Odd Statement on Reloading

[jonp]

I was reading a website that has excellent information and history on various calibers and also has several articles on accuracy, bedding barrels, cleaning and breaking in rifles...all pretty good but one statement made me scratch my head and I wanted to get some input from experienced reloaders.

On the site http://www.ballisticstudies.com/ one statement is as follows:

"Handloading adds another set of variables however; a few myths can be cleared up here. The first is that a change in powder brand will dramatically alter groups, this is simply not true. If the rifle shoots 3” groups with H4831 powder at 60,000psi, it will shoot 3” groups with H4350 at 60,000psi. Altering seating depth by a few thou (.2mm) back and forth will not dramatically alter accuracy either. "

Any comments on this?

[Rick Hodges]

This may or may not be true. Two powders may develop 60,000 psi and one delivers 3,000 fps and another only 2500 fps. both may be accurate or neither. Each gun is a law unto itself and burning rates of different powders can and do have an effect on velocity and accuracy.
My experience has been that seating depth may help accuracy but that incremental adjustments result in only small differences.

[gray wolf]

I agree, 60,000 PSI is 60,000 PSI---BUT--
how fast it got there or how long it took to reach it is a different story and in my way of thinking should/could effect the out come. I don't say that you can't get good accuracy from different powders but i don't think I would use this formula for it.
As for the .2 of a MM making a difference ? everything makes a difference, it depends on who does the measuring and how Anal one want to be.

Short answer I wouldn't be concerned about .2 of a MM

[btroj]

Not buying it. Not at all.
Peak pressure isn't what matters, it is the pressure/time curve that matters.
I can reach peak pressure in a 270 win with both 4198 and 4831 but I would expect better accuracy and far more velocity with the 4831.

Seating depth also matters. It might make a 2 inch group into a 1 inch group but it can make a 1 inch group drop to 3/4 inches.

Sounds to me that someone has decided that factory ammo can do anything hand loads can do.

[Wayne Smith]

As for the .2 of a MM making a difference ? everything makes a difference, it depends on who does the measuring and how Anal one want to be.

Short answer I wouldn't be concerned about .2 of a MM

Unless it made a difference in my rifle! My question is: Am I a good enough shooter to notice the difference??

[texassako]

I think it is an odd statement. I think most people would not see much difference in a few thousandths seating difference unless they were already touching the lands. The powder statement is wrong IMO as a general statement. I could prove their statement with my old .25-06 deer load, it shoots a 120 gr Core Lokt about the same with both those powders. The 2 powders have almost the same velocity in the load books. Of course, if it held true why am I switching to a slower powder? I can get the same accuracy at a higher speed or lower pressure. I can also disprove it using the same gun but with a 75 gr bullet since 4350 definitely shoots better than 4831 with those little things.

[osteodoc08]

Velocity/time curves are what make the difference. That's why node tests work. It's all about barrel harmonics and releasing the bullet at the most neutral part of its vibration. That's why free floating works. It keeps barrel harmonics consistent. There are some good slow motion videos on you the that show impressive barrel harmonics, esp on pencil thin AR types.

[Doc_Stihl]

It's hogwash. If that were true there would only be 3 powders available.

[725]

Probably, the statement is a reflection on what criteria is defined as accurate. For some, a 6 inch group at 100 yards is accurate, as where, for some anything larger than 1/2 inch group at 100 yards is inaccurate. As a group, I suspect we tend toward the later, when the great unwashed may lean toward the former.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I'm with Rick Hodges when he said, "Each gun is a law unto itself"

ALSO, if I want to play the semantics game, the statement in the OP says, "a change in powder brand"
BUT, then lists two different powders from one manufacturer [one brand], "H4831" and "H4350".

[Bullshop]

When I had my shop in Alaska once a year I did a reloading class to help folks get started. A visual aid I used and still have are two targets fired from the same gun with the same load but with a bullet seating depth difference of as I recall .015". The groups sizes are about 1.25" to about .25" for 5 shots at 100 yards from a Rem 700 short in 6x45.
First I would show the larger group to the class and ask if they would like to be able to shoot groups like this. Most were impressed and said yes. Then I showed them the smaller group and explained that the difference was only 15 thousandths of an inch difference in seating depth or about the thickness of the paper in a match book. The idea was to show them the potential for improving accuracy that a hand loader has.

[trapper9260]

Not buying it. Not at all.
Peak pressure isn't what matters, it is the pressure/time curve that matters.
I can reach peak pressure in a 270 win with both 4198 and 4831 but I would expect better accuracy and far more velocity with the 4831.

Seating depth also matters. It might make a 2 inch group into a 1 inch group but it can make a 1 inch group drop to 3/4 inches.

Sounds to me that someone has decided that factory ammo can do anything hand loads can do.

You are right about the factory ammo ,it tells alot about what some thinks.I know 2 different powders will do different.like you stated on the rest is so true.

[Whiterabbit]

using a heavy bullet, max load of H110 will kill every time at 50 yards in my pistol. Max load of AA#9 will tumble within feet out of the barrel.

I agree about the seating depth thing. Maybe that's for VLD people, but when I tune my seating depth I usually go a smidge under .1" for each increment. For barnes bullets, that works REALLY well. Cast, seems insensitive to me to OAL. At least less so.

Why on earth would I buy an expensive boutique bullet (berger) that is so sensitive to seating depth that a grian of dirt in the seating die screws up my accuracy?

[sundog]

That premise is not correct, and I am not going to take any time or effort to disprove it. I've been hand loading and shooting way to long to know by my own experience.

[jonp]

It may be brand to him means something different since he is in NZ. Brand not meaning imr v alliant but powder burn like R15 v R22. One our kiwi friends may shed some light on this like Jeff

The statement implies that pressure is the overiding factor in accuracy and seating depth, brass type, powders etc are not that important compared to it which i do not
agree with.

I will agree on one thing in that there are just inaccurate rifles and nothing you do is going to help them out.

He does have some interesting videos and pictures of actual shots and wound cavities onanimals using various calibers/distances.

[btroj]

Overly simplistic comments on Handloaded ammo is generally bunk.

[jonp]

True! He seems to be saying that if you have two powders and they both reach a peak of 60,000 then accuracy will remain the same no matter the powders, pressure curve etc.

I am officially throwing the flag on that one.

[gray wolf]

I agree about the seating depth thing. Maybe that's for VLD people, but when I tune my seating depth I usually go a smidge under .1" for each increment
.100 is a lot more than .2 of a Millimeter .2 MM is closer to .008 ( is my math incorrect ? )
A bullet depending on it's shape and nose material can often be off .003 to .005 just from little discrepancies in seating. + chasing throat wear. Things need to be repeatable to be practical.

[btroj]

True! He seems to be saying that if you have two powders and they both reach a peak of 60,000 then accuracy will remain the same no matter the powders, pressure curve etc.

I am officially throwing the flag on that one.

Maybe he should try comparing a full load of H110 vs Unique in a 44 mag?

[jonp]

Both at 60,000? That would actually be interesting to try his theory out

[smokeywolf]

One of the things I have not seen mentioned with regard to seating depth changes, is the difference this makes in the area of your combustion chamber, not to mention the jump to the rifling. This in turn alters the pressure curve/spike profile. Also, if you are using a bulky powder that leaves say, .150" of space between powder and boolit base (not accounting for the space between kernels in a charge of course grained powder), a .015" change in seating depth would result in a roughly 10% reduction or increase to combustion area within the cartridge.

As far as effect of changes in burn rate and relative quickness of powders to performance changes in a firearm; gray wolf and btroj covered that in posts #3 and #4 respectively.

smokeywolf

[Larry Gibson]

I think I would have to read the entire chapter or section that is quoted from. Taking it as stand alone may simply be out of context.

I think the meaning does have merit in some instances as I have found many times switching to another similar powder of similar burn rate (not really a lot of difference between 4350 and 4831 in regard to burn rate) with top end loads using jacketed bullets does not usually change accuracy. With many rifles a change of seating oal off the lands doesn't change accuracy either.

Comparing a couple 3 or even 5 shot groups doesn't give any real basis for comparison either.

I think many taking this at face value have it out of context. Not wrong by any means but certainly not right either. I doubt taking it as posted there can be a right or wrong answer.....it's just too vague as is.

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

If the rifle shoots 3” groups with H4831 powder at 60,000psi, it will shoot 3” groups with H4350 at 60,000psi.

That pegged my BS meter. Brad and Mr Wolf are right. 60,000 PSI is definitely 60,000 PSI BUT did the load get to the 60,000 PSI in the chamber, in the middle of the barrel or at the muzzle? The pressure/time curve will certainly effect accuracy and I believe more so with boolits than with full length gas checks.

Also it's been my experience that accuracy with boolits is more adversely effected by a longer freebore jump than jacketed.

Rick

[jonp]

The statement i quoted pretty much says what it says and is in context of his point being somevrifles are just not accurate.
Follow the link i posted, click on knowledge base and then basic rifle accuracy and ballistics. Scroll down to Ammunition and read that part. He is saying all other influences on accuracy fall behind bullet concentricity to the bore and throughs that statement in. He is pretty high on Federal Ammo being the best out there.

[Larry Gibson]

"it says and is in context of his point being some rifles are just not accurate"

If that is what the statement is in context to then it is pretty much accurate. A change of powder, as with those mentioned, or a change of bullet seating depth is not likely to make much, if any, difference in accuracy with such a rifle. A rifle of sufficient quality to know the difference is not in the majority. [yes I know there are some (not referring to anyone who has posted but we know who they are....) here who can make any rifle they've ever shot a sub moa rifle because only they know how......but for the rest of us pogues......] This is why a lot of the bench rest loading techniques that are necessary to shoot down in the .000 - .002s really don't make any difference with the majority of rifles. There are a lot more rifles w/o the quality of match and benchrest rifles than there are with. Some things just won't make any difference in accuracy. Appears to me that's what the author of the quoted passage was saying.

Just my take on it is all.

Larry Gibson

[Whitespider]

I'm actually gonna' agree with the "change of powder" statement... to a point.

As long as shot-to-shot velocity variances (consistency) remain comparable (I use extreme spread, and mostly ignore standard deviation), I've never noticed a measurable difference in accuracy... never‼ The shot-to-shot consistency can be adjusted by primer choice, bullet seating depth, and changes in powder charge. If the powder is appropriate for the cartridge, bullet weight and velocity level I see no measurable difference in accuracy... as long as I'm willing to "tweak" the above variables to achieve shot-to-shot consistency.

My "standard" for bottle-neck rifle cartridges is an extreme spread of 25 FPS or less for a 20-round string... preferably less, a few of my loads run in the low teens.
My "standard" for straight-wall revolver cartridges is an extreme spread of 50 FPS or less for a 18-round string (three full cylinders)... preferably less, a few of my loads run in the 20's.

To achieve that sort of consistency I've found the slowest powder that will still produce low extreme spreads (at the velocity level I'm looking for) is the easiest to "tune". Meaning I start with a likely powder and keep trying the next slowest (that I have in inventory) until consistency begins to noticeably suffer. Then I try different primers, and lastly try different seating depths. For example, when I worked up my prairie dog load for the .220 Swift I started with H4895, then IMR 4064, then Reloader 15, then H380, and finally H414... consistency went to hell with H414. I ended up going with H380 simply because it was a ball powder and meters like water (convenience), but any of the other 3 shot just as consistently with a little tweaking. They all shot the exact same size groups at comparable velocity, but with different primers... the H380 load required a "hotter" primer to produce a 20-round extreme spread of just 18 FPS and 100-yard groups right at ½ inch.

By far, in my experiences, it's the bullet that determines accuracy... if the gun don't like the bullet you're flat wasting your time. When I start a new load project I acquire a few of as many different bullets of the same weight as possible (by the beg, borrow and steal method) and load 3-5 of each over the same powder charge, then shoot a group with each bullet... I discard the worst and only concentrate on the two or three "best-of-the-lot" when doing load development. I do not pick the bullet and try to make the gun shoot it (an effort in futility in my book), rather I let the gun pick the bullet and "tweak" the load to "help" the gun shoot it.

I've never bought the "barrel harmonics" thing... if the load produces extremely consistent velocities, then the (so-called) harmonics will also be consistent. It's the load that effects (or produces) harmonics... it ain't the harmonics that effect the load.


addendum; Oh... and that ½-inch group from my Swift ain't a 3 or 5 shot group... it's a 20 shot group‼
I see no value in any group size containing less that 10 shots.
*

[Larry Gibson]

"I've never bought the "barrel harmonics" thing... if the load produces extremely consistent velocities, then the (so-called) harmonics will also be consistent. It's the load that effects (or produces) harmonics... it ain't the harmonics that effect the load."

Concur. I also don't buy off on the "ladder" technique for developing a load.

Larry Gibson

[MtGun44]

I have many guns that do not agree with this theory. If the theory
doesn't match reality, what is it's use?

Nice sounding theoretical baloney. I can switch powders and/or change seating
depth and change the accuracy. I have to admit, 0.2mm being only .008 inch makes
that down in the "not likely to notice range" for most guns. But double or triple that
and it can be significant.

I will put in the caveat that I am not actually measuring pressure (as are most
of us except Larry Gibson) but using book loads that are reported to be at max
pressure.

Bill

[Pb2au]

It's hogwash. If that were true there would only be 3 powders available.

And the circle takes the square.
Doc Stihl nailed it.

[Whitespider]

Concur. I also don't buy off on the "ladder" technique for developing a load.

Yeah... also concur.
The ladder technique is near laughable... ain't no friggin' way a single round of anything can tell you cold squat‼
*

[Whitespider]

Doc Stihl nailed it.

No he didn't... Doc_Stihl is thinking too simplistically.
There's more to powder choice than pressure... there's the velocity relationship, loading density, expansion ratio, and at least a dozen more.
Think of it as more like micro-groups (burn rate groups) of powder... groups of maybe 3-6 that all pretty much do the same thing in a given cartridge. But the groups overlap, some members of one group are also members of the next or previous group. Some cartridges may be flexible enough to efficiently use two, three or even more groups of powder depending on bullet weight... other cartridges may only be able to efficiently use one narrow group (such as the .22 Hornet). You could load your .30-06 to 60,000 PSI with 700X, Red Dot or Bullseye, but consistency and velocity wouldn't be near the same as a 60,000 PSI load using 4064, Reloader 15 or Varget.

Like I said, if the powder (burn rate group) is appropriate for the cartridge, bullet weight and required velocity level... accuracy ain't gonna' change as long as you're willing to tune consistency as needed (like primer choice and such).
*

[Pb2au]

No he didn't... Doc_Stihl is thinking to simplistically.
*

Doc may have been speaking tongue in cheek, but his point was clear. So yes he did.
If powder A performs the same as B, C, X, and R because they produce the same pressure, then B,C,X and R would be redundant. I believe that was the point that Doc was making quite clearly.

[williamwaco]

I sorta agree with it. but it goes WAY too far.

I don't know about the pressure statement and group size.
I do not think I believe that.

The rifle has no idea which powder you are using.
It is like a quarterback that gets sacked from behind.
All it knows is that "BAM" it really got a blow.

Accuracy is going to depend on how the rifle reacts to that blow.
How it reacts and how consistently it reacts to subsequent blows

I absolutely do not believe that there is any magic powder that will produce the magically smaller groups than any other powder.

I believe that you can work up very accurate loads with several powders with a burning rate within a range that is optimum for your specific rifle. I believe it because I have done it with many rifles over many years.

I also believe that any given burning rate that produces minimum sized groups with one rifle say .243, may be completely unsuited for a different .243 with a different barrel design, stock, design, bedding method.

The same thing goes for bullets. A 75 grain hollow point and a 100 grain spitzer will very likely require a different burning rate to produce consistent results.

[Whitespider]

If powder A performs the same as B, C, X, and R because they produce the same pressure, then B,C,X and R would be redundant.

You're still thinking too simplistically...
Just because powders A, B, C, X, and R perform the same in cartridge Y, doesn't mean they'll perform the same in cartridge Z... so, although they may be redundant in cartridge Y, they are not redundant in cartridge Z. But, powders C, R, M, L and P may be redundant in cartridge Z. And all of the mentioned powders may be redundant in cartridge YZ, while only powder A will work in cartridge ZY... yet, powder A may be redundant with powders D, E, F, and G in cartridge ZY.
Powders tend to swap places on the burn rate scale when changing cartridges, or even bullet weight or type... it flat ain't as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.


addendum; The reason we have so many powders is because we have so many different cartridges, and bullet weights for each cartridge. If we only had three cartridges, each using one single bullet weight... then, and only then, would we need only three powders.
*

[shooter93]

There are so many variables that blanket statements like that can either be hogwash or closer to reality then people realize. I haven't read the entire article so I'd have to do that to understand his context. One thing I do believe though is EVERYTHING matters. It's a matter of degree and you need a firearm and a shooter capable of telling those differences. Even the bench type used in testing can have an effect. At one time we had a rail gun and while not the most practical firearm you see and find out things with those than can be quite surprising.

[nanuk]

until someone actually tries this with pressure equipment, all we have is speculation and conjecture

your theory, my theory, his theory.....

we all have our beliefs, and stick to them until proven wrong.... no point arguing about it.

if you can't prove it, then you are just blowing hot air, No?

[tazman]

That odd statement in the original post reminded me of a customer at a gun shop I witnessed 35 years ago. He walked in with an old 98 action Mauser with a pitted barrel and complained about the sights. He said he wanted to get a high dollar scope for it so he could aim better.
The gun shop owner suggested he might do better with a better rifle. The customer replied that "Any rifle will shoot bullets through the same hole. You just have to be able to see well enough to aim right."
There was no convincing him otherwise.
Thankfully I never saw him again.

[Digital Dan]

If
hogwash = A
Horse feathers = B
The averages of 6 primers = C
1mm = D
Blog writers = E
The ammo and component shortage = F

Then:

ACE=ED^3/FC^-4THEREBEBETTERTHINGSTOGETSPOOLEDUPABOUT

[Whitespider]

Then:
ACE=ED^3/FC^-4THEREBEBETTERTHINGSTOGETSPOOLEDUPABOUT

Too damn funny... and too damn true...
*

[OverMax]

I can't agree. If its author was insinuating a generic idea relevant to all calibers. I don't see how its possible.


"Any rifle will shoot bullets through the same hole. You just have to be able to see well enough to aim right." ___Now that Sir was indeed a classic humors statement. lol

[MT Chambers]

I'm sure BR shooters, both j-word and cast, would find most of those statements laughable, maybe for the average reloader it may be believable.

[btroj]

Yeah... also concur.
The ladder technique is near laughable... ain't no friggin' way a single round of anything can tell you cold squat‼
*

No. The ladder test does have a place. The ONLY purpose of the ladder test is to determine a small range of powder charges that give minimal vertical at a specific range. It is best done at 300 plus yards.

It isn't about the most accurate load, it is about finding a range of loads with minimal vertical across the range of charges. The point is to minimize any vertical due to variations in powder charge.

People constantly want to bastardized the ladder test to find accurate loads and what not. It was never intended for that use and is worthless for that purpose.

[jonp]

That pegged my BS meter. Brad and Mr Wolf are right. 60,000 PSI is definitely 60,000 PSI BUT did the load get to the 60,000 PSI in the chamber, in the middle of the barrel or at the muzzle? The pressure/time curve will certainly effect accuracy and I believe more so with boolits than with full length gas checks.

Also it's been my experience that accuracy with boolits is more adversely effected by a longer freebore jump than jacketed.

Rick

That was my thinking

[Whitespider]

The ladder test does have a place.
It isn't about the most accurate load, it is about finding a range of loads with minimal vertical across the range of charges. The point is to minimize any vertical due to variations in powder charge.

Yes, I understand the purpose... or perceived purpose of the ladder test.
My point is that firing one round of each powder charge is not informative... just as a single 3-shot group is meaningless. Now 10 ladder tests, or better yet 20, may be of some value. The vertical spread is caused by velocity variation (or at least that's what the ladder test suggests), just because 3 or 4 charges were close in velocity once doesn't mean they ever will be again. The ladder test does not account for the velocity variation of each individual powder charge.

Look at it this way...
Let's say the extreme spread of each powder charge is 150 FPS (for a string of shots), and the difference in average velocity between charge 5, 6, 7 and 8 is 150 FPS (say the average of #5 is 3000, and #8 is 3150)
If the single shot of charge #5 happened to be on the high (3075 FPS), and the single shot of #8 was on the low side (3075 FPS), and #6 and 7 shot at about average (3050 and 3100 respectively), they would appear very close on the ladder test.
But what if the single shot of charge #5 happened to be on the low side (2925), and #8 was on the high side (3225)??
See?? those 4 charge levels could leave the barrel at identical velocities... or 300 FPS apart... or anywhere in-between those extremes. There ain't any way a single ladder test can tell you cold squat... 10 ladder tests maybe... 20 ladder tests would be more reliable.

Personally I'll leave the ladder test to y'all... the chronograph is many times more useful, and has been the single best tool I've ever invested in for finding accuracy.
*

[rhead]

The statement may be true. what would he consider to be a "DRAMATIC CHANGE"? ~ .2mm change is what I use when fine tuning the boolit seating depth on my loads. (~one eighth turn of the seating plug.) The author stated that if he shot a three inch group with one powder that gave 60,000 psi another powder giving 60,000 would give a three inch group. I am guessing that this is at 100 yards or meters.

If he is doing his study with a three in rifle he might not have seen a dramatic change.

I seldom see a dramatic change on any of my rifles. I see a series of very small changes if they go the right direction I keep making them until they turn around or until I get nervous about pressure. Others may have a different view of what a dramatic change is.

[btroj]

The ladder test predates the readily available chronographs of today. It was a way to determine a sweet spot, for a particular rifle, where slight changes in powder charge, and hence velocity, demonstrated small amounts of vertical on targets.

In reality it is of much less use today because of chronographs. The real key is that this, like many other specialized techniques, has little use other than in a specific area of target shooting. The ladder test was used to reduce vertical in 600 to 1000 yard groups.