Here's a work-up done yesterday with Satterlee embedded. 50 rounds fired at 100yd targets in ten increments of 1%.
All five rds fired per load fired at same point of aim (10 x 5rd groups).
It is 5 Satterlee's in a row, fired at targets.
Here they are graphed. You can see there are two to three 'accuracy' nodes per 10-shot ladder. Each Satterlee string produced different nodes which sinks the theory immediately. If however you combine all 13 nodes (bar graph, bottom right) you can average them out to three common nodes.
21.8 grains of H4895
22.7
23.0
Even the averaged nodes don't match the tightest group, 23.5gns. 23.5 is the best load I settled on a while ago so the results on target appear to be repeatable. There is no visual correlation between group size and elastic velocity ranges (bottom left graph).
On this occasion Satterlee did not work, five out of five times. I think the technique has more holes than Swiss cheese.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16260[/ATTACH]
223 bolt gun
Bench rested
80SMK
100yd.
No wind
New Lapua brass
Lab Radar for velocity
On Target for group sizes.
All five rds fired per load fired at same point of aim (10 x 5rd groups).
It is 5 Satterlee's in a row, fired at targets.
Here they are graphed. You can see there are two to three 'accuracy' nodes per 10-shot ladder. Each Satterlee string produced different nodes which sinks the theory immediately. If however you combine all 13 nodes (bar graph, bottom right) you can average them out to three common nodes.
21.8 grains of H4895
22.7
23.0
Even the averaged nodes don't match the tightest group, 23.5gns. 23.5 is the best load I settled on a while ago so the results on target appear to be repeatable. There is no visual correlation between group size and elastic velocity ranges (bottom left graph).
On this occasion Satterlee did not work, five out of five times. I think the technique has more holes than Swiss cheese.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16260[/ATTACH]
223 bolt gun
Bench rested
80SMK
100yd.
No wind
New Lapua brass
Lab Radar for velocity
On Target for group sizes.