Satterlee 10 round OCW
- Thread starter Brownie
- Start date
I've used Creighton Audette's ladder method for years in load development to identify accuracy nodes. I find it especially useful in conjunction w/chronograph. OCW seems to be a variant of Audette's method.
Regards,
hm
Regards,
hm
Brownie
New member
So I've looked at a couple of these methods and wonder how much brass will skew the results. About the only thing I dont do is uniform the primer pockets. I always try to trim brass to min trim length with rcbs 3 way cutter which saves time and gives me the most uniform chamfer/deburring and also Male sure the flash hole is deburred. But I use a lot of LC and I weighed about 5 different year cases and they are all about 91 to 93 grains even cases from the same year vary about that much on the extreme end. So if I use LC16 for the initial test and then load a mix bag will the pressure's and velocities be the same or will it vary enough to throw off a load? I know internal case capacity will vary even in same year brass due to different lots/machines/materials.
What are you loading for, Brownie? I shot NRA HP rifle competition for about 25 years in all (99% 200-600 yd., maybe 1% out to 1000). Uncle Sam furnished my ammo for the first 9 years and I reloaded all the rest.
Bear in mind, all of the above is with iron sights and fired from field positions w/no rest; all that is required to clean the target is 1.75" accuracy. Of course, we all wanted better ammo than that, if for no other reason, the mental advantage.
I went through all possible steps in brass prep for some very good match grade rifles, primer pocket uniforming to neck turning and struggled to reduce bullet runout to a minimum.
Other than serious benchrest shooting, I am of the opinion that all of the brass prep is not worth the effort. Runout is not much of an issue at the shorter ranges.
My rifles/ammo combo all shot under moa without all the brass prep, so I gave it up as, it not a waste of time, at the very least time that I could spend dry firing, which produced more bang for the buck, so to speak.
That brings us back to the original question; "what are you loading for?" If not benchrest, I'd read a book or dry fire.
Regards,
hm
Bear in mind, all of the above is with iron sights and fired from field positions w/no rest; all that is required to clean the target is 1.75" accuracy. Of course, we all wanted better ammo than that, if for no other reason, the mental advantage.
I went through all possible steps in brass prep for some very good match grade rifles, primer pocket uniforming to neck turning and struggled to reduce bullet runout to a minimum.
Other than serious benchrest shooting, I am of the opinion that all of the brass prep is not worth the effort. Runout is not much of an issue at the shorter ranges.
My rifles/ammo combo all shot under moa without all the brass prep, so I gave it up as, it not a waste of time, at the very least time that I could spend dry firing, which produced more bang for the buck, so to speak.
That brings us back to the original question; "what are you loading for?" If not benchrest, I'd read a book or dry fire.
Regards,
hm
I have used Satterlee's method on 3 different rifles and have had great results. I fired the 10 rounds over the Magnetospeed and easily found a flat spot in the velocity. A seating depth test was done and all rifles have a 1/2 moa load in only 25 rounds fired. Maybe I just got really lucky, but I will continue to use this method.
Bobby
Bobby
My comments as to similarity of OCW to Audette's methods were based on Dan Newberry's OCW proceedure. Actually, I had not heard of Satterlee's which seems to be similar to both with the emphasis on the chronograph/velocities more than group sizes.
That is basically what I have been doing for some time, now. It is more efficient, IMO, especially since I'm limited to 100 yard range for the most part and groups tend to open up more at, say, 300 yards. At 100 yards it is easier to see velocity variations, not so to gauge group sizes of the various nodes, if that makes sense.
Regards,
hm
That is basically what I have been doing for some time, now. It is more efficient, IMO, especially since I'm limited to 100 yard range for the most part and groups tend to open up more at, say, 300 yards. At 100 yards it is easier to see velocity variations, not so to gauge group sizes of the various nodes, if that makes sense.
Regards,
hm
steve garrett
Well-known member
I use a simplified down and dirty method. I usually try to guess at what I think a max charge should be. Then I load up 10 rounds that start below max and go a tad beyond what I think max should be, all with different weight charges in them. it depends on the case size as to how much of a difference. for a 223 size case I usually go in .3 grain increments. I do this because if the load doesn't preform at full throttle I really probably want to keep looking. I also want to see what the load is doing with less or more powder than I think I might want to shoot as a working load, to me that is very important. I want a forgiving load. I also find that if its shooting tight with different powder weights in it, I don't typically get surprised after firing several different groups once I have decided what I think might be a good load.
oh lastly when I am working up, I am looking at chrono speeds, I am looking at steady climb, plateaus and spiking. This also gives me some insight into the power I am using with that application. For instance in my 6DTI I have pretty close results with accuracy and speed with H322 and TAC. however I feel TAC isn't as spikey and has a better velocity plateau for my application.
oh lastly when I am working up, I am looking at chrono speeds, I am looking at steady climb, plateaus and spiking. This also gives me some insight into the power I am using with that application. For instance in my 6DTI I have pretty close results with accuracy and speed with H322 and TAC. however I feel TAC isn't as spikey and has a better velocity plateau for my application.
Originally Posted By: BrownieLoading for a few. 223s bolt and AR 6.5 grendel, .243.
For hunting and casual shooting and standard chambered sporting rifles, I doubt you will see much difference from all the extra case prep. I might have gained a point or two in competition from match grade rifles, but I'd almost bet if I did, it was more due to the mental knowledge that the ammo was top drawer than from actual improvement in accuracy.
Always felt that I squeezed more accuracy from carefully determining the accuracy node than from case prep and the Satterlee method is pretty well what I used once I acquired a chronograph.
Regards,
hm
For hunting and casual shooting and standard chambered sporting rifles, I doubt you will see much difference from all the extra case prep. I might have gained a point or two in competition from match grade rifles, but I'd almost bet if I did, it was more due to the mental knowledge that the ammo was top drawer than from actual improvement in accuracy.
Always felt that I squeezed more accuracy from carefully determining the accuracy node than from case prep and the Satterlee method is pretty well what I used once I acquired a chronograph.
Regards,
hm