But, people putting fancy names on like OCW doesn't make it sound harder? Man, its been around for decades. Just some fool tryed to claim it calling it OCW. Why do you insist on calling it OCW? Your not trying to claim this technique are you?

Why would I want to do that?

What's your problem with what name it's called?

What would you want me, or anyone who uses it, to call it so you'll stop whining about it being called a fancy name?

Is there anothername for it?

I could type out "Optimal Charge Weight" eact time but why would you expect me to do that?

Are you one of those Internet Experts that troll threads just to make some lame complaint?

Why are you against the principles of the system?

HUH....??

Probably a safe bet you do your load R&D froma lead sledoff a bench and use more that one sheet of T.P.per sitting in the Johnny...

I've "talked" with people like you before and can't know why I bother.

The whole point of my list is to show that I"ve found a lot of what others do as religion is highly un-needed. Have done the same things myself over the years, and there was a time I used bulk remmys or winchesters, bought factory and shot them for the brass, all kinds of stuff that lots of folks just do as normal. Have watched so called Pros fiddle and fuss over tenths of a grain difference in brass weight and think it means some bad mojo, I simply buy good brass and fugetaboutit.....you'd be surprised how many Experts baulk at the idea of spending good money on brass.

Idon't play your 1K game so if I could get a 5 inchgroupof cold bore shots at 1K I'd hafta call itgood 'nuff. Never gave adamn about punchin' organized paper or tryin' to kill anything at 1K so trying to talk to you on your so called level is a waste of my time. I'm responding to the Average Joe that started this thread looking for advice on how to work up loads. Did he mentionags at 1K? If he did then I missed it. Using the system that Newberry talks about gives me an easy way to work up a very functional load in an average rifle, nuthin' more, nuthin' less. If that ain't your gig then rock on with your up and down powder weights concurrent with seasonal changes...I really don't care.

I do TWO types of shooting, my kids and myfriends do the same two types of shooting. 1,) We HUNT and kill stuff, and 2.),we bust a lot of steel, rocks, jugs, ect. If you only bring a hundred rounds of ammo to my range out back then you run the risk of not having enough for the day.We work within the practical limits of the chambering in hand...meaning we don't stretch range beyond the effectivness of the bullet. We hardly ever roll up on a shooting bench anywhere just to burn powder and call it shooting. We do a lot of normal field position shooting and work oftenfrom rested field positions. Hitting what we are aiming at interests us much and work to that end. Pretty much what a lot ofAverage Joesdo....

We consider punchin' paper pretty boring and would just rather bust a rock or swing some steel. Loads are worked up with a hunting bullet and I use exclusively TSX's. Even though I can like buying good brass I really can't muchlike buying TSX's in the kind of volume we play with. For that reason and that reason alone I source a similar cheaperbullet that works with the same load. I attribute that to the calmness of the barrel in the sweetspot resulting from that bad word called OCW. My rifles stay zero'd for the TSX's and the swap bullets hit close enough to that zero/drop chartto consider it a wash. If my 168 grain TSX's hit within a 1 1/4 inchradius of centeredPOA at 500 yards I'm on target with that load. If the swap load, which is the inexpensive "practice" bullet, hits 4" lower, 3" higher, 2" left or 1" right...it's still gonna swing a ten inch square of steel. So YES, I use a swap load for non hunting purposeswithout changing zero's. Have seen lots of the guys that actually shoot a lot drive themselves crazy crankin' scopes back and forth for different loads/bullets because it's some sort of voodoo to work up a swap load. I don't play that game and prefer a simpler approach. Twistin' come ups via a drop chart is all the crankin' I want/need to do.

For those interested and following, OCW is only a moniker fora system of developing a load, and yes, it's been around for a long time call it what ever you want. Some folks stumble onto an OCW load without even knowing what it is.Thewords Optimal/Optimum only mean it's the best charge weight for application. It doesn't mean that a charge is in excess of published data and is only used within those limits.It's derived by actual shooting and seeing where the "groups" impact the paper in relation to the point of aim, POA. You can literally watch the groups walk around the point of aim, usually in a counter clockwise rotation with lower charge weights hitting low and to the right.It has little to do with group size initially and only addresses the barrel harmonics issues that affect "accuracy". Group size is/can be, reduced later if needed by adjustments to seating depth.

If every last bit of fps is your game then just stuffpowder and go for it, this isn't for you. If you are looking for a simpler method offinding an "accurate" load that is variable insensative so you can just go shoot worry free, then try it. I've posted a link here somewhere that explains it way better than I can so go read that...I've wasted more time than I wanted to talking to the Experts.

Should add too, that once the OCW load is worked up I simply refer to it as a "load"...because that is what it is.

My .243 Win. (sorry I'm using another name for it here)"pet load" is 36.8 grains of RL15 under an 85 grain TSX and does equally well in Lapua and Federal brass. That load flat out shoots. It'll swap "close 'nuff" with 85 grain Sierra HP's to like it. TSX's are zero'd at 250 yards and stay wellinside 1 1/4" with a warm barrel at that distance. That load killed my 12 year oldson's first three deer this past hunting season, his furthest was 260 yards. That load will do almost as well in the barrel, on a different rifle, thatI just sent out to be punched AI. I testedthe barrelat 150 yards and shot under a .900 inch group with a slammed together, unbedded McMillan, Rem 700with 7X glass...just a hair over 1/2 MOA. Will be looking for bug holes when the project comes to an end and the AI R&D is done.

Don't tell me my chitt don't work...

The only thing you've brought to this is pulling five grains out on a hot summers day....

For my criteria the trajectories do match.The trajectory of the hunting bullet is the only one that needs to be spot on, the rest is just for practice/play. Ican live with a little difference on steel plates and milk jugs....which I don't start to see until you cross the 3 or 400 yard line anyway.If my hunting bullet is 1/2 MOA andmy play bullet is 3/4 or 1 MOA, I really couldn't give a rats azz.

Say you run aload test at300 yardsand 37.8 grains of powder is the published maximum.

Out of that test you pull 37.0 grains as your "OCW load".

36.6 grains and 37.4 grains both shot into the exactsame pointof impact and all three charge weights averaged 1.6 inches. IN OTHER WORDS, if you shot 3 rounds of each charge weight, 36.6, 37.0, 37.4,they would all fall into the same 1.6 inch group. 36.2 grains and 37.8 grains are bothvery, very close to the same point of impact and are still yielding a 1.6ish inch group.By picking the middle of the sweetspot, 37.0 grains, you have just found a load that is damned near 1/2 MOA and isvery tolerant of pressure changes both UP and DOWN. (Tweaking seating depth will likely tighten up that 1.6" group.)

Because those three to five different charge weights show on the target that they impact the same place, you can know that the shock wave from theinitial chargedetonationwhich slings back and forth from chamber to muzzle ("barrel harmonics") is at it's furthest point from the muzzle, causing the muzzle to be at it's calmest period of movement. This occursin at least two places in a work up.You want the bullet to exit at that instant to reduce or eliminate anybarrel whip influence on the bullets flight. The tolerance to pressure differences and the reduced barrel whip are proven by thetest you just shot.

Those pressure differences can be influenced on a load from several avenues....

Differences in charge weight caused by volume measured charges.
Differences in case capacity cased by lesser quality brass.
Differences in some case prep.
Differences in bore condition, fouled vs. recently "clean".
Differences in lot # of powders or primers.
Differences in temperature or humidity.

By picking the MIDDLE of the sweet spot (Optimal Charge Weight), and precisely weighing out your37.0 grain charges, you've just allowed the load to be less sensitive to any of those variables and proved it to yourself by the test you shot above because you have a range of pressure differences both up and down that shot into the same group. You could run with 37.8 grains but you do not have the luxury of pressure tolerance on the UP side, which is why you have to pull 5 grains out on a hot summers day.

The side benifits of having the bullet exit at that point in time when the muzzle is at it's calmest are...

Similar bullets of same weightcan be made to shoot to very close trajectories, allowing swap loads.
Skinny barrels can be made to shoot just as good as fat barrels if heat issues are paid attention to.
Some mechanical issues become less of an issue, floated barrels vs. pressure points, ect.
Ugly stuff like the BOSS and that SIMMS rubber thingyare not needed.

If this didn't explain it then just go read the Newberry'slink as many times as it takes to sink in. It ain't rocket science............

I am not any of those. I just can't figure out why you are calling a method thats been around for decades OCW. There are not too many out there that referr to this ladder method as OCW. Is it like the in thing to call it this now. Its just rather lame.

Rifle, lets take a good look here. You come on here with a whole 45 posts, and you call me a troll? Your rude and obnoxious and acting like a child and I have a feeling your only 18 or so. Why all the negativity just because noone agrees with you?

I am not against the system, but your talking to a crowd here that knows better and knows its limitations.

You wanted to have an intelligent conversation. Lets see some simulation data. Have you modeled this principle in matlab, or C? Lets see how intelligent you are. Impress us dont' just insult us!

Show us how good you are, don't just tell us.

delete

So your biggest problem is that I happen to refer to the method by the same "name" that someone has dedicated an entireweb page to it? Your "problem" with THAT is what is quite lame.

And you've whined and cried about it in several posts now with obnoxious rudeness yet refer to my explainations as being the same?

That's compelling.....

By your logic 13,686 posts on an internet site makes someone an all time expert, and someone with only 45, mostly on this thread,doesn't know jack....?

Also compelling......and obnoxiously rude.

Sorry I used the word"troll" as verbage to describe what you've done to this discussion...I should have used the word "fish", maybe?

Either way, the crux of what you said so far does nothing for the discussion and is...well, obnoxious and rude.

This is also rude and obnoxious..."Goodness, any foolcan kill somethingwith a gun. Your not one of those slob hunters that only go out with the orange armyevery year are ya?"

When you started crying about OCW as being not real or not any good I handed over this discussion to you and the other experts herein hopes you could demostrate just what the methods limitationsreally are. Since you've nowstated, "but your talking to a crowd here that knows better and knows its limitations", I would then expect that you could back up your statement.You haven't done that, and all you really CAN say is that the system doesn't work as good as what you do.

Well why not then? Why is a load that does what I've descibed above not any good? It's almost at max published velocity, AND it's less sensitive to normal variables.....WHY is THAT bad, in your opinion? I highlighted that part to make sure you read it.

I've already stated that I'm just an average joe that does average shooting. I've a range out back of the house and tend to shoot often, all year long. So by some measures that puts me above average compared to the average joe that drives 30 miles to the closest range andonly shoots just enough to "check zero's" two days before the season opens. I'm thinkin'those arethe slob hunters in the orange army thatyou refer to. "Refer" by the way (BTW) is spelled with only one "r" at the end.

I've changed my reloadingmethods from what I started with in the mid 80's and now understand the physics of the system becauseI KNOW it to work. I do not feel compelled to key in all the load data I've compiled over the years to prove anything to you and if you are too scared to try it for yourself then it's your loss, in spades. I've already typed in several examples to illustrate my findings, you could actually read them.

The fact that you feel I'm only 18 or so only proves that you've not read what I post and choose instead to post responses blind to the facts stated. I've a 12 year old son, going on 13 this year...he's the middle of six children, all raised on game meat BTW,and if I were only 18 nowthat would make me only 6 or 7 when he was born. You'll have to come upwith better than that if you wish to smugglypontificate on the internetabout my intelligence.

SinceI've explained my stance on OCWseveral times over now, I'll extend the same challenge to you.Please with your own knowledge and whatever facts you can muster, prove that OCW isnot the best method to find the sweetspot in a load work up. I don't needactual numbers to judgeyour methods, just an indepth explaination of the physics and how it acts upon the bullet and the bullets flight.

If you can show that you, better than me,understand the physics of usingrapid combustioninducedpressure to drive a projectile down a tube and get it to hit the same place twice then I'll shut up about it. If you have to lower your charges in July because they are too hot, or up your charges for December because they are too mild,then I'll be forced to continue my argument.

And, by your rude and obnoxious logic, any fool can stuff powder in a cartridgecasing and get it to fire.........

This is what was just deleted by Big Country.....

"Goodness, any foolcan kill somethingwith a gun. Your not one of those slob hunters that only go out with the orange armyevery year are ya?"

Over the top was it?

Are you going to have an intelligent discussion or not? Do you have any data, except your trusty 243? Lets hear what you know about harmonics, resonance frequency, frequency analysis. Impress us.

Yes, by your reasoning, you represent average kid. You gun hunt and have no interest in extreme accuracy or long range. Goodness, all you need is 6" groups at 200 yards, and your good. Rest, your just wasting your time with ocw. If that is your reasoning.

I suggest you go and look up the average load in manuals and just stuff powder in a case and shoot if that truely is your reasoning as you mention. Cause any fool can shoot a deer at 100 yards with any load in any manual.

We have sat here patiently and explained how ocw can be a waste of time and can be useful. Man, if you don't understand it, we can't help you. You can't seem to grasp simple concepts of pressure, temperature, case capacity, and how all this changes metals and thier frequency response. If you can't understand these elementary concepts, how could you ever come close to understand what we are talking about?

Yes you are