After reading a few days ago in this forum about the Audette ladder method, I'm going to try using it for load development in my hunting rifles.

I really enjoy shooting but I can't justify shooting Partitions or TSX bullets for my target work. I figured I could use some less expensive bullets for practice and use premium bullets for the hunt.

I kind of like Hornady Interlocks for practice because they are decent bullets and while not dirt cheap, are more affordable than many others.

If I shoot a ladder with 130 grain Interlocks and settle on the best load for my .270 (M77), can I expect the same load to be the best if I use 130 grain TSX bullets, or do I need to go ahead and shoot the ladder using the TSX bullets also?

What about Nosler Partitions vs. same-weight Nosler Ballistic Tips (same sectional density and ballistic coefficient) in the same scenario?

Do you do new ladders for every little change, i.e. switching primers, changing from full-length size to neck size, etc.? I think it's a given that if you change bullet weights or powders you need to do a new ladder. I'm curious about less drastic changes.

Any thoughts?

Nateh, the Audette method is a way of ruling out bullet/powder combinations. To answer your question, the TSX is most certainly a different bullet than any other, even the X bullet. Load data from barnes supports this. I only use Partitions for hunting, but I believe that you cannot use the same data as BTs. The ladder method is a very cost effective method of load developemnt.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by nateh:
.....................
If I shoot a ladder with 130 grain Interlocks and settle on the best load for my .270 (M77), can I expect the same load to be the best if I use 130 grain TSX bullets, or do I need to go ahead and shoot the ladder using the TSX bullets also?

...............
Any thoughts?

Maybe , but definitely NOT LIKELY

I would select one or two of the bullets I would want to hunt with, say NP's and Grand Slams, and do a ladder test with each of them. Select which one gives you the best velocity and accuracy. Bite the bullet as far as cost goes (I couldn't resist )until you have your hunting load developed. Then switch to your less expensive bullets for practice.
Just because a bullet is the Grand PooPah of boutique bullets doesn't mean it will shoot worth a flip in your rifle. That's why I say try at least two different ones.

It will be shear luck of the shootign gods if your premium hunting load shoots exaxctly the same w/ a cheaper "practice" bullet.

nateh, I actually appreciate your thoughts on cost of bullets during load development. I sometimes use a VERY similar bullet for load development, and then confirm the load using the intended hunting bullet. As an example using a second quality Nosler Accubond for load development, and then a 1st quality AB for final load 'confirmation'

Or perhaps a Hornady SST in stead of an Nosler BT, although that cost differential isn't that significant....

The exception would be with TSX's, they are just a lot different, and it is the exception that everything else works for it that works for another more traditional bullet of the exact same weight.

For XXX's, I do all the load development with them, the good news is that it doesn't take a lot with TSX's, they just shoot great for me.

Good Luck

quote:

I really enjoy shooting but I can't justify shooting Partitions or TSX bullets for my target work. I figured I could use some less expensive bullets for practice and use premium bullets for the hunt.

No bullet will shoot to the same point of aim as another-not likely in my experience anyways. If I "target" practice I use my preferred game load whether it is a North Fork or Swifts etc.... I have not done the Audette method yet but when I do it will be with the "preferred" bullet to kill. I'll bite the bullet as they say in the purchase cost. That is like them GS bullets I have tried to get and to no avail yet-be the same deal.

my .02

I am pretty sure that you can't use the Ballistic Tip to work up a load for the Partition. I believe Nosler does claim that the Ballistic Tip & the Accubond shoot to the same point of impact & are interchangable.
There are probably instances where a couple of bullets will shoot to the same point of impact, but I would not count on that without verification.
IMO there really is no way around it. You will have to spend some time & money to do this right.

Thanks for the responses. I didn't think that I could just switch bullets and have the exact same results (velocity and point of impact). My question was more along the lines of wondering whether the ladder would show similar clustering patterns with same-weight bullets so I could use one ladder to find an optimum load.

As it is, I've already loaded two ladders for tomorrow and I'm going to compare. If you're interested, the loads differ only in bullet selection. I'm going to try 130 gr. Interlocks and 130 gr. TSX bullets on top of H4350 powder from 52-55 grains, in .3 gr. increments.

quote:

Originally posted by nateh:
... wondering whether the ladder would show similar clustering patterns with same-weight bullets so I could use one ladder to find an optimum load. ...

Hey Nate, Good question and some excellent responses above. It is so good to see people posting that really understand about the Harmonics.

You "might" get similar results and then you might not. There are two things to be concerned about, locating the best point on a Harmonic Node(Accuracy) and watching the Pressure Indicators as you Develop the Load from below(Safety).

As you perform a few of Mr. Audette's Development Methods, you just never know where the best Node will be. Some actually believe it is possible to predict where the best Harmonic Node will be, but they have simply been mislead - like the Optimum Charge Weight fiasco.

But it always gets back to Safety as being the most important thing as you do your Load Development. And this requires that you re-perform the Load Development when you change a component within a Load. It is a bad "concept and habit" to simply switch Bullets in a Load. It might be Safe and then again, it might not be.

I just can't think of any good logic for taking short-cuts when Reloading.
-----

It is very important to take your time when shooting the Audette Method. If you are in a hurry, it is best to just do some shooting and save the Test Loads until you are not rushed.

If you know for sure you Flinched one, be sure to mark it as such. Depending on what the Target indicates, you may need to reshoot another set of Test Loads around the Flinch.

Best of luck to you.

Following up for those interested. The clustering patterns showed no similarities, as most of you expected. I shot both ladders. I started with three Hornady Interlocks loaded with 52 gr. H4350 and shot at 200 yards to get them on paper. Those three grouped at .9". I'm going to load some at that level to confirm. They chrono'd at 2917-2925 so that's a pretty decent load. There was another place that showed some clustering and I'll try those as well. The TSX bullets were all over and the Interlocks were much more tightly grouped overall. One place on the TSX ladder showed some clustering so I'll try that load again.

The thing that surprised me the most was that the TSX bullets, loaded .050" off the lands as recommended by Barnes, would not fit in my magazine. The shape of the bullet is different from other bullets (narrow to a point further back) and the tip extends farther from the point where contact is made with the lands. I plan to load three at the level where the best clustering was found, and then load three (same level) with the bullets seated so they fit in the magazine. This is on a Ruger M77 .270.

Thanks for the responses!

Hey Nate, Sounds like the Tests are going well for you. Once you locate a good Harmonic Node, varying the Seating Depth "might" just shrink an already fine group right on down.

quote:

Originally posted by nateh:
... The shape of the bullet is different from other bullets (narrow to a point further back) and the tip extends farther from the point where contact is made with the lands. ...

There is a real Ballistic Coefficient War going on among the Bullet Manufacturers. Everyone wants to produce the Highest BC possible and you have to do it by reducing the Ogive Angle which makes the Bullet longer for the same weight. Same with adding a Boat Tail, farther up from the Bullet Base also increases BC. Excellent "Marketing Ploy" because a lot of folks buy into the Highest BC Bullet has to be the Best Theory. You can see it in Bullet Arguments all the time.

Couple of problems appear in most rifles with them though. You can select a Cartridge specific to an Action Length and have a special Throat Cut, or go with a Single Shot, or back the Bullet way off the Lands(which often works well) if the Case Neck will hold the Bullet. But there are Length related problems in some Cartridge/Action combinations.

The funny thing about the BC Wars is for many years I used good old Round Nose Bullets accurately out to 400yds. The sleeker bullets do help with Retained Energy and Time of Flight, but if you use a Cartridge of the proper size for the Game, the Round Nose(aka Low BC Bullets) do just fine. Once you get beyond 400yds, a Higher BC is an advantage though.

Best of luck with the Loads.

Thanks HC.
When you start to see some clustering, which would be better, three that show horizontal separation but are right in line vertically, or three that are right in line horizontally but show a half-inch to an inch vertical separation? If you see grouping on two shots, is that enough to consider it a node? I would think so, but I'm just asking.

Hey Nate, I see folks mention all kinds of things for fixing Vertical and Horizontal Patterns. But it could be as simple as you are just seeing Random Group Dispersion. Anything I'd offer would be a guess. You just have to do the shooting and see how it comes out.

If it is ALWAYS in one direction, then there is a better chance that some "change"(Primer, Firing Pin Spring, scope, bedding, etc.) could help resolve it. But when you are seeing both Vertical and Horizontal dispersion, it could be anything from changing you grip or stock position slightly from shot to shot, parallax, shooting at a circle instead of at the corner of a square, caffine, eyes getting tired, breathing, heartbeat, lots of things.

Once you get to a spot where it appears the shots come together(Harmonic Node) there is nothing wrong with firing 2-shot or 3-shot groups at one Load Level, then reshoot another Target 0.5gr higher, and "stack" the Targets to see if they are in the same immediate area.

Once you get to where you suspect a Node is, try varying the Seating Depth a bit. It might be as simple as that to get the Group smaller.
-----

But there are no guarantees that a specific bullet will shoot great in a specific rifle. Some rifles will shoot some bullets great and another rifle just like it won't. I do not know why that is and have spent a considerable amount of thought on it. One of mine shoots Partitions in smaller 2-shot groups than it will shoot Ballistic Tips - very strange. Not much difference, but enough that I noticed it.

I know the Hornady Interlocks are fine bullets and most folks have great things to say about the Barnes TSX bullets. So, I'd expect both of them to work well for you, But you just don't know until you shoot them.

I use 2-shot groups myself to Verify the Final Load for 3-5 2-shot Groups. But I really prefer a cumulative series of 1-shot Groups from a pristine clean and lightly Lubed barrel on the same Target. In over five decades, I've just never had to take a 3rd shot at Game, and only a few 2nd shots. I sure don't mean that in a Braggart way. Just saying the First Shot is extremely important to me and I do like the 2nd shot to be very close to it.
-----

By the way, I really dislike "answers" that are so wishy-washy as what I just gave you. It is much nicer to be able to say, "... just try this xxx and it will probably work...", but there is no certain answer to your current questions. That indicates your questions are maturing along with the process. You are progressing well in your thoughts.

If anyone else can answer Nate's questions with more direct answers, jump right in.