OCW

[hozz57]

Has anyone out there tried "Dan Newberry's Optimal Charge Weight" system for load development?
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~dannewbe ... %2061k%20-

If it works then it should save on powder and time spent doing ladders or other more conventional load work-up methods.
I have tried it on some of my other calibers and it does show some promise. But when I used it for my smaller calibers I felt like I still had to shoot my usual load work-ups to verify accuracy.

[WrzWaldo]

Yes. I even created an excel spreadsheet that would calculate out the required charges. I used it a couple times but was not overly impressed with the results VS the time proven ladder method.

In theory it sounded good, but I had a hard time getting past the point that the smallest group may not be the OCW... How is that possible? If you shoot a small group and can consistently reproduce those results wouldn't that be the OCW for a given rifle?

WW

[jo191145]

Audette ladder-nuff said

[skipper]

I've used a combination of both methods. I fire a ladder test shooting five shot groups at .2 gr. intervals. I shoot each group at a different bulls eye. I then compare the point of impact on each target to see if I can find a small group that hits the relative same spot on the target as the groups .2 gr. higher and lower. I have been able to find a load that shoots an extremely small group AND would also qualify as an optimal charge weight.

It makes sense to try to find a load that is forgiving of small charge weight variations.

[jo191145]

http://kingfisher.0catch.com/guns/ladde ... ation.html

Give it a try. The beauty of it is you do not need to agree with it. You do not need to fully understand it. You just need to do it.
I usually use .03gn increments at 200yds with the 204. That usually gives me 12-15rds including the ones over book max to bracket max charge. If your not comfortable exceeding book max by all means don't. I usually do not start with the minimum charge as I prefer not to shoot the 204 at 223 velocity's. If you wish to use .02gn increments feel free. It'll make the nodes much easier to see.

If I'm using components my gun agrees with it will give me loads accurate enough for shooting P-Dogs.
If you want to shoot Wrz Waldos P-Dog the load will require more tweaking.

Due to the drastic amount of available seating depth variations in the average 204 be advised. A drastic seating depth change can alter the results of the test.

Creighton Audette got it right.

[Silverfox]

jo191145-- Did you get your decimal point in the wrong place??

I usually use .03gn increments at 200yds with the 204.

or here too???

If you wish to use .02gn increments feel free.

My Denver Instruments MXX-123 digital scale can do that for you (to the nearest .02 of a grain), but I think you meant .3 of a grain and/or .2 of a grain

[jo191145]

Silverfox

Yep, the decimals are in the wrong place. Thanks for the catch. I'll leave my errors unedited for the sake of clarity (if that makes sense)
It should read .3 and .2 as you stated.

Thanks to your reviews I also use the MXX-123. The only downside I see to this scale is it spoils you. After loading cartridges with .02 gn increments I can't imagine going back to a less accurate scale.
Not sure if I should thank you for ruining me in that regard but I will, Thanks Silverfox: