Load development

Ok so I just wanted to share how I do load development and to see how others do theirs. I found that I can get to a sweat spot in about 30 shots after break in.

1. 10 shot ladder test at. 2 grains increments to find a velocity flat spot. Let's say that 43.2 grains of whatever powder was a flat spot.

2. Using 43.2 grains, load 3 shots each of 030, .020, .010, and .0 off the lands. Let's say that. 020 gave the best group and low ES.

3. Using .020 of the lands, load 3 each of 43.0, 43.2, and 43.4 and see what does best.

This usually produces a sub MOA group with really low ES. Does anyone else have a way to get to a sweat spot faster or would just like to share how they do their load development?

This worked for me on my 7-08Ackley
http://www.65guys.com/10-round-load-development-ladder-test/
The fella might even be a member here, not sure

Or there is this.
https://www.longrangehunting.com/threadloom/search

I thought your round count was way higher the first time I read it. Sorry

It appears you two used the same method essentially. My question is how many loads have you developed this way? I can show you many targets were the "flat spot" is not accurate. I can also show you many targets where the accurate load at 100 had large ES and SD and would not repeat long range. That method does not work all the time period. I have tried every method on the internet. The only two repeatable are true ladders performed at at least 400 yards and preferably longer(I do mine at 670 or 875 depending on availability) and the OCW which requires more shots. I could not care less what others do but these are the methods that have never failed me.

An Audette ladder test, and Dan Newberry's OCW are indeed solid methods. Problem is...out of every 100 shooters who use them, maybe 5 actually know how to read them.

Satterlee's method is the most misunderstood and misapplied method of them all.

rfurman24 said:

It appears you two used the same method essentially. My question is how many loads have you developed this way? I can show you many targets were the "flat spot" is not accurate. I can also show you many targets where the accurate load at 100 had large ES and SD and would not repeat long range. That method does not work all the time period. I have tried every method on the internet. The only two repeatable are true ladders performed at at least 400 yards and preferably longer(I do mine at 670 or 875 depending on availability) and the OCW which requires more shots. I could not care less what others do but these are the methods that have never failed me.

Click to expand...

Correct, a flat spot does not mean accurate. I have seen flat spots with 1.5 inch groups but can usually be tightened after playing with seating depth. Sometimes, after finding a flat spot and playing with the depth, I start the process over.

Im only limited to a 100 yd. range within a 2 hr drive so a ladder test at 400 yds. is not always an option. Not saying my way is the best way but I thought I would just share. I do care what others methods there are, that's why I asked. Thanks for sharing.

rfurman24 said:

It appears you two used the same method essentially. My question is how many loads have you developed this way? I can show you many targets were the "flat spot" is not accurate. I can also show you many targets where the accurate load at 100 had large ES and SD and would not repeat long range. That method does not work all the time period. I have tried every method on the internet. The only two repeatable are true ladders performed at at least 400 yards and preferably longer(I do mine at 670 or 875 depending on availability) and the OCW which requires more shots. I could not care less what others do but these are the methods that have never failed me.

Click to expand...

Well, the person responsible for taking me from a basic reloader to the freakier side of things used a loading schedule very similar to the one described in the video. I posted the web page w/video link to best describe the method taught to me. Which is almost identical. In that video he does explain to trueley perfect it he would test it at 300 yds. I believe. I have zero idea why you test at the two ranges you listed, but I check mine for M.O.A. @ 400, I believe it's all other factors after that, imho. Like scope quality and such.
As far as how many times I have used a very similar method. Maybe seven different cartridges ranging over almost as many bore sizes.
FWW= the fella that taught me all this was a mathematician. He didn't do any of this with a chrono. It was all about a calculator, known distance,elevation,etc.
I only run at 100 to get out of the gate. And am the proud owner of a magnetospeed. My math isn't as good as my teachers
There are many other factors that play into all this other than just reloading. I have no idea we're the skill set is for the O.P., but as for me, I'm definitely not in grade school but aren't the teacher yet, that's gonna be a bit.

0-tolerance said:

Correct, a flat spot does not mean accurate. I have seen flat spots with 1.5 inch groups but can usually be tightened after playing with seating depth. Sometimes, after finding a flat spot and playing with the depth, I start the process over.

Im only limited to a 100 yd. range within a 2 hr drive so a ladder test at 400 yds. is not always an option. Not saying my way is the best way but I thought I would just share. I do care what others methods there are, that's why I asked. Thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

I am talking about flat spots at the most accurate seating depth. So no it does not always work. You summed it up with your sometimes I start the process over. The ladder never fails with an accurate rifle and good components. If you are limited to 100 yards the OCW is the best way.

rfurman24 said:

I am talking about flat spots at the most accurate seating depth. So no it does not always work. You summed it up with your sometimes I start the process over. The ladder never fails with an accurate rifle and good components. If you are limited to 100 yards the OCW is the best way.

Click to expand...

Ok, Thanks

I do not disagree with Scott's overall point but it needs to be put on paper at distance. The problem is like I said it only works sometimes. So in the case, it does not work you wasted ten shots. If you put those ten shots on paper at 800 yards the target will NOT lie.

Dog Rocket said:

An Audette ladder test, and Dan Newberry's OCW are indeed solid methods. Problem is...out of every 100 shooters who use them, maybe 5 actually know how to read them.

Satterlee's method is the most misunderstood and misapplied method of them all.

Click to expand...

I am not sure how you misunderstand Scott's method. It could not be more simple. The problem is it does not always work. I completely agree with most misusing the OCW because they always get emotionally hung up on the most accurate load even if on a scatter node.

I will add that Scott's method probably does work on some cartridges that are simple to tune like the 6.5x47, the 6.5 CM, the Dasher etc. I have just not found it to be reliably repeatable with most hunting cartridges such as magnums. Trust me I want it to work so bad it just does not. The fire breathing 28 Nosler eats throats. You do not have time to waste on load development with cartridges like that. If Scott's method worked everytime I would use it. The ladder performed at 600-1000 actually only takes a few more shots. Like I said the target does not lie. One more point to bring up is positive compensation at long range. The ladder does not solely rely on small ES and SD. Most of us hunt in changing conditions and the loads need to be stable over those conditions.

rfurman24 said:

I am not sure how you misunderstand Scott's method. It could not be more simple. The problem is it does not always work. I completely agree with most misusing the OCW because they always get emotionally hung up on the most accurate load even if on a scatter node.

I will add that Scott's method probably does work on some cartridges that are simple to tune like the 6.5x47, the 6.5 CM, the Dasher etc. I have just not found it to be reliably repeatable with most hunting cartridges such as magnums. Trust me I want it to work so bad it just does not. The fire breathing 28 Nosler eats throats. You do not have time to waste on load development with cartridges like that. If Scott's method worked everytime I would use it. The ladder performed at 600-1000 actually only takes a few more shots. Like I said the target does not lie. One more point to bring up is positive compensation at long range. The ladder does not solely rely on small ES and SD. Most of us hunt in changing conditions and the loads need to be stable over those conditions.

Click to expand...

Scott's method is misunderstood and misapplied because people don't realize that he is using slow for caliber powders and pushing heavy bullets 0.010" off the lands. The "flat spots" he sees are an artifact of high pressures and reaching the point of diminishing returns. The flat spots he is using are max - 1% off max.

Noobs start at book minimum and see flat spots that are merely a random artifact of large, inconsistent and overlapping ES's between charge increments at the lower pressures. Then they come onto forums like this and ask what they are doing wrong, and get even more confusing info from others who don't understand it either.

I've always found my seating depth while fireforming my brass. Ladder testing powder has always been 1 shot next charge weight . Then the 3 left shot for group in those charge weights after looking at the data. I only have 300yds available for this close by so if I'm seeing my groups I expect with an sd/es I expect I then take the 2.5-3hr drive to another range that has 1100yds and confirm my drops. I'm not looking for groups per say. I'm looking at vertical unless I have very favorable conditions. Under those conditions I will shoot groups at 500 and 700. I can usually find a load in the first run up on powder I have used before. New lots might need a second ladder if the lot is not the same ie; faster/slower than the one it replaced.
I have always used .002 neck tension to start. If I cannot find good es/sd I will turn more off the neck down to no less than .010 wall thickness.
With a hunting rifle I look at the shape of the group and don't use many shots in the group 3-5. In a competition/target rifle I'm shooting 10-30 shot groups. Not a 30 shot string mind you just using the same group.
Also for load testing I shoot the same paper target whenever I want/have to change a component. This way I have a direct comparison and can compare the notes on the original target to the new component characteristics.

What I do, is run a load ladder of three rounds per charge at max acceptable length, in 1% increments from low to high. I use the Magnetospeed and watch velocity, along with other indicators such as base expansion, powder residue appearance and location, primer flattening, and ejector marks.

When I find max I back off just enough to keep me out of trouble when the temps reach 100*F, so this changes from summer to winter. Winter is usually around 2%, in summer around 1%. I start seating bullets into the case from my max acceptable length in .005" increments. At some point, usually as the base of the bullet is starting to slightly compress the powder, the SD's tighten up.

I then work the seating depth within this small range, usually within .015", and pick the one that shoots the best at 200 yards. In every case so far, this has proved to be the best that this combo will do in my gun.