Jimm
Well-Known Member
Mr. Barm,
You have been reading Clayton Audettes works and not too close but spot on !!
Jim B.
You have been reading Clayton Audettes works and not too close but spot on !!
Jim B.
Load development from ladder test, uhhhhhhh help!!!!
- Thread starter remingtonman_25_06
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I see you found the 3400 relm, figured ya would. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
By the way, that was a hell of a group you cut. Sometimes when one really wants a combo to come together they tend to push things a little knowing that the equipment will do it, and has high expectations of ones self to make it happen. Hell you, me, and a-lot of others are no different. Somedays are better then others as you have seen.
Your numbers are great. I would go with the 54gr. charge and play with the seating depths. Typically I always started with 10k jump and work from there in 5k increments till I hit the harmonic node. A-lot of times with the Noslers this is where they grouped the best for me.
Tim
By the way, that was a hell of a group you cut. Sometimes when one really wants a combo to come together they tend to push things a little knowing that the equipment will do it, and has high expectations of ones self to make it happen. Hell you, me, and a-lot of others are no different. Somedays are better then others as you have seen.
Your numbers are great. I would go with the 54gr. charge and play with the seating depths. Typically I always started with 10k jump and work from there in 5k increments till I hit the harmonic node. A-lot of times with the Noslers this is where they grouped the best for me.
Tim
Ok, the chronys are not real reliable with MV in my experience. I have shot them with my Oehler and way off and not uniform.
53.2 looks good, but look again at your groups and 52.5-54.0.
I like to shoot .3 gr increments to help define the node upper and lower.
Your groups AND the chrono say that the node is somewhere in all probability between 52.5 and 54.0 with 54.0 probably being out. .3 gr increments would have put you a lot closer and given you better data IMO.
I look at my spreads on MV for each shot and then the clusters. In a ladder, you will see large jumps in MV and then 2-4 shots show a very low and uniform jumps. Now if you groups and the MV clusters are the shots, you have a node. If you use the smaller gr increments it is easier to see the start and end of the node. I go to the middle of the node on grains and shoot groups above and below that spot to get my load for powder.
After that loads for seating depth first and then neck tension.
I would like to see you shoot groups from 52.5 to 53.7 or 53.8 to see what happens.
BH
53.2 looks good, but look again at your groups and 52.5-54.0.
I like to shoot .3 gr increments to help define the node upper and lower.
Your groups AND the chrono say that the node is somewhere in all probability between 52.5 and 54.0 with 54.0 probably being out. .3 gr increments would have put you a lot closer and given you better data IMO.
I look at my spreads on MV for each shot and then the clusters. In a ladder, you will see large jumps in MV and then 2-4 shots show a very low and uniform jumps. Now if you groups and the MV clusters are the shots, you have a node. If you use the smaller gr increments it is easier to see the start and end of the node. I go to the middle of the node on grains and shoot groups above and below that spot to get my load for powder.
After that loads for seating depth first and then neck tension.
I would like to see you shoot groups from 52.5 to 53.7 or 53.8 to see what happens.
BH
Remington 25 06,
I'm posting a link http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Englisch/Laddertest.htm
in which the author discusses Creighton Audette's "ladder". Scroll down the page until you see, Incremental Load Development Method, by Randolph Constantine. This will explain it better than I can do.
I'm posting a link http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Englisch/Laddertest.htm
in which the author discusses Creighton Audette's "ladder". Scroll down the page until you see, Incremental Load Development Method, by Randolph Constantine. This will explain it better than I can do.
foreign
Well-Known Member
remi 25 06
ive had the same experience with the ladder and im over it. my budget really doesnt allow for it. if you fine something that works post what u did and i might get some enthusiasm to try again. cheers
ive had the same experience with the ladder and im over it. my budget really doesnt allow for it. if you fine something that works post what u did and i might get some enthusiasm to try again. cheers
rain164845
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 36
I agree with this guy. Once you have taken the 53 grain load and worked out the best seating depth, load that seating depth, then use 3-5 shot groups of different powder charges.
Joe
Forester
Well-Known Member
I think the problem with the ladder test is people expect too much of it. I usually load about 12-15 rounds for a ladder, more in a smaller capacity case where small changes in weight matter more. I shoot every shot over a reliable Chrono and CALL every shot. I use the chrono data, the target and how close the shots are to my call together to decide on a node. Usually I see more than one and I go for the fastest of course
I also shoot the ladder at the maximum distance I feel I can with that rifle and be confident that there was near zero shooter related error in the test. For a factory rifle I would say try 250 or 300 yards.
If I can not make heads or tails out of the target or I know I was not shooting up to par that day then I will even throw the target out of the mix. Given the choice of one or the other I would look solely at the chrono data and pick a node to start with. If the Chrono data is wild and all over the place i dont waste time with that combination anymore and I switch powders.
When I have a node I will shoot 2 3 shot groups in .1gr incriments (charge weights a little wider than the node in the ladder) in sequence so as not to bias the test with barrel heat or fouling. Then I pick the best 2 agregates and play with seating depth until I am satisfied both are at their very best.
Take those two loads and if they are close in accuracy back out on a calm day and shoot for groups at 500 yards or so. The winner there is my load.
That was a long way of saying I like the ladder but all it does to me is get you somewhere in the ballpark, I don't expect it to give me a final load.
I also shoot the ladder at the maximum distance I feel I can with that rifle and be confident that there was near zero shooter related error in the test. For a factory rifle I would say try 250 or 300 yards.If I can not make heads or tails out of the target or I know I was not shooting up to par that day then I will even throw the target out of the mix. Given the choice of one or the other I would look solely at the chrono data and pick a node to start with. If the Chrono data is wild and all over the place i dont waste time with that combination anymore and I switch powders.
When I have a node I will shoot 2 3 shot groups in .1gr incriments (charge weights a little wider than the node in the ladder) in sequence so as not to bias the test with barrel heat or fouling. Then I pick the best 2 agregates and play with seating depth until I am satisfied both are at their very best.
Take those two loads and if they are close in accuracy back out on a calm day and shoot for groups at 500 yards or so. The winner there is my load.
That was a long way of saying I like the ladder but all it does to me is get you somewhere in the ballpark, I don't expect it to give me a final load.
boomtube
Well-Known Member
Good post Forester.
Folks do seem to have higher hopes for the ladder test as an absolute than any develpment method can provide. I use it to ELIMINATE those charge ranges that obviously won't shoot well and then work on the range(s) that suggest a good load.
NO system of load development is worth any more than the shooter can repeat. Few of us can actually hold a group as tight as we seem to think.
An occasional 'screamer" group is so rare that many of us cut it out and save it in our wallets! Good for braggin' rights, nice to look at but not at all representative of what we or the rifle or load can be depended on to do, that's why we save them!
Folks do seem to have higher hopes for the ladder test as an absolute than any develpment method can provide. I use it to ELIMINATE those charge ranges that obviously won't shoot well and then work on the range(s) that suggest a good load.
NO system of load development is worth any more than the shooter can repeat. Few of us can actually hold a group as tight as we seem to think.
An occasional 'screamer" group is so rare that many of us cut it out and save it in our wallets! Good for braggin' rights, nice to look at but not at all representative of what we or the rifle or load can be depended on to do, that's why we save them!
