Crap. I missed that. I like my new non-linear editing software, but it does make gaps possible if you aren't paying attention. BTW, you can still have annotations, so long as you disable end cards. I was gonna tell you that on your last vid, but when you pulled it down the comment chain evaporated.

What do you think about the premise(s) of the video? Useful, or just droning on about the obvious?

Its an interesting premise. The first would explain why some times you hit a spot in a ladder work up and your velocity goes down with a higher charge weight, then double high on the next step. I also thought the barrel length and powder burn was thought provoking.... one barrel length might not be optimal. At first I wondered where you were going with it but it pulled together and made sense. Whenever we share things that are in the realm of theory without the ability to prove, its a little like carving...you move closer to true understanding by carving off bits that dont make sense or you can prove wrong. I liked it!

Dellet is VERY knowledgeable and shares a wealth of information. We are lucky to have him...but I would never let him know that LOL

Trust me I know how you feel, uploading a video with a mistake in it.

Many of the individual examples have been proven. But I kind of feel like your question is the wrong question. Boundary states and being on one side or the other of them isn't a theory it's a description of standard principles. Just a recognition of something that's happening there's a big difference between how bullets behave and supersonic flat and subsonic. If you want your bullets to have the maximum different behavior between one bullet in the next you'll have it right on the boundary between supersonic and subsonic. If you want them to be consistent you have to be fully in one group or fully in another. So I'm not really talking about theories I'm just pointing out a very well-understood engineering principle that we often lose track of when we are reloading.

@@GunFunZS sometimes engineers get lost in the weeds. Is there data that shows compressed loads don't perform well? That's what I'm asking.

@@eddieb9110 I never said compressed loads don't perform well. Some of them performed very well and often they are more consistent than uncompressed loads. What I said is loads where some of the loads are compressed and others aren't don't behave consistently to each other. You don't want to be in a place where some of your loads are compressed. You want to be either all compressed or all not compressed.

@@GunFunZS I guess. I just feel like this is how lore makes it through the community, on to forums, etc. I would want to see tests and meaningful data. If you were saying that powder charge needs to be consistent... yeah. Avoiding loads based only on how the load density applies to a principal... i don't know.

@@eddieb9110 it's not lore there's tons of data on this I'm explaining what the data means. When you see hugely erratic standard deviations of velocity and you're right on the edge of a compressed load bumping it up or down in charge weight generally stabilizes it. This is why. If you've ever seen somebody using the saterler method, sorting for a stable standard deviation and then getting on one side of it They are using data to apply this logic. I'm not hypothesizing I'm explaining what the data that we see all the time is showing us. Similarly the same principle applies for paintballs. People paid a lot of attention to chronograph variations. It was easy to see in the data that tight seals by having an oversized ball relative to the bore made for very consistent standard deviations of velocity. I was also easy to see that having a couple thou of clearance and therefore always a little bit of blow by gave very nearly it as good standard deviations of velocity. But hitting at the point where you were basically just snug meant that you occasional minor variation in ball diameter would make one shot behave as a blow by shot and the next as a perfect seal shot. Those had by far much bigger standard deviations of velocity. For a long time the lower was that you should be feeling for this point. However a project called punkworks did a lot of testing and proved that the threshold state was easily the worst place to be by a wide margin. But data made it overwhelmingly clear and really only a few minutes of thinking about it after you understand the principle maintains it should have been obvious all along. It's a very well-established principle that you don't want your wallet to go from supersonic to subsonic mid-flight to the target. That's often described as a transonic load. And the reason why essentially all long-range shooters try to pick a load that is supersonic significantly passed their intended target range. They don't want to cross that instability threshold. Of course people have gotten equally good groups with subsonic bullets way back in the creedmoor days. We just had a lot more trajectory and a lot more wind drift to deal with. But the point was they wanted to be either always subsonic or always supersonic. Avoid that threshold state where you maximize variability. If you think this is lower or theory I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying. I'm saying you should recognize when there is a state in which something behaves one way and another state which it behaves another way and avoid being right at the transitional threshold between those two states. There are many situations that fit that description. Compressed and uncompressed is one that affects a lot of near max loads in rifle. So is transonic.