Research article on differences in handloading vs factory loads (only lead-free was studied, but interesting nonetheless)

[TNBillyEarl]

Published last week:

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wsb.1570

A couple things surprised me. Very interesting read...

-B

 

[Bruce Mc]

IMHO, so many different shooters make the results less accurate. In fact adding a human factor makes it inaccurate. The only thing I agreed with was their conclusion that factory ammo is good enough. I did enjoy reading the article none the less.

 

[salmonchaser]

I think it was an interesting study, however I had some questions on methodology. Catherine who knows such things as statistics, took me through two cups of coffee as she explained what was good about the study, what really didn’t validate the premise. Her assessment, factory ammo is pretty good stuff. She was not surprised the Artificial Intelligence cartridge shot the best, “ thats like all your Nozzlehead buddies got together and designed the perfect cartridge!” Not often I get one up on her.

 

[clearwater]

I was sold on reloading when Winchester factory ammo gave me 3 MOA,

Then my first reloads produced 1 MOA. This was in the late 90's.

I would expect more from factory today.

 

[Blkram]

For such a "scientific" study, they forgot to mention that factory loaded ammunition is loaded to SAAMI specs so that it will function in all rifle's chambered to SAAMI specs. And that despite SAAMI specs, there are variances from firearm to firearm due to the chamber dimensions of the individual firearm, from the reamer, due to wear from numerous chambers being cut, within the range of tolerance of the chamber as set by SAAMI.

And that "handloaded" ammunition is loaded to develop the best load for a specific rifle, in order to achieve the best accuracy and/or velocity for that particular rifle. Or that when handloading, neck sizing can mitigate variations in the casing dimensions on fireformed brass that impacts consistency in accuracy.

This, and the fact that it was performed by the wildlife society, and referenced many studies, and had a bias towards a study that only included lead-free bullets (which limits the veracity of the study) which I am assuming were performed for litigation purposes and not for firearms performance purposes, would have had a bias towards the end goal, as compared to a true study of actual ballistics and ammunition performance purposes, and may have skewed the results. (Seen this in other studies).

If I am wrong in this assumption, I welcome the correction, but as it was not identified, it leaves the reader to speculate!
As a former scientific researcher, perhaps DrMike can share a more educated opinion here.