AI in handload development

[Datchew]

Hi all,

For my blaser r8, I've been developing a load for cape buffalo using 270 grain TSX and initially, RL-15.
However, they stopped selling the powder halfway through my trials.

I switched to varget and have some favorable groups just under 3/4" at 100m with a vx6-hd 1-6x.
At this point, as the safari date is rushing toward me and it's starting to get too hot in Texas for trials, I'm going to try to increase my development speed by augmenting with some of these new AI tools.

Thought you might enjoy the link below of how quickly the AI can accumulate, compile, cross-reference, and extrapolate information.

Grok AI analysis

 

[franzfmdavis]

Fascinating conglomeration of information! Probably in seconds rather than the standard hours it would take to accomplish the same longhand.

 

[Mekaniks]

I have never used AI for hand loading (still old school I guess)

AI is super cool BUT it's still "trust but verify".... AI is still only as good as the data that is put into it... It will "learn" but cannot always weed out disinformation....

For what its worth...If you are getting 3/4' groups with Varget, and your trip is around the corner, why are you messing with it?? I say take it hunting!!

 

[BourbonTrail]

I have never used AI for hand loading (still old school I guess)

AI is super cool BUT it's still "trust but verify".... AI is still only as good as the data that is put into it... It will "learn" but cannot always weed out disinformation....

For what its worth...If you are getting 3/4' groups with Varget, and your trip is around the corner, why are you messing with it?? I say take it hunting!!

+1

AI is known for glitches known as “hallucinations” where it combines or extrapolates random things into anomalous data points. It’s great for a quick compilation, but you need to comb through it afterwards.

 

[Datchew]

Trust but verify - Amen!

I'm going to switch to a new pound of varget first as this one is almost depleted.
A new pound gives me approximately 97 cartridges at this load.
I'll verify no significant change, then shoot over the chronograph to verify velocity. If it's in the range I'm happy with, I'm pretty sure the buffalo won't detect +/- a few FPS.

Then I'll use the drops calculations as a guide and go shoot to verify at 150, 200, 250, and 300.

Then call Leupold for their fancy CDS dial. Or I'll go old school and laminate a recipe card with my dope and tape it to the side of the buttstock.

I'm with you... it's a good augmentation tool for analysis and planning, but it's still subject to data sets being garbage.

 

[Hunter4752001]

I would never trust AI for load data unless I knew the data sources it assimilated in making its recommendation. We all know how much crap info is out there. That probably makes me an unreconstructed ludite

Given how close your hunt is, I wouldn't start changing anything. However once you get back and start planning for the future, you may want to try AR2209 (sold in US as H4350). It's my go to powder for 270g .375 H&H loads. If it works out for you, then you have another powder option if supplies get dificult.

 

[Datchew]

I would never trust AI for load data unless I knew the data sources it assimilated in making its recommendation. We all know how much crap info is out there. That probably makes me an unreconstructed ludite

Given how close your hunt is, I wouldn't start changing anything. However once you get back and start planning for the future, you may want to try AR2209 (sold in US as H4350). It's my go to powder for 270g .375 H&H loads. If it works out for you, then you have another powder option if supplies get dificult.

Appreciate that. I have a thread on the load dev for the 375 and that advice aligns with others.
I started with RL-15 and had H4350 (I use this for 762 NATO clone) as a candidate after varget.

If I can get just under 0.75" with varget, I'm quite certain that's accurate enough for a large beast such as a cape buff. Just need to verify a new container of powder and check the chronograph for sufficient velocity.

At a high level view, it's not a thread about using AI to replace empirical testing, but to highlight the augmentation capabilities.

 

[sgt_zim]

If you want to understand AI, start asking any of them questions about a topic on which you have expert knowledge. You will find errors. Then realize that every expert could ask similar questions related to their fields. You, not being an expert in those fields, won't see the errors, you'll assume it is accurate, completely forgetting that it was inaccurate on your subject.

There is an official name for this: the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

For asking specific questions about things like "give me a powershell cmdlet to extract X, Y, and Z properties of an Active Directory computer object," it's the bees knees. Or "which are the required arguments for Python's N-class object's method Z, and which are optional; and does the Z method expect decimal, float, or integer input?." Again, you'll get a perfect answer. Beyond that, it's about as useful an an encyclopedia.

 

[D.M.V]

Hear I thought I was about to dive into a discussion about Ackley Improved. AI artificial intelligence. Ahh ok.

 

[Luvthunt]

Hear I thought I was about to dive into a discussion about Ackley Improved. AI artificial intelligence. Ahh ok.

Me too

 

[Javaman]

Love the AI response, +1 for Trust but Verify!