Accuracy vs SD/ ES

First topic message reminder :

So I am a rifle guy, I know crazy talk on a Bullseye forum. Anyhow, I am thinking about dabbling into bullseye as a jump from USPSA production. 

With rifle loads (long range), I can take one bullet (same weight / type/ make), a given powder and with 10 different charges say 41.0, 41.3, 41.6 gr.... Shoot them over my chronograph and usually be able to choose 2 nodes and load 10 more rounds 5/5 and shoot those for groups. If I have accuracy issues, I play with OAL to dial it in. The result is one of the two will be better and that is my load for that rifle/ barrel/ bullet/ powder. Now that chronographs are more than +/- 1% accurate. Has anyone tried such load development for bullseye?

I have read a decent amount, but before I was concentrating more about learning how to build the guns as atlanta arms and other companies make great ammo to throw in and run with. Is there a threshold that people typically use for sorting brass and bullets? (ie cast bullets). For service rifle I sort brass for example to within +/- 0.5 grain, and bullets to +/- 0.1 for exceptional accuracy. I would guess 1 grain for bullets or is it more like 0.3 grain? I used to load 10 rounds of each powder charge / OAL, but testing hundreds of rounds per bullet/ powder type got old. FYI, I am the guy in USPSA that insists on running an Accushadow in production so I can call my shots and make the distance hits everyone else stresses about, so you could call me a bit of an accuracy nut.

Thoughts?

CR10X wrote:Don't want anyone to get their feathers ruffled, so please remember that the original poster asked...

Thoughts?

Deleted.

Y'all have a nice day!

CR

Damn Cecil, there is too much good info in your posts.  I am glad I was able to read that one before it disappeared.  Next time, at least leave it up for the rest of us noobs to learn from! 

The kid is out of the house, the wife is retired, so I have time on my hands.   I shoot once a week, do dry firing and holding drills daily (twice yesterday) and still have plenty of time to think about and play with reloading on a single stage press!

I like ammo discussions.  Since my shooting skill level is low, I like knowing that it is me who needs improving (and not the ammo).

Some of the above comments remind me of how I was rude to my BIL.  He would buy a bike, customize it, ride it 500-600 miles and sell it, where I would ride 5-10k miles year after year.   Then, one day, I realized that is what HE enjoyed and I started asking questions, instead of making statements.

willnewton wrote:

CR10X wrote:Don't want anyone to get their feathers ruffled, so please remember that the original poster asked...

Thoughts?

Deleted.

Y'all have a nice day!

CR

Damn Cecil, there is too much good info in your posts.  I am glad I was able to read that one before it disappeared.  Next time, at least leave it up for the rest of us noobs to learn from! 

+100 ... or move it to a new thread.

I am also a technical guy, and appreciate if something can be quantified.  "Not much", and "Won't notice" may be fine for many but don't answer any questions.  How much can the bullet weight vary and still be acceptable?  Does the standard deviation provide a good indication of the reloading process and components for the 45 acp?  How much can that vary and still be acceptable?

I have found it's easy to get chronograph data.  What it means is another story.  Maybe it's all useless - but the technical guy in me thinks not.  Unfortunately, I can't answer any of the questions asked in this thread at the moment.  But, I think the topic is interesting from the perspective of understanding some of the trends from measurable quantities and how they can affect accuracy. 

Sure, it's the archer and not the arrow.  But with a bent or badly spined arrow, the best archer in the world won't hit the mark consistently.  Having confidence the ammunition is acceptable and ways to measure and quantify that condition would (will) go a long way toward confidence building.  Plus, some of us like to quantify what is done by taking measurements and want (hope) those measurement are meaningful.  Ransom rest testing for accuracy, which is the final "proof is in the pudding" test at 50 yards is not easy to get.

PaladinPrecision wrote:I am an engineer... SO I actually care less about my score and more about wrapping my head around the science and narrowing down the variables. Thoughts were requested as a segway to an intelligent conversation about reloading...

Ditto.  Just retired after 31 years in the Aerospace industry.  Did a mixed bag of structures and mechanical systems.  My last gig was as the lead engineer on the 767 Tanker Center Section Design team.

The variability in Pistol Reloading isn’t the critical path to accurate pistol shooting.  It just isn’t.  The key variable is bullet selection, bullet seating and creating ammo that is softer recoiling and yet fully functional.  The nth degree in accuracy and load balance is overshadowed.  In many ways precision pistol is very much like shotgun shooting.  The shooter’s skill and mastery of the sport is more important than the ammunition used.  So reloading becomes a way to shoot more and train more.  Spend a rainy weekend at the loading shop and get another months training ammo.  Just like shotgun shooters.  Like I said, bullet selection, seating depth and crimp are where it gets most technical.  That’s the ammo variables that affect functionality and to some extent accuracy.  The rest really doesnt matter that much.

Does anybody find it interesting that because we didn't embrace PP's first posting as the second coming of Christ that now we are the problem?

Does anybody find it interesting that PP went from an engineering student to engineer in the span of 6 posts?

Does anybody find it interesting that someone who states he only wants to: "I honestly just want to put one more skill set in the drawer of my marksmanship tool box." is discussing measuring brass and 0.1% accurate chronographs in the ammunition section instead of asking a question in the marksmanship section.

Does anybody find it interesting that for someone who states: I honestly just want to put one more skill set in the drawer of my marksmanship tool box."  Doesn't care about what a distinguished marksman achievement is and then goes on to say it's puffing ones chest, while puffing his chest out saying he's a fifth award pistol shot?

Does anybody find it interesting that PP mentioned he does not have a bullseye pistol and will probably not get one soon, and was insulted at the notion of buying a .22,  since he is so busy with 3 gun and PRS?

My question, if I am allowed to ask one, is why are you here? People here are into analysis but most of us are into analyzing things that have an effect on becoming better pistol marksman, not just having a pistol that shoot well from a rest. If you would like to get into SD/ES analysis, great, then try a SCATT machine and talk about reducing those parameters in your holding error or trigger error, that is actually becoming a better marksman. The are several degreed engineers here and they have tried to convey that to you.

I stand by my suggestion.  The fundamentals will trump science any day on the firing line.

I would recommend several barrels, reamers, Bullets,powder, brass, primers,chrono, and a barrel test fixture

Chase,
 
Nobody is saying a discussion on brass is without merit but it always seems to come from some one that is not classified or, in this case, even shot a single NRA bullseye match and because we mention that is the smallest factor in shooting good groups in the middle of the target should not be looked at as if we are ignorant.

If someone can point me to a posting where any master class shooter stated the reason they broke 2600 is because they did a statistical analysis on any part of their shooting equipment  instead of dryfire or practice I am all eyes/ears. Just doing a simple Root Mean Square of the sources of errors in a system of shooting error sources show you have to significantly reduce the the largest error source before the small error source starts to make a difference. This is bullseye shooting not engineering and just because you two want to make it about engineering doesn't change what matters most in bullseye shooting, reducing shooter induced errors. It makes no sense that you want us to embrace your hobby of measuring brass as a viable way to improve our score when brass is in the noise. What a person has to eat the morning of a match has more affect than brass.

Someone please notify me when NRA Conventional Bullseye Pistol is contested with ransom rests.

robert84010 wrote:This is bullseye shooting not engineering and just because you two want to make it about engineering doesn't change what matters most in bullseye shooting.

Having earned my engineering degree and having spent my life working with engineers, I can say that my career has been one of figuring out which engineer's precision measurements to ignore and translating them into real world operations and maintenance.
Often, precious few of the precision measurements and exacting tolerances translate into being of real word importance in the end. 
Want to insult an engineer? Tell them their obsession with precision while ignoring the tolerances and stacking is pointless. You might be right, but they stop listening.
Want to humble them? Break the reliability records by ignoring their precision installation measurement values and set all the system components up by eye to +/- 0.125 or +/- 0.250 tolerances until gauging just the last critical component or two while using many of the painstakingly designed adjustments as brute full scale adjustments only.
Reading this thread makes me glad I haven't taken up reloading (yet).
It seems to me, for the noobs in the room and the "one point of measure" obsessing engineers alike, it would be nice to know the range of error/deviation that could be down to various factors. And of course knowing how that range might affect our results.
For example, in this thread we have an example of someone testing ammo to obtain the grail of a 1" gun. Elsewhere, in equipment discussion, we're to buy or build 1" or 2" guns with little mention of ammo.
So, if I buy a 2" gun how much worse will reloading without obsessing over various measurements make the gun? Will obsessing over any single or combination of factors get me a more consistent 2" gun?
Does any of it, gun build or ammo testing, make more than a pissing in the wind difference to the results I'll get to bring my occasional 3 and 4" groups (8 and better) down to occasional 5/8" groups (10X) at 20 yards?
(I know that getting them from occasional to consistent, barring statistical anomalies, is 100% down to me.)

If the question is"how to make the most accurate ammunition," then I would say the quality of the bullet trumps every other factor. I can only think of one time when ES/SD made a difference. I had loaded a batch of ammo that didn't group as well as I thought it would. Shooting it over the chronograph, the ES was over 120 and the SD was around 50, so that explained it.

. Elsewhere, in equipment discussion, we're to buy or build 1\" or 2" guns with little mention of ammo. wrote:So, if I buy a 2" gun how much worse will reloading without obsessing over various measurements make the gun? Will obsessing over any single or combination of factors get me a more consistent 2" gun?

I don't even know how much that matters. You need a gun with a good trigger that you can shoot well. I've shot 98 at 50 yards on several occasions with a 45 that shoots 2 1/2" groups from a random rest. This target is from the Wisconsin state championship a couple years ago. The 8 was totally my fault, and it hit right on call. My point is if you can load ammo that will group 2-3" that's good enough.  Spending a lot of time trying to make ammo that groups 1/4" smaller, while not being a total waste of time, is not going to improve your scores significantly.

I've always been a big fan of Igor's Blog in Germany: Air Pistol Tests



I always thought that if 30 shots (with three slide back chamberings) of 22 was in the X ring and 30 shots of 45 was in the ten ring during Ransom rest testing at 50 yards my gear and ammo was good to go. I wanted to establish the worst mechanical performance I would see. Having a Master BE competitor shoot a magazine with each pistol into a ten ring size group at at 50 yards removed any remaining doubts on what to work on.

A certain smith who does not have the best reputation on this forum (you guys can probably guess who I am talking about) told me that flash holes had a huge impact on ES/SD (when using match components and consistent powder charges).

He said using steel media to tumble, when done long enough, actually has the effect of deburring/chamfering flash holes and would reduce SD/ES... BUT that it had little impact on observed accuracy.

Take it or leave it, but seems to make sense and just supports the fact that for most of us, striving to make the most perfect ammunition is a waste of training time.

PaladinPrecision wrote:
Has anyone tried such load development for bullseye?

Is there a threshold that people typically use for sorting brass and bullets? (ie cast bullets). For service rifle I sort brass for example to within +/- 0.5 grain, and bullets to +/- 0.1 for exceptional accuracy. I would guess 1 grain for bullets or is it more like 0.3 grain?

...so you could call me a bit of an accuracy nut.

Thoughts?

There have been people in that past that I’ve known to get crazy specific with bullets, and bullet weights and brass and brass weight and length etc. But to veer off topic - not asked in the original post - it will not benefit the shooter unless the shooter is an exceptionally good shot. Some may disagree with me. 

My personal experience for example: I use mixed range brass, I don’t weigh it, and I don’t measure it. I cast my own lead Bullets from wheel weights (probably an inconsistent alloy). I tumble lube them so the lube amount and coverage is not consistent by what may be your standards for accuracy and consistency in loading. Not being rude just comparing. For primers I use and buy what’s on sale. The last couple thousand were Winchester. Recently I bought 5000 CCI.

My ammunition off sandbags shoots well, cycles (critical), and is accurate enough to compete where and against who I normally compete against. I shoot low to mid 90’s at 50. Made master shooting this way. With pistol the ammunition needs to be accurate enough to hold ten ring or better. Because here’s the difference between rifle shooting and pistol shooting - and don’t get offended - this is just how I see it:

Rifle shooting, equipment has more impact on performance than in Pistol. It’s a shoulder mounted firearm, two hands, prone, kneeling, sitting or off hand there are ways to shoot with mild support. With rifle we not only see the skill of the shooter but the quality of his loads and barrel choice.

With pistol it is more of a test of the shooter and less on the equipment. You are unsupported, standing with pistol one handed asked to shoot shots into a circle less than 3.5” in diameter 50 yards away. Not trying to say rifle is easier. It’s challenging in its own way. But I think pistol tests the shooter more than rifle.

In pistol ammunition is important but the process of loading it isn’t as critical as rifle. Pistols are more forgiving than rifles. And we don’t shoot near the distances rifles are asked to.

Chris Miceli wrote:I would recommend several barrels, reamers, Bullets,powder, brass, primers,chrono, and a barrel test fixture

Me too. 

The one thing that I will say and that I have been taught by some 2600+ shooters is that all primers are not the same. When you find a good primer for 50 yards buy as many of that lot as you can. These same people believe that fundamentals trump load testing until you are at the point of 850+ with the 45. I'm not there yet. 

Science experiments are great. And sometimes they will teach you things that you didn't expect to learn. I do test my loads yearly with the Ransom rest. I do some chromo testing. But that stuff is extra. It's not training, it's not practice. And more than one Master and High Master shooter has told me that you can wrap yourself around the axle worrying about things that don't improve your performance. I suggest that people listen to them. Test all that you want. But there are people shooting commercial loads and shooting high master scores with them. 

I can't afford to shoot commercial 45 loads, and I think that I have accurate 50 and 25 yard loads based on testing. But I know that the improvements that I have made in the past year, have not been related to the most accurate loads.

I know I shouldn't be here and Cecil will chastise me contributing to a non fundamental discussion but....


This post has more than enough information to show everyone what counts to a guy that was paid to test these things.

https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t3064-brass-variation?highlight=brass

This stuff has been sorted out years ago. Seems like people come here thinking we just ride our horse into town once a month to shoot a match and rely on city slickers to tell us how it should be done. I get a little, how you say, excited! to tell them it's not what matters up until competing for a national title.
The other point is I have a HM card in NRA LR and the load I used was the found by asking the HM's that I shoot across the course with, one is on the Palma team and has 2 Palma titles at Perry. He uses what most of the palma team uses and anybody else can use if they want to shoot instead of test. Varget and Sierra 2156 bullets. I asked him what he thinks about all this ES/SD stuff for 1000 yard shooting and he just rolls his eyes "Why test if you cannot hold elevation." In our case if your sights don't dwell in the 10 ring for a period of time what are the odds of shooting a 10?
I've said it before, there are people that only shoot to get better at reloading and people that only reload to get better at shooting. I am definitely the latter.


My final question:
If a marksman with a Keefer or Curtis pistol and a load that shoots to its the mechanical accuracy shoots a 7, does it matter?.....

Guns obviously worn out!!..

(rofl)

james r chapman wrote:Guns obviously worn out!!..

(rofl)

Brass was 2.7% out of spec.

When I shoot a 7 it matters, but it's not Mike Curtis's or my Ammos fault. I own that 7, because it almost always shows up where I called it.

Every time I jerk a 7, i say, "dammit Jon, why couldn't you have spent a few more hours slaving over my lower lugs..."

just kidding. I think this thread is done.

WELCOME TO BULLSEYE.  I would do what ever makes you happy.  It sure will not hurt to have accurate ammo and equipment.  Experimenting with ammo is a good thing.  Experimenting with equipment is a good thing.  Otherwise we would all be shooting single action revolvers with a blade front sight.

You will know when the point of diminishing marginal returns is reached as far as bullseye pistol load development goes. Humor-you may have already reached it.  But as you said the journey to discovery is a lot of the fun. 

One thing for sure, bullseye pistol shooting has helped my rifle shooting.

I'm not accomplished rifle guy from a match standpoint.  I'm a hunter in PA (close shots normally).  But thanks to practicing my trigger control and breathing over and over again while shooting bullseye pistol, I can hit routinely at 500 yards with my cheapo savage axis rifle and Fiocchi ammo in .223.  I like dinging that 16" plate.

Sometimes cross training really does help.

I know that Doug Koenig and Rob Letham shoot bullseye on occasion to hone their accuracy skills and keep themselves "fresh".

Happy journey!