Listened to this while driving to NRL Hunter Mason Valley 2024. Hunter is just about the epitome of both fun and practical for a rifle match. Power factor, weight limits, and the course lay out has brought precision rifle shooting sports back to Earth
I really loved this one. I have learned so much from the information that you both have contributed to the community. I also enjoyed the psychedelic chihuahua behind Scott, that thing is sweet
I have been looking for ways to refine my loading technique. Thank you so much. I started reloading about 3 yrs ago when I couldn't find ammo and that got me addicted to accuracy. Always something new to learn. Again thanks.
So much good stuff to learn from these interviews.... Watched it twice... Load development points... chamber throat points... tactical shooting points... I'll be back to watch it again and take more notes...
I have had rifles that you can just feel they shoot good and within first few rounds it’s just grouping great the vertical everything is just on . I think that experience is true even if we think the gun is just happens to be right I have found it just is and shoots great .
I use the Satterlee test to get a project started. Its a great jump off point to get you going, get some data, and make a decision on where you want to go.
I probably just got lucky but the first time I used a ladder test for 6.5 grendel load I grabbed the best node loaded 10 rounds and shot my first ever single hole group at a 100m ten rounds one hole.
Erik, It would be great if you could get someone on to talk about High Power XTC shooting. Its a sport that involves precision long range shooting and reloading, as well as intense focus on physical marksmanship fundamentals. It isn't as popular as it used to be and that's a real shame. Someone like Brandon Green or Carl Bernosky would be awesome.
What kills me are the guys in PRS running a br or dasher 2900 or 3k bc its the cool guy round. I run my 6CM at 2850 and and just cruising and u see them blowing primers. It makes no sense at all.
when 6.5cm came out I wondered if they'd do a 6mm. Why not just go with a fast twist 243 win? Kinda seems like the cm cartridges are trying to reinvent the wheel.
@grunt-0311 260a and 243 had the same issues and the same reasons for 6.5cm and 6cm. For Sammi spec that most factory rifles are made by, they couldn't run the heavy long bullets. If u build a custom, there is no reason but most off the shelf 243 and 260s are designed for the lighter bullets that were common when that Sammi spec was made.
First, I Never seen anyone run a BR at 3k in PRS. Almost everyone falls in this bracket for BR, 2750-2850, dasher 25-50 fps faster. Second, Cool guy round would be 6creed since it was just invented few years ago, ‘The new hotness’. BR has been in play since the 70s and BR norma since the 90s. People just pick whatever works for the specific application, and BR based cartridges work good for prs. To each is own, but Why would you fill half a case of 6creed at 2850 when even factory hornady runs them at 2960 with 24 inch barrel.
Disagree that “positive compensation” is the only explanation. To make that statement, you’d need Doppler radar data to look at the drag for EACH shot. If you hit hi & have lower than average drag, id say yeah, compensation. W/O long range Doppler radar on each shot, it’s speculation.
To be fair, the ES in the tiny 1k group is only one single data point. There's BC variance, vertical component of spin, small variances in POA too small for us to recognize that are due to a plethora of things (light refraction, etc). So, we can't logically just say "the ES says that group shouldn't be possible" as the defense for positive compensation unless we have somehow isolated all the other variables. But good stuff regardless.
Yes sure, maybe the faster bullets all had lower BC and the slower bullets had higher BC which allowed canceled out the speed. But 20 fps spread results in appx 5 inches more drop at 1000 yards. What Eric’s saying is that the speed ES variable should cause the group to be bigger than what the target showed. Now imagine that one of the fastest bullets had a high BC and one of the slower bullets had a low BC. Now you’ve got bigger than 5” spread making the group even bigger. Ultimately we can say that the tuner played a massive role in keeping the group small, it had to because otherwise it’s not statistically possible.
@@4bigwheels09 I know exactly what he's saying. But there are many factors that explain it just as good as positive compensation. His explanation only makes positive compensation the sole reason if you can isolate the other 5+ reasons. Which we cannot do in an outside open air range with sunlight. It's only "statistically possible" for anyone who doesn't actually understand all the other things going on he can't measure with a target and chrono. Hence why everyone that shoots over doppler/lidar for the entire flight of the bullet has failed to show positive compensation.
The fact that he isn't shooting groups that small consistently also makes it much, much more likely it isn't actually positive compensation. If it was, then it would regularly send 19fps ES into 2" vertical groups. Not just here and there when the stars align.
Yeah, the idea that the movement of the barrel could be perfectly matched to a 25+ FPS velocity spread is kind of silly when you think about how they move. Also you'd easily be able to prove this at 100 yards. That 25fps faster bullet which has to compensate for 5+ inches of movement at 1000 yards would land 0.5" low at 100 yards all the time. It would be easy to show a gun that did that. All your 100 yard groups would show a vertical line which would be in line with their needed compensation at 1000 yards. I've seen people claim they can even tune a 50fps+ spread to land in the same spot. That's a shot landing an entire inch lower at 100 yards. I've personally seen a test where 100+ bullets were shot through an e-target at 100 yards and 1000 yards at the same time with speed tracked at both as well. There was zero evidence of positive compensation. What looks like positive compensation is a random confluence of uncontrolled variables coming together.
@@MMBRM Yea. Recently on a forum there was someone claiming they have their rifle perfectly compensated for up to 100fps ES @1k yds holding .5moa That would have resulted in something like a 1.5moa dispersion at 100yds. Which obviously they couldn't show.
Am I out of line thinking that simple tolerance stacking of the chrono could explain tiny groups that arent necessarily linear with the SD and ES? The chrono has to have at least a little room for error.
My range is 50 miles. 1 hour drive. My job is 20 miles. 1 hour 15 minute commute one way. When I load develop I bring other guns to play with after test firing. Come on man.
You think Erik Cortina would be able to shoot as good as he is in a high stress kind of situation? He's a champ in competition setting. How about in the theater of war? Asking for a friend😕
"Positive compensation"....as far as "smaller at a thousand than at a 100"....call it what ever you want, but, Sierra Bullets proved this 40-45 years ago w/then state-of-the-art-photography, which some author in a gun magazine had published, they called it something else back then,( I won't get into that), & litz has desperately been trying to disprove it, obviously,....with some of the most rediculous experiments, but he's learning, ....question is; is he gaining,.....I still have not heard, let alone, seen, any better proof than that article that I had read & studied back when I was just 15-20 years old. Had I only known this topic would remain such a wonder to the "next" generation of shooters I guess I could make millions on selling copies of that article......lol
What Jayden Quinlan said was that groups under twenty shots were not statistically significant. Its not a hard idea to get your head around. Why do you insist on misquoting him?
Because it is a blanket statement that leaves out experience level. Five shot groups from a hall of fame shooter give you better data than 20 shots from a kid shooting his first shots ever. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around?
All rifles produce a cone of fire. Two shots will not statistically represent either the point of aim or the size of the group in a significant manner whatever the skill level of the person shooting. @@BelieveTheTarget
Shooters of all skill levels can use this fact to make informed decisions either about their rifles true point of aim or the size of the group their rifle is producing in a statistically significant manner.
Not sure I could move to a place you couldn't own guns. I'm sure Scotts move was business decision. How bad does America have to suck to get you to move to Japan...
I'm going to be honest anyone who doubts that positive compensation isn't possible has no clue how any of the physics works at this level. It's debatable if it's a good idea, maybe, that it happens-absolutely isn't.
@@newerest1 Dude this is such basic physics, why? There WILL exist a timing such that the vibration of the barrel is pointed up when the bullet exits later. You need to have components and ignition be reasonably consistent. It's not even debatable, it's like asking if you move your finger on a guitar string will change the note.
@@L0NGRNGE Ok. I'm s physicist and opto-mechanical engineer. When I do flight systems, I have to understand how this stuff works. I can show on paper that this will happen in some circumstances-I done even need advanced simulation software (although I've done that too). The pulse from ignition travels through the barrel many times faster than the bullet, wit and together enough times that a good harmonic wave will evolve. We know this, we observe this. That behavior will have a point where it's pointed up when a slower bullet is leaving and an area where a faster bullet is pointed down. People have reproduced this, to be clear, but it's so simple and certain an outcome that questioning is existence represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics at play. Your asking someone to prove arches are stronger than straight bars. It's almost axiomatic.
@@userJohnSmith No you aren't. Because if you were you wouldn't be sure positive compensation exists. It has literally never been proven by anyone under controlled conditions. If you were an actual scientist you would wait for proof before making definitive statements. You realize that the argument you make for the barrel traveling upwards for a slower bullet exit time would only work for a single distance and at two individual speeds right? Or are you suggesting you can control the barrel position for a 25+ feet per second spread? So you believe the barrel moved enough to bring two shots that would be 5+ inches apart in line with each other at 25fps above expected speed and the timing also perfectly matches to bring a shot going 10fps above expected to the same spot? It makes no sense. The barrel would have to be moving at the exact speed necessary to compensate for an entire spread of velocities. The reality is that there are many factors beyond muzzle velocity that affect where it lands on a target 1000 yards away. Even the best bullets have roughly 1% difference in BC and that by itself could make a slower bullet land higher than the faster. There's also no such thing as a person holding perfect point of aim for each shot. You realize that if this existed as described than that 25fps faster shot would land a half inch lower at 100 yards every time. This is the only way it could land in the same spot as the expected velocity at 1000 yards. It would be so easy to show that it was happening. Why do you think no one has?
@@MMBRM I mean a couple podcasts ago a guy was using this, I've made use of it, it's just the idea that you can partially compensate, not completely. So yes it's proven, also it's a physical inevitability-grow up, admit you don't know what you don't know.
The only thing that tells the truth is a statistically robust (stable) number of samples. That's what tells the truth. The smaller the variation you want to measure, the larger the sample number. People who try to explain this have very nearly run out of ways of trying to get that message across but, in simple terms, a small group is nearly as likely as a large group, especially when using small sample numbers. The real problem isn't the sample numbers or the group size, the problem is the guy looking at the result through the bias of his mind. There is no cheating statistics. There are no short cuts. Maybe this will sink in. Lets say you wanted to buy a new 5 axis lathe for $1.5 million that absolutely needed to machine to specific tolerances. Tell me, would you want the testing results to be determined by mathematically robust statistical analysis or, would you want the sales guy telling you the companies version of a statistical analysis? Since we all know what the answer would be, why do you insist upon your continually hedging against inferior methods & information. Personally, I think you very well could be on a winner with your tuners, just not exactly how you see them working. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that moving a tuner out a couple thou between increments does absolutely nothing however, screwing a weight on the muzzle does have a measurable positive result on barrel sensitivity, as it should, as, almost any realistic mass will slow or dampen the muzzle movement. The real question in my mind is what muzzle mass for what barrel. I don't doubt the overall mass of a tuner having a positive influence on most barrels but, the tiny increments are snake oil. You've invested a great deal in your business & I would like nothing better than to see you succeed. With proper testing, you could be the guy who gets to the bottom of the enigma. Lets hope you do, with robust statistical analysis which cannot be denied.
I love this. You are talking about statistics but also already made up your mind about tuners not working with small increments. You are calling it snake oil. I assume you have done robust statistical analysis to say that, correct? 😁
@@BelieveTheTarget Just commenting that the already cut down ladder load development testing has now been cut down more... park it 300 off lands, use a mid-powder charge... good to go! Sounds like a load of shit to me.
I love Scott. I remember chatting with him on the hide: he's always willing to help out rookies like myself asking stupid questions. Thank you Scott!
Thanks for listening.
Thanks so much for this chat, makes me feel good about what I have and what I do.
Listened to this while driving to NRL Hunter Mason Valley 2024. Hunter is just about the epitome of both fun and practical for a rifle match. Power factor, weight limits, and the course lay out has brought precision rifle shooting sports back to Earth
I had the opportunity to meet Scott over here in Ireland in 2019 for the guardian PRS match. Lovely guy and did great work getting the IPRF going.
I love this channel. Erik always has such cool people on the podcast. The little things you learn every show is invaluable. Keep it up!
Glad you enjoy it!
Another great interview, looking forward to the next one!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Love your stuff Erik, keep it up.
I really loved this one. I have learned so much from the information that you both have contributed to the community. I also enjoyed the psychedelic chihuahua behind Scott, that thing is sweet
Great episode. Been using his method for a few years. It definitely gets you in the ballpark much quicker.
Great to hear!
I have been looking for ways to refine my loading technique. Thank you so much. I started reloading about 3 yrs ago when I couldn't find ammo and that got me addicted to accuracy. Always something new to learn. Again thanks.
Great job! Keep on trucking!
Thanks! Will do!
Scott is so humble. Really just underrated of himself
So much good stuff to learn from these interviews.... Watched it twice...
Load development points... chamber throat points... tactical shooting points...
I'll be back to watch it again and take more notes...
Thank you
I had been hoping you would have Scott on the podcast…this was a great one!
More to come!
Awesome conversation on a lot of different info to think about...
Thanks for listening
Thanks for the video! Good stuff!
Glad you liked it!
Wonderfull talk, thank you
Our pleasure!
The first I heard of The Ladder Test is when a man named Creighton Audette wrote about it in an issue of Precision Shooting. It is still valid.
I have had rifles that you can just feel they shoot good and within first few rounds it’s just grouping great the vertical everything is just on . I think that experience is true even if we think the gun is just happens to be right I have found it just is and shoots great .
We need these on audio version podcast.
I use the Satterlee test to get a project started. Its a great jump off point to get you going, get some data, and make a decision on where you want to go.
I probably just got lucky but the first time I used a ladder test for 6.5 grendel load I grabbed the best node loaded 10 rounds and shot my first ever single hole group at a 100m ten rounds one hole.
Nice job mate, good onya cheers Yogi 🤙✌️
Whats the difference between a good 300wm reamer and a bad reamer? In terms of optimization.
Erik, It would be great if you could get someone on to talk about High Power XTC shooting. Its a sport that involves precision long range shooting and reloading, as well as intense focus on physical marksmanship fundamentals. It isn't as popular as it used to be and that's a real shame. Someone like Brandon Green or Carl Bernosky would be awesome.
Hey Scott, what increment do you use when doing seating depth testing? 0.005"? 0.010"? Or ?
Shot with Scott at an nrl hunter, dude was shooting a 375 ruger with 250 accubonds. Real shiz…
That’s great! 😂
What kills me are the guys in PRS running a br or dasher 2900 or 3k bc its the cool guy round. I run my 6CM at 2850 and and just cruising and u see them blowing primers. It makes no sense at all.
Someone had to say this
when 6.5cm came out I wondered if they'd do a 6mm. Why not just go with a fast twist 243 win? Kinda seems like the cm cartridges are trying to reinvent the wheel.
@grunt-0311 260a and 243 had the same issues and the same reasons for 6.5cm and 6cm. For Sammi spec that most factory rifles are made by, they couldn't run the heavy long bullets. If u build a custom, there is no reason but most off the shelf 243 and 260s are designed for the lighter bullets that were common when that Sammi spec was made.
@@1clnsdime1 I can understand the desire to shoot heavy bullets.
First, I Never seen anyone run a BR at 3k in PRS. Almost everyone falls in this bracket for BR, 2750-2850, dasher 25-50 fps faster.
Second, Cool guy round would be 6creed since it was just invented few years ago, ‘The new hotness’.
BR has been in play since the 70s and BR norma since the 90s. People just pick whatever works for the specific application, and BR based cartridges work good for prs.
To each is own, but Why would you fill half a case of 6creed at 2850 when even factory hornady runs them at 2960 with 24 inch barrel.
Disagree that “positive compensation” is the only explanation. To make that statement, you’d need Doppler radar data to look at the drag for EACH shot. If you hit hi & have lower than average drag, id say yeah, compensation. W/O long range Doppler radar on each shot, it’s speculation.
To be fair, the ES in the tiny 1k group is only one single data point. There's BC variance, vertical component of spin, small variances in POA too small for us to recognize that are due to a plethora of things (light refraction, etc).
So, we can't logically just say "the ES says that group shouldn't be possible" as the defense for positive compensation unless we have somehow isolated all the other variables.
But good stuff regardless.
Yes sure, maybe the faster bullets all had lower BC and the slower bullets had higher BC which allowed canceled out the speed. But 20 fps spread results in appx 5 inches more drop at 1000 yards. What Eric’s saying is that the speed ES variable should cause the group to be bigger than what the target showed.
Now imagine that one of the fastest bullets had a high BC and one of the slower bullets had a low BC. Now you’ve got bigger than 5” spread making the group even bigger.
Ultimately we can say that the tuner played a massive role in keeping the group small, it had to because otherwise it’s not statistically possible.
@@4bigwheels09
I know exactly what he's saying. But there are many factors that explain it just as good as positive compensation.
His explanation only makes positive compensation the sole reason if you can isolate the other 5+ reasons. Which we cannot do in an outside open air range with sunlight.
It's only "statistically possible" for anyone who doesn't actually understand all the other things going on he can't measure with a target and chrono.
Hence why everyone that shoots over doppler/lidar for the entire flight of the bullet has failed to show positive compensation.
The fact that he isn't shooting groups that small consistently also makes it much, much more likely it isn't actually positive compensation.
If it was, then it would regularly send 19fps ES into 2" vertical groups. Not just here and there when the stars align.
Yeah, the idea that the movement of the barrel could be perfectly matched to a 25+ FPS velocity spread is kind of silly when you think about how they move. Also you'd easily be able to prove this at 100 yards. That 25fps faster bullet which has to compensate for 5+ inches of movement at 1000 yards would land 0.5" low at 100 yards all the time. It would be easy to show a gun that did that. All your 100 yard groups would show a vertical line which would be in line with their needed compensation at 1000 yards. I've seen people claim they can even tune a 50fps+ spread to land in the same spot. That's a shot landing an entire inch lower at 100 yards. I've personally seen a test where 100+ bullets were shot through an e-target at 100 yards and 1000 yards at the same time with speed tracked at both as well. There was zero evidence of positive compensation. What looks like positive compensation is a random confluence of uncontrolled variables coming together.
@@MMBRM Yea. Recently on a forum there was someone claiming they have their rifle perfectly compensated for up to 100fps ES @1k yds holding .5moa
That would have resulted in something like a 1.5moa dispersion at 100yds. Which obviously they couldn't show.
Am I out of line thinking that simple tolerance stacking of the chrono could explain tiny groups that arent necessarily linear with the SD and ES?
The chrono has to have at least a little room for error.
🤘🏻
👍👌
You guys should get with Todd Hodnett / Accuracy First 👍🏻
Aka “Sniper Jesus”
Do you remove the imperial from your brass after sizing? If so, how?
Wipe it off
Yep, wipe it off.
My range is 50 miles. 1 hour drive. My job is 20 miles. 1 hour 15 minute commute one way. When I load develop I bring other guns to play with after test firing. Come on man.
You think Erik Cortina would be able to shoot as good as he is in a high stress kind of situation?
He's a champ in competition setting. How about in the theater of war? Asking for a friend😕
Would hate to live on the difference lol
It's called luck. You need some even if you are the best
"Positive compensation"....as far as "smaller at a thousand than at a 100"....call it what ever you want, but, Sierra Bullets proved this 40-45 years ago w/then state-of-the-art-photography, which some author in a gun magazine had published, they called it something else back then,( I won't get into that), & litz has desperately been trying to disprove it, obviously,....with some of the most rediculous experiments, but he's learning, ....question is; is he gaining,.....I still have not heard, let alone, seen, any better proof than that article that I had read & studied back when I was just 15-20 years old. Had I only known this topic would remain such a wonder to the "next" generation of shooters I guess I could make millions on selling copies of that article......lol
What Jayden Quinlan said was that groups under twenty shots were not statistically significant. Its not a hard idea to get your head around. Why do you insist on misquoting him?
lol, Hi!
Because it is a blanket statement that leaves out experience level. Five shot groups from a hall of fame shooter give you better data than 20 shots from a kid shooting his first shots ever. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around?
All rifles produce a cone of fire. Two shots will not statistically represent either the point of aim or the size of the group in a significant manner whatever the skill level of the person shooting. @@BelieveTheTarget
Shooters of all skill levels can use this fact to make informed decisions either about their rifles true point of aim or the size of the group their rifle is producing in a statistically significant manner.
Gae tyygers 😂😂
Not sure I could move to a place you couldn't own guns.
I'm sure Scotts move was business decision.
How bad does America have to suck to get you to move to Japan...
I'm going to be honest anyone who doubts that positive compensation isn't possible has no clue how any of the physics works at this level. It's debatable if it's a good idea, maybe, that it happens-absolutely isn't.
Should be easy enough to prove then under a controlled experiment with a large sample size
@@newerest1 Dude this is such basic physics, why? There WILL exist a timing such that the vibration of the barrel is pointed up when the bullet exits later. You need to have components and ignition be reasonably consistent. It's not even debatable, it's like asking if you move your finger on a guitar string will change the note.
@@L0NGRNGE Ok. I'm s physicist and opto-mechanical engineer. When I do flight systems, I have to understand how this stuff works. I can show on paper that this will happen in some circumstances-I done even need advanced simulation software (although I've done that too). The pulse from ignition travels through the barrel many times faster than the bullet, wit and together enough times that a good harmonic wave will evolve. We know this, we observe this. That behavior will have a point where it's pointed up when a slower bullet is leaving and an area where a faster bullet is pointed down.
People have reproduced this, to be clear, but it's so simple and certain an outcome that questioning is existence represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics at play. Your asking someone to prove arches are stronger than straight bars. It's almost axiomatic.
@@userJohnSmith No you aren't. Because if you were you wouldn't be sure positive compensation exists. It has literally never been proven by anyone under controlled conditions. If you were an actual scientist you would wait for proof before making definitive statements. You realize that the argument you make for the barrel traveling upwards for a slower bullet exit time would only work for a single distance and at two individual speeds right? Or are you suggesting you can control the barrel position for a 25+ feet per second spread? So you believe the barrel moved enough to bring two shots that would be 5+ inches apart in line with each other at 25fps above expected speed and the timing also perfectly matches to bring a shot going 10fps above expected to the same spot? It makes no sense. The barrel would have to be moving at the exact speed necessary to compensate for an entire spread of velocities. The reality is that there are many factors beyond muzzle velocity that affect where it lands on a target 1000 yards away. Even the best bullets have roughly 1% difference in BC and that by itself could make a slower bullet land higher than the faster. There's also no such thing as a person holding perfect point of aim for each shot. You realize that if this existed as described than that 25fps faster shot would land a half inch lower at 100 yards every time. This is the only way it could land in the same spot as the expected velocity at 1000 yards. It would be so easy to show that it was happening. Why do you think no one has?
@@MMBRM I mean a couple podcasts ago a guy was using this, I've made use of it, it's just the idea that you can partially compensate, not completely. So yes it's proven, also it's a physical inevitability-grow up, admit you don't know what you don't know.
The only thing that tells the truth is a statistically robust (stable) number of samples. That's what tells the truth. The smaller the variation you want to measure, the larger the sample number.
People who try to explain this have very nearly run out of ways of trying to get that message across but, in simple terms, a small group is nearly as likely as a large group, especially when using small sample numbers. The real problem isn't the sample numbers or the group size, the problem is the guy looking at the result through the bias of his mind.
There is no cheating statistics. There are no short cuts.
Maybe this will sink in. Lets say you wanted to buy a new 5 axis lathe for $1.5 million that absolutely needed to machine to specific tolerances. Tell me, would you want the testing results to be determined by mathematically robust statistical analysis or, would you want the sales guy telling you the companies version of a statistical analysis?
Since we all know what the answer would be, why do you insist upon your continually hedging against inferior methods & information.
Personally, I think you very well could be on a winner with your tuners, just not exactly how you see them working. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that moving a tuner out a couple thou between increments does absolutely nothing however, screwing a weight on the muzzle does have a measurable positive result on barrel sensitivity, as it should, as, almost any realistic mass will slow or dampen the muzzle movement. The real question in my mind is what muzzle mass for what barrel. I don't doubt the overall mass of a tuner having a positive influence on most barrels but, the tiny increments are snake oil. You've invested a great deal in your business & I would like nothing better than to see you succeed. With proper testing, you could be the guy who gets to the bottom of the enigma. Lets hope you do, with robust statistical analysis which cannot be denied.
I love this. You are talking about statistics but also already made up your mind about tuners not working with small increments. You are calling it snake oil. I assume you have done robust statistical analysis to say that, correct? 😁
Scott taught me to shoot with Doug at Dougs range.
So now it is a ladder with no rungs?
The increments are the rungs.
@@BelieveTheTarget Just commenting that the already cut down ladder load development testing has now been cut down more... park it 300 off lands, use a mid-powder charge... good to go! Sounds like a load of shit to me.