Found an awesome load development technique

[NinjaHunter]

Hey guys,

I've been tinkering with load development for 300 wsm once more, and while I was researching on load development methods. I found an awesome website regarding a load development method.

The load development technique is called Optimal Charge Weight Load development, or OCW. People in this forum probably heard of it, but I just wanted to share it.

Here is the website: http://www.ocwreloading.com/about.html

And attached is an excel table I made so it's just plug in the max powder charge, and reload.

Note: the attachment is an .ods file, so might have to convert to an excel format.

[Salavee]

The OCW is a very good load development system. I've been using it for a number of years and it hasn't failed yet.
If you do decide to go with it, I would strongly suggest you send Dan the $45.00 consultation fee. An in-depth understanding of the procedure and target assessment usually follows a couple or three 'phone calls.

[NinjaHunter]

I've thought about the consultation, but decided to hold it off for now since I'm not very satisfied with my current rifle skills. I still need to practice my trigger squeeze and rifle handling via dry firing.

Once I'm satisfied with my rifle skills, then I'll go with the consultation.

[260 Rem]

There is nothing new or special with OCW. I recommend spending the $45.00 “consulting” fee on components and shoot a few more shots. In a nutshell, I would ... with a fixed seating depth and at a low end “safe” charge weight...charge cartridges in 0.3 gr increments (for cases typically using up to 35 grs of powder) and 0.5 gr increments for those above 35 gr. Shoot a series of 5 shot groups to the recommended maximum charge weight. Select the best group showing a minimum of vertical and recharge cases on either side with 0.2 or 0.3 grs ...shoot....select the best and start tinkering with seating depth.
My experience suggests there is no magic shortcut. Now, if anybody is exited enough to spend $45.00 on “consulting”, send cash to ....

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

There is nothing new or special with OCW. I recommend spending the $45.00 “consulting” fee on components and shoot a few more shots. In a nutshell, I would ... with a fixed seating depth and at a low end “safe” charge weight...charge cartridges in 0.3 gr increments (for cases typically using up to 35 grs of powder) and 0.5 gr increments for those above 35 gr. Shoot a series of 5 shot groups to the recommended maximum charge weight. Select the best group showing a minimum of vertical and recharge cases on either side with 0.2 or 0.3 grs ...shoot....select the best and start tinkering with seating depth.
My experience suggests there is no magic shortcut. Now, if anybody is exited enough to spend $45.00 on “consulting”, send cash to ....

My feelings as well. There are several ways to develop loads, but none are magic.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

There is nothing new or special with OCW. I recommend spending the $45.00 “consulting” fee on components and shoot a few more shots. In a nutshell, I would ... with a fixed seating depth and at a low end “safe” charge weight...charge cartridges in 0.3 gr increments (for cases typically using up to 35 grs of powder) and 0.5 gr increments for those above 35 gr. Shoot a series of 5 shot groups to the recommended maximum charge weight. Select the best group showing a minimum of vertical and recharge cases on either side with 0.2 or 0.3 grs ...shoot....select the best and start tinkering with seating depth.
My experience suggests there is no magic shortcut. Now, if anybody is exited enough to spend $45.00 on “consulting”, send cash to ....

I agree 260. I find Dan Newberry a bit annoying in that he campaigns this load development method as if he actually developed it. This ladder test method has been around since before he was in diapers. I wouldn't send him a nickel for regurgitating something that's been around for at least 3/4's of a century and available from many sources.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

There is nothing new or special with OCW. I recommend spending the $45.00 “consulting” fee on components and shoot a few more shots. In a nutshell, I would ... with a fixed seating depth and at a low end “safe” charge weight...charge cartridges in 0.3 gr increments (for cases typically using up to 35 grs of powder) and 0.5 gr increments for those above 35 gr. Shoot a series of 5 shot groups to the recommended maximum charge weight. Select the best group showing a minimum of vertical and recharge cases on either side with 0.2 or 0.3 grs ...shoot....select the best and start tinkering with seating depth.
My experience suggests there is no magic shortcut. Now, if anybody is exited enough to spend $45.00 on “consulting”, send cash to ....

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I think we are looking a two different objectives .. one is a charge weight/seating depth that provides for best group and the other for an optimum overall charge weight /seating depth that will not necessarily provide the best group but does allow for more flexibility in charge weights. No magic, no shortcuts involved and it often results in the best of both worlds, especially in a hunting cartridge.

That difference is described quite well in the OCW overview.

As to the $45.00, I think the OCW method will save more than the cost of a pound of powder in the first couple of sessions ,particularly if you load for several cartridges... plus, it's an option .. not mandatory.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

The OCW is a very good load development system. I've been using it for a number of years and it hasn't failed yet.
If you do decide to go with it, I would strongly suggest you send Dan the $45.00 consultation fee. An in-depth understanding of the procedure and target assessment usually follows a couple or three 'phone calls.

Consultation fee? That is the funniest thing I’ve heard all year.

[WeatherbyFan65]

Check out Sam Millard from Panhandle Precision and his youtube videos, free no consultation fee.....and info as good as it gets

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

I agree 260. I find Dan Newberry a bit annoying in that he campaigns this load development method as if he actually developed it. This ladder test method has been around since before he was in diapers. I wouldn't send him a nickel for regurgitating something that's been around for at least 3/4's of a century and available from many sources.

I don't think Dan ever suggested he discovered the system but he has taken it up a couple of levels .. along with Chris Jones.
I have used Audette's Ladder, and still do, and found it far from perfect. I don't know how many times I've nailed a Ladder test at 100 yds and watched it fall apart at 200 and 300yds. Not so with OCW. I can't see what the issue is with some of you guys.

[stob]

for $20cdn I will say a prayer for your best group and point my crystals to your gps location ... 3 prayers for $45cdn

[Salavee]

The $45.00 fee is an option with OCW. Your's are a flat fee and the prayer may be waay too short to help me..

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I think we are looking a two different objectives .. one is a charge weight/seating depth that provides for best group and the other for an optimum overall charge weight /seating depth that will not necessarily provide the best group but does allow for more flexibility in charge weights.

I do load development with the goal of achieving the best consistency (group sizes) at the distances I shoot. I can’t imagine my goal (or any other shooters goal) ever being second or third best, or in a particular range. IMO it is important to take the time to get it right and if that means more shooting ... there are other benefits as well.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

I do load development with the goal of achieving the best consistency (group sizes) at the distances I shoot. I can’t imagine my goal (or any other shooters goal) ever being second or third best, or in a particular range. IMO it is important to take the time to get it right and if that means more shooting ... there are other benefits as well.

I think we all strive for that. However, defining what is best as an objective can be different depending on the application. For target work, it could be one thing ,in a hunting round it may be another .

If a hunting load proves consistent under a variety of conditions it will not likely be a contender as sub MOA target round at 500 or so yards... and vice-versa. OCW will not replace anyone's proven methods of load development. It's just another tool that has it's place.

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I think we all strive for that. However, defining what is best as an objective can be different depending on the application. For target work, it could be one thing ,in a hunting round it may be another .

If a hunting load proves consistent under a variety of conditions it will not likely be a contender as sub MOA target round at 500 or so yards... and vice-versa. OCW will not replace anyone's proven methods of load development. It's just another tool that has it's place.

Agree ... And we are a bad bunch for over analyzing. Always looking for patterns. But, some days, the wind just blows them into a nice group.

[markg]

How important do you guys believe using a chrono during this process is? For me its critical. I am looking at several factors, group size, Extreme spread, Standard deviation, and Velocity.

I use the .3 or a grain method generally but I do my research and find loads that are considered "classic" or have been used in competition effectively and start a bit under those and go up from there.

[260 Rem]

I suspect the use of chrony info in load development is important for ranges beyond 300M and under that if consistency under 1/4 MOA is the goal?
Personally, I use a chrony only after I have established a load (I am limited to 300M). Frankly, the only reason I take chrony readings at that time is to answer questions I am sure to be asked, “what velocity....?”
The bottom line is that good group consistency is good regardless of velocity, ES ...etc.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by markg

How important do you guys believe using a chrono during this process is? For me its critical. I am looking at several factors, group size, Extreme spread, Standard deviation, and Velocity.

I use the .3 or a grain method generally but I do my research and find loads that are considered "classic" or have been used in competition effectively and start a bit under those and go up from there.

For me as well. It eliminates all of the guesswork. I like to play with all the newer powders, most of which have little, or no data available for some of the cartridges I load for. I can say the same for Quickload. It and a good chronograph go hand in hand for what I do.

[Salavee]

For those who wish to dig a little deeper (without the corresponding skull cramps)... http://www.the-long-family.com/OBT_paper.htm

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by markg

How important do you guys believe using a chrono during this process is? For me its critical. I am looking at several factors, group size, Extreme spread, Standard deviation, and Velocity.

I use the .3 or a grain method generally but I do my research and find loads that are considered "classic" or have been used in competition effectively and start a bit under those and go up from there.

I've never found a chrony to be that valuable.

I don't use the .3 grain method. I use an aproximate 1% of charge weight method.

.3 of a grain in a 17 hornet is a HUGE step.

[260 Rem]

I think some bullets “like” certain speeds.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

I think some bullets “like” certain speeds.

That's what I find as well. It seems that some of the more "accurate" bullets don't like to be pushed too hard at all .. often at well below max velocities. Bergers VLD's being one. Do you find that ?

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by Salavee

That's what I find as well. It seems that some of the more "accurate" bullets don't like to be pushed too hard at all .. often at well below max velocities. Bergers VLD's being one. Do you find that ?

Yes, same here.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by stob

for $20cdn I will say a prayer for your best group and point my crystals to your gps location ... 3 prayers for $45cdn

And if the crystals aren't working, I've got miracle spring water I can sell you to dip your bullets in

[deerfarmer]

Originally Posted by sns2

And if the crystals aren't working, I've got miracle spring water I can sell you to dip your bullets in

This may be just the cure for my ill directed projectiles! How much for said water

[sns2]

Originally Posted by deerfarmer

This may be just the cure for my ill directed projectiles! How much for said water

Lots!

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sns2

Lots!

Probably still cheaper than trying to find pixie dust and unicorn farts to load those magic gravity defying loads that some people post about.

[JD848]

Originally Posted by Salavee

That's what I find as well. It seems that some of the more "accurate" bullets don't like to be pushed too hard at all .. often at well below max velocities. Bergers VLD's being one. Do you find that ?

I find this also,very same thing.

[32-40win]

I think Newberry explains it fairly well if nothing else. Some reloading manuals explain it with a bit less flair and hoopla.

[RZR]

Originally Posted by chuck

Consultation fee? That is the funniest thing I’ve heard all year.

2x...