b.

[Bret4207]

Bass- I wish I had the time to experiment like some of the guys do. I find having a "cookbook" loading area to start with, like 13.0 Red Dot with the older military rounds, gets me some shooting. We all have our limitations and while I know you meant no slight to us other guys, I am a bit jealous of the time some of you can devote to this.

Joe- Of course variables matter! Everything is a variable from the case to the primer, powder, alloy to ambient temp to humidity affecting bedding. I think we're coming at this from different points of view. The throat changes through the years, brass changes as it's used, powder and primers deteriorate. Maybe we're just way apart on the points we're starting at.

[joeb33050]

Joe,

You are a man in search of someone else's answers. Then you don't want to believe what you are told.

I take it you consider yourself a cook booker. That's fine. You defend yourself with statistics. eh .... fine if that floats your boat. BUT .... you just had a thread where you were trying to formalize load .... development .... steps used .... by ..... someone "you" now call an ..... incrementalist.

Your real problem is that you see cast differently from jacketed. It's not. Take 2400 and develop some squib loads for jacketed in a 30/30. I believe you own one and you will see they perform .... easiest at 1600 to 1800 fps too. Just like cast, the easiest accuracy is at low velocity. Is it the best accuracy? Yes and No. If your accuracy standard is based on 3 or 5 shots groups the answer is NO. If you want a 50 shots in 10 shot strings and have to deal with barrel fouling, then the answer is yes, the best accuracy with jacketed will be at low levels too.

JUST .... LIKE .... CAST!!! WHY is this? Answer: Cause you are minimizing heat, friction, fouling and thus harmonics too. Everything we do in the accuracy game from heavy barrels to stiff actions to bedding is designed to play the harmonics game. You understand that you can go up with jacketed and play the harmonics game and get an accurate load.

NEWS FLASH: It's the same with cast. It's just a little more involved because you have to throw a few more variables into the mix. The down side, the more variables, the more chances for mistakes. Mistakes are wilder at HV than low. Simple as that.

Translation: You can't be a HV cast cook booker. Your 223 taught you that.

"You are a man in search of someone else's answers. Then you don't want to believe what you are told."
Absolutely true. I want information from others, see the book-well over 140 contributors. I believe nobody and nothing without objective evidence. Doesn't mean they/it are wrong, means I'm a doubter.

"I take it you consider yourself a cook booker."
No. One can get a rifle to shoot cast bullets pretty well, pretty quickly and easily using what we've learned over the past 100 years. Thus the cookbook.

Some incrementalists scare the beginner or the less experienced, with "There are too many variables to handle and only I can find the way through that maze!"

When I've got the rifle to shoot 1 1/2" or better, and after trying the more effective changes, then I begin on the incremental changes that may or may not affect accuracy. These include turning case necks and changing lube-neither of which have been proved to change accuracy anywhere I've read, but which are considered important by match winners.

"If your accuracy standard is based on 3 or 5 shots groups.."
My accuracy standard is averages of sets of five, five shot groups shot at 100 yards in reasonable conditions, at 10 record shots per 15 minutes. This is my standard, and the FIRST standard that I've ever read or heard of. Doesn't make it "right", does make it a published standard, available to all.

"Everything we do in the accuracy game from heavy barrels to stiff actions to bedding is designed to play the harmonics game."
Not me. I've read a lot, including Vaughn, and I'm far from convinced that any of it is true, and absolutely convinced that nobody has found a or the solution. I ignore harmonics, by which you really mean vibration. It may be there, but I can't fix it or control it and it hasn't bothered me, so who cares.

"You can't be a HV cast cook booker. Your 223 taught you that."
My 223 taught me that nobody's going to consistently win CBA matches, or shoot small groups, with a CF 22. I thought this going in, most experienced shooters knew and know it, now I'm convinced. I've had several Hornets over the years, never had one or knew of one that was a consistent small-group shooter. That should have shown me, but my experimenter brain had to try.

God bless you and God help those trying to decipher what you write.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Joe- Of course variables matter! Everything is a variable from the case to the primer, powder, alloy to ambient temp to humidity affecting bedding. I think we're coming at this from different points of view. The throat changes through the years, brass changes as it's used, powder and primers deteriorate. Maybe we're just way apart on the points we're starting at.

Bret;
Don't let those incrementalists fry your brain! Stand up and think for yourself!
Some variables matter a lot, some a little, and some matter not a whit. Not one whit!
Or at least we don't know that they matter.
Ambient temperature within reason, humidity, primer and powder deterioration or age are those that either don't matter or that haven't been measured yet.

"Of course variables matter!" is not a statement of what is true, but is a statement of what you think should be true. The difference is what we're talking about here.

With the most abject humility and hope for your forebearance, I am;
joe b.

[waksupi]

And that is why I avoid any topics you are involved in. You are told what works, and doesn't work for others. They you think you need to explain it to the person who did it. I can be easily entertained, with other peoples posts, in other topics. You spin your wheels too much.

[felix]

Yes, Joe, in my situation, it is. You have provided me no interest in your endeavors that I can use. ... felix

[Bret4207]

No thanks Joe, I am thinking for myself, just not agreeing with your premise. I applaud your efforts at making things understandable, but you've lost me completely. I just can't figure where it is you're coming from and what your destination is. If someone else can figure it out and help you, more power to both of you.