What do you consider a test?

[JohnH]

I've come to the place that I'll shoot as much as 100 rounds of a load that is reasonable. Don't have a real solid definition of that, prolly 10 shots staying in 3". If a load obviously ain't shooting...barely stays on a 8 1/2 x 11 paper or a 9" plate. I won't even bother shootin' more of it. Sometimes a load will shoot real nice, like under 1 1/2" then it won't hardly stay in 4. From time to time I'll come back to that load, but mostly, if moving the charge up and down don't improve it, then it's out. If on the other hand a load shoots reasonable, and has a decent pattern of shrinking and growing as the load is shifted up and down, then I'll stay with it, continueing to change one or two things at time hoping it'll improve. Sometimes it does sometimes it don't. But when it does it is quite noticeable.

Speaking to 22 rimfires, CE Harris says that in his experience after a 1500 round test, claims of better groups being produced by measuring rim thickness or weighing, were the result of insufficient testing.

So what say ye? What makes a good load a good load, and how did you arrive at that conclusion?

[BruceB]

John;

What range are you speaking of, when you say that 3" is reasonable, and with how many rounds in the group?

For my purposes, most of my rifle-load development tests are fired at fifty yards at the beginning. Loads that show promise at that distance (with TEN-round groups) are then put to work at 100 yards.

I consider anything which groups ten rounds in less than an inch at 50 as being worthy of further attention and development. This applies to either iron sights or scopes. My loads are test-fired from an excellent, solid rest on the super-comfortable benchrest in Der Schuetzenwagen.

Since I'm seldom loading for matches (super accuracy) or for hunting (maximum speed with accuracy, plus after-impact bullet performance), I'm mostly doing this for pure entertainment and interest. Most of my rifles are not contenders for blue ribbons in any event, and I simply enjoy the dickens out of finding just how well they'll shoot my cast boolits. Also, my autoloaders WILL function properly, or I'll keep testing loads until they do, by gum.

Once I move to 100 yards with the better candidate loads from 50 yards, I'm usually pretty happy with groups in the sub-1.5" area, and plumb tickled if they break that magical "inch barrier". Again, I speak of TEN-round groups, which is much more demanding of all three factors....rifle, load, and shooter. Actually, I'm inclined to go along with another post I saw here in the last couple of days, wherein the writer stated that after a LOT of years of testing and experience, he's really pretty content with 2" groups at 100. A man can do a heck of a lot of good shooting with a 2"-capable rifle!

[NVcurmudgeon]

What is a test? Depends on the rifle that is being tested, and for which purpose. I have only one cast boolit rifle with a scope, and that an old, trustworthy Redfield Bear Cub 2 3/4 X. That rifle manages to keep five shots in two inches at 100 yd. with my better boolits. Testing was limited to comparing two boolits, loading up and down with one powder, and once the best powder charge was found, tinkering with seating depth. Most important, IMO, was testing for repeatability. A one hole group is well and good, but it's not nearly as valuable as a two inch group that can be repeated without fail over several weeks.

I also have an NRA Sporter Springfield that is accurate enough to respond to special techniques. With this rifle I shot ten groups of five at 50 yd. then moved to 100 because it was too accurate to tell any difference at 50. Over the years, I have shot 73 groups at 100. The original boolit has been repaced by one slightly more accurate. Three powders were tested, only to return to the starting load. Powder charge and seating depth have been optimized, and I have been able to satisfy myself of the value of weighing boolits, segregating cavities, and orienting boolits. (Slight difference, but it is there. NRA Alox has won out over another lube, and barrel temperature makes a difference. One of these days I may get back to testing magnum vs. standard primers, but that is about all I have left. Has it been worth all the research? Yes, for the small amount of low-level competition that I participate in, this rifle has been tweaked from 2.6" groups to 1.8" groups. Do I load all my ammunition using these tricks? Hardly, huge boulders at long unknown ranges don't seem to require all the tricks!

The other CB rifles in my collection are milsurp, sporterized milsurp, and ordinary hunting rifles. If they will stay within WWII Garand acceptance standards of 3 MOA it's a lot better than I can shoot.

[felix]

Bill, that test for day in and day out accuracy can be deciphered with a chrono. If the powder of choice is stable in everything else, except maybe for its burn rate, perhaps the best load with it is in the middle of the velocity curve where the curve is fairly straight and flat. In other words, over the hump by a grain or two. For example, if by changing the powder from say 13-15 grains and there is no shift in target impact or practical accuracy, picking 14 grains on an average shooting day would be the load to use. Thataway the day could be hotter or colder for that one grain delta in either direction. ... felix