“Mind blow” I mean it’s all made up self deception!!!??

[Mungo]

I appreciate that stats get a "bad press" but the fundamentals, and that's pretty much what we are dealing with here, are pretty much like any other "law" of physics or similar - the basic stats are as fundamental as gravity. So the truth is that the stats really are fundamental to our real lives and we have no choice but to work with them. For the first while that I reloaded I got carried away with all the various processes etc. that the internet detailed and it took me some time for it to dawn on me that, actually, I wasn't achieving anything other than fooling myself. On a positive note the extra practice shooting at targets was a good thing so there was a benefit but the only actual information I gained was that I'd been an idiot.

There’s an interesting parallel here with the development of proper randomly controlled double blind trials in medicine.

It took decades to force doctors to accept that ‘personal conviction and real world experience’ were a dangerously inadequate way to assess the effectiveness of medical interventions.

People just don’t like to be told their perception and intuition is very flawed, and want to believe that experience outweighs the maths.

 

[Mungo]

I think I'm starting to get it now. Trying to work out why I get to little groups when the science says I'm doing it all wrong.

I load 3 per charge weight (1% of case capacity increments) over 5 charge weights, bracketing a GRT/OBT node. Chronograph them all and check velocity matches the prediction, if not recalibrate and go again. If no obvious node detected I repeat so I have 6 of each. Very rare that this doesn't hint at something. If I see what looks like an obvious node I repeat with 5 shots to check. I then go out to 200m, 300m and 400m to check drops with 5 shots each. By the time this has been done I have 23 shots down the road with my chosen load. If they are all sub 1/2 minute I'm happy and that's my load banked. If not its back to the drawing board.

It might still not be "statistically relevant" but it tends to work in real life and without putting 250 bullets down the range.

Another illustration. Suppose you did your load development, and got a series of targets that looked like this:


I suspect most people would see a pattern there, with groups getting tighter until the 5th target, then opening up again (reading left to right, row by row).

But again - these are simulated shots. This time, each x value and each y value is drawn AT RANDOM from a distribution with a mean of 0 and an standard deviation of 0.5 (roughly approximating a 1MOA gun). This was the very first run I did of this simulation, and I was lucky to get a pattern that 'made sense'. But that's the point - you can always make it 'make sense'.

 

[caorach]

There’s an interesting parallel here with the development of proper randomly controlled double blind trials in medicine.

It took decades to force doctors to accept that ‘personal conviction and real world experience’ were a dangerously inadequate way to assess the effectiveness of medical interventions.

People just don’t like to be told their perception and intuition is very flawed, and want to believe that experience outweighs the maths.

I'm an engineer (admittedly with very poor, non-existent, maths for an engineer) but when I started reloading I never thought to stand back and look at what I was doing. Once I did I realised that I wasn't doing anything and it's lucky I'm not paid to engineer anything important

Equally some years back I was on some medication and after I stopped taking it I thought to look up the side effects (you don't want to do that while taking it). At that time I had subscriptions to various science journals etc. and was able to read the primary research. Now clearly my understanding of what was said was superficial at best but what really stood out was that more people in the placebo group reported side effects than in the group who were being given the medication. It brought home to me just how strongly we see or experience what we expect to see even if nothing has actually changed and also that this applies to everyone and there's nothing we can do about it. The only thing that saves us from this sort of delusion is the tests made up by those dodgy statistician types

 

[Utectok]

I still wonder why these top f class guys do tuning tests with three shot groups (sometimes even 2 shot)? It seems to me it’s quite possible tuning may do almost nothing?

 

[Mungo]

I still wonder why these top f class guys do tuning tests with three shot groups (sometimes even 2 shot)? It seems to me it’s quite possible tuning may do almost nothing?

it does precisely nothing

 

[Utectok]

it does precisely nothing

It might increase their confidence going into a match?

 

[Mungo]

It might increase their confidence going into a match?

Ah! That’s different. Yes - a huge amount of this is psychological. Which can’t be sniffed at.

Everyone is absolutely entitled to do what works for them. And there is a vast and entirely robust literature that shows that confidence and mental state makes an enormous difference when technological differences are negligible…

 

[Mungo]

I'm an engineer (admittedly with very poor, non-existent, maths for an engineer) but when I started reloading I never thought to stand back and look at what I was doing. Once I did I realised that I wasn't doing anything and it's lucky I'm not paid to engineer anything important

Equally some years back I was on some medication and after I stopped taking it I thought to look up the side effects (you don't want to do that while taking it). At that time I had subscriptions to various science journals etc. and was able to read the primary research. Now clearly my understanding of what was said was superficial at best but what really stood out was that more people in the placebo group reported side effects than in the group who were being given the medication. It brought home to me just how strongly we see or experience what we expect to see even if nothing has actually changed and also that this applies to everyone and there's nothing we can do about it. The only thing that saves us from this sort of delusion is the tests made up by those dodgy statistician types

I resisted ever even starting reloading because the number of variables seemed utterly impossible to master. I was overawed by the bullsh*t I read, and felt there was no way I would ever have the time, resources or ability to actually be able to produce an accurate load. It seemed like something only the most profoundly dedicated could possibly achieve. This was coming at it from an understanding of stats, where I assumed that the only way you could do load development was by firing hundreds of rounds.

And then I started to understand what people were actually doing, and realised it was all voodoo. I started running simulations, and consistently threw out patterns that were indistinguishable from what people said to expect from load development, even though I KNEW the simulations were random.

So I finally accepted that reloading was feasible when I accepted that there was no way a hobbyist had any hope of finding the ‘most accurate’ load, and all I needed to do was pick a safe load. It was really easy after that…

 

[HonestJohn]

So, we should all just shoot factory ammo at the end of the day.

 

[Mungo]

So, we should all just shoot factory ammo at the end of the day.

Broadly, yes. You’re certainly very, very unlikely to improve on factory accuracy.

But there are some very good reasons not to stick with factory. It may be difficult or impossible to find ammo in your particular chambering. Or with the bullet type you want,

Or factory ammo may not provide the terminal performance you want.

The latter is why I reload in 6.5 Creedmoor. I cannot improve on factory accuracy, but I can get an extra 200fps by hand loading.

 

[Mungo]

Another illustration. Suppose you did your load development, and got a series of targets that looked like this:

View attachment 286281
I suspect most people would see a pattern there, with groups getting tighter until the 5th target, then opening up again (reading left to right, row by row).

But again - these are simulated shots. This time, each x value and each y value is drawn AT RANDOM from a distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (roughly approximating a 1MOA gun). This was the very first run I did of this simulation, and I was lucky to get a pattern that 'made sense'. But that's the point - you can always make it 'make sense'.

And now - compare that with real life load development, and tell me that there is ANY difference between what you see in the random simulation and my groups…

 

[Utectok]

Broadly, yes. You’re certainly very, very unlikely to improve on factory accuracy.

But there are some very good reasons not to stick with factory. It may be difficult or impossible to find ammo in your particular chambering. Or with the bullet type you want,

Or factory ammo may not provide the terminal performance you want.

The latter is why I reload in 6.5 Creedmoor. I cannot improve on factory accuracy, but I can get an extra 200fps by hand loading.

I think you can reduce sd by using home loads too as the actual amount of propellant in factory loads varies quite a lot (up to 1gn in some cases). It probably matters less than you would think but I certainly weight to a higher degree of consistency in my loads and at longer range I suspect this reduces vertical spread a bit. For normal stalking distances sub 200m I’d say it is irrelevant.

 

[308tikka]

You’re certainly very, very unlikely to improve on factory accuracy.

Well you might be, but as a sweeping generalisation , very very wrong. Even with thrown charges. Measure a box of 20 for seating depth consistency, runout, powder charge and case volume sometime, and of course remembering virgin brass, not formed in your chamber. All deer acceptable of course and most find the time invested to make handloads much better than factory is rarely worth it for deer, but thats a different issue.

I still wonder why these top f class guys do tuning tests

I always get a good laugh from SD.

 

[Heym SR20]

And now - compare that with real life load development, and tell me that there is ANY difference between what you see in the random simulation and my groups…

Looking at those loads I would go for the 44.0gr as appears to be in the middle of tighter groups and I would choose it in the knowledge that I probably wouldn’t be wrong.

But I am lacking a lot of information that only @Mungo would have known about how those groups felt. Did he pull one in an earlier group. Is the bolt getting sticky etc.

I now understand why many say use of a chronograph gives better information. It is measuring just one variable, whilst group size has many many factors - mostly to do with the individual behind the rifle

And with hunting ammo, group size is just one factor. Downrange bullet performance is far far more important, and here velocity and bullet construction will be more important than group size, provided the group size is small enough to ensure consistent ability to hit intended target.

Trouble is with real life, that decision making is usually on the basis of imperfect information. You don’t know all the facts, nor all the implications of your decision - but sitting doing nothing and not making a decision is not usually an option.

Mind you sitting on your backside doing not a lot may be the best decision- especially if you have food, warmth, company and the alternative is sitting in Christmas traffic and facing Christmas eve shopping in sleety rain.

 

[Mungo]

Looking at those loads I would go for the 44.0gr as appears to be in the middle of tighter groups and I would choose it in the knowledge that I probably wouldn’t be wrong.

But I am lacking a lot of information that only @Mungo would have known about how those groups felt. Did he pull one in an earlier group. Is the bolt getting sticky etc.

I now understand why many say use of a chronograph gives better information. It is measuring just one variable, whilst group size has many many factors - mostly to do with the individual behind the rifle

And with hunting ammo, group size is just one factor. Downrange bullet performance is far far more important, and here velocity and bullet construction will be more important than group size, provided the group size is small enough to ensure consistent ability to hit intended target.

Trouble is with real life, that decision making is usually on the basis of imperfect information. You don’t know all the facts, nor all the implications of your decision - but sitting doing nothing and not making a decision is not usually an option.

Mind you sitting on your backside doing not a lot may be the best decision- especially if you have food, warmth, company and the alternative is sitting in Christmas traffic and facing Christmas eve shopping in sleety rain.

You went straight for the 44gr because ‘it was in the middle of the tighter groups’.

But go back and look at the simulated groups. Can you really say that my real groups somehow show a real pattern, when the simulated groups are genuinely random? They’re indistinguishable. My real groups show the exact same level of variation as randomly simulated groups. But we’re desperate to see a pattern…

 

[Mungo]

Well you might be, but as a sweeping generalisation , very very wrong. Even with thrown charges. Measure a box of 20 for seating depth consistency, runout, powder charge and case volume sometime, and of course remembering virgin brass, not formed in your chamber. All deer acceptable of course and most find the time invested to make handloads much better than factory is rarely worth it for deer, but thats a different issue.

I always get a good laugh from SD.

Prove me wrong. Shoot a box of factory ammo, then shoot 20 rounds of your home loads. I will be very surprised if there’s a statistically measurable difference in group size.

 

[308tikka]

Prove me wrong. Shoot a box of factory ammo, then shoot 20 rounds of your home loads. I will be very surprised if there’s a statistically measurable difference in group size.

Bore off mate. Im an international level target shooter who competes around the world, and shoots thousands of factory and thousands of my own handloads, depending on the rules of the competition.

Trust me - my handloads are better than any poxy box of 20 you can buy in a UK shop.

 

[Mungo]

I think you can reduce sd by using home loads too as the actual amount of propellant in factory loads varies quite a lot (up to 1gn in some cases). It probably matters less than you would think but I certainly weight to a higher degree of consistency in my loads and at longer range I suspect this reduces vertical spread a bit. For normal stalking distances sub 200m I’d say it is irrelevant.

Very good point.

 

[Mungo]

Bore off mate. Im an international level target shooter who competes around the world, and shoots thousands of factory and thousands of my own handloads, depending on the rules of the competition.

Trust me - my handloads are better than any poxy box of 20 you can buy in a UK shop.

Ok - then you’re in the tiny minority who probably has shot large enough numbers to know. I completely take it back.

But what you’re doing is utterly different from what 99% of people are doing when they reload. You and other high level competitors are firing the numbers required to make informed decisions.

The point is that people think they can find accuracy copying the procedures that people such as yourself use, but don’t have the time and resources to shoot the sheer numbers required to do it properly.

You are not at all representative of what most people do. I have enormous respect for what people like you are capable of.

Though I would still be fascinated to see what the difference actually is between your home loads and factory ammo, fired from the same gun under the same conditions!

 

[308tikka]

Ok - then you’re in the tiny minority who probably has shot large enough numbers to know. I completely take it back.

But what you’re doing is utterly different from what 99% of people are doing when they reload. You and other high level competitors are firing the numbers required to make informed decisions.

The point is that people think they can find accuracy copying the procedures that people such as yourself use, but don’t have the time and resources to shoot the sheer numbers required to do it properly.

You are not at all representative of what most people do. I have enormous respect for what people like you are capable of.

The key differential here is end use. If factory was the best, competitors would use it in competitions where handloads were the norm - they dont, even if they have the skill. Many competitors use factory but wont win against better ammo. The near exceptions are shooting Black Diamond norma or Applied Ballistic Solutions stuff which is nearly as good as the best handloads and you pay $ vs time.

For deer - that effort just doesnt matter. Throw charges, and load to magazine capable OALs - its still better than factory. Once you have an acceptable load for a certain skill level say 1 MOA @100yds, go and shoot deer.