You Tube

The ShootingUK video has a lot of flaws in how he executed and how he analyzed the results from what he claims is an OCW test. Really terrible example video.

He’s not far enough away, for starters. So many guys bend this to be shot at 100yrds, but it really needs to be done at 300 or farther. The intent in the Newberry’s method is to give the bullet enough room to start dropping significantly enough such we can tell what the bullet is really doing, not just what the scope and shooter are doing. Doing this workup at 100yrds is largely a fool’s errand - especially if you’re shooting 1-1.5” groups.

He’s throwing out flyers as “pulled shots,” but his group sizes may not really reflect those flyers as anomalous shooter errors. His group sizes are as big as his dispersions, which undermines the integrity of the methodology.

Then he focuses upon POI close to the bull vs. relative horizontal shifting. Locality to the bull is absolutely irrelevant, and the method is not designed to be analyzed based on horizontal dispersion between groups. It’s the vertical dispersion between one group to the next which matters. His two groups impacting left of center have the same vertical position as the ones centered over the bull, and given 4 clicks of the dial, the result is exactly opposite. He has 3 groups to the left, 2 at 1” left, one at half inch, and then an inch wide group which spans from a bit left of center to a bit right of center, and 2 groups at center. 4 clicks on the scope, and the results would be completely opposite, so those results are a null set - false conclusion by equipment bias, and nothing to do with the load itself. He thinks the rifle is zeroed with another load, liked seeing the groups on center, and ignored the fact there’s no science to anything he did. He’s defining “stability” as close to center on the target. That is NOT Newberry’s method.

He ignores the shape of his groups, and claims he has “stable” loads for a group which has only about 1/4” of vertical and a full inch of horizontal (in a test where he’s focusing upon horizontal), and then says another load is “stable” when it has 1/4” of horizontal, and 3/4” vertical. By Newberry’s direction, those group shapes matter, significantly.

The only thing he got right is that OCW doesn’t concern itself with group size.

Like Chris Long’s OBT, Satterlee’s Velocity curve, or Audette’s Ladder methods, Newberry’s OCW is really an opportunity to determine barrel harmonics. Some followers might believe it has to do with the shock wave being at the chamber instead of the muzzle (which isn’t really supported by wave harmonic theory), Positive Compensation theory would suggest it’s when the barrel constriction/dilation wave is closed at the muzzle. Other philosophizers might suggest the node is found when the muzzle is whipped to either end of its span, meaning it has a zero velocity, whereas the antinode is the position where the muzzle whip has the greatest velocity, effectively in the center of its motion (making it most sensitive to bullet velocity and dwell time). For me personally, despite degrees in engineering and physics, I don’t really care. Knowing my milliseconds of barrel time isn’t pertinent. I just want to know when I throw a charge, it’ll produce a consistent release of the bullet at a consistent velocity, so I know I will get a consistent POI at range.

To that end, these 4 methods work. But what the video described wasn’t an apt description of the method, nor a permutation of said which has merit.

Here’s a thread from ~3 years ago where we reviewed OCW theory applied to another member’s targets.

HNI Thread: Interpreting OCW results

It’s the relative vertical position change (or lack thereof, rather) between adjacent groups which makes the method, not horizontal.

This is incorrect.

OCW method recognizes that trying POI to POA is simply a matter of dialing on the scope. So the fact the group you identified in the thread I linked is close to POA is irrelevant - add 4 clicks to the scope turret and your theory is destroyed and the result of the analysis changes - because group 3 wouldn’t be “on target” any more, and other groups would be.

That’s not the correct methodology. If you follow OCW method correctly, it won’t ever matter where the scope is dialed or where the POI of any single group hits. It’s all about where groups fall relative to their neighbors. The POA is only an opportunity to ensure the groups are all appropriately relative for one another.

However, I describe in that thread how to analyze the groups according to OCW principles. What you are looking at is the relative position of each adjacent group. Note the yellow curve I overlaid on the edited photo - it’s exceptionally unstable from one group to the next around group #3. Whereas the line is nearly flat between groups #5 - #7.

What that means - considering the inherent variability of charge weights, neck tensions, bullet weights, and case capacities, and under changing environmental conditions, load 3 will fall apart at range, while load 6 will hit very close to the same POI.

OCW method does not care about group size, nor about independent group point of impact. The entire array is what matters.

This yellow line is what matters. The multiple POA’s only serve to allow the red line to be established as a reference, then the relative “volatility” of the yellow line is what is important.

Load development based on small 100yrd groups wins 100/200yrd benchrest matches. Load development which focuses upon consistency in velocity and bullet POI at range is what wins precision rifle matches, F-class, and 600/1000yrd BR matches. Why? Well, because large spreads in velocity and harmonic position will not show up at 100-200yrds, but certainly will present themselves as vertical in 1,000yrd groups. 50fps spread in muzzle velocity elicits 10” of extra, unresolved vertical at 1000yrds, whereas it only introduces 0.1” of unresolved vertical dispersion in a 100yrd group. You’ll easily notice 10” of extra vertical in a 1,000yrd group - not many guys will honestly be able to pin down an extra 0.1” in vertical in a 100yrd group.

As for horizontal stringing in groups - to be honest, I’m well-bedded rifles, with a good cheekweld, fired from a front rest and bag, or bipod and bag, I don’t see horizontal shifts with the same bullet, simply by changing charge weights.

In the last three years, I have started using the Satterlee method, with an OCW twist. I need SOMETHING to shoot at, so I put up an OCW type array, and shoot my velocity curves three fold, shooting round robin groups on different POA’s. I do this at an indoor range, just to get velocities, so I break Newberry’s convention that it should be done at 300+. Here’s a target from one of my node confirmation tests this summer - every .2gr from 41.0 to 42.4. The offset from center is caused by the Magnetospeed V3 hanging from the suppressor - note, there’s about 3/8” of vertical shift in the groups, maybe anomalous, but only maybe an 1/8” in horizontal centroid location.

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.

It depends upon the cartridge. For competition rifles like @Big Uncle and I are talking about, “death comes on swift wings.” Break in - meaning where velocity seems to stabilize and the rifle seems to find itself - is typically around 100-200rnds. Then for these competition rounds, groups might start to open at 800, velocity start slipping at 1000-1200. A Benchrester has to give up on a barrel at that first mark. A Precision Rifle Competitor can hang on a bit longer, waiting for the velocity to fall. We can win matches with a 3/4-1moa rifle - we just need every round to fly at the same speed.

The barrel on my main match rifle last season was a Rock Creek tube, the beginning of the end started around 500 rounds. It was losing ~15fps per 100rnds by 1000rnds. I was stuck with it to finish the competition season, which took me through 1470 rounds. I spun it off at 1471 rounds - which was at least 600 rounds too late. It held onto enough accuracy to compete in PRS, but the velocity was a terrible downhill slide. I ended the season shooting a high node load, 1.5grns higher than where I started the season, and was still something like 200fps slower!

The replacement barrel this season is at 794 rounds currently, and holding onto the exact same speed for the last 3 work-ups. I have about 700 rounds left on the match schedule for this season, then it’ll come off and get replaced for next season. The only reason I made it through the season on one tube is the fact I lost 2 months of season due to work schedule, and missed several matches. I HAD planned to change barrels between 4th of July and now, but I missed enough matches early on to make this barrel last all season. I also did my practice with other rifles to save my match rifle.

It’s all about the accuracy demand/expectation for the application, and the overbore ratio of your cartridge. Like @Big Uncle mentioned, my first 6.5-284 barrel for 600/1000yrd benchrest was toast after 800 rounds. I shot a 243AI for a while which was already done by 700. Alternatively, I used to expect 3500-4000rnds from a Service Rifle barrel. For PRS, we don’t have to shoot quite as small as benchresters, we just need consistent velocity and ~3/4moa. Rounds like 6x47L and 6 creed should make it 1200-1500rnds before failing to make the grade for PRS, but they’d be toast long before that for benchrest. We expect a bit more from the 6BR based cartridges. Guys running 6.5 Creed might get 2500-3000.

We also have to consider the logistics of replacement. I have/had 3 matches in 3 weekends this month, then leave for a hunting trip next week, then 3 matches in 6wks to finish out my season. I don’t have time to have my rifle out at a smith for a month, then spend another week or two in load development right now - I need my barrel to hang on and make it through the State and Regional Finales. But even if it DOES make it through the end of the season, I’m going to change the barrel this winter, so I start next season with a fresh tube. I’ll shoot two rifles next season so I know I will make it through an even heavier match schedule next year, and rebarrel both at the end.

The good news - or maybe just the “reality,” since it’s not really good news - is the fact the barrel really isn’t so expensive in the scheme of things. I generally figure $250-350 for Regional level PRS/NRL matches, and $800-1000 per National level PRS/NRL match. Lower level guys like me might shoot one or two Regional matches per month during season, and 2 or 3 National level matches - good for about 6-7 small matches and 2-3 big ones. That’s 1400-1800 rounds - easily finishing out a barrel in one season, good for about $700 in replacement cost. BUT - spending over $3,000 in match fees, hotel, reloaded ammo, fuel, and food on the road. So the barrel cost isn’t really terribly consequential.

They’ll last a long, long time if you aren’t shooting competition. The disadvantages for the game are too steep though. I have a 7-08 with something around 5,000rnds on the tube, still shoots well enough to hunt with, but definitely not stable enough to take 275 shots in a weekend and think my last will impact the same elevation at 1000yrds as my first.

It has been a few years since anyone has used a 7mm anything and made it to the PRS Finale. The 6.5 creed is hanging around, but it hasn’t been a favorite among experienced guys for several years already too. Only 3 shooters out of the top 125 in the PRS last season used a 6.5 Creed at the Finale (none in the top 10). Running a 6mm knocks 1/3 of the recoil off of your rifle, for free, and takes a few tenth mils off of your windage. It’s a win-win, until you start talking about barrel life. A lot of guys have gone to the smaller 6BR based cartridges (and by a lot, I mean almost half of the shooters who qualified for the NRL or PRS Finales last season), in an effort to expand barrel life without giving up low recoil and fast flight.

A lot of guys do start with long barrel life rounds like 6.5 creed or 308win, but they quickly realize how many points they lose due to the high recoil. If you can’t balance your rifle on the tip of a T post and see your impact on a 1moa target at 600yrds, either your rifle weighs too little, or your bullet weighs too much.

It’s all about the advantages under the rules of the game. Recoil is an extreme penalty.

Get a couple 66% IPSC targets, 4 Shepherd Crook plant hangers from a local Garden Center, hanging bolts and 4 lengths of chain 18” long. Throw them out there at 500. Chronograph your load, establish a solid 100yrd zero. Put the velocity and bullet BC into Hornady’s online ballistic calculator. Print your 500yrd group on the left hand 66% target, and refine it to confirm on the right hand target.

As mentioned in another thread here this week, your target often dictates your group potential. 66% IPSC’s give great reference for square edges and aiming references. They’re 2.3moa wide by 3.8moa tall (3.0moa body, minus head), plenty to aim at for even a 3-9x scope, all the better for a higher magnification optic. Placing small groups on 66% IPSC’s as a development process is simple and straightforward.

The most important advice I can give - go shoot it. I recently took an old high school friend I had not seen in over 15yrs to a match with me. He had bought a Bergara B14 HMR over a year ago. Had never fired it past 400yrds, and wanted to get out to 1,000 “someday.” He posted as much on Facebook, which I rarely use, but that Sunday, I did, and I noticed his post. Within 6 days, I had his BC trued, velocity confirmed and he made impacts at 1088yrds during the match - connecting on his second shot ever past 1,000. Nothing magic, just making an opportunity to go do it, and then acting upon it. He hit a full size IPSC, 18” wide at 1,088 yards on his second shot, and hit it again with a 3rd. Can he shoot smaller? Probably. But on the clock, in a dynamic field position, and only with calculated data, connecting 2 out of 3, only missing once due to the 20+ mph wind value, it checked a box for him.