Quote Originally Posted by doctnj View Post
Again, thanks Dan, as well as every one else that has chimed in. This truly has been a good crash course in load development. Which is a good thing because I was informed yesterday that the rail for one of my competition rifles will finally be here tomorrow!!!! I get to fire form brass this weekend then start load development on it next.

I wish I would have read Dan's post before I finished loading the entire test. Oh well. I did seat an additional .009 deeper than before. It puts me at a cbto length of 2.200. I like round numbers. Before seating more shallow I want to see how the pressure feels as the bolt seemed a bit sticky in the charge range of 42.7. I am re testing 42.5 and 42.7 again as well as 42.8. On the 42.8, I want to re asses weather the bolt gets noticeably more sticky at the new seating depth and that it spreads back out at that charge so I know indeed where my upper limit is. May be an incredible waste of time but hey its already loaded.
So why bother to fireform brass (first)? Unless its a major change in shape from the original, as might be the case with a wildcat cartridge?
Does not Dan's theory on initial load work up (OCW), rule out the need for perfect brass?
Are we wasting time, components and barrels by thinking otherwise? Mind you im not questioning you or the theory, but my interpitation of it is that it
looks for the optimal powder charge, not necessarily the perfect load. Which might be brought about by fine tuning of whatever it takes?
I have some confusion about high node low node and missing the node. Especially when looking at a good group.
Why would someone like me would consider the low node anyway? But i think i grasp the overall concept.