I decided to toss my hat in the ring and start a reloading channel over on YouTube. It probably goes without saying that I want to put out content/information that people actually want to watch.

That said, I have a question for everyone.  

What do you want to see?

I want to contribute something new, preferably cover some ground that hasn't already been plenty beat into the ground.

Thank you everyone for your input.

What is the maximum distance you can shoot at your range?  Can you reach out to 1,000 yards?.


Stay away from folklore and old wives tales, unless you are trying to prove/disprove their validity.

Top quality testing and statistically significant test results.  That means fairly large sample sizes to back up any conclusions.

What does annealing really do for the average reloader?  Where does it fit in the reloading spectrum?  Is it cost effective (extends brass life enough to pay for itself)?  Does it improve ballistic performance?

Do a segment on benchrest shooting equipment & techniques which you will later use in your bench testing.

Compare net accuracy between shooting techniques - benchrest, tripod, prone sling, prone rest (F-class),...

When does accuracy loss from an aging barrel overwhelm any improvements made to the reloads?

Those are just off the top of my head.

All very good suggestions, I have added them to my notes. Thank you. I'm particularly interested in the one in red.

Unfortunately, for the moment I am limited to 100 yards. Although I'm hoping to be able to stretch out to 5 or 600 during the fall and winter seasons, but this is yet to materialize for a few reasons. We will see how that pans out later this year, after harvest.

Good luck in your adventures OP.  If its allowed, link the channel.  I always enjoy watching reloading channels.  

I was a huge fan of 8541 and Ultimate reloader when they first started and even when they started getting a good following ...but once they went into justbthe crazy high end (8k+) rifles or talking about lathes to Reem their own barrels....I stopped watching.

It's probably why I still like Johnny's reloading bench.  To bad he doesn't post much anymore.   But I get it as well...the channel has to grow or it gets boring.

Thank you, I'll need it. A lot of my inspiration to try actually comes from Johnny's channel.

The other inspiration is to show people out there, who may be thinking about reloading themselves, is that this is not a hobby that you have to invest thousands and thousands of dollars on expensive equipment into before you can even start to make anything decent. This is actually a video I'm working on, specifically.

Here's the link. I only have one video up, but am working on more.

White Wolf Weaponry - YouTube

YouTube will shut it down.

So many firearm related channels get dinged for simply mounting a scope.  

Channels like Johnny's Reloading Bench were great and YT shut them down.  

Rumble allows the content but just doesn't get views.

Is that what happened to Johnnys Reloading Bench? I thought he just got burned out. You could tell when he started reloading shotgun!

Interesting. I did notice after the fact, that the name I chose is quite popular. I may need to rebrand at some point. Apparently there is also a music group and a video game with a similar name. No affiliation to the aforementioned party, though.



I don't post too often, but I do occasionally. I'm not nearly as active as some other members.  That said I do intend to participate more.



If that's the case, so be it. I'm not looking to do this for a profit, so trying to monetize at some point will largely be irrelevant to me.
I am considering an alternative site to host my content on, but as you mentioned, they simply don't seem to get the viewers that YouTube does.



Based on what he said in his own videos, he simply got burnt out. Something along the lines of he didn't even shoot for a year. I don't recall any mention of YouTube being an issue.


Thank you for the input everyone.

Thought the video was pretty good. Was kinda hard to hear you talk at some parts.  


Side note-  what wood kit is that?  It looks really clean.

I think that there is a lot of bad information out there. And just as much bad, quite possibly dangerous practices going on because of it.

I am a written word sloot, and always hit the manuals first, then compare with other manuals, and then finally the internet.

I learn well enough by reading, but I have more confidence when watching then doing after digesting the information.

So I would suggest starting with the basics and work up. Like others have mentioned keep it direct and on task, while titling the videos to keep the progression user friendly.

The internet is destroying peoples social skills, and creating division. which means younger people and the boomers are developing disdain for each other which makes the tried and true mentor guiding the learner less likely.

I think the mentor, rather than the instructor market is the one lacking. Maybe you can fill that void.

I live in an region with about 20 million people but they are spread over 2,000 square miles.  Despite that HUGE population, my reloading was entirely self-taught, never having had a mentor or tutor.  The mentor-student model would not work for me because of my very busy schedule (work, family, house,...).  I want info when I can fit it in, not when I can schedule yet another meeting (with mentor).

I learned by talking to people at the shooting events but mostly by doing, by testing, by measuring.  I do have a decent technical background and have good mechanical skills.


Videos might accelerate the learning curve for newbies.  

Videos might help reloaders break this cycle of buying every new gadget that comes out promising to get you up the learning curve or to improve your groups/scores.

That is my argument in favor of his videos.  


A key is to not be redundant with what's already out there.  Also, it is not a personality contest - it's not about the presenter.

Kudos for taking on this endeavor. I’ve been considering something, but time to film and edit has proven challenging. With all of the shills and BS guntubers on YouTube, I’ve almost given up on watching anything on there.

One thing I’ll say, is definitely try to determine what your expertise is and what you are comfortable in doing. I.e, if you are a plinker, focus on that. If you’re gearing up for precision, make sure you and your equipment are capable.

My channel would be more about educating shooters, so it wouldn’t be popular. If you’re going for popularity and monetization, teaching isn’t the way. Entertaining the fudds will get more clicks, like that DA, Opies Kleenex or whatever his name is.

Good use of statistics, significant figures, accuracy -- especially of chronographs - one of my pet peeves.  As an example there is a video on youtube (I'm not going to bother to look it up) where the content creator is using a Magnetospeed chronograph with 1% accuracy.  For the velocities he was recording, that is about +/-30 fps.  He then goes on to show loads whose averages were calculated to more than 6 significant figures, or two decimal places and comments about the relative merits of one versus the other when alsmost all of his loads were within the margin of error of the chronograph.  As I remember, one chart he showed had the SD calculated to four decimal places, and again, all of his SDs were within the margine of error of the chronograph.

As a small  YouTuber myself I wish you luck. It’s definitely harder than it looks. With the price of everything being sky high right now, maybe a video where you test budget powders and projectiles and see what kind of results you can achieve?

To be honest, I'm not sure it's possible for a reloading specific channel to make money at this point. Even like Ultimate Reloader, they have gotten away from reloading, and gone more to shooting, or just talking about nonsense.

This is just my opinion, but there's a lot of channels out there that share what works for them. Eric Cortina for example, he shares what he does to create great loads, or at least he did, now he's just doing random video too. What the world really needs is less opinions, and more scientific tests. Not to pick on Eric specifically, but there's way too much 3 shot group nonsense out there. The guy is really good, but he doesn't even know why he is good. There's a mountain of channels just like that, but with shooters with no titles. Someone needs to go out there and shoot 30+ rounds for each seating depth and see if there's any truth to seating depth tuning. Someone needs to go out there and shoot 100+ rounds with different neck tensions. Nobody wants to do that, because it's hard work, and it doesn't pay. You would burn out a barrel, and spend hundreds on powder for a video you might make $100 from. Sometimes it's just better to go work for a company. Or write a book.

If I can one piece of advice: Given YouTube's ever growing hostility towards firearms channels -- particularly reloading channels -- also start up channels on places like Odysee and Rumble as well. You don't need to do a thing other than set up accounts on them, turn on synchronization and voila, you have multiple venues that are automatically updated with your videos after you upload them to YouTube.

And promote all your venues, not just YouTube. There might be a time when YT kills your channel but you at least have something to build from if you've spread your chips around the table, rather place them all on one bet.

And yes, Rumble is a pimple on the ass of YouTube, but I'm old enough to remember the days when IBM was largely the only game in town when you wanted to buy mainframes and computers. I wonder how their hardware sales are these days...

When shooting groups on paper, it would be great to see groups of 20, or even 30. If you use mean radius, groups of 10 might be enough.

I don't mean 20 shots on a single target, but for example four 5-shot groups on four targets which are then combined into an "as-if" 20-shot group.

It's frustrating when YouTubers shoot 3-shot groups or 5-shot groups.

Take for example one of my favorite GunTubers, Who_Tee_Who.
He'll buy a Ruger American off the rack, put it on a lead sled, and shoot 0.4 MOA 3-shot groups "all day long."
Sure, he is a good shot.
Sure, those are 0.4 MOA 3-shot groups. And maybe he didn't even edit out any bad ones.
Sure, 3-shot groups may be the max for that rifle. Wouldn't want the barrel to overheat.
But if he combined seven 3-shot groups into a single 21-shot group, it would not be so pretty.
Small groups are misleading. Sorry for the rant, which is just directed at YouTubers in general.

Molon’s Accuracy Node Detection Technique

Hornady Podcast: Your Groups Are Too Small

Your Groups Are Still Too Small | A Follow Up

How to use Group Analysis | Hornady Ballistics App

Let's Talk Mean Radius

Statistically speaking, shooting four 5-shot groups is less useful than shooting one 20-shot group. In fact, I believe one of the videos you linked to argues exactly that. I'm some years away from the statistics courses I took in university so my memory is a little hazy, but aggregated data is generally less trustworthy than a single homogeneous pool. Using that logic, Who-Tee-Who could aggregate his pointless three shot groups into one large group and claim some sort of results.

Anyway, to bring this back to on topic, this might be a path for OP's channel -- being one of the few autistic-level channels that will go to that length.

Excellent discussion. I'm loving it and am taking a lot of notes.

Couple of things I want to address, as if I quoted everyone and replied individually it would be too large.

I'm really not int this for the money, so making a profit isn't of concern for me. I'm doing this because I think it would be fun, and I want to share knowledge and the learning curve that I'm experiencing along the way.

I'll have to do some research on shots per group, statistics and all that. Of course there has to be a balance between enough info, but not so much that I'll fry the watcher's mind, or just straight up bore them instead.

I do absolutely want to delve into the nitty gritty, the numbers, etc.

Doing things on a budget is going to be a staple of my channel. I'm a firm believer that your average joe can get plenty good results with average tools of average quality. It's about skills, not necessarily quality. Although there is certainly a difference between 'cheap' and in 'inexpensive'.....

Please explain further.  What is the mathematical or even practical basis for that statement?  I'm asking because I think aggregating data is a good thing.  It allows a lot of flexibility in the testing, such as multiple days, different times of day, different environmental conditions, etc.

Let me offer this - if you are going to shoot large sample groups at shrt range (OP only has 100 yards), you absolutely MUST have some offset between your point of aim and your point of impact.  Otherwise, you obliterate your point of aim and that can adversely impact group size due to aiming error.  However, that offset is contrary to ensuring you have a good zero dialed in.

This could get extraordinarily technical, extraordinarily quickly. However, to put it simply, a high level of aggregation of data sets has the effect of actually concealing the differences between and among the individual data sets themselves. What you believe would offer as being a flexible approach actually isn't. To use your example, you aren't controlling for any variables in your analysis because you're mashing together different sets and unable to draw any real conclusions. You wouldn't be able to differentiate between sub-groups in your data sets and see what's really happening.

It's a rather difficult concept to explain without writing a chapter here to explain aggregation, over-aggregation, groups, subgroups and how data can have homogeneity from one perspective while that same data set doesn't have it from another perspective. If you are interested, I can point you to some interesting resources on it because I fear that I'm a little out of practice on the theoretical aspects of it to explain it in a way that doesn't sound like an idiot is behind the keyboard. Well, even more so than it already appears.

This example may explain why aggregated data can be a bad idea.

Let's say that you're tasked to find out the average scores generated by a standardized test for your employees to see how smart they are. Dutifully you put together a test and after running the numbers you are stunned to learn the following: Women outscore men on this test by close to 30 points -- 600 compared to 570.

This is monumental but you're immediately faced with a problem: There appears to be a difference but you can't explain how or why.

This is the same as combining data sets from different days, times and conditions. A pile of 5-shot groups combined into two 100 shot groups. You have a result, but you can't explain why you have that result even with a mountain of data in each set. Only that you have a result. Without the why, can you actually explain the how? You have over-aggregated your data.

But you lucked out. One of your assistants had the bright idea of also asking each respondent what they studied in college. So you go through the data to get results per program between men and women.

And because you had a lot of respondents, you have about 20 people in each group. You have two groups each consisting of 5 twenty shot sub-groups.

And you find something less interesting. The difference between men and women in similar groups were within statistical norms. Men who took math generally scored about 605 while women scored 599. Men from the Liberal Arts scored 580 while women scored an average of 586. And so on, in some programs women had slightly higher scores, while men scored higher in others. Small differences between each group that across a selection of programs resulted in a tangible difference, but a difference that actually hid that there wasn't actually much difference within the sub-groups (i.e. between men and women there was never more than a 6 point spread).

The five shot groups combined into two large groups couldn't explain a difference -- the multiple 20 shot groups showed there wasn't actually one.

Of course, the 20 shot groups are only valid in the specific circumstance they were collected in. In this case, you work at a place where there is a higher call for Liberal Arts majors.

I probably made this concept even more muddled.

We are taking this way off topic.  I will stop after saying, the shooter still has a record of all the particulars for each group.  The thing is, you can aggregate or de-aggregate at will.

If you chrono five rounds in the morning and 5 identical rounds after lunch, I would suggest that data can be aggregated.  Now, if the temperature went from 40F in the morning to 90F in the afternoon (a desert climate), then look carefully before combining.  You may find they are different (using TAC) or not really different (using Varget).

Yeah, we are way off topic.


Wrangling this post back on-topic:  OP, consider doing ONE topic and doing it really well, rather than covering all of reloading.  Learn how to "nail it" in a Youtube video.  Only then, consider a larger scope.

Subscribed.
I will watch your videos later today. Quite interested in seeing what you have to show us and of course helping out fellow arfcommers.

He's burnt out. Probably personal problems at home. He above all else is who I watch. Amazing shooting and reloading data.

How about a series on something like an intro to intermediate range shooting. Lots of folks have never shot past 100 yards but would like to dip into reaching out to 5-600 at some point, and maybe further down the road. With the economy he way it is, use off the shelf rifles, and introduce economy reloading with it as well and spin that off into its own separate series of videos.

Something like “sure you can use your box stock savage axis to make hits at 500” or “yes, a basic lee turret can make plenty of good ammo without breaking the bank” type of videos and go from there with feedback from the comments section. That will get more folks realizing they have a chance to do what they want and affording it even with the limitations the equipment has. Use basic affordable tools to produce quality ammo that will meet their goals.

You can even get into budget scopes, bipods, bags, chronographs, etc. to round it all out, and if that is a hit, then go up in stages of quality and price and do another series. Just be honest and clear as to why this piece is better than this piece or this gadget it better than another, or worse.

Although this is a reloading Forum, I whole-heartedly agree with videos about shooting, shooting techniques and budget-conscious reloading and budget-conscious shooting gear.

If you go to the Competition and/or Training subforums, you will find they are just this side of completely dead.  I do not understand why, as Reloading is only a means to those ends - shooting!

I hope it pays because Varget isn’t cheap.

Attached File

Also a very good idea.

I'll be starting production of my next video very soon.