On the velocity numbers...
We can have extreme spreads of 60 or more feet per second with the same powder charge. I believe that we would all agree there...
So, since we know that the ES can stretch out there quite a bit--even when every cartridge has the same powder charge in it--we've got to stop and ask ourselves why we would let one particular velocity figure steer us toward or away from a particular cluster on the target. What I'm basically saying is that if, by virtue of a similar chronograph number, we "slide" a shot which we'd like to think would have been in a particular stack back into the group... or we toss out a shot that is right there in the group--but has an uncommon velocity--are we acting properly? I don't think so...
Case in point, shot number 5 on the first target could be--by virtue of its velocity--put with shots 6 and 7, and we could call the charge weight for shot number 6 the center of one node. Of course we'd have to slide shot 5 to the left, or shots 6 and 7 to the right to make this all work out. We could say that the wind moved shot 5 to the right. Or shots 6 and 7 left. Do we really know that?
Shots 18, 19, and 20 are in virtual lock-step as far as velocity goes. But look where shot 18 printed. Shots 19 and 20 are together--what happenend to 18? No one can truly know.
And one would like to move shot number 11 back to the right (maybe the wind again), and stack it in there between 10 and 12, because it looks like it belongs there. But wait a minute... shot 10 was 3686, and shot 12 was 3684... but shot 11 (with a charge weight in between shots 10 and 12 was about 65 fps SLOWER at 3617 fps. How could that be?
I'll tell you how it could be. Extreme spread variations will rear their heads at every point along the continuum. Variations in case neck tension will mess with the ES, when otherwise it might have been tight. You simply cannot allow the chronograph to steer your choice here. There are other examples I could cite, but that should suffice.
The target must be the final arbiter. Wide Extreme Spreads can and will totally obfuscate the results. With only one representative shot of each powder charge, how are we to know exactly why one shot tanks in the numbers?
Too, chronographs sometimes get it wrong. A little bit of unburned powder follows the bullet through the sky screens and a read error occurs.
That leaves us with only the target itself. But what do we have there? Did the wind move shot 11 out from between shot 10 and 12, or was it barrel whip? We cannot say for sure.
However... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
If we could factor the wind out of the equation as much as possible--by shooting at 100 yards... and if we could test more than one shot of each charge weight, three perhaps... and if we could put those three shots of each charge weight on paper in a manner which would help to factor out a heating and fouling barrel, a tiring shooter, changing light conditions, etc... then we'd have OCW, and our results would be more intelligible.
I don't expect to convince some of you that OCW is by far the better way to go. I can probably blame myself for that, as I've been abrasive at times in my enthusiasm to share the idea.
But for those lurkers out there that are still wondering about the OCW method, and whether or not it offers the distinct advantages over the ladder method which I claim that it does--I hope I have made some sense here.
4kedHorn... I realize that you and Sean are trying to learn about the ladder test, and I would think that a dissenting point of view such as mine would be helpful when trying to gather all of the facts. You're a reasonable person, and I believe you'll agree with me there. If I've been rude, arrogant, or too sarcastic I do apologize for that... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Dan