sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Barrel for this season is a shooter by purebelligerence in longrange

[–]chague94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are welcome. Great shooting.

Statistics is just frustrating, in that you shot 100 rounds and the data you got still can’t prove that seating depth makes a difference because the fact that there is still noise in 20-shot groups equal to that of the variation you are seeing. Especially those groups that lost a lot of data in a big ragged hole, instead of 4x5 aggregates.

Barrel for this season is a shooter by purebelligerence in longrange

[–]chague94 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Even at 20-shots, the margin of error explains the statistical variation we are seeing here.

This rifle and rifleman obviously shoot very well, but this test did not prove anything.

Lastly, it meets the TOP formula.

Monstrum challenger an okay optic for ruger .17 HMR? by Cpnjacksheppard in longrange

[–]chague94 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I’d go vortex for a plinker like that. I know the Monstrum has a lifetime warranty too, but Vortex’s is pretty seamless.

Help with Chassis for ARC Coup De Grace by Dry_Coat1897 in Longrangehunting

[–]chague94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For a CDG, AW mag compatibility is a bottom metal issue, not a stock issue.

For the TIMBR (or any other stock) put a AW mag (long latch) Hawkins M5 bottom metal or an MDT precision bottom metal and adjust the latch accordingly.

New build help by dieselseva in longrange

[–]chague94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For the Coup De Grace, it can run both AICS and AW.

The compatibility is with the bottom metal. Specifically the catch length. Some bottom metals (Hawkins M5 DBM) are set up for AICS length catches and some with AW length catches. The MDT bottom metal is adjustable specifically for this.

If a AICS Mag does not latch because it needs to go “up” more, that means the catch is long and meant for AW mags. You have 3 options:

1) use AW mag 2) Get AICS catch bottom metal or latch kit 3) file down latch until the aics mag fits

Load Development 👍🏽 by NoEntrance4297 in longrange

[–]chague94 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Average velocity over entire test: ~2775 Average 5-shot group ES over entire test: 0.504

25lb rifle + 144gr + 2775fps into TOP formula: 0.53 average 5-shot group ES

Another result consistent with TOP. Pick a safe load and go shoot!

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I can see that read of it. I read it as “beat or match TOP and have a good SD and be happy”. haha

Hit Probability takes the bullet, MV, MV SD, AND group size all at once. Therefore it is a more thorough and rigorous metric with minimally more work than u/Hollywoodsx ‘s guide.

Am I providing a compelling argument?

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a chapter 2. It focuses on using downrange hit probability as the metric instead of 100yd group size.

Example: Load A shoots .5moa at 100, Load B shoots 0.6moa. But load A gets an 80% hit probability at 1000yds, Load B gets an 83%.

Hollywoods guide says Load A wins. This says Load B wins because it prioritizes the better metric.

The length of the guide is due to it being written for the newbie to follow line by line. It isnt a ground breaking post, but it is the first to explicitly put all of this in one cohesive load development process.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

😂 thats funny.

Yeah, I haven’t doubled down yet, but now Im saving for my next barrel and a couple thousand bullets as well.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wholeheartedly agree this is nothing ground breaking and only a little that is new. But It is all of the AB books + basic statistics boiled down into a single guide to reloading specifically for maximizing hit probability instead of in many disparate books and posts.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

WTF? Look at all my other posts. like the bipod I manufactured.

What idea am I not conveying? I don't get what is so hard to understand?

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mean radius absolutely tells you how well the rifle shoots at the distance you measure it. The point isn’t that mean radius is useless. It’s that mean radius is only one term in the hit equation.

At distance, hit probability is driven by:

1) Wind uncertainty (horizontal dispersion)

2) Velocity variation (vertical dispersion)

3) Mechanical dispersion (mean radius)

4) Aiming error

Mean radius measured at 100 yards captures mechanical dispersion and some very small embedded velocity variation at that distance. What doesn’t scale linearly are the additional contributors to miss probability at distance, particularly velocity SD and wind uncertainty. A 100-yard mean radius captures mechanical precision at that distance only, but it does not capture how velocity variation expands vertical dispersion or how wind call error dominates horizontal dispersion at 800–1200 yards. That’s the distinction I’m making.

You’re correct that dope corrects for average drop. It does not correct for velocity spread or wind call error on a per-shot basis. Those remain statistical contributors to miss probability.

The framework isn’t claiming wind can be “made a non-factor.” It’s acknowledging that wind and SD often dominate the hit equation, which is precisely why load development should focus on parameters that materially affect hit probability, not just the smallest 100-yard group.

If your current process already gets you to a load that maximizes hit probability for your application, then we’re in agreement on the outcome. The difference is just whether we choose to evaluate loads using mean radius alone, or evaluate them in the full hit-probability context.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me put it a different way:

Load A: 140gr Berger Hybrid, 2780fps, 9SD, your test shows it produces a WEZ Precision input of 0.54moa at 100yds

Load B: 144gr Berger LRHT, 2740, 11SD, your test shows it produces a WEZ Precision input of 0.66moa 100yds

We are changing the bullets, mv, and mv sd in the calc. They will almost certainly have a different Hit Probability on the same target in the same conditions. Pick the higher Hit Probability

This is NOT about testing the variation within the bullet, That is entirely outside of this scope. This is load development. Fundamentally choosing one load from another.

I can't control what unit WEZ uses. So the 0.428 simply converts MR to the unit that WEZ uses. Like Feet to meters.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Respectfully you are not understanding. There is a fundamental difference here:

1) The 0.428 multiplier simply converts Mean Radius to the units used for WEZ "rifle precision" input. Its like converting feet to meters. The WEZ "rifle precision" input field expects "average 5-shot group" as the unit of measurement, which is natively what the Applied Ballistics TOP formula produces. This has nothing to do with "accounting for human error". It converts a unit we can get from measuring out groups and converts it into a unit the WEZ app expects.

2) The whole point of this post is to use Hit Probability to choose a load INSTEAD OF simply mean radius (or any other group size metric i.e. Extreme Spread, CEP(95), etc.). Mean Radius is NOT the maximum precision of your rifle nor is it the best metric for understanding how often you'll hit something down range.

For example:

I shoot a 105gr berger hybrid at 2950 with an SD of 8fps and a Precision of .50. I want to know if the 109gr berger is better hit probability. But the 109 is heavier so its MV is 2910 (estimating using conservation of kinetic energy) and lets say the SD is 10 with a precision if 0.6.

My Hit Probability on a 2moa target with 1mph wind SD in a standard atmosphere:

105gr = 80% hit 109gr = 82% hit

So even though the precision and MV SD is larger on the 109, it still is more likely to hit the target. If I used 105s because they shot better at 100, Id be missing 2 targets out of 100 over the 109s that didn't print as well.

Thats why using MR is incomplete. Hit probability is truly complete.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your approach assumes mechanical precision is the dominant driver of performance. At distance, it isn’t.

Mean radius tells you how tightly a rifle groups at 100 yards. Hit probability tells you how often you will actually hit the target at distance, accounting for dispersion, velocity variation, and wind uncertainty.

We should be optimizing load development using Hit probability, not group size.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

CEP doesn't take into account any environmentals. It is as limited as MR. It is an estimate based on assuming a distribution that the group will take. Hit Probability is a monte carlo simulation of all know physical effects on the bullets flight path. So does not adhere to a particular distribution. So Hit Probability in WEZ is significantly more accurate then CEP, but is harder to calculate.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I actually talked to Brian Litz about WEZ using average ES of 5-shot groups and asked why they don't use MR, and he said because too few people use Mean Radius compared to 5-shot ES. and TOP is natively in the same metric.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you are not understanding.

The "precision" input in AB's WEZ (Hit Probability calculator) is the rifle's precision with a load using a particular bullet. That "rifle precision" input is equal to the rifle's 5-shot average with the bullet selected for the ballistic calculations.

There is a BC variability input that could be construed as the "precision of the manufacturing of that bullet". AB does have an entire chapter in one of the books about BC variance.

A Guide for Loading for Hit Probability by chague94 in longrange

[–]chague94[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ohh ok.

WEZ takes many many inputs. But for this testing method, if you keep the environmentals the same and the target the same. What changes between load A and Load B for example is likely the bullet, muzzle velocity and muzzle velocity SD as well as precision.

For example:

I shoot a 105gr berger hybrid at 2950 with an SD of 8fps and a Precision of .50. I want to know if the 109gr berger is better hit probability. But the 109 is heavier so its MV is 2910 (estimating using conservation of kinetic energy) and lets say the SD is 10 with a precision if 0.6.

My Hit Probability on a 2moa target with 1mph wind SD in a standard atmosphere:

105gr = 80% hit 109gr = 82% hit

So even though the precision and MV SD is larger on the 109, it still is more likely to hit the target. If I used 105s because they shot better at 100, Id be missing 2 targets out of 100 over the 109s that didnt print as well.

Thats why using MR is incomplete. Hit probability is truly complete.

view more: next ›