Satterlee 10 Round Load Development

[Klem]

Now on to the Satterlee 10 round test using Nosler 90 Varmegeddon and H322. It looks to me to do some five round tests at 28.1 and 29.2. Your input on this will again be appreciated!

There is nothing more useful about shooting 10 rounds across a chronograph than getting the average velocity of all the rounds. The Satterlee method seduces us with the idea that you can identify the precision sweet spot with only 10 rounds, no targets necessary.

"How fast does this car go?"
"Let's turn the car on, listen to the engine and imagine its top speed - works every time."

Take the car for a drive - shoot at targets.

[centerfire]

I'm with Klem. I tried to love the 10 shot ladder but found it is only useful for finding maximum pressure. The "Satterlee" method caused me to work backwards down from my starting point because none of the velocity nodes were where I thought they should be. I eventually took five ten shot ladders, shot the first one and recorded my assumptions/estimations based on Scott Satterlee's explanation of how he does it. I then shot the remaining four 10 shot ladders and calculated each five shot group's ES and SD. My estimations were incorrect and the pressure node was not where the first 10 shot ladder suggested. You're already working with insignificant samples (as pointed out), the 10 shot ladder reduces them to single data points which is kind of ridiculous when you think about it.

I'm naturally disorganized so to improve my own records I shoot all load development on a white poster board target with each group on the same horizontal plane. No mixing or matching groups, loads, cartridges. I then log the load development in the rifle's log book and write the results on the target. Eventually I discard the targets.

[Lemonaid]

There is nothing more useful about shooting 10 rounds across a chronograph than getting the average velocity of all the rounds. The Satterlee method seduces us with the idea that you can identify the precision sweet spot with only 10 rounds, no targets necessary.

"How fast does this car go?"
"Let's turn the car on, listen to the engine and imagine its top speed - works every time."

Take the car for a drive - shoot at targets.

Klem, the 10 rounds are just the start of the Satterlee test. The next part is 5 round groups to verify if the flat spots are indeed accuracy nodes (round count now 15-20) After node verification is confirmed (if not, they would likely be on a ladder spot anyway, so data is useful) is long range testing (round count 25-30). I'll always wonder if the method is sound or bunk if I don't try it for my self. Failure is a great teacher!

[jmkhenka]

I just use the 10 rounds over chrono to find max presure with as few rounds as possible. But generaly, its only used when i dont have load data for that bullet and powder combo.
If there is data, i know well enough how my barrel work so i know quite well where i will find accuracy or velocity i want.

I can even use 3 shot groups, but often i load 5 but if the group is to big after 3 shots (or even 2!) i move on not wasting bullets. In my howa mini with varmint barrel (20") i tend to find several loads that can go 0.5-0.9 inch. And if im going to hunt with them, a 3 shot sub 1" inch is enough for deer up to 200 meters - most shots are free hand anyway.

whats more importaint is COLD BORE shots, and that they are reliable. If i go on the range i can take up to 5 or 10 shots on same target, but with long times inbetween.

One thing you need to remember though, shooting groups outside without any wind indicator is wasted bullets. I have had load go 5 shot inside 0.25", to never again perform like that. Reason was that wind moved the bullets the way i liked it.

During matches i tend to get 0.3-0.5" groups with windcalls (5 x 5), and thats what my hunting rifle can perform at its best, and thats on par with 10 other people shooting similar calibers (6.5x55, 308).

To get anything sub 0.3" or 0.25" requires a full bench rest setup, and thats not reasonable. so people claiming 0.25" groups are just lucky most of the time.

Best 5 x 5 avrage was 15mm but that was with 6.5x55

[Klem]

Let me put it another way.

We take a big risk believing velocities alone tell us where the sweet spots are for the tightest groups. Bullets can come out of a barrel with similar velocities but be pointing in different directions (as the barrel whips around).

I like Henka's thoughts on this...That you use the chronograph to confirm what velocity your barrel is giving and then have an idea where the safe working limit is. From there however, it is shooting groups at targets.

[imaguy3]

Don't forget though... Satterlee isn't guaranteeing hair splitting accuracy with his method. He's simply using those shots over the chronograph to find a range with consistent velocities. He's chasing a load with low ES and SD numbers. Typically if you're in a velocity node you'll have good accuracy too.

I have used this method to develop 3 diff. rifles and it's worked just fine each time. After finding the highest velocity, safe, node I could; I played with seating depth and have them all shooting between 1/2moa-1moa with no fuss. Even if my initial group wasn't good, after playing with seating depth it was a quick process to get to SD numbers under 10 and groups under 1moa.

I would venture to say that if it doesn't work maybe there's another factor at play such as case prep or loading practices.

Re-watch between 5:00-8:00 and then at 10:30-14:00

It's not a method for everyone, sure... however I know it works for me as I want to have a load with low SD numbers, especially in my bolt gun that sees much longer range than my Grendel. I'll personally continue to use it.

[Klem]

That's fine, but you are also illustrating my point. Satterlee is like religion, it requires faith.

[imaguy3]

That's fine, but you are also illustrating my point. Satterlee is like religion, it requires faith.

I didn't know who the guy was until I watched that video from 65 guys... When I first saw it I had just finished doing a load for my 30-06 the old fashioned way... burned through 150rds and still had not found a viable load.

I decided to try the method and I had the gun shooting 3/4moa in under 50 rds...

My 280ai, I bought the bullet I wanted to use for hunting, the powder I wanted to use due to temp stability, one primer, and did his method. The gun shoots 1/2 moa, SD is 6fps, under 40 rounds. No experimenting or wasting components.

The grendel, using his method I did the same thing, one bullet, one powder and one primer. The grendel was a little more finicky. Once I got brass from all one brand and batch, and had them all prepped equally the results were the same...

I don't care who he is, but for me I much prefer doing it this way than wasting hours and components shooting 5 shot groups of every possible combination there could be.

[Lemonaid]

That's fine, but you are also illustrating my point. Satterlee is like religion, it requires faith.

I understand your point exactly, without testing all those other points on the ladder you can't be positive that what you get with Satterlee is the best load. It's a predictor formula, the question is how accurate is it? If it works 80% of the time or better then for me it's a useful tool.

[Klem]

I understand your point exactly, without testing all those other points on the ladder you can't be positive that what you get with Satterlee is the best load. It's a predictor formula, the question is how accurate is it? If it works 80% of the time or better then for me it's a useful tool.

My point about the Satterlee religion. You don't know if it works 80% or 100% or 0% of the time unless you also shoot groups at all possible points on the same ladder to compare. It's all about believing it to be true.

This is also the fundamental tenet of the scientific method: Logical Positivism. 'You can only prove with certainty that which you can disprove' (paraphrased quote from [Sir] Karl Popper). You cannot say with certainly that this method works because you are not testing all points on the ladder for group size. But, if we were to do both methods and it was found that there's one or more points on the ladder where tight group sizes don't coincide with velocity nodes (like your graph yesterday for 90 Speer) then we can say something with certainty... that Satterlee's hypothesis is incorrect (the Null Hypothesis). To clarify, Satterlee's hypothesis is that group sizes are related to velocity nodes, in all calibres, in all situations. To be fair to Satterlee however we don't have control over all other variables and we talked about possible shooter error. Our own clumsy testing might not be doing Satterlee's hypothesis justice.

I have seen Satterlee's hypothesis work and yet in the same ladder, not work. So it that situation it was hit and miss. How often does it work, In fairness I cannot say because the sample size is too small to generalize but my impression is 50%. Let me show you a couple of cases when doing work-ups for the 6.5x47 calibre, bolt gun, Kreiger barrel, bench rested.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16239[/ATTACH]

In this case with the 130 Berger we see Satterlee's method working perfectly at the 2910fps mark. Look how the blue velocity line goes flat (elastic) and this coincides perfectly with a super tight group size - perfect. But, looking at the other node: 2950fps, there is no corresponding tight group. The best group occurred at 2840fps - close, but no cigar. Saterlee worked 1 out of 2 nodes.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]16240[/ATTACH]

In this 140ELD workup we see a correlation between velocity node and a dip in group size at 2665fps. This is consistent with the Satterelee hypothesis. But, at a lower node (and it is only a slight node) at the 2630fps mark there is no corresponding tight group. At the third node down at 2570fps there is a corresponding tight group. In this work-up Satterlee worked 2 out of 3 nodes.

To be fair to Satterlee I was only shooting single 3-rd groups and we all know it is only a rough idea of the group size, and to really sure you have to shoot at least a couple, maybe more. The round count goes up and this is where Satterlee becomes seductive - use his method to save time and rounds. For me however, I am less interested in saving time and rounds as no shot is wasted. I love shooting so it is not about saving shots but enjoying every one and making each one count.

Using Satterlee you might be right, or you might be wrong, and you will never know unless you shoot groups at every ladder to confirm - which defeats its [claimed] advantage.

[A5BLASTER]

I guess I'm useing a modifiyed method of what y'all are discussing.

I run a pressure ladder and then shot 10 shot groups where I see flat spots in the ladder.

When I find the load that has the tightest SD and ES, I start working searing depth at that charge to get the groups I want.

This is what I have personally seen, with all the grendels I have work loads up for ar and bolt grendels not one of them with any powder are bullet had good groups on the charge that gave the tightest SD and ES numbers until I worked the seating depth.

So I guess I'm useing a combo method of saterlee and harmonics timing the bullet exit.

[Lemonaid]

Wow, Klem you sure make good arguments! One advantage from making a load at a velocity node/flat spot is that you have a more forgiving window for variables due to powder load variations (progressive press) and temperature changes.
I got to try it at least once and see how it works before giving up on it. If the results are not what I like, I'll just fill in the missed ladder points and no harm no foul.

[Klem]

A5,

What is your 'pressure ladder", what exactly do you do for this first stage?

[A5BLASTER]

A5,

What is your 'pressure ladder", what exactly do you do for this first stage?

I work up one round at either 2 or 3 tenths increase in charge till I find max. Sometimes I will run it a second time to see if it tracks the same.

Afterwards I look at what the graph said for speeds and find a couple of charges that I didn't get much speed increase and will do 10 rounds of each charge over the graph looking for those tight SD and ES numbers.

Once I have that then I move on to adjusting seating depth to get the groups I'm wanting.

Seems to work very well for me and my loads are great.

Not sure there is a name for the method I'm useing, it's just kind of what I put toghter from learning on this fourm.

[Klem]

I work up one round at either 2 or 3 tenths increase in charge till I find max. Sometimes I will run it a second time to see if it tracks the same.

Afterwards I look at what the graph said for speeds and find a couple of charges that I didn't get much speed increase and will do 10 rounds of each charge over the graph looking for those tight SD and ES numbers.

Once I have that then I move on to adjusting seating depth to get the groups I'm wanting.

Seems to work very well for me and my loads are great.

Not sure there is a name for the method I'm useing, it's just kind of what I put toghter from learning on this fourm.

It appears to be Satterlee. You fire single rounds over the chronograph in a ladder and look for velocity nodes. Then fire groups at the node.

How do you know all the other increments wouldn't be better groups?

I have done a few thing over the years but am starting to settle on this.
Work out a max from QL manufacturer tables and shooting forums.

From the max go back ten 1% increments. So if the max is 28.5gns these are the increments;
28.5
28.2
27.9
27.6
27.4
27.1
26.8
26.5
26.2
25.9

The lightest load comes out at about 10% below max which is a good start.

Then load 3rd for each step and shoot these on targets while recording the velocity. Look for the tightest group closest to the max while noting the velocity curve.

It's 30rds or if you want to shoot two groups per increment then it's 60rds, a decent shooting session.

[A5BLASTER]

It appears to be Satterlee. You fire single rounds over the chronograph in a ladder and look for velocity nodes. Then fire groups at the node.

How do you know all the other increments wouldn't be better groups?

I have done a few thing over the years but am starting to settle on this.
Work out a max from QL manufacturer tables and shooting forums.

From the max go back ten 1% increments. So if the max is 28.5gns these are the increments;
28.5
28.2
27.9
27.6
27.4
27.1
26.8
26.5
26.2
25.9

The lightest load comes out at about 10% below max which is a good start.

Then load 3rd for each step and shoot these on targets while recording the velocity. Look for the tightest group closest to the max while noting the velocity curve.

It's 30rds or if you want to shoot two groups per increment then it's 60rds, a decent shooting session.

Not a bad idea, might try it and see how I like it the next time I need to work up a load.

Like I stated the method I'm useing has worked great for me. I jyst don't see a correlation between small sd and es numbers and small groups. Like people say I should.

When I do it I find the tight numbers but then have to work the seating depth to get the groups.

I'm going to give your method a try as well.

[Harpoon1]

It appears to be Satterlee. You fire single rounds over the chronograph in a ladder and look for velocity nodes. Then fire groups at the node.

How do you know all the other increments wouldn't be better groups?

I have done a few thing over the years but am starting to settle on this.
Work out a max from QL manufacturer tables and shooting forums.

From the max go back ten 1% increments. So if the max is 28.5gns these are the increments;
28.5
28.2
27.9
27.6
27.4
27.1
26.8
26.5
26.2
25.9

The lightest load comes out at about 10% below max which is a good start.

Then load 3rd for each step and shoot these on targets while recording the velocity. Look for the tightest group closest to the max while noting the velocity curve.

It's 30rds or if you want to shoot two groups per increment then it's 60rds, a decent shooting session.

Define “better groups”?

Just my opinion but, I get the sense Satterlee in not looking for the most “accurate” load, i.e. tightest groups per se. He’s looking for the most “durable” load, most “forgiving” load with acceptable accuracy, for PRS style competition. It’s just his shortcut to Newberry’s OCW method. Searching for the largest node, closest to the maximum safe charge. Once he’s found the node, then he fine tunes accuracy with seating depth. The goal is to be able to load in volume on a progressive press and know a tenth or two on either side of the target charge weight would have little to no affect on POI.

Whereas someone shooting in another discipline might have a different definition of what is “better”.

[jmkhenka]

Problem with 10 round ladders are all the factors.
Take 20 cases and 20 bullets. Load two identical ladders and shoot them.

You will get two similar ladders, but nodes wont match up on them. In the grendel I seldom see plateaus anyway, but smooth rising curves are the most common.
You really need to have perfect brass and bullets for this to be reliable, and the next time you need to use brass in the same shape as the previous time, or you will get diffrent speeds.

[Popeye212]

Here's another way I found a semi Satterlee useful in weeding out powders..

10shot workup with say 8208,ARcomp,CFE223,Tac
The 10 shot dispersion will show which powder it likes and the workup will give you the nodes to start with.

[Klem]

Define “better groups”?

Just my opinion but, I get the sense Satterlee in not looking for the most “accurate” load, i.e. tightest groups .

It looks like our definitions of terms are different.

Accuracy refers to how close the shooter can place bullets to the point of aim, and precision is the guns ability to shoot tight groups regardless of where they fall on the target.

"Better groups" for me in a work-up is precision - I am looking for the tightest group. Environmental conditions like wind are variables we try and exclude when focussing on a guns ability to fire ammunition. Wind affects accuracy but not precision. Shooters often use the term accuracy as an umbrella term when they are technically talking about precision. I do it all the time but right now we are parsing the concepts to get to the bottom of what we are really trying to do.

What hits targets and wins matches is a combination of precision and accuracy.

Your term "durable" seems to me to be consistency in precision. We expect when doing a work-up that the results are repeatable or the same every time, and will be into the future. In scientific experimentation this is called 'Reliability' and is one of the two key measures of experimental quality: Reliability and Validity.

Implied in precision is that results are repeatable, reliable. When I do a work-up, like Henka is saying we often are not controlling variables as well as we should. He rightly points out the risks of lack of reliability in these shooting work-up methods due to differences in case volumes, brass ductility and a host of other variables; some of this is our responsibility and some of it is down to the manufacturers quality control, or even factors beyond anyone's control. Also bear in mind that even if you can control all variables at the time of working up a load, that things are going to change; the gun barrel wears, the brass wears and gets replaced, different powder lots, shooting at different times of the year. In two years' time your favourite load might not be the best load.

I think you will find that Satterlee will be focussing on validity also and not just reliability.