Dan I’m not sure why I bother anymore, but manufacturers have excellent knowledge compared to most of us. Their knowledge has nothing to do with advertising. They will lie, or at the very least mislead. It’s business.

If you're directing that at me, it isn't hundreds of rounds a month.

This was a matter of days ago. And there have been many other projects since then. Same as the weeks before, same as the weeks to come.



And the data on these boxes, you can take to the bank of being the truth. All this data was collected with the man's rifle, base, rings, and his scope. You can believe every parameter on there, with 100% certainty.




There is a label inside the box, of the complete recipe where he can reproduce said ammo, himself. He brought me all the components, including powder. I loaded from his keg of powder, and returned the reminder of his powder back to him.

And just to let you know, one more time, mass production anything is not always better than the hand made thing. Knives, rifles, saddles, ammo, boots are a few examples.

I have disassembled Nosler .300 WSM, dumped powder, and weighed it for ten pieces of ammo. Their powder charges had a 3.0 gr spread. Ten years ago, that was $75 a box for 20 rounds.

Most hand loaders can maintain .1 gr powder charge consistency.

Some of us can maintain .02gr consistency.

So how good does the company that makes thousands of rounds per day look? Why in the world do some of us hand load at all? Why have hand loaders wildcatted cartridges, to later have them become a SAAMI spec cartridge? Of late, the greatest example is the 6.5 Creedmoor being wildcatted into 6mm Creedmoor. Hand loaders did that. Then 6mm Creedmoor became SAAMI spec. Then 6mm Creedmoor was wildcatted into 22 Creedmoor, and 25 Creedmoor. Hand loaders did that.

I saw this a few days ago, and instantly thought of you.

You will never get it. SMDH.

Dan, you are failing to see the economic impact with factory loads. Yes, the major manufacturers might actually have more loading and ballistic knowledge than someone like JG. But they also must make a profit. The machines necessary to measure powder to .1 grains, much less .02 grains, at the volume that they produce would price them out of the market. Also, each gun is different. There's no way possible for major manufacturers to tailor a load to any specific rifle. That is why, even with my pedestrian knowledge of reloading, I can beat just about any factory load in any of my guns... and my knowledge is nowhere near JG's or Chad's. Not because I'm more knowledgeable than hornady or nosler...but because I can take the time to tailor a load to MY rifle, and I can take the time to weigh each and every load.

The issue here is not that reloads can outperform factory loads as that is a point where myself and manufacturers would quickly agree. While velocities will differ in each rifle based on its barrel length and other factors, I choose not to throw stones at their data just because some online forum legend takes issue with it.

Best thing you can do is set there in the peanut section but stop throwing your poop, because you don't understand the words the humans are using.

You're too dumb to even own a firearm, much less comment on the workings of them and their ammunition.

The same guy that thought a certain .22 lr bullet could skip down a barrel, not engaging rifling. That was a legendary poop throwing incident.

There is a disconnect somewhere Dan. Men discussing the measured and recorded results of what they did is not throwing stones. It is telling what happened and discussing the common trend the measured results point to.

No disconnect. My comment was directed at these comments made earlier.

"Hornady lied. 20 to 25 fps per inch is the real numbers."

JG…I must admit, I didn’t think we’d find a bigger Hornady homer than you, clearly I was wrong. Appears you Hornady boot lickers need to go have a beer and work this out

Hornady lied, 20-25 fps/in is the real numbers. Now, although I don’t always agree with Garvey he is usually right, as he is in this case.

You want to know how I know? Shooting the same load at 24-22-21 and 20”. Facts are fact.

By all means, grab your chronograph and your longest barrel rifle, test for speed, cut the barrel off an inch or two at a time, then report back with your results. Then you can join the conversation. I’ll wait. Otherwise we can all read the propaganda put out by all the manufacturers, we don’t need you propagating [censored].

It's the off season. We don't have anything better to do than to beat dead horses.

Chop a 17 Remington from 24 to 16 inches or maybe a 223 WSSM and I bet you loss per inch is closer to 40-50fps. That information is in the Berger reloading manual if you’re interested enough to look it up. It also says it’s approximate as there are so many variables involved.
There are a lot of “it depends” in most all these subjects.
My 22 Creedmoor with the new 62 VT bullets is 43 fps per inch loss from 26 to 20 inches as an example.

There are a lot of factors at play here and most aren’t seeing the big picture. When ammo manufactures publish their velocities, they are correct for the test barrel they used. They are not lying. They may publish the barrel length but that’s about it. What they don’t tell you is the twist rate, type of rifling, and inside bore diameter. The tighter the inside bore diameter, the more pressure and greater velocities. All of those factors go into the velocities they publish. These barrels may be set up to optimize velocities, but the velocities are correct. Chances of your barrel matching their test barrels is slim. Hence the reason to test your bullet velocities with a chronograph.

Here in lies the next issue. How accurate is your chronograph. We’ve stacked three different chronographs back-to-back and tested loads. Guess what, the velocities were all different. Yes, all the chronographs were stacked back-to-back at 18" or so, but the spreads were much greater to say it was 18". We had spreads greater than 50 fps. My buddy and I just purchased a Garmin Xero C1 Pro. We haven’t gotten a chance to test it our yet, but look forward to trying it out.

Now you want to use a ballistic program to get your intermediate and max distance baselines. That’s a great way to start. However, most ammo manufactures publish the G1 drag model and ballistic coefficient for their bullets. This will be good for four or five hundred yards, after that, best of luck. Tons of issues with the G1 drag model and ballistic coefficients. The G1 drag model uses multiple BC’s as the bullet velocity decreases. It’s not very accurate. The trick is to use Bryan Litz published drag model and BC’s for the bullet you’re shooting. Bryan is a small arms ballistic genius! His ballistic program Applied Ballistics and many others have his bullet library in it. It will tell you the correct drag model to use such as G5, G6 or G7 and what the correct bullet BC. This is a much more accurate approach. One push back I've heard, the G1 has higher BC's than the G5,6 or 7. That's very true. However, the mathematical calculations and ballistic modeling are so very different and so much more accurate. Also, scope height is vitally important to make sure your intermediate ranges are correct. Don’t just go with the ballistic programs 1.5” default. You need to accurately measure it.

I can’t state this enough, nothing beats actual test data at your intermediate and max yardages. However, accurate muzzle velocities, scope heights and the correct bullet BC’s and drag models can get you really close. I've taken my actual test data and massaged my ballistic program by making small teaks to velocities and BC's to dial it in so my ballistic program matches my actual shooting data.

Hope it helps. Happy Shooting!

chronographs are cheap, there is no reason ANYONE who is prepared to shoot game at longer ranges should not find the exact velocity of his hunting rounds. We owe it to the animals we hunt.

Most people who hunt dont even need to worry about this. 2.5" high at 100 and go hunting.

stretching it out on small steel plates? Chrono that beech or be prepaid to have a long, frustrating day at the range.

How did you write that with Vortex (POS) Optics balls in your mouth, choking you out?

It had to be heard to breathe and type at the same time.

I do not disagree.

However, go look at the very first post. It is about 6.5 Creedmoor. And in 6.5 Creedmoor, 7mm-08, 7mm-08 A.I. and .308 Win, the loss per inch is 20-25 fps per inch of barrel.

A sneaky trick is to go to a faster burn rate powder, once you get below a certain barrel length. And you'll pick up a great deal of muzzle velocity. Yall can ask the idiot Dan what powder and what to do it with, since he knows so much.

In a 6.5 Creedmoor it won't be 20 to 25 across the board per inch of barrel. It may start out around 20fps per inch but will steadily increase. In the shorter lengths it will be closer to 50 per inch.
I've done this on 30-06, 270, and 243 barrels.

I was biting my tongue till Alpine Hunter spoke up. He is spot on. The ambitious velocities have been a thing long before modern scopes with exposed turrets. Speed was king when sighting in for maximum point blank range was SOP. Slower velocities are simpler to overcome when you can readily dial or hold elevation and windage with exposed turrets or a fancy Christmas tree reticle. Modern exposed turret scopes and more useful reticles were game changers, Yet still the tight dimensioned, high quality, barreled pressure actions that make more with less are used to generate published data that we shooters very seldom realize. I think factory ammunition is manufactured using data generated in this manor to all but eliminate high pressure occurrences in a SAAMI spec firearm in good working order with ammunition manufacturerd along those guidelines. That and speed still sells.

Please tell me where to buy a barrel with a tighter inside bore diameter. I've bought a whole lot of barrel blanks, and have yet to see an extremely tighter barrel at the grooves or the lands.

Please tell me what type of rifling is going to make their ammo generate more velocity. Button, and cut rifling, I've never seen the ammo velocity claims suddenly become true.

Please tell me how much more velocity would a twist rate change generate. I've shot 6.5 Creedmoor through 1:9.5, 1:9, 1:8.5, 1:8. Which one is the magic one?

Test barrels are 24". The barrel used here was 22". What in the world caused two different manufacturers to pump up their numbers by a 120 fps average? Their barrels must have pixie dust sprinkled on them.

I've chambered some barrels. I bought reamers and Go-gauges from Manson. When I'm chambering, I get the Go-gauge (which is SAAMI spec to chamber. Then add .002" to its length, and get that to chamber by making .0005" depth of cuts until I do. That will crush back out upon barrel torque. That is a very perfect chamber. When the barrel is torqued down. The Go-gauge will chamber, and then the Go-gauge +.002" will allow the bolt handle to fall part way. If I bought a No-go gauge do you know how much too long it is? It's .004" too long. So does some kind of magic exist in the .002" of head spacing?

My chronograph is pretty accurate. You know what's more accurate than that? A nearly half mile long rifle range in my front yard. 500 to 800 yards will expose any MV claims.

Thinking the G-1 is a major handicap is false. It has worked well, beyond a thousand yards for many years. G-1 and G-7 is often printed on the boxes of bullets. Not usually printed on the boxes of ammo. And they've got nothing to do with MV claims. Try again.

Scope height is vitally important for shots less than 100 yards. It's not that important 100 yards and beyond.
Try again.

Yeah, I just tested. I chronographed two kinds of ammo. Then I got DOPE on that ammo to 400 yards. It was going as slow or slower than my chronograph said it was. Same chit, different day. Seen it for thousands of rounds of ammo. But let's argue about it.

I do not have enough rifle range to test BC. You need more than 1000 yards to test BC. Your "masaging" ballistics was more likely poor scope tracking you were trying to overcome and not a BC problem.


I will say it again. The published velocities on the boxes are flat out lies. It really is that simple.

Wiseman pressure test barrels from Bill Wiseman and Co. in College Station are the ones I can never match.

JG your focus is narrowly focused on the 6.5 CM. I get it you like the caliber. Your claim that the published velocities is are a flat out lie is way incorrect. Manufactures are all held to some type of ISO standards. Manufactures aren't given leeway to lie and make up stuff. If they are caught in an ISO audit not following their ISO standards or lying about results, this leads to major fines and legal issues. These velocities are totally correct when it comes to their test barrels.

There are a lot of physics in play here, small changes cause different muzzle velocities. It's not black and white. Most of the state of the art barrel makers will build barrels to a given inside bore diameter per the customers request. They will cut your rifling in different configurations as well as the number of lands and grooves. Heck they can take your specified twist rate out to the 10 thousands of on inch if that's what the customer requests. Competitive bench rest shooters have been playing the inside bore diameter, rifling type and and twist rates for decades, looking for that small edge to tighten there groups.

When it comes to ballistics parts of your answer, well some just aren't accurate. I get it you have a nice long range to play with and test at. The G1 drag model was originally developed for a one inch round nose projectile. Modern bullets don't resemble a one inch round nose projectile. The G1 was adapted for modern rifles bullets many decades ago. In order for it to work the ballistic modeling and calculations have to be changed as the bullets velocity decreases over distance. This is done by changing the G1 BC as the velocity decreases. These decreases in velocity were often assumed based on the muzzle velocity. I don't reload, so I don't look on bullet boxes, but it makes sense to publish which ever drag model and BC that matches the given bullets. Most ammo manufactures still publish the G1 drag model BC. They should really publish the correct drag model and BC.

Like most things these days, computers and really smart engineers develop better ways of calculating things. The G5/6 & 7 drag models were developed for modern bullets. The bullet BC and ballistic modeling for these drag models remain the constant throughout the decreases in muzzle velocities over distance. The calculations and ballistic modeling are pretty rock solid. Bryan Litz is a flat out ballistics genius as is Brad Mallard who created the JBM ballistic program. These guys have done a ton of R&D and have two of the best ballistic programs available.

As for scope height you are incorrect. Take any ballistic program change the scope height and track your intermediate and max ranges. They will change, especially if a shooter is shooting an AR type platform with two plus inches of scope heights. The further out you go, the more your intermediate and max distance will change.

As for scope tracking and massaging my ballistic program. My Leupold VX5 tracks fairly well. I'm an engineer in real life, I like to play with numbers and calculations. If I can take data and massage it to fit my shooting, nothing wrong with that. I left tracking out of my original post, but that really plays into the equation as well. We used to have a cinder block on top of concrete shooting bench to test a scopes ability to track properly. We had two sets of epoxied dual V-Mount blocks on it. One for 1" scopes and one for 30mm. Sorry this was before the 34mm and greater scope tube sizes. We'd place a scope in the V blocks, take two .5" wide elastic band and tighten it over the scope locking it in place. The setup was rock solid. The height of the cinderblock and V blocks we're designed so they would center the scope reticle on our 100 yard target or be close enough to center of target. We'd note where the reticle center was located on the target and do three box tests. We tested 10, 15 & 20 moa box test tracking. Much more accurate than shooting a box test. You would be surprised at the tracking of some scopes. Some aren't as precise as one would think and can very slightly from one scope to another of the same make and model. Though close enough for 98% of shooters. We were also able to track reticle cant as we moved up/down right left. Cant is a huge issue for shooting long ranges. Leupold pissed off the long range and tactical community when shooters found out there scope cant could be up to three degrees and stay within warranty. That was totally unacceptable for long range and tactical shooting. Each degree of cant at 1000 yards is approximately six inches. So three degrees could be 18". Not good. Think of it this way, you're dead on at 100 yards, as you dial up the cross hairs begin to cant right or left, usually right from what we tested. At a thousand yards your reticle has canted three degree and your POI is 18" right or left. You can say that's lost in the wind or spin drift, but it's a real! Oh yeah, spin drift can be up to 6" or more at a 1000 yards depending what you're shooting. Tactical and long range shooters started leaving Leupold in droves. This opened the door in the early 2000's for other scope manufactures to take that market share and boy did they. Lots of great scopes out there for long range shooting, Now some cant is shooter error on how level there reticle is when shooting. Hence the need for scope levels when shooting really long ranges.

When you say your chronograph is very accurate, I won't disagree or argue. Most are a lot better than they used to be. However, how do you know how accurate it really is? What is the is the internal clock/synchronization sampling rate between screens? My bet if you put two back to back, you would see small differences. We have two CED M2 Millennium Chronographs and we see small differences between the two of them when set back to back. Infrared screens help a lot to decrease those small difference. This is why I'm really looking forward to trying out our new Gamin Xero doppler radar chronograph in the next couple of weeks.

I'm not hear to argue with anyone, just add my thoughts to the shooting community. I don't have all the answers, however I understand ballistics very well. It's a passion of mine as I love to reverse engineer new ballistic programs to see what ballistic modeling and calculations the creator used.

Hope it helps!

I would like you to test this one!!! Fastest 45acp ever!