I am in the process of trying different powders for my Marlin XL7. I have typically used 3 shot groups for load development but I have been reading about shooting ladders. For example firing one round per charge and looking for shot groupings. The idea sounds good on paper but has anyone here had any actual experience with this method? How well does it seem to actually work? I am willing to try it for the sake of learning but I am old enough to understand the value of others experience. Any advise or suggestions would be a big help, Thanks in advance.

The problem with using three shots is the possibility that your group will not represent the true potential of the load. I use a minimum of five and are condemned by some for so few. I do however use a careful progression of charges and pay very careful to where the groups center, or the highest density of clustered hits is.

Be methodical and shoot at the longest range feasible for your area when you can limit the effects of the wind.

I have switched to shooting ladders then trying the closest two shots. 5 shots each of the two closest loads.

Never could understand why anyone would shoot a ladder. Are they good to eat? How does one judge a "trophy" ladder?

Larry Gibson

Seriously, the ladder test will tell you what a range of powder variation will/can do at the specified test range (preferably 300 yards/meters or longer) If you want to know the potential of your rifle and load you will shoot groups. % shot groups are the minimum to get you close to an accurate load. Once you've come to that load them a minimum of 7-8 shots, preferably 10 shots, to verify.

You can get there both ways.

Shooting Audette's Ladders will get you there generally quicker with less shooting and component usage.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
You can get there both ways.

Shooting Audette's Ladders will get you there generally quicker with less shooting and component usage.

I've tried it both ways and find all Audette's ladder does is tell you where you can get sloppy with the weight of the powder charge (to a degree). After several tries to come up with something workable with several cartridges in several rifles with the ladder method I went back and read Audette's articles carefully. Turns out he was a match shooter and was loading using an automatic powder thrower that didn't give the best powder charge consistency consistency with 4350 in does for a .300 Win Mag. He wondered what the accuracy difference would be with that variation. Thus he worked up using the ladder method and found that at 300 yards it appeared that rounds loaded with a larger than normal powder variation would "group". Thus he found that he could shoot good groups with the thrower's varience in powder charges by using the ladder method. He also noted he thought it might not be good other than at the specified test range (this was proven correct when "ladder loads" were developed at 300 yards and then tested at 600 and 1000 yards). Vertical stringing from the larger extreme spread was the result because of the induced larger extreme spread from the larger powder charge variation.

Another situation with the Audette ladder method is the resulting "sweet spot" is usually below the potential for the cartridge, many times considerably below. So lessor ballistic performance across the board is many times the result.

If one bothers to "work up" a load starting with 3 shot groups, using a chronograph and then using 5 shot groups one will get to an accurate load that utilizes the cartridges potential in the rifle used much quicker and with much greater probability of good results than if using the ladder. There is no "short cut" which is what many thing the Audette Ladder is. For Audette the "short cut" was simply to find a useable load that the automatic powder dispenser was throwing.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

I've tried it both ways and find all Audette's ladder does is tell you whhere you can get sloppy with the weight of the powder charge (to a degree). After several tries to come up with some workable with the ladder method I went back and read Audette's articles carefully. Turns out he was a match shooter and was loading using an automatic powder thrower that didn't give the best consistency with 4350 in does for a .300 Win Mag. He found that he could shoot good groups with the thrower's varience by using the ladder method. He also noted he thought it might not be good other than at the specified test range (this was proven correct when "ladder loads" were developed at 300 yards and then tested at 600 and 1000 yards. Vertical stringing from the larger extreme spread was the result because of the induced larger extreme pread from the larger powder charge variation.

Another situation with the Audette ladder method is the resulting "sweet spot" is usually below the potential for the cartridge, many times considerably below. So lessor performance across the board is many times the result.

I one bothers to "work up" a load starting with 3 shot groups, using a chronograph and then using 5 shot groups one will get to an accurate load that utilizes the cartridges potential in the rifle used much quick and with much greater probability of good results. There is no "short cut" which is what many thing the Audette Ladder is.

Larry Gibson

I find this a very, very useful post. Thanks Larry.

Wrongo Larry!

Audette's identifies the nodes. They are where they are whether you shoot groups or an Audette

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
You can get there both ways.

Shooting Audette's Ladders will get you there generally quicker with less shooting and component usage.

I've tried it both ways and find all Audette's ladder does is tell you where you can get sloppy with the weight of the powder charge (to a degree). After several tries to come up with something workable with several cartridges in several rifles with the ladder method I went back and read Audette's articles carefully. Turns out he was a match shooter and was loading using an automatic powder thrower that didn't give the best powder charge consistency consistency with 4350 in does for a .300 Win Mag. He wondered what the accuracy difference would be with that variation. Thus he worked up using the ladder method and found that at 300 yards it appeared that rounds loaded with a larger than normal powder variation would "group". Thus he found that he could shoot good groups with the thrower's varience in powder charges by using the ladder method. He also noted he thought it might not be good other than at the specified test range (this was proven correct when "ladder loads" were developed at 300 yards and then tested at 600 and 1000 yards). Vertical stringing from the larger extreme spread was the result because of the induced larger extreme spread from the larger powder charge variation.

Another situation with the Audette ladder method is the resulting "sweet spot" is usually below the potential for the cartridge, many times considerably below. So lessor ballistic performance across the board is many times the result.

If one bothers to "work up" a load starting with 3 shot groups, using a chronograph and then using 5 shot groups one will get to an accurate load that utilizes the cartridges potential in the rifle used much quicker and with much greater probability of good results than if using the ladder. There is no "short cut" which is what many thing the Audette Ladder is. For Audette the "short cut" was simply to find a useable load that the automatic powder dispenser was throwing.

Larry Gibson

I agree that there are better ways to develop loads than the ladder test and that outlined in the last paragraph above is one of them.
Where the ladder test falls down is with a projectile that your rifle doesn't really like. Not exactly an uncommon occurrence. You just waste time and components chasing your tail, looking for a sweet spot or accurate node that doesn't exist.

So your rifle knows to like 3 shot groups and not audette's ladders when shooting a particular bullet?

OK, obviously more explanation required for the intellectually challenged here, some of whom are unable to express an opinion without feeling the need to ridicule others.
A crap 3 shot group is a crap 3 shot group. No need to decipher where it fell in a group of shots, loaded at different chargeweights to try and gauge whether it is within an accurate node or not. Forget it and move on . If after working up to maximum with a series of say 5 x 3 shot groups in 1/2 gn increments you have nothing that meets accuracy expectations you either change powder or projectile. If you have a good 3 shot group or two then retest those loads with 5 shot groups to confirm whether they were just fluke groups or whether that load has real accuracy potential. Those with even a rudimentary knowledge of statistics will be aware that alone, one good 3 shot group proves nothing.
I've used the ladder test in a custom .243AI that would shoot well under half MOA for 5 shots when fed the right loads . With a projectile that it didn't particularly like (87 V Max , 3/4 MOA plus)) the ladder test provided no useful conclusion and was basically a waste of time and ammo.
The reason that the ladder test doesn't work particularly well can be easily explained. The placement of one shot on a target is of practically no statistical significance. The next 4 may land close by and form a 1/4 MOA group or they may be scattered around all over the target.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
If one bothers to "work up" a load starting with 3 shot groups, using a chronograph and then using 5 shot groups one will get to an accurate load that utilizes the cartridges potential in the rifle used much quicker and with much greater probability of good results than if using the ladder. There is no "short cut" which is what many thing the Audette Ladder is.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
So your rifle knows to like 3 shot groups and not audette's ladders when shooting a particular bullet?

Contrary to what you may think; one shot with one load is not a "group". Groups are "cones of fire" typifying dispersion of the bullets and the dispersion gets larger as the range increases. If you are ladder testing at 200 or 300 yards and the bullets from 3 different loads are close to each other how do you know it is simply not from the randon dispersion of over lapping groups, you don't know is the problem.

Lets say each of those rounds are from MOA capable loads. At 300 yards if the barely over lap then it is quite possible to have a "close group". However if we shoot 3 more of the same rounds we may have a group 3 times as large. Many times you will be just chasing your tail as a previous post mentioned. Also as previously mentioned, one shot is not statistically valid and tells you nothing about the potential of that load.

If you work up a load expecting a certain velocity level with 3 shot groups then the group size, the ES of the chronographed load will tell you if it's worth pursuing. The chronograph will also tell you if the velocity is where you want/expect it. When a good combination of componants (not hard to find if you use the information from a good reloading manual) is tested as such you can quickly see whether that combination is giving you the results you expect. If it is take the load(s) that look prommising and load 5 shots of each and test. If the groups are what you expect and the velcocity is what you expect with an appropriate low ES then guess what, you done, time to go hunting or shooting.

Another part of the equation is to have reasonable expectations as to the accuracy potential of your firearm. Don't expect moa accuracy from an M1 carbine for example or from a bargain basement rifle. It can happen but figure the odds. Also have a reasonable expectation of your own shooting ability. Marksmanship is learned and maintained through appropriate practice.

Larry Gibson

I start with 5 shot groups. If I'm working on a .223 sized case, I go up in .2 gr increments, if I'm working with the 308 or 30-06 sized case, I go up in .5 gr increments.

If I see a group I like, I'll load 25 more of the same load and shoot them again in 5 5 shot groups. If I like all of those, then I keep that load.

If I don't get anything I like in the initial test batch, then I will likely change powder first. If after 2 or 3 powders I don't see anything I like, I'll then change the bullet and start all over again.

I prefer 5 shot groups to 3. If I "call" a flyer, as in I know I screwed the pooch when it went off (hey, it happens), then I ignore that flyer and focus on the rest of the group. But if I don't notice the shot went wrong when fired, then that flyer "counts" toward representing the accuracy of that load. Either way, I progress from there with my same "method" each time.

I must be lucky.. I find certain powders work well in certain types of cases, like a 57 mm case seems to work real well with 3031, if you can't find an accurate load with other powders..

a 223 will digest almost any type of powder and shoot well.. in a bolt action, as I am not an AR 15 kind of guy..

One powder I hate is H 4895.... when you find a "sweet spot", vary that charge slightly and groups open up dramatically..

use the same case and load and switch to IMR's 4895 and it can have variations in the charge rate up or down and it stays accurate...

Seen this in a lot of cases, cartridges and caliber.

I don't 'throw' my powder.. I rely on the old fashion hand method or Lee Powder dipper, an RCBS 505 Scale, and a plain old trickler..

not the fastest method on the planet, but sure helps out in the old accuracy dept...which is what I am after....

I also find mid range burn rates are less finicky than slower burn rates....

In 7 Mag, 300 Win Mag and 338 Mag, for my loading, I use powders like IMR 4895, 4064, RL 15 etc... sure I give up maybe 100 to 150 fps of max MV, but I find those powders a lot more flexible and I find their accuracy potential a lot less finicky

when folks look at trajectory tables, at 300 yds or so ( hunt rifles, ) one finds that the difference in trajectory is often not much at all..and even tho foot lbs on target might be less, I am a believer in lesser foot/lbs in the right spot is better than more ft/lbs 'close' to the right spot..

folks tend to shoot loads with less recoil on average than loads with more powder and more recoil in them, regardless of what they personally admit about their abilities..

I also admit, I don't buy into the theory of the fuller the case, the more accurate the load...at least wise not on my own personal rifles.. If someone thinks otherwise more power to them..

for shots per volley on testing, I go with 5 shots...

right now I am working with an ADL in 243, with the idea of a calling rifle, for distances of 250 yds or less..

I pick several bullets and weights to try..
I am going with a 60 Grain Sierra HP, the 75 grain HP Hornady, 70 grain TNT Speer and an 80 grain Blitz..

when they might be available on the shelf, I'd also like to work with 65 grain VMax, 80 grain Ballistic Tip...

a 3 x 9 Weaver will do the job at the distances I am looking at...

per my usual way of doing development, I am looking at a charge weight for ALL loads of 30 grains of RL 7, tested against, 30 grains of IMR 4198..

if those don't work out with this rifle's barrel.. ( it is not the most accurate 243 Rem ever made by a long shot), then I am moving up to comparing 33 grains of H 322, vs 33 grains of RL 10, 33 grains of 3031, 33 grains of IMR 4895, and 33 grains of IMR 4064...

RL 15 might also find itself in the mix if the above don't work well...

I am playing around with this, that extensively due to the fact that this rifle's barrel is so finicky... but I also have fun, as it is a puzzle to solve..

my way might be low tech, but it hasn't failed me..

most finicky rifle barrels I ever had were two Rugers in 7 x 57.. they shot NOTHING WORTH A DARN. was about ready to rebarrel them, when I stumbled across a charge weight of 40 grains of 3031, with any bullet weight from 139 to 175 grains.. and it went from 5 inch groups with about anything to a 3/4 inch group.. in BOTH rifles...WTH???? didn't matter, found something that worked...recommend it to anyone with a finicky 7 x 57..

now also ended up with a Win Featherweight in 7 x 57... that rifle thinks it is a varmint rifle..It is a tack driver with about whatever you feed it.. go figure...

wasn't the cartridge that was finicky.. turned out to be the way Ruger chambers those barrels..

one was traded, the other I still have..

off season, It gets a lot of use with 100 to 120 grain bullets with charges of SR 4759.. accurate enough to 200 yds, easy on the shoulder and easy on the barrel..

still have blue dot loads that work great also, but I won't mention them as I don't want anyone to burst their jugular vein, with thoughts of that blowing up and killing someone else at my local range..but that is another story..

People are people and as soon as you question WHAT or HOW they do something, out come the slings and arrows and up goes the defensive wall.

HOW anyone does their load workup will start a shooting war quicker than trying to jump someone's daughter or wife.

With all the excellent information in up to date reloading manuals what's the matter with picking out the highest velocity load with the lowest pressure, dropping down a bit and starting from there...F*** Audette or some freaking ladder and just do half a grain above and half below and TEST it...you know...one step forward and one step back.

By the way...WHO says a 5 shot group is better than a 3 shot group...if a 3 shot load isn' worth a krap in that particular rifle, then a 5 shot group ain't worth krap either and just wastes powder and bullets. That 5 shot garbage comes from target/competition shooting and the need to "standardize" and regulate things.

I've been using 3 shot groups to work up a good load since Methuselah was a pup...a bughole 3 shot group is just as good as a 5 shot bughole group and when I hit a bughole group I QUIT wasting my components AND my barrel on targets and go kill something.

And while we're on the subject....WHY not just use a 4 shot group...how many of you are so locked into the 3/5 shot rut because that's what SOME SIGNIFICANT OTHER TOLD you that was the way to do it and you never thought to wonder WHY.

If the rifle I'm working on does a 3 shot bughole I load up one more and see where that one goes. If it will do a 4 shot bughole another round won't matter. And for those that need continual reinforcement a simple statistical analysis AND a good chrono will tell you all you need to know.

ALL this hot air doesn't mean squat doodly if your rifle system AND ammo hasn't been prepped to be ABLE to shoot small groups.

I'm not trying to talk ANYONE into or out of ANYTHING...just bringing up a few observations over half a century of shooting and NOT going ballistic on YOUR FAVORITE METHOD...somewhat emphatically...maybe.

You might want to read Seafire's tome again...about using a "different" powder if things aren't working out. If I can't get a tuned rifle/ammo to shoot very small groups with less than 25 rounds with any of the modern powders I step back to my 20-30 year old manuals...you'de be surprised how some of the powders that AREN'T listed in up to date manuals will produce an excellent load in some rifles that DON'T like Varget or RL-15 etc.

Try something new...it might just work...but you have to get out to the range first...just talking about it doesn't work.

LUCK

I'll show you an actual instance from the thing everybody here says is so important.

Experience.

I hope you'll see the point then and maybe do your own test.

Before I knew of the never-bettered Audette's Method, I used to use 3-shot groups. I developed a good load with my .243 WSSM, 70 gr BT, W-760...



It shot like this at 300 yards...



I discovered Audette and decided to shoot one to check it out with the same components...



My 3-shot group load was in the node. I bumped it .2 grains to be in the center and shot this group at .300...



You can get there both ways. With the Audette it's faster.

I would not recommend FOOBAR's suggestion of starting around max. The load I found was 1.5 grains below book max and still has a sticky bolt. I would have missed it if I only went .5 gr below or above as well. Not a responsible recommendation FOOBAR for accuracy or safety.

FOOBAR

Ballisticians tell us that anything short of a 7-8 shot groups has serious problems being statistically valid. A 5 shot group is the minimum and then most think either a 10 shot group or three 5 shots groups for confirmation of a load. I too used 3 shot groups for many years and don't know how many times I went home and loaded up the best load that the 3 shot "bughole" groups gave only to find out that the next 3 shot group with that load was 2 - 3 times larger. All loads in a given firearm will have a random pattern within a cone of fire (refered to as a "group"). It is very easy toget 3 shots together that only cover a small part of the actual cone of fire/group potential. A 5 shot group most often sorts that out but it's still a high probablity that 5 shots isn't enough. &-8 shots will give the picture and 10 shots will do it for sure.

If you have a known moa accurate rifle for instance and the 3 shot groups go into an moa or less then there is a degree of confidence there with that load. However, if you don't know what the degree of accuracy the rifle is capable of does one 3 shot moa group really tell us anything? Not really.

Larry Gibson

rcamuglia

Only thing "faster" there was a pretty good indication of horizontal stringing. If you are happy with that load then have at it.

Larry Gibson

FWIW, I am having a target rifle rebarreled. The smith was really tickled that it would do .4 at 100 yards. You know, just as soon as your shoot it a couple of hundred times and tune a load to it, etc, etc, it'll be a real barn burner. I shot 3 10 round groups and the smallest was 1.1". Great for a hunting rifle but not quite what I was looking for in a target rifle. He's re-doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
rcamuglia

Only thing "faster" there was a pretty good indication of horizontal stringing. If you are happy with that load then have at it.

Larry Gibson

Get real!

Less than 1/2 minute of horizontal with ZERO vertical.

That's what Audette finds and is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in loading for accuracy

I look at different loading manuals and get an average that looks good to me,then i load 6 of that one,1 grain or lower and 1 grain or higher and go shoot.
And I use a chronograph to see what speed they are traveling at,if slower than i expect they get pulled and others are shot until they are acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
rcamuglia

Only thing "faster" there was a pretty good indication of horizontal stringing. If you are happy with that load then have at it.

Larry Gibson

Get real!

Less than 1/2 minute of horizontal with ZERO vertical.

That's what Audette finds and is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in loading for accuracy

Oh, we're pretty sensitive are we? Look at the targets YOU posted; every one of those groups is horizontal. Try a 5 or preferably 10 shot group and then come back and tell us how consistently accurate your rifle is. Now I could be wrong, the rifle may very well be accurate and the horizontal stringing could be you.

Larry Gibson

I did NOT recommend starting at max...re-read my statement, rcamuglia. I said "pick out a HIGHEST VELOCITY load with the LOWEST PRESSURE...DROP DOWN A BIT AND START FROM THERE. I have NEVER recommended starting at max loads...OPEN YOUR EYES.

AND I didn't say ONE 3 shot group will do the job...Jesus

And as far as a low SD...all that means is the load has a very small deviation from the mean velocity and we all assume that means it will shoot better. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't...that has been proven time after time by much better shooters than me. NOTHING is cast in stone in this arena.

I've never seen two groups, even from the BEST rifle/shooter, come in at the same size or shape...there is always some variation...and I guarantee I've seen a LOT of targets.

There are many variables that can cause groups to open up including using different cases, slightly different ogive measurements and bullet weights, time, temp etc...a 3 shot group us just an easy BEGINNING point...you want to waste components and time pick your own number...statistics don't mean squat unless you know HOW to use them and HOW TO SET UP A TEST.

See what I mean by the spurs coming out and the defensive wall going up.

I am assuming that those who reload a lot HAVE A MODICUM OF HORSE SENSE and know enough to keep away from MAX anything during this process.

You are absolutely right, Larry, about "statistician's" liking more "sample size" in the test populations...the more the merrier.

The problem being MOST reloaders have no idea HOW to set up a correct test situation and don't know a standard deviaton from a magnetic deviation and don't care either, they just want something easy, simple, and quick to get a good hunting load... benchresters/longrangers/varminters probably do use some kind of statistical representation they get from their chrono's or calculators to help them get where they want, but I'm also guessing they know what is required to get there...at least I know from banging my head against the wall in the early years and finally learning enough to KNOW what to do.

Been there, DONE THAT and I'm lucky to have my own 125yd range just outside my reloading shed so I can just retest loads. I still use 3 shot groups. If I get something that looks a little too good I retest it...when I was benchresting I went to a LOT more trouble AND shot at least one 10 shot group before using a load in competition, but I still started with 3 shot groups WITH a load of know accuracy I worked up AND/OR used one a competitor used to kick my butt or almost.

I've taken the SAME 3 cases that produced a bughole group, reloaded them with the exact same load components and re-fired them within say 10 minutes and came up with a much larger group...that is telling me there is more work to be done. I've done the same thing with 3 cases picked at random and fired some bugholers and some larger which, again, is telling me there is work to be done.

There is a whole lot of variation that NEVER gets addressed in the defence of "The AUDETTE" that would go a whole lot farther in obtaining better groups, but if you get locked into that rut, your mind goes south for the winter.

When I REALLY bare down I measure and segregate cases, bullets, powder, primers etc to eliminate as many variables as possible THEN set up my tests to measure only ONE variable at a time. I doubt many average shooters do that.

As far as this argument goes, very few do anything except grab some cases, bullets, powder, primers...then load up what they THINK/hope is a "ladder" and go shoot.

ANYTIME you change ANYONE of the variables you will get a change in group...that's what load testing is all about, finding the smallest group or finding a group you can live with.

A rose by anyother name smells just as sweet so if the Audette method or the "ladder" method gives you a woody, then by all means keep using it. All those pictures said was what I said to...changing ANY parameter will change the group...it is up to the shooter to figure out which way the group is going and what to do with the next test load.

And by the way...you still have work to do, rcamuglia...ANY vertical or horizontal dispersion means you haven't hit the point where the harmonics are rotating the muzzle in a circle...jeezzz...I have a 338-06 that will do better than that at 300 yds...a nice round 1" group with 225 gr Horn SP's or 5 shot oneholer at 100yds...all developed without any help from Audette...not to mention what my small cals will do...and I just too lazy to work any harder getting below a 4 or 5...I would rather be shooting sageratz then pizzing around with targets on my range.

AS USUAL the actual point of the HOWS/WHYS I tried to make went out the window along with the baby and all the rest in defense of something.

Nothing wrong with doing the Audette thing and noting wrong with doing my method and nothing wrong with doing WHATEVER method seems to work...as long as it works. IT STILL requires a higher level of system prep otherwise all you're doing is keeping the component makers happy.

This isn't my first rodeo by a long shot...maybe I'm just not presenting my information in a way you all can understand or maybe some of you just need to defend your case when it doesn't really need defending. Who knows.

I think a whole lot of us continue to chase a "Holy Grail" of some kind, but get tangled up in uselessness along the way and forget just what it was we were looking for by all the unneeded, unimportant and useless posturing.

LUCK

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
rcamuglia

Only thing "faster" there was a pretty good indication of horizontal stringing. If you are happy with that load then have at it.

Larry Gibson

Get real!

Less than 1/2 minute of horizontal with ZERO vertical.

That's what Audette finds and is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in loading for accuracy

Oh, we're pretty sensitive are we? Look at the targets YOU posted; every one of those groups is horizontal. Try a 5 or preferably 10 shot group and then come back and tell us how consistently accurate your rifle is. Now I could be wrong, the rifle may very well be accurate and the horizontal stringing could be you.

Larry Gibson

No, I'm not sensitive.

Just Amazed that you think a load that has zero vertical dispersion and 1/2 MOA of horizontal dispersion is unacceptable.

The entire group size is 1.35" at 300 yards and all of the "spread" is horizontal.

The rifle is very consistent with that group shape and I couldn't be happier.

If you had a clue what qualities a good long range load had you could see that, so either I've overestimated you or you didn't really look at the target and digest the info contained on it well.

quote:

I did NOT recommend starting at max...re-read my statement, rcamuglia. I said "pick out a HIGHEST VELOCITY load with the LOWEST PRESSURE...DROP DOWN A BIT AND START FROM THERE. I have NEVER recommended starting at max loads...OPEN YOUR EYES

Sorry, I re-read your post and see that now. The higest velocity load will have the highest pressure, don't you think? It would have been stated better,"find the load with the highest velocity that does not show signs of excess pressure".

But the question remains on how a handloader " FINDS HIGHEST VELOCITY load with the LOWEST PRESSURE..."

If you use the "group shooting method", you'll start low and shoot groups working up by a certain powder increment till you find the loads that start to show pressure, at least 3 shot groups. Take the '06, a 165 grain bullet, and H-4350. Start load 53, max 59 (Hodgdon site). If you work up in big .5 grain increments you'll be loading 36 rounds.

With The Audette Ladder, starting low and working up with each cartridge exactly the same (as you say) but varying charge by a determined amount depending on case volume. Let's say .3 for the '06; you'll have a nice 21 shot ladder that will do these things:

show nodes of accuracy by charge weight

show terrible nodes to say clear of

find the max load for your rifle with the chosen components.

You then can pick either the low velocity or high velocity accuracy node, assemble some 3 or 5 shot groups from some of the loads in the nodes for testing. Pick the best and do a seating depth test to dial it in.

quote:

And by the way...you still have work to do, rcamuglia...ANY vertical or horizontal dispersion means you haven't hit the point where the harmonics are rotating the muzzle in a circle...jeezzz...I have a 338-06 that will do better than that at 300 yds...a nice round 1" group with 225 gr Horn SP's or 5 shot oneholer at 100yds...all developed without any help from Audette...not to mention what my small cals will do...and I just too lazy to work any harder getting below a 4 or 5...I would rather be shooting sageratz then pizzing around with targets on my range.

The rifle is a factory synthetic stocked rifle that holds 1/2 MOA. How much better is needed? I wish all of my rifles shot that well and I bet most here do as well. You'd wear it out trying to test every combo of components to get it to shoot 1/10" better.

FBar,
Post some pics of your groups and your method to get them there. I'm here to learn if there's a better way.

RC

Look at this group:



Know what it was done with? 300 OSSM from Olympia Rms with an AR 15......at 600 yards. Bullet was a 175 grain SMK.

I agree with Larry, horizontal stringing is not a good group.

Great group, but you know damn well it won't do that day in and day out. If you say it will, you ought to do some wagering with folks.

I'm sure you could get plenty of action from anyone around here. Heck, you might make enough to retire!

RC, It's a friends rifle. He's a pretty decent shooter and that group is the norm, not the exception, for his rifle. It's standard AR 15 from Olympia Arms with no whistles and bells. I thought it was some damn good shooting at that distance.

I had a cheap barrel on a 260 Remington that I built on a Type 38 Arisaka action. I glass bedded the action and floated the barrel. This is how it shot before I corrected it. First shot dead center in the bulls eye. Next shot 1/2 inch to the right dead on vertical. The third, fourth, and 5th shot were a repeat of that. Let the barrel cool and it would repeat that same group. Clearly a barrel that wasn't going to shoot being floated and also one that had internal stresses in it. I made a bedding pillar up near the forearm tip and it became a really good round grouping rifle suitable for deer hunting.

Those groups you shot, were they on a windy day perhaps?

If that group is normal for the gun and shooter, 1 3/4" at 600 yards, he ought to use it in the F-Class National Championships. He would win every year and set a new standard for an F-Class platform.

No wind in those pics that I remember. It's not the shooter either

Although I've seen slightly different group shapes out of it, those are more the norm. Of course you'd like to see one hole regardless of range, but 1/2 MOA horizontal is great. Are you telling me that a 2" group at 400 or a 3" group at 600 or a 5" group at 1000 is bad?

quote:

RC, It's a friends rifle. He's a pretty decent shooter and that group is the norm, not the exception, for his rifle.

Actually, this statement gets the


I'll be happy to back that up with any amount of cash he or you want at the agreed upon location.

No I wouldn't be saying those groups would be bad that the distances you mentioned, but they would be better if they were round. If they are horizontal that's saying the rifle, the sandbags, the shooter, the wind...something is wrong.

My friend is still wringing out that rifle and he says the rifle can shoot better then him and he's still refining his shooting with it. Shooting an AR is different from shooting a bolt rifle.

I'll mention to him what you said.

quote:

I am in the process of trying different powders for my Marlin XL7. I have typically used 3 shot groups for load development but I have been reading about shooting ladders. For example firing one round per charge and looking for shot groupings. The idea sounds good on paper but has anyone here had any actual experience with this method? How well does it seem to actually work? I am willing to try it for the sake of learning but I am old enough to understand the value of others experience. Any advise or suggestions would be a big help, Thanks in advance.

Everybody has a method some work others don't .May I suggest first Selecting a Powder or 3 known for Velocity at lower pressures ,for your particular caliber .

Select the Bullet an purpose for it's intended usage , consult either a load program or a Manual for middle of the road load using nearest data possible . Load # 5 at the middle setting , now load #5 more at plus 1 gr. #5 more at 1 gr. below middle load . Take #3 targets with cleaning supplies with you and now off too the range you go .

You'll quickly determine what your rifle prefers , if groups gather in one of those loadings , play with distance from lands while carefully working up at .02 gr. increments until either pressure signs appear or group sizes fall out of favor .

Give a fair unbiased trial by cleaning thoroughly between each group of loads . I also wait 1 minute between each fired shot to lesson barrel heat .

IMO ; # 5 shots tell the tale # 3 don't if something happens , You'll know soon enough what your Rifle prefers !. BOL ...

rcamuglia

Obviously you know nothing of me nor my shooting abilities. I've cleaned the 600 yard decimal target with 50%+ Xs and ran enough 195s + at 1000 yards to have a decent idea of bullet dispersion at long range. I've also done a fair amount of testing at long range in the last 40+ years to have developed a "clue".

So with that in mind ALL of your targets show horizontal dispersion. That tells me and everyone else something. It should tell you something too. Regardless of the range those groups do not show random dispersion as they should (the "round" group that Joe mentioned). The fact that they all show horizontal dispersion for 12 shots is indicative of something not quite right. Perhaps you missed a wrung on the ladder? What ever it is a little more research like shooting three 5 shot groups at 300 yards will comfirm it's a good load or confirm something is amiss (pun intended). But then there you'ld be shooting groups instead of ladders........

Larry Gibson

So a load that is 1/2 MOA is bad?

Thanks for the news flash.

I'll have to give away most of my rifles I guess and forget about course records I've set and National Championships I've won. I'm sure your shooting and handloading expertise is far beyond mine.

Can I be your apprentice?

I've heard the Internet is full of nothing but liars, but smokinJ's claim of an AR that shoots 1 1/2" groups as the norm at 600 yards and your "cluelessness" about what constitutes a great load in a factory coyote rifle clearly show me that you are both sharing some kind of "smoke"

quote:

you are both sharing some kind of "smoke"

If it's horizontal and that's bad, couldn't you just rotate the target 90 degrees?

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
So a load that is 1/2 MOA is bad?

Thanks for the news flash.

I'll have to give away most of my rifles I guess and forget about course records I've set and National Championships I've won. I'm sure your shooting and handloading expertise is far beyond mine.

Can I be your apprentice?

I've heard the Internet is full of nothing but liars, but smokinJ's claim of an AR that shoots 1 1/2" groups as the norm at 600 yards and your "cluelessness" about what constitutes a great load in a factory coyote rifle clearly show me that you are both sharing some kind of "smoke"

So here we have RC the shotgun jock. He just started shooting rifles not too long ago. Even told me in a pm. So now he's the rifle shooting and reloading expert?

You wouldn't know anything RC if was for a certain member on here backing you up.

I don't make claims, I state facts. The AR isn't mine, but if you would get yourself a few you'd know how they can and do shoot. They are taking over the rifle world, just like the bolt rifle took it all away from the lever actions. Look around you and you'll see it. They have a lot of things going for them that enhance accuracy: There's no action bedding to worry about, free float forearms eliminate any stock influence on the barrel. The barrel mounting method to the action and the bolt locking into the rear of the barrel, and there's more....but you're a shotgun jock so you know all that right?

There's not too many BOLT GUNS that will do what you claim. Quit blowing smoke!

Click here for record setting groups. They are about the size you claim the AR "shoots normally", but are shot with 28 pound F-Class rifles!
Pitiful claim!

rcamuglia

Ok I'll bite; what National Championships with a rifle have you won?

Larry Gibson