Load DataTitan ReloadingReloading EverythingMidSouth Shooters Supply
WidenersLee PrecisionRotoMetals2Inline Fabrication
Repackbox
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Brent 2 shot testing method

  1. #1
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    193

    Brent 2 shot testing method

    I have just read where this method for evaluating accuracy was mentioned. Can someone please enlighten me on how this test is performed.
    Thanks, Richard

  2. #2
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,577
    Richard it's sort of a ladder load that starts with zero compression and increased by a grain or two every two shots fired.
    The tightest two shots can be verified by 5-10 shots to get a better average.
    I use a three shot ladder.
    Maybe Brent will chime in. I don't see him post to often anymore.
    Kurt

  3. #3
    Boolit Grand Master Don McDowell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hell Gap Wy
    Posts
    6,094
    The 2 shot method is a good way to find good loads without loading 10 or more of any one load and finding out later that you got a lot of trigger time in, but could of used the powder and bullets for better purpose.
    Long range rules, the rest drool.

  4. #4
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Lead pot View Post
    Richard it's sort of a ladder load that starts with zero compression and increased by a grain or two every two shots fired.
    Kurt
    OK! I’m all for saving powder and lead. Question. All this relates to PP bullet. Say I want to use a bullet seating depth of .125. For the first two loads I drop tube a charge that gives me a seating depth, with OP wad of .125 uncompressed. Would I load the next two loads with an increase of say, one grain and compress the load to maintain the .125 seating depth? It seems like accepted wisdom is to have as little bullet in the case that is practical short of breech seating.
    Kurt, Don...thank you

  5. #5
    Moderator


    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Way up in the Cascades
    Posts
    8,084
    Yes indeed! Great systems, 2 or 3. Can't tell you how many times I loaded 50 of something and came home with 35 of them, and there they sit.

  6. #6
    Boolit Grand Master Don McDowell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hell Gap Wy
    Posts
    6,094
    Don't get wrapped up in the seating depth thing. Go at it just like you would any other bullet, the target will tell you how much compression ,seating depth etc the rifle wants.
    I seat my bullets quite a bit deeper than what some would suggest, I got started doing that after close examination of a bullet pulled from an original Sharps Creedmoor round...
    Wad stack under the bullet is important too. The less junk you stuff into the case between the powder and the bullet the better.
    Fouling control with a paper patch bullet is vitally important to accuracy and maybe more so than seating depth.
    Long range rules, the rest drool.

  7. #7
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    193
    OK, just need to get out and do it.
    Thanks again, Richard

  8. #8
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,577
    Richard the seating depth is your choice. And this ladder load works with PP or a GG. I personally like my bullet in the case 1/8" like you use so I don't have to worry about it falling out when time is running tight.
    Start your ladder with all the wads you use at your 1/8" over uncompressed powder and set your compression accordingly. I use a OJ carton wad over the powder then the 1/8" lube wad and a single .040" plastic or I might use two as well as a .060" depending which caliber I'm using. But compress the powder with what ever wad you like to the depth of all wads you use so the bullet seats your .125". Then just add a grain or two for each 2 or 3 rounds you use for your ladder load till you get the maximum compression. With Swiss you will find a close load with .060 to maybe .150" compression and Olde Eynsford 2F around .250" I use the three load ladder and usually 21 rounds fired I see what will need a little tweaking for a match load. Then I will have fun shooting 20 rounds for trigger time and see how the two bank shots will hold an average.
    I don't have a long range past 200 yards here so the final load development test is at a match usually
    Kurt

  9. #9
    Banned


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    NJ via TX
    Posts
    3,876
    stacked wad loads *can* work, but typically might require more testing time, tweaking, and evaluation at specific distances ... which is as one would expect. almost all of this stuff is subjective, particularly cartridge loads, and the final analysis of what does and doesn't work will get born from personal testing.

  10. #10
    Boolit Grand Master

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northwest Ohio
    Posts
    14,457
    I start with a set depth into the case and find the sweet spot for the powder then adjust depth a little each way to see if it improves the best charges groups any. I chronograph while testing these loads also and have found Standard deviation and extreme spreads tend to drop ( lower) as the load gets close then level at optimum compression then start to rise again shortly after.

  11. #11
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    193
    Thanks country gent. I will be setting up my chronograph when I start shooting and working up a load. Interesting observation about the SD.
    Best Richard

  12. #12
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,592
    Whoa, the 2-shot method is definitely not anything to do with a ladder load. That is entirely different and appropriate for different situations.

    The 2-shot method is one of the few ways you can confidently find small differences in precision between two different loads. It is an actual statistical test, not simply a statistic (which is quite different). You can read about it here
    http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessi...ng%20loads.htm

  13. #13
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,577
    With all do respect Brent I'm not scientific enough to use your 2 shot method. I think I will keep using my 3 shot ladder loads to find the tightest down range group

  14. #14
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,592
    I'm not a ballistics engineer, but I can use a software program to get sight estimates. Using that method is much the same. Just depends on what you want to do. Finding really small improvements require something like this, or just blind luck.

  15. #15
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,577
    Brent we all have our way to get the best out of out loads for match accuracy. I don't believe in luck. When I make a good score or a bad one it's not luck it's either screw up or I shot well.
    I'm one of the anal shooters that will start with a two or three shot group that ends up in 10 to 30 shot groups simulating a silhouette match less the chicken line. If that ending 30 shot group has a 2MOA group out of the total 30 shots my load is a failure and I try to improve on it.

    Granted I just cant shoot as well as I have in the past, age is catching up on me so I need all the help with a good load to carry me through and a larger then a 2 MOA just don't get the job done.
    For the long range matches anything more then a 2 MOA and your out in the 9 ring barring the wind call.
    But again when all this testing is done at 200 yards chances are beyond midrange all might be lost at the 800 to the 1000 yard line.

    Brent you are one of the shooters I put in the class as being a hard holder. You do well with the handicap of only testing at less then 200 yards. Would you improve if you had the use of a longer range to work out your loads? I would think the guys that have the use of say 600 to 1000 yards would be at the top of the leader board at a higher percentage then what they are.

  16. #16
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,592
    Well, I'm pretty much done with arguing about the validity of statistics as applied to shooting. I wrote up that method to be helpful to those trying to wring the last drop of precision out of their loads. I've gotten a lot more grief than thanks for it. Use'em or don't; that's not my call.

  17. #17
    Banned


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    NJ via TX
    Posts
    3,876
    i think it makes sense that a total of five of the "two shot method" (or basically, two consecutive shot "groups"), where the base average of each two consecutive shots is more indicative of consistent accuracy then measuring the outer most target face holes of ten consecutive shots. and, besides testing sans wind, off as stable a platform as possible, such as a led sled. naturally this works with one load only, and changing one parameter (ladder loading, etc) means doing it all over again. randy wright's ppb book describes this type of "statistical two shot group". instead of have one data point for the outer most holes in a ten shot group, five groups of two shots yields five data points, and statistically that makes lots more sense and is a truer picture of how a particular load functions, given both the shooter and the environment of the testing. a simple statistical 200 yard load test example would be ...

    two shot group 1 = 7.50"
    two shot group 2 = 4.50"
    two shot group 3 = 2.50"
    two shot group 4 = 3.50"
    two shot group 5 = 3.00"
    total for all shots = 21.0"

    average for ten shots = 21.0" divided by 5 groupings = 4.20", or just over a 2MOA for that particular load, under those conditions, for that shooter. noticing that the first group could have been a flyer could mean this might have been a sub 2MOA load. if the distance between the furthest holes was used, which could be lots more than 7.5", that would be even less indicative of how the load actually worked. just simple statistics. right on brent.

  18. #18
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    193
    As the OP and a total novice at BP cartridge shooting, for this statistical method to be a valid, wouldn’t one have to collect the data at the actual range you’ll be shooting at for score and then how is wind effect on individual group size accounted for? I’m not trying to be argumentative just really interested.
    Thanks, Richard

  19. #19
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,577
    Brent I'm not arguing with you on your way of doing this and I haven't seen any of these posts at this point doing it. Your article is a good explanation for getting a average so I will just say relax...…..Kurt

  20. #20
    Banned


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    NJ via TX
    Posts
    3,876
    Quote Originally Posted by flatsguide View Post
    As the OP and a total novice at BP cartridge shooting, for this statistical method to be a valid, wouldn’t one have to collect the data at the actual range you’ll be shooting at for score and then how is wind effect on individual group size accounted for? I’m not trying to be argumentative just really interested.
    Thanks, Richard
    NO, not at all. yer evaluating a specific load in as controlled an environment as possible, wind and weather and shooter be as they may, if you only have a 100 yard range, so be it. the bigger factors will be you, the shooter, how you bench the gun, then comes the wind and overall environment. consistency be thy name, which also includes how consistently well you've built yer cartridges.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check