Quinlan/Neville Load Development Thoughts?

BigGame

BigGame

Active member
Yesterday (4/1/24) Tyler Freel at Outdoor Life published an article called "Node Nonsense: How You’ve Been Wasting Your Time and Money on Load Development" (https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/node-nonsense-load-development/). In it he introduces some things he learned from some Hornady podcasts featuring talks with Jayden Quinlan and Miles Neville - Senior Ballistician and Project Engineer at Hornady respectively (podcasts #50 and #52 from December 2022, https://www.hornady.com/podcast). I took the time to listen to the two podcasts today and find some of the observations to be ground shaking for hand loaders. I'm interested in your thoughts. And since these podcasts have been up for more than a year, I'm interested if others in the field have been able to replicate their results.

Quinlan and Neville have the Hornady ballistic testing resources at their disposal and presented some of their observations. The primary thing they were trying to get across was that handloaders should use more statistically significant (larger) sample sizes, but they said much more than that.

Big takeaways (for me):
  • Charge testing between min/max book value is largely irrelevant for improving accuracy of a load - dispersion/SD/ES are generally consistent across charge levels with a slight trend towards smaller groups associated with the lower end of the charge spectrum.
  • The two most impactful choices for a handloader are the bullet and the powder; so much so that if a 10-20 shot group isn't working you should switch one of them rather than fuss with any other load refinement.
  • Seating depth and choice of primer generally have only a minor impact on accuracy of a load; so little that testing of them can largely be ignored. (Caveat: Their testing of seating depth was admittedly somewhat limited in terms of cartridges and bullet styles tested).
  • Essentially, the differences between tweaked/refined loads handloaders see is not statistically significant and the result of using sample sizes that are too small.
In a nutshell, their views knock all of my load development experience out of the water. And they say their observations come from extensive testing - far beyond what a typical handloader could generate. I'm kind of fascinated and horrified in the same moment.

Curious what your thoughts are. I did some searching to see whether there have been any attempts by other ballistics labs to corroborate or dispute these findings, but haven't come up with anything yet.
 
Koda said:
Seems to support the simplicity of load developing Hammers to me... run a pressure ladder, back off for safety and shoot for groups.

One question I have is if small sample size refinements are repeatable, are they still insignificant?
Click to expand...
It does support that approach to loading. And if it doesn’t shoot, swap out the powder and try again.

Anything repeatable is significant by definition. I think they’d just caution to thoroughly test repeatability. Guidelines they suggested were a 20-shot group was ok, 30-shot good, 50-shot rock-solid.
 
BigGame said:
It does support that approach to loading. And if it doesn’t shoot, swap out the powder and try again.

Anything repeatable is significant by definition. I think they’d just caution to thoroughly test repeatability. Guidelines they suggested were a 20-shot group was ok, 30-shot good, 50-shot rock-solid.
Click to expand...
I agree that more shots always reveal the flaws, but that isn’t a shocking statement from a brass/bullet manufacturer. 😉🤘
 
LightTheTower said:
I agree that more shots always reveal the flaws, but that isn’t a shocking statement from a brass/bullet manufacturer. 😉🤘
Click to expand...
I've only read the comments so far, but one has to define goals. 10,20, 50 shot groups don't really relate to hunting rifles.

My .338 RUM has produced one 0.5" 3 shot group (I didn't shoot it either LOL!) aggregate over time likely more 1.5" if that counts as a large sample.

It will however put the first 2 center X every time. I've killed chucks to 500 yard, made head shots to 800 (whatever that steel target is called) one shot in vitals of steel life size targets to 600 (all cold bore first shots), and an antelope at nearly 5 actually a funny story that might not belong, but there it is.

If the point of the article is; We all have wallet groups, that don't necessarily reflect the rifles true capability, and while shooter is a factor one can't assume misses after that one group are shooter error, it's a good point.
 
The thing I was most shocked by was that charge testing was not worthwhile. For a given bullet-rifle-powder combination, accuracy is consistent from minimum to maximum charge (largely). What we see as differences washes out at higher sample sizes.
 
I'm sure their testing is statistically correct overall.
I'm not a Highpower or F Class shooter who must put 30 consecutive shots in the 10 or X ring every day I shoot.
If my rifles consistently shoot about 0.5 moa for 3 shots every time I shoot, I'm quite happy. The first shot in a hunting rifle is the end of my concern. Especially when it does the same thing today, next week and next month🤷‍♂️.
Also, the consistency of Hammers largely ignores their concerns.
Different powders, primers and crimp absolutely can "tune" a load in my opinion. I've seen it over and over. It also shows up in our load data spreadsheets from Many different individuals/cartridges.
 
BigGame said:
The thing I was most shocked by was that charge testing was not worthwhile. For a given bullet-rifle-powder combination, accuracy is consistent from minimum to maximum charge (largely). What we see as differences washes out at higher sample sizes.
Click to expand...
If nodes can be washed out by larger sample sizes I wonder if the author factored in fatigue and other things that also affect larger sample sizes?

Rereading the article, whats interesting is observing his group size nodes in the photos of his OCW targets. If precision is the same across charge weights, I don't see how these nodes would be observable among so many other experienced handloaders?

A while back, (Not certain if it was here or on our local forum) but there was a good discussion on which group size people use to determine their handload accuracy (conversely their personal ability)... minimum/best group size, or average group size. Seems like the differences between those two are playing out in sample sizes and the author isn't connecting these two?
 
HARPERC said:
I've only read the comments so far, but one has to define goals. 10,20, 50 shot groups don't really relate to hunting rifles.

My .338 RUM has produced one 0.5" 3 shot group (I didn't shoot it either LOL!) aggregate over time likely more 1.5" if that counts as a large sample.

It will however put the first 2 center X every time. I've killed chucks to 500 yard, made head shots to 800 (whatever that steel target is called) one shot in vitals of steel life size targets to 600 (all cold bore first shots), and an antelope at nearly 5 actually a funny story that might not belong, but there it is.

If the point of the article is; We all have wallet groups, that don't necessarily reflect the rifles true capability, and while shooter is a factor one can't assume misses after that one group are shooter error, it's a good point.
Click to expand...
Well said, in a hunting situation The first shot cold bore is the one that counts, the rest of it is just for fun
 
Here is the ONLY statistical load challenge. Go to the range and shoot in hunting conditions, cross ticks, tripod, bipod whatever. Take one cold bore shot. The result is what you live with and go home. No whining over how far range is, it's far for me. You will find out a lot about yourself, rifle and load immediately. I do same with bow.

Guess what happens to your shooting? Rifle adjustments and load? Focus becomes paramount for all three levels.

Have fun!
 
Muddyboots said:
Here is the ONLY statistical load challenge. Go to the range and shoot in hunting conditions, cross ticks, tripod, bipod whatever. Take one cold bore shot. The result is what you live with and go home. No whining over how far range is, it's far for me. You will find out a lot about yourself, rifle and load immediately. I do same with bow.

Guess what happens to your shooting? Rifle adjustments and load? Focus becomes paramount for all three levels.

Have fun!
Click to expand...
 
I like what Muddy said. Yesterday, Hornady released a podcast about load development. I found it interesting and informative. it goes right along with the article that this thread was started about. I believe they are right in what they say. that being said, I'm a newer hand loader, and newer yet to rifle cartridges, as I started by loading pistol. Now, I can't say that I'm gonna shoot 20-30 round groups to see what the true group size is. That would cost a fortune of components, and especially for Hammers! I know that some here don't agree with what Hornady says, and that is okay. I understand that they are an ammunition and component manufacturer, and some guy say that of course they're gonna tell you to shoot 20-30 round groups so that you buy more components. I honestly don't buy that idea. I've listened to their podcast for a long time, and I've always figured them to be straight shooters. Hornady still is a small company, and one that was built on integrity. They manufacture good hunting and match loads at very reasonable prices, with a lot of guys shooting actual matches with their white box Match ammo. They are responsible for producing some of our most popular carrtridges today! my point is that I don't believe you can throw out their advice and say it isn't so. For me, the company is far too proven to do so. Now to clarify, if you don't agree, that is 100% okay! I won't get upset if someone challenges me on this. We're here to debate and ask and challenge. I'm just posting my two cents. That is all! Happy to be a member of this forum, and y'all have been a huge help as I've started down the road of precision reloading.
 
Schmo said:
They are responsible for producing some of our most popular carrtridges today! my point is that I don't believe you can throw out their advice and say it isn't so. For me, the company is far too proven to do so.
Click to expand...
Ive been pondering this article since posted here. I also respect its from Hornady and respect their experience, I'm not disregarding it... I just haven't found in it yet how it connects with my handloading or what I could change. Its very impractical to suggest 30-50 round test sessions.

My best connection suggests they are saying if you don't get moa accuracy right out of the gate then don't waste your time with fine tuning loads find the better powder or bullet. There's some logic in that...

but I also don't have the money to keep buying different powders (or components, or bullets) until I land on something that instantly groups sub moa.
 
From their podcast released yesterday, I do have a key takeaway that maybe fits here. Pick your bullet, and do 3-5 rounds of the same charge weight in each powder. Shoot those for groups, and pick the one that is best, and then play with charge weight and seating depth. Miles also said that he seats his bullet to .035" off the lands, and then never messes with depth adjustment. They were saying that before trying to fine tune a load, it needs to be shooting close to your expectations, unless your expectations are too high. For example, if you're expecting a .5" group, and you initially get a 1.5" group, don't expect to be able to improve it that much. Change bullet or powder.
 
Schmo said:
From their podcast released yesterday, I do have a key takeaway that maybe fits here. Pick your bullet, and do 3-5 rounds of the same charge weight in each powder. Shoot those for groups, and pick the one that is best, and then play with charge weight and seating depth. Miles also said that he seats his bullet to .035" off the lands, and then never messes with depth adjustment. They were saying that before trying to fine tune a load, it needs to be shooting close to your expectations, unless your expectations are too high. For example, if you're expecting a .5" group, and you initially get a 1.5" group, don't expect to be able to improve it that much. Change bullet or powder.
Click to expand...
Im still lost. Isnt that what handloaders have been doing for years?
If I recall its called the Optimal Charge Weight test (OCW)?
 
I think the point is: a 1.5 moa (3 to 5 shot) group will only be worse if you shoot 10 to 30 shots, and it is unlikely that any amount of “tuning”, whether it be seating depth, crimp, neck tension, or even 0.1 to 0.2 grain charge variations, will improve the load significantly.
In this case, powder and or primer changes are the only things that might make THAT bullet shoot better in THAT gun.
 
LightTheTower said:
I think the point is: a 1.5 moa (3 to 5 shot) group will only be worse if you shoot 10 to 30 shots, and it is unlikely that any amount of “tuning”, whether it be seating depth, crimp, neck tension, or even 0.1 to 0.2 grain charge variations, will improve the load significantly.
In this case, powder and or primer changes are the only things that might make THAT bullet shoot better in THAT gun.
Click to expand...
ok that makes sense and may be the reason @BigGame initially shared this in my group size thread. If thats the case then it would save lots of time trying to fine tune a load.
One question I have is what percentage of group size does fine tuning methods achieve? Probably better way to ask is what group size results have some people achieved with fine tuning methods (like seating depth, crimp etc.)?
 
In my opinion, initial group size (at an acceptable level to you) is best determined with coarse tests with primer/powder combinations.
If I can’t get groups under 1" in 10 shots (ladder), I switch to another powder.
"Tuning" a load means making small changes to get small results.
For me, at least, that means going from 0.7-8" groups to maybe 0.4-0.5" groups. Jm2cw.
This assumes your barrel/rifle is capable of shooting "small" groups.
 
So here might be my missing connection... (bear with me)

In my group size thread I was trying to improve 1.5moa group size. IIRC the article suggests one could just about pick any charge weight within the limits and if it doesnt shoot good then then thats an indicator nothing will with this powder/bullet combination...?

If 1.5moa is above any fine tuning range ?, then it all makes sense now... saving time and components.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top