100 yd ladder test?
- Thread starter ru1234
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
CatShooter
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Is it worthwhile to do a ladder test at 100yds? It seems that most on here are done at 300yds.
[/ QUOTE ]
This may not come as a surprise, but I don't think it's worthwhile to do a ladder test at ANY range.
They tell you nothing.
Read the other "ladder" threads.
.
Is it worthwhile to do a ladder test at 100yds? It seems that most on here are done at 300yds.
[/ QUOTE ]
This may not come as a surprise, but I don't think it's worthwhile to do a ladder test at ANY range.
They tell you nothing.
Read the other "ladder" threads.
.
AJ Peacock
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Is it worthwhile to do a ladder test at 100yds? It seems that most on here are done at 300yds.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as its done over a chrono, it can tell you a lot about the loads and their tolerance. When you are talking very accurate rifles, I think that velocity spread is as important as a few holes on a paper. Its quite easy to get the occasional cloverleaf group with a wide velocity spread (even at 300yds). The data a chronograph gives you is immune to the wind, your hold and random bullet variations on the way to the target. If you can select a load that has an extremely low velocity deviation, then you can fine tune it with seating depth etc. You can also verify with several 3 or 5 shot groups that the load DOES perform. Using the ladder method and verifying with numerous groups, you are very likely to end up with a great load. Even when its done at 100yds.
Is it worthwhile to do a ladder test at 100yds? It seems that most on here are done at 300yds.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as its done over a chrono, it can tell you a lot about the loads and their tolerance. When you are talking very accurate rifles, I think that velocity spread is as important as a few holes on a paper. Its quite easy to get the occasional cloverleaf group with a wide velocity spread (even at 300yds). The data a chronograph gives you is immune to the wind, your hold and random bullet variations on the way to the target. If you can select a load that has an extremely low velocity deviation, then you can fine tune it with seating depth etc. You can also verify with several 3 or 5 shot groups that the load DOES perform. Using the ladder method and verifying with numerous groups, you are very likely to end up with a great load. Even when its done at 100yds.
AJ Peacock
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
This may not come as a surprise, but I don't think it's worthwhile to do a ladder test at ANY range.
They tell you nothing.
...
[/ QUOTE ]
No surprise CS, but I think 'nothing' is a bit strong.
A ladder test done over a chronograph tells you a lot, if you are open minded enough to listen.
For example, it tells you how tolerant different loads are to load densities. It tells you which load densities are wildly inconsistent and also narrows down the areas 'nodes' that are LIKELY to contain the best most consistent loads.
Once you find the AREAS / NODES that are likely to contain the best load, then you make some up and shoot them.
Don
This may not come as a surprise, but I don't think it's worthwhile to do a ladder test at ANY range.
They tell you nothing.
...
[/ QUOTE ]
No surprise CS, but I think 'nothing' is a bit strong.
A ladder test done over a chronograph tells you a lot, if you are open minded enough to listen.
For example, it tells you how tolerant different loads are to load densities. It tells you which load densities are wildly inconsistent and also narrows down the areas 'nodes' that are LIKELY to contain the best most consistent loads.
Once you find the AREAS / NODES that are likely to contain the best load, then you make some up and shoot them.
Don
CatShooter
Well-Known Member
Don... any test that is not repeatable is worth NOTHING.
Run your favorite ladder test, and then repeat it with the exact same loads.
If the results are not the same, then you have not run a test, you have collected a bunch of non-related numbers.
This not "my" opinion, this is basic scientific testing methodology and procedures.
.
Run your favorite ladder test, and then repeat it with the exact same loads.
If the results are not the same, then you have not run a test, you have collected a bunch of non-related numbers.
This not "my" opinion, this is basic scientific testing methodology and procedures.
.
IF it is not repeatable with any system you are stating the obvious, so that malady applies to any technique not just the ladder.
I have run ladder tests routinely for 6 yrs and in every case they are repeatable. I have never seen a test where I picked a load to work from and fine tuning it, the MV etc changed out of the norm.
If they are not, then you have another problem other than ammo.
A ladder is not the end, but rather the start of the fine tuning.
BH
I have run ladder tests routinely for 6 yrs and in every case they are repeatable. I have never seen a test where I picked a load to work from and fine tuning it, the MV etc changed out of the norm.
If they are not, then you have another problem other than ammo.
A ladder is not the end, but rather the start of the fine tuning.
BH
AJ Peacock
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Don... any test that is not repeatable is worth NOTHING.
Run your favorite ladder test, and then repeat it with the exact same loads.
If the results are not the same, then you have not run a test, you have collected a bunch of non-related numbers.
This not "my" opinion, this is basic scientific testing methodology and procedures.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
From Wikipedia:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
So, let me get this straight.
I gather DATA that IS related by running numerous tests (shots), while adjusting a single independent variable (load density). Then I look at the data (velocity) and how it relates to the independent variable (load density). I then take that set of data and use it to adjust the independent variable with finer changes to gather additional DATA within that variables range. You're telling me that it is worth NOTHING???
But you can shoot 3 shots with each load and ignore the variables of wind, your hold, differences in bullets etc. And that is a VALID test just because you now have 3 shots and call that a data point???
My goal is not to simply find an accurate load (thats easy). It is to find an accurate load that is somewhat load density tolerant.
BTW: I frankly don't care if its perfect scientific methodology. Its repeatable when you look at the data in total. Its likely that we would both end up with loads that are as good as a rifle is capable of shooting.
Don... any test that is not repeatable is worth NOTHING.
Run your favorite ladder test, and then repeat it with the exact same loads.
If the results are not the same, then you have not run a test, you have collected a bunch of non-related numbers.
This not "my" opinion, this is basic scientific testing methodology and procedures.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
From Wikipedia:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
So, let me get this straight.
I gather DATA that IS related by running numerous tests (shots), while adjusting a single independent variable (load density). Then I look at the data (velocity) and how it relates to the independent variable (load density). I then take that set of data and use it to adjust the independent variable with finer changes to gather additional DATA within that variables range. You're telling me that it is worth NOTHING???
But you can shoot 3 shots with each load and ignore the variables of wind, your hold, differences in bullets etc. And that is a VALID test just because you now have 3 shots and call that a data point???
My goal is not to simply find an accurate load (thats easy). It is to find an accurate load that is somewhat load density tolerant.
BTW: I frankly don't care if its perfect scientific methodology. Its repeatable when you look at the data in total. Its likely that we would both end up with loads that are as good as a rifle is capable of shooting.
CatShooter
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Don... any test that is not repeatable is worth NOTHING.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From Wikipedia:
[/ QUOTE ]
Now THERE'S a reliable source...
[ QUOTE ]
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
So, let me get this straight.
I gather DATA that IS related by running numerous tests (shots), while adjusting a single independent variable (load density). Then I look at the data (velocity) and how it relates to the independent variable (load density). I then take that set of data and use it to adjust the independent variable with finer changes to gather additional DATA within that variables range. You're telling me that it is worth NOTHING???
[/ QUOTE ]
If you cannot repeat the strings and get the same results, then you have "nothing".
Shoot five "ladders" with the same loads and then give the data to someone else, and ask then to analize the data... if they don't come up with the same results for each... you have nothing!
[ QUOTE ]
But you can shoot 3 shots with each load and ignore the variables of wind, your hold, differences in bullets etc. And that is a VALID test just because you now have 3 shots and call that a data point???
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said that!
.
Don... any test that is not repeatable is worth NOTHING.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From Wikipedia:
[/ QUOTE ]
Now THERE'S a reliable source...
[ QUOTE ]
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
So, let me get this straight.
I gather DATA that IS related by running numerous tests (shots), while adjusting a single independent variable (load density). Then I look at the data (velocity) and how it relates to the independent variable (load density). I then take that set of data and use it to adjust the independent variable with finer changes to gather additional DATA within that variables range. You're telling me that it is worth NOTHING???
[/ QUOTE ]
If you cannot repeat the strings and get the same results, then you have "nothing".
Shoot five "ladders" with the same loads and then give the data to someone else, and ask then to analize the data... if they don't come up with the same results for each... you have nothing!
[ QUOTE ]
But you can shoot 3 shots with each load and ignore the variables of wind, your hold, differences in bullets etc. And that is a VALID test just because you now have 3 shots and call that a data point???
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said that!
.
AJ Peacock
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don... any test that is not repeatable is worth NOTHING.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From Wikipedia:
[/ QUOTE ]
Now THERE'S a reliable source...
[ QUOTE ]
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
So, let me get this straight.
I gather DATA that IS related by running numerous tests (shots), while adjusting a single independent variable (load density). Then I look at the data (velocity) and how it relates to the independent variable (load density). I then take that set of data and use it to adjust the independent variable with finer changes to gather additional DATA within that variables range. You're telling me that it is worth NOTHING???
[/ QUOTE ]
If you cannot repeat the strings and get the same results, then you have "nothing".
Shoot five "ladders" with the same loads and then give the data to someone else, and ask then to analize the data... if they don't come up with the same results for each... you have nothing!
[ QUOTE ]
But you can shoot 3 shots with each load and ignore the variables of wind, your hold, differences in bullets etc. And that is a VALID test just because you now have 3 shots and call that a data point???
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said that!
AJ: My bad, from your other post. You use 5 shot groups not 3 shot groups.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK,
How about from the American Heritage Dictionary then:
scientific method
n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
I never said I couldn't repeat the strings. I can and I have. If you can't repeat a ladder test and see the velocity trends; If graphing the load density versus the velocity does not give you nearly the same plateau's in your ladder tests, then there is a problem with YOUR method. The ladder tests that I've repeated, tended to show the SAME nodes. The area between the nodes was LESS repeatable by definition because those are the areas that are LESS consistent.
If your loads don't show consistent velocity with regard to the amount of powder you use in each case, then you have problems that a ladder test cannot fix. I wish you the best of luck finding a load if you can't create handloads that tend to show consistency.
So in your 'Scientific Method', if you aren't ignoring the variables of wind, hold etc. Are you just sampling them out by shooting a bunch of groups?
You might have missed it, but I really don't care if I'm using a perfect Scientific Method anyway. I can with a minimum number of shots, gain an understanding of how a particular powder performs in my rifle. From that I can CHOOSE a LIKELY candidate to do some further tests.
Here is an idea. Knowing nothing but the maximum pressure level (max powder charge) of a new cartridge and only being able to shoot 15 shots, lets see whose 'METHOD' is most likely to come up with a good load. You've got 3 5 shot groups to guess at a good load. I'll take my chances with 15 data points and a graph of the load density to velocity and also a graph of load density to vertical shift on target. Unless you get real lucky with one of your 3 loads(because neither of us would have any previous experience with this caliber), I'd put money on my method every time.
I've agreed that your method works for you. I'm glad your happy with it. The funny thing is, once I find a likely area of investigation and after gathering a bit more data with a more granular ladder test, I verify my findings using several 3 or 5 shot groups.
Don
[ QUOTE ]
Don... any test that is not repeatable is worth NOTHING.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From Wikipedia:
[/ QUOTE ]
Now THERE'S a reliable source...
[ QUOTE ]
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
So, let me get this straight.
I gather DATA that IS related by running numerous tests (shots), while adjusting a single independent variable (load density). Then I look at the data (velocity) and how it relates to the independent variable (load density). I then take that set of data and use it to adjust the independent variable with finer changes to gather additional DATA within that variables range. You're telling me that it is worth NOTHING???
[/ QUOTE ]
If you cannot repeat the strings and get the same results, then you have "nothing".
Shoot five "ladders" with the same loads and then give the data to someone else, and ask then to analize the data... if they don't come up with the same results for each... you have nothing!
[ QUOTE ]
But you can shoot 3 shots with each load and ignore the variables of wind, your hold, differences in bullets etc. And that is a VALID test just because you now have 3 shots and call that a data point???
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said that!
AJ: My bad, from your other post. You use 5 shot groups not 3 shot groups.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK,
How about from the American Heritage Dictionary then:
scientific method
n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
I never said I couldn't repeat the strings. I can and I have. If you can't repeat a ladder test and see the velocity trends; If graphing the load density versus the velocity does not give you nearly the same plateau's in your ladder tests, then there is a problem with YOUR method. The ladder tests that I've repeated, tended to show the SAME nodes. The area between the nodes was LESS repeatable by definition because those are the areas that are LESS consistent.
If your loads don't show consistent velocity with regard to the amount of powder you use in each case, then you have problems that a ladder test cannot fix. I wish you the best of luck finding a load if you can't create handloads that tend to show consistency.
So in your 'Scientific Method', if you aren't ignoring the variables of wind, hold etc. Are you just sampling them out by shooting a bunch of groups?
You might have missed it, but I really don't care if I'm using a perfect Scientific Method anyway. I can with a minimum number of shots, gain an understanding of how a particular powder performs in my rifle. From that I can CHOOSE a LIKELY candidate to do some further tests.
Here is an idea. Knowing nothing but the maximum pressure level (max powder charge) of a new cartridge and only being able to shoot 15 shots, lets see whose 'METHOD' is most likely to come up with a good load. You've got 3 5 shot groups to guess at a good load. I'll take my chances with 15 data points and a graph of the load density to velocity and also a graph of load density to vertical shift on target. Unless you get real lucky with one of your 3 loads(because neither of us would have any previous experience with this caliber), I'd put money on my method every time.
I've agreed that your method works for you. I'm glad your happy with it. The funny thing is, once I find a likely area of investigation and after gathering a bit more data with a more granular ladder test, I verify my findings using several 3 or 5 shot groups.
Don
