Damn, I’m chomping at the bit like crazy to get out to the range to do some load development for my #5 SMLE .303 rifle. I loaded up 21 loads to try and find a suitable load with 174gr Hornady RN SP bullets using the OCW process.

I loaded these rounds just before the COVID scourge hit, but couldn’t get out to the range for one reason or another, and now they are sitting there looking at me and saying...”well, c’mon, let’s get out to the range and do it”. I intend to at the first available opportunity.

Now, my confustication. You will excuse me if I sound a little confused, but I am exactly that with the OCW process. The way I read the instructions in the Articles, I make up 3 rounds of each load increasing by 1% each time. Hit the range, set up the required number of targets at 100m and start shooting.

Now for some reason I am unsure exactly how to shoot, in what order, these loads on the targets. If I read correctly, I shoot 1 round per target as follows; Load #1 on target 1, Load #2 on target 2 and so on until I have 1 shot of each load on each target. I then go back to the start repeating the procedure twice more until I have on each target 3 shots of the same load.

I then look long and hard at each target to see which “group” is the most likely candidate for further development and then develop that load further.

Have I got it all correct? For some unknown reason this is screwing my head up something chronic!!!

I shoot the mildest load first.

Vince,
As I understand the OCW technique, you find the center of each group and pick the three groups that shoot the closest to the same point of impact (referencing the group centers. At this point group size is not supposed to matter.
You choose the median load for the three groups 34.6, 35.0, 35.4 in this case 35.0 and load one round to that and one round 1% higher and lower. Fire the 3 shot group and tune the load with bullet depth to get the smallest group in .010" steps. Stay out at least .010 from the lands and keep in mind the overall length that will fit in your magazine.

I confess that I have never had good luck with this method but I know others that have.
I wish you the best of luck on your endeavor.

seems like a very small difereces to me.....I would be inclinded to go 1/2 grn diferences and see what worked best.....say 5 diferent lots of 3 that will give you 15 rounds to fire and somewhere in there will be a group thats betterer than the others......now me...at that stage would say job done and just stick to that load from there on in....never really been a group/paper shooter,if its near enough to an inch at hundy (most of mine are better) I call it good and go hunting. a fella can burn a hell of a lot of powder/projectiles/money trying to find a super good load......and if you dont require a super good load...well the scottish side of me says its a waste.

PaulS wrote:

Vince, As I understand the OCW technique, you find the center of each group and pick the three groups that shoot the closest to the same point of impact (referencing the group centers. At this point group size is not supposed to matter. You choose the median load for the three groups 34.6, 35.0, 35.4 in this case 35.0 and load one round to that and one round 1% higher and lower. Fire the 3 shot group and tune the load with bullet depth to get the smallest group in .010" steps. Stay out at least .010 from the lands and keep in mind the overall length that will fit in your magazine. I confess that I have never had good luck with this method but I know others that have. I wish you the best of luck on your endeavor.

Thanks Paul...the only interest I have in group size at this time is to determine which of the groups is tightest...this allows me to do as you have suggested. I will determine a level where at least 3 of the groups are acceptable, then take the median and develop further from there.

I considered doing a ladder test instead of the OCW, but I elected for the OCW because it will give more info about the loads.

“Elvis” wrote:

seems like a very small difereces to me.....I would be inclinded to go 1/2 grn diferences and see what worked best.....say 5 diferent lots of 3 that will give you 15 rounds to fire and somewhere in there will be a group thats betterer than the others......now me...at that stage would say job done and just stick to that load from there on in....never really been a group/paper shooter,if its near enough to an inch at hundy (most of mine are better) I call it good and go hunting. a fella can burn a hell of a lot of powder/projectiles/money trying to find a super good load......and if you dont require a super good load...well the scottish side of me says its a waste.

I think if you go to 1/2gr differences it makes it more difficult to find that sweet spot in the loads...hence the 1% increases. If I find a group that is acceptable in the initial tests, then I will seriously consider sticking to that load. Like you, I am not interested in tack driving accuracy...simply a load that will be MOA or under and do the job asked if it when hunting.

mate the SMLE was never moa.....dont think even the p14 models were much better than 2moa consistantly....
they sure dont like it if you use different loads,sprays them around like a mad womans poops!!!!

Elvis wrote:

mate the SMLE was never moa.....dont think even the p14 models were much better than 2moa consistantly.... they sure dont like it if you use different loads,sprays them around like a mad womans poops!!!!

Yes, true enough mate. When I say MOA, what I should have said is reasonable acceptable accuracy...”minute of man”, which is what they were designed for.

I will know for sure when I am next able to go to the range, but I am thinking that the Hornady RN SP simply don’t want to work in this rifle. They are the “correct” weight at 174gr, and the early SMLE rounds...WW I, I have some 1917 rounds in my collection...were round nose, although I am not sure of their weight. I believe some bullets were 215gr so I might have to research that. I don’t believe any heavier than 174gr is suitable in the #5 JC. I’m seeing chats where they are saying the 150gr offering is more suitable. If this 174gr bullet doesn’t work, then I’ll look seriously at a 150gr bullet.

Whichever way, it all amounts to more recoil therapy which equates into more fun.

yep!

Quote::

Whichever way, it all amounts to more recoil therapy which equates into more fun.

I couldn't have said it any better than that!

also dont discount finding some 123grn projectile designed for the x39mm YES they are slightly undersized for the bore BUT people are using them sucessfully in the old girls,reduced recoil and lets face it the .303 is pretty tame to start with ...cheap projectiles when you can buy them in bulk...eg zombie max in 500 box.
hopefully you can get sample packs of 10-15 projectiles over there??? sure it works out at about $1 a pop but it sure beats buying 100 to find out same thing.

the guy I buy my cast projectiles off also does 200ish grn ones for the .303 and guys doing well with them....which also brings in oppertunity to use home rolled smelly dirty fun powder.....
oh the possibilities are endless fun then.

Vince,
I have a question about your rifle where you said ... I’m chomping at the bit like crazy to get out to the range to do some load development for my #5 SMLE .303 rifle.. " Is that a Jungle Carbine? Just curious because I have a number of British .303 rifles from WWI and WWII. The Jungle Carbine did have some accuracy issues and was never widely issued. All the best...
Gil

Gil Martin wrote:

Vince, I have a question about your rifle where you said ... I’m chomping at the bit like crazy to get out to the range to do some load development for my #5 SMLE .303 rifle.. " Is that a Jungle Carbine? Just curious because I have a number of British .303 rifles from WWI and WWII. The Jungle Carbine did have some accuracy issues and was never widely issued. All the best... Gil

Yes mate...it’s a genuine Jungle Carbine with matching numbers...all I’m missing is a bayonet, but I’m working on that.

I’ve read the stories about the “wandering zero”, but I’ve yet to experience that. As for accuracy, it was designed as a military rifle to be used in the jungle...as such, it was never going to be a tack driver. From memory, military rifles were considered to be within accuracy specs if they could put 50% of shots on an A4 sized target at 300 yards...4 MOA sounds familiar. Basically, “minute of man” at 100 yards was acceptable. I expect much better than that though.

I use a modified version of the OCW method based on input from Slim. Starting with the "Book Max" charge weight (usually Noslers), I work down in .5 or.3 grain increments, depending on case capacity, and load 8 of each (80 grains, 79.5 grains, 79 grains, etc). Shoot all 8 rounds into the same target and look for the 3 that group closest. With the larger capacity cases, they will usually be near the max loads ( shot #'s 6,7,8 or 5,6 7). I'll sometimes repeat this exercise if unsure which to use. If #'s 6,7, and 8 seem to be the best option at this point, use the one in the middle (#7 in this case) and work on further load development from there, including adjusting for smaller powder increments (.3 grain increments) or adjusting OAL until I get to my desired result.

It doesn't always work, but can help reduce the amount of powder, primers, and bullets used in load development when it does.

right...Ive had a heap of time on my hands due to being locked down and it being a 4 day weekend,the mk5 "jungle carbine" had reputation for a "wandering zero" eg it could be sighted in one minute and way off the next.....seems bedding with glass/expoxy is one option to remedy this...also ALWAYS mentioned is the recoil.....when the powers that be decided to fit a rubber buttplate to reduce recoil they cocked it up by reducing surface area,thus actually increased felt recoil.....buy and fit a slip on if you dont want to remove origonal....it can go in draw to go back on later....Ive got a bisley shotgun one on my 270,been on her for 30 years,its deliberately left oversize...every little bit helps....some loads will shoot way high .others way low,some out to either side....seems its a lottery untill you find what works. there is another couple of usefull websites out there
all about enfields had quite a bit in it too.