Here’s the velocity plot which goes with my orange dot target above. The groups in the target above are all good, but don’t tell the entire story.

So how do we analyze the groups?

Option A) smallest group. The smallest group on that page is 42.0grn (bottom left target).

Option B) 100yrd OCW flat spot. The centers of groups for 41.0-41.6 are very flat (too left 4 groups) with a bit of wiggle above from 41.6-42.4 (top right 2 plus bottom 3).

Option 3) Satterlee method. The flat spot between 41.6-41.8grn is compelling - especially considering there’s only 7fps ES between all 6 shots at 41.6 and 41.8.

So which option?

Option A might win a 100yrd benchrest Match, but there’s about 30fps spread among a +/-0.1grn powder charge error around that group, which could mean 4” or so in vertical at 1,000yrds. We shoot big targets in precision rifle matches, but 4” extra just isn’t productive.

Option B: same deal - there’s more velocity variation in the lower node than the high node, and that target flat spot covers outside of the node. If I had shot this at 300-600yrds, that vertical spread would have shown itself, but since it was just at 100, it didn’t. I’d likely be ok loading 41.0-41.4, pick 41.2 in the middle there, but given the Satterlee velocity info, that span does have more velocity variability than my middle node at 41.6-41.8.

Option C: if I’m shooting matches at 300-1400yrds, vertical dispersion due to velocity variability matters a lot. So I personally picked 41.7grn, splitting the middle of that flat spot in the velocity curve. It’s made impacts on 1moa targets out to 1200, and half MOA targets to 900, even on the clock.

I’m not aware of any load development method which doesn’t use any target analysis. Satterlee method is as close as it gets, since the focus is upon velocity.

I’ve shared here, multiple times within this thread and many, many times elsewhere on this and other forums, that I have used many different methods. This particular method works with high efficiency and efficacy for the stated particular flavor of competition

Your interpretation isn’t apt. I’ve made no statements suggesting these methods are apt for a short range benchrester, nor have I stated precision isn’t required for short range benchrest, nor have I stated common short range benchrest load developments aren’t apt for their game. This isn’t a load development thread, it’s an OCW method thread. If you like what you do for short range benchrest, great. OCW is one of a handful of methods which work very well for long range shooting sports.

I’ve stated here multiple times, precision rifle competition and long range benchrest have different demands of the load, such the load developments are different. My experience in long range benchrest, apprenticing under older and more experienced shooters, involved extensive Audette Ladders fired at 600-1,000yrds to find a charge node which minimized vertical dispersion. For precision rifle competition, we’re not shooting groups, and no target is smaller than 1/2moa, with most falling between 1-3moa. But we might be shooting out to 1400yrds any given weekend, with no sighters.

As I stated above, a load with 50fps spread might only have 0.1” unresolved vertical dispersion at 100yrds. Very few shooters are capable of disqualifying a load simply based on a 3-5 shot group which has 0.1” extra vertical. That same 50fps spread would translate to 10” of extra vertical at 1,000yrds. I can shoot a hundred rounds in load development to compare ten groups of 10 rounds to determine which load prints a 7” tall group, vs. one which prints 17” vertical. Or I can shoot 30 rounds across a chronograph and know whether my group at 1000 will reflect my group size, or simply reflect my velocity spread. Considering I need to verify my velocity and confirm my nodes before each match, that’s 80 rounds a few times a month, instead of 24. With a barrel life of 1200-1500 rounds, and matches eating up 250 rounds each, it’s pertinent to shoot as little in load development as possible.

Horses for Courses. Audette’s Ladder, Newberry’s OCW’s, Long’s OBT, and Satterlee’s Velocity methods all work very well for long range shooters and competitors.

I’ve been thinking a bit more about this question this wk, and it occurred to me this morning - I have a great graphical representation of why I focus so much on velocity.

The two targets below were shot at 875 yards, one with a 6.5 Grendel custom gas gun I’ve shown off here ad nauseam, the other by my 6 creed Seekins Havak with its original Rock Creek barrel. Both of these rifles shoot 1/2-3/4moa 10 shot groups at 100yrds. This wasn’t the first time shooting the Grendel at range, so I knew good DOPE for the hold. Alternatively, it was the first outing for the Creedmoor, so I took 3 shots to confirm POI, which hit low on target, so I dialed up .2mil, and sent the group.

What’s important to me: both of these rifles shoot the same size of group at 100yrds, and the relative wind error I shot in both groups is similar (same shooter, similar wind condition; same estimation error potential). But the 6 Creedmoor load only had 24fps ES, whereas the 6.5 Grendel, shooting Hornady Black factory ammo, exhibited 78fps ES. These targets are 66% IPSC’s, so 12” wide by 20” tall, including the head - such the 6.5 Grendel group is strung out about 14” tall, and the Creedmoor group is only about 6” tall. (Recognizing here - yes, variability in the slower round will cause a bit more drop than the same variability in the faster round, but not almost two and a half times as much vertical, as seen on the targets).

If I had only shot at 100yrds with no chronograph, I wouldn’t know what I do about the long range performance, and might consider the two loads to be equal in performance potential - both were ~1/2”-3/4” at 100yrds over multiple 10 shot groups. But at range, that Creedmoor load could place well at any precision rifle match (and did at several), whereas the vertical in the Grendel load would have caused enough misses to drop dozens of places in rank at a 2 day match.



It’s not magic, and there are multiple ways to reach the same conclusion. I could have fired ten 10 shot groups at 600-800 yards to identify the load with the least vertical, or I could have shot 30 rounds at 600-800 yards as a Ladder test, or I could fire 10 rounds across a chronograph to learn the same information. All 3 methods would work, but one would take up at least 100 rounds per bullet or powder section, while one option would only take 10 rounds. I won’t win any 600/1000 yard benchrest matches with such little work up, but I can place well at the precision rifle matches I’m shooting. It’s good enough to know that when I miss, it’s because I missed, not because my group size was bigger than my target and the odds didn’t favor me for that shot.

I’m not sure why that one shot was so fast at 42.2, but ~42.4 is also a node for me. That particular test was I stopped that test at 42.4 only because I was confirming a node I already knew. My “fresh barrel” velocity curve was 40.5 to 42.6.

Based on the analysis method, I can see why you’d recognize the node at 42.2 as well - BUT - there are three reasons why I wouldn’t load 42.2, even though it’s a node: 1) note, the velocities there are ~3160ish and that was fired at an indoor range with ammo at about 73 degrees. A match in the sun at 102, and measured on someone else’s chronograph, I might surpass the 3200fps speed limit imposed in PRS competition. 2) the 6mm Creed wasn’t included in the Berger manual I have, but the consensus seems to be that 42.0 grn of H4350 is a max charge for the 105 Hybrid. Many guys ignore book max loads, but compounding with the 3200 speed limit, I just live happy at 3084fps average in the middle node at 41.7 grain. 3) Rain. I’ve witnessed shooters be left high and dry because they were pushing a max or near max load in the rain. Failed extraction and a bunch of failed-to-Engage targets which are counted as misses. One highly ranked shooter last spring dropped something like 25 points in a match, out of ~100 possible, because she had a failure to extract in the middle of 3 stages due to rain. I had a solid cleaning rod on hand, so we could quickly tap it out, but it still meant she couldn’t complete those stages and was scored those misses.

My last barrel on that rifle had a larger chamber and longer throat, and was also only 24” (and I expect quite slow overall), but it had a beautifully wide node at 40.0grn, so I shot a LOW speed, low node most of the season last year. I did have to move up to 41.5grn to the middle node by the end of its barrel life, because I was losing velocity so fast as the barrel fell off of the cliff.

Which in fairness, I killed my buck this past winter with the last round that barrel ever fired, at 120 yards. It was still holding less than 3/4 MOA. It just wasn’t holding onto any stability in velocity any more. I don’t like to start a new match season with a “near dead” barrel, let alone one which is already completely toast. But it was certainly still holding onto sufficient accuracy to kill a big Kansas whitetail.