Interpreting results of ladder test
- Thread starter rotorwag
- Start date
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: MNHNTRwhen you do a ladder test you need to do it farther than 300yds. I have found most high power center fire rifles need at least 500-600 yds to be effective in getting results.
At 500 and 600 yards, all you are seeing are the vagaries of atmosphere and mirage.
If a "Magic System" can't show you something at 200yds, it is all BS.
At 500 and 600 yards, all you are seeing are the vagaries of atmosphere and mirage.
If a "Magic System" can't show you something at 200yds, it is all BS.
Originally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: MNHNTRwhen you do a ladder test you need to do it farther than 300yds. I have found most high power center fire rifles need at least 500-600 yds to be effective in getting results.
At 500 and 600 yards, all you are seeing are the vagaries of atmosphere and mirage.
If a "Magic System" can't show you something at 200yds, it is all BS.
On this we can agree.
One point I failed to make in my previous posts is that the ladder method is not the final step in load development; only an intermediate step which is the simplest way to determine one (or more) "accuracy nodes" within which you can vary powder charge as much as +/- .5 gr. without affecting MV appreciably.
Regards,
hm
At 500 and 600 yards, all you are seeing are the vagaries of atmosphere and mirage.
If a "Magic System" can't show you something at 200yds, it is all BS.
On this we can agree.
One point I failed to make in my previous posts is that the ladder method is not the final step in load development; only an intermediate step which is the simplest way to determine one (or more) "accuracy nodes" within which you can vary powder charge as much as +/- .5 gr. without affecting MV appreciably.
Regards,
hm
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: hm1996
"... only an intermediate step which is the simplest way to determine one (or more) "accuracy nodes" within which you can vary powder charge as much as +/- .5 gr. without affecting MV appreciably. "
hm
Myth #167.
There are no steps in the progression of load increasing that the velocity does not increase - I do this garbage for a living, and spend hundreds of hours every year, year after year, testing ammuntion - there is no such thing.
"... only an intermediate step which is the simplest way to determine one (or more) "accuracy nodes" within which you can vary powder charge as much as +/- .5 gr. without affecting MV appreciably. "
hm
Myth #167.
There are no steps in the progression of load increasing that the velocity does not increase - I do this garbage for a living, and spend hundreds of hours every year, year after year, testing ammuntion - there is no such thing.
Quote: There are no steps in the progression of load increasing that the velocity does not increase
Have to disagree with that one. There are areas within the progression of load increasing that the velocity increses less (per incrimental increase) than in other areas. It is these flat spots that the ladder test helps identify.
Regards,
hm
Have to disagree with that one. There are areas within the progression of load increasing that the velocity increses less (per incrimental increase) than in other areas. It is these flat spots that the ladder test helps identify.
Regards,
hm
Last edited:
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: hm1996 Quote: There are no steps in the progression of load increasing that the velocity does not increase
Have to disagree with that one. There are areas within the progression of load increasing that the velocity increses less (per incrimental increase) than in other areas. It is these flat spots that the ladder test helps identify.
Regards,
hm
Disagree all you want - it is not true - what you are seeing is statistical bias, caused by small samples.
Run 10 shot groups (or repeat the 5 shot groups), and all of a sudden, it goes away.
But you are free to believe it if you want.
But some of the things I have learned over the years are:
1 - Small ES and SD do not necessarily mean small groups. I am not the only one to observe this.
2 - Large ES and SD do not necessary lead to large groups. I am not the only one to observe this.
... and the reason for that is the chronograph itself - it is the most unreliable piece of equipment we use, and it is the one piece of equipment that we all place religious faith in - we believe it down to a single digit.
Try putting three or four chrono's in a line and shooting through them sometime - your faith and beliefs will be shattered.
Have to disagree with that one. There are areas within the progression of load increasing that the velocity increses less (per incrimental increase) than in other areas. It is these flat spots that the ladder test helps identify.
Regards,
hm
Disagree all you want - it is not true - what you are seeing is statistical bias, caused by small samples.
Run 10 shot groups (or repeat the 5 shot groups), and all of a sudden, it goes away.
But you are free to believe it if you want.
But some of the things I have learned over the years are:
1 - Small ES and SD do not necessarily mean small groups. I am not the only one to observe this.
2 - Large ES and SD do not necessary lead to large groups. I am not the only one to observe this.
... and the reason for that is the chronograph itself - it is the most unreliable piece of equipment we use, and it is the one piece of equipment that we all place religious faith in - we believe it down to a single digit.
Try putting three or four chrono's in a line and shooting through them sometime - your faith and beliefs will be shattered.
Quote:But some of the things I have learned over the years are:
1 - Small ES and SD do not necessarily mean small groups. I am not the only one to observe this.
2 - Large ES and SD do not necessary lead to large groups. I am not the only one to observe this.
That's a fact.
Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the rest.
Regards,
hm
1 - Small ES and SD do not necessarily mean small groups. I am not the only one to observe this.
2 - Large ES and SD do not necessary lead to large groups. I am not the only one to observe this.
That's a fact.
Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the rest.
Regards,
hm
dan newberry
New member
Originally Posted By: CatShooter
Did I waste my time and components?
For any method to be accurate, it MUST be repeatable, and the "Ladder" and the "OCW" are not.
While I agree that horizontal is equally important to vertical, it looks like you either did not understand the OCW directions, or you trusted someone else who didn't understand.
OCW has worked for thousands of folks.
It won't fix a gun or a shooter who cannot shoot straight--but if rifle, sighting system, and trigger man are up to the task, OCW will work extremely well. It's been proven in use for more than 15 years now.
Dan
Did I waste my time and components?
For any method to be accurate, it MUST be repeatable, and the "Ladder" and the "OCW" are not.
While I agree that horizontal is equally important to vertical, it looks like you either did not understand the OCW directions, or you trusted someone else who didn't understand.
OCW has worked for thousands of folks.
It won't fix a gun or a shooter who cannot shoot straight--but if rifle, sighting system, and trigger man are up to the task, OCW will work extremely well. It's been proven in use for more than 15 years now.
Dan
Dan, I suspect that those who don't believe in the benefits of Ladder or OCW methods have never tried them or at the very least do not fully understand how they work.
I have used the ladder method since the 80's or 90's and been very happy w/results.
I have to admit that when I first read about your OCW a few years ago, I merely skimmed the surface and continued using the ladder method. My concern with OCW was (@ 200 or 300 yds) I could not use the chronograph during target changes plus the position shift from one target to the next would introduce an added chance of shooter error. One of my problems when shooting smallbore matches is poi shift due to slight changes in position from one target to the next.
Since the nearest 100-600 yd range is 50 miles and I have a 100 yd range a mile from home, I have been doing my testing @ 100 yds lately which often makes evaluation of the ladder difficult due to small resulting groups. I see a real advantage to your 3 shots on ea. target and @ 100 yds. the small position shift from one target to the next should not present a problem, not to mention the results are much easier to read. I look forward to giving OCW a try soon.
In the above discussion, I have held the position that ladder tests can be repeated, just as reliably as three or 5 shot groups can be but since I have never personally fired consecutive ladder tests (always obtained the desired results from a single test) I could not back up that claim. The targets posted on your web page provide proof positive that they indeed can be duplicated:
http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/#/ocw-vs-ladder/4529811360
http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/#/ocw-vs-ladder/4529811360
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/green788/targets/b8d023908b70b73854ae5d21dd8563e3.jpg
Regards,
hm
I have used the ladder method since the 80's or 90's and been very happy w/results.
I have to admit that when I first read about your OCW a few years ago, I merely skimmed the surface and continued using the ladder method. My concern with OCW was (@ 200 or 300 yds) I could not use the chronograph during target changes plus the position shift from one target to the next would introduce an added chance of shooter error. One of my problems when shooting smallbore matches is poi shift due to slight changes in position from one target to the next.
Since the nearest 100-600 yd range is 50 miles and I have a 100 yd range a mile from home, I have been doing my testing @ 100 yds lately which often makes evaluation of the ladder difficult due to small resulting groups. I see a real advantage to your 3 shots on ea. target and @ 100 yds. the small position shift from one target to the next should not present a problem, not to mention the results are much easier to read. I look forward to giving OCW a try soon.
In the above discussion, I have held the position that ladder tests can be repeated, just as reliably as three or 5 shot groups can be but since I have never personally fired consecutive ladder tests (always obtained the desired results from a single test) I could not back up that claim. The targets posted on your web page provide proof positive that they indeed can be duplicated:
http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/#/ocw-vs-ladder/4529811360
http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/#/ocw-vs-ladder/4529811360
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/green788/targets/b8d023908b70b73854ae5d21dd8563e3.jpg
Regards,
hm
scopedmyself
New member
Can some explain the ladder test for me please. I just started reloading and this may help me
scopedmyself
New member
Can some explain the ladder test for me please. I just started reloading and this may help me
Originally Posted By: scopedmyselfCan some explain the ladder test for me please. I just started reloading and this may help me
This article describes Audette's ladder method and Dan Newberry's OCW method which is an alternate method is linked within the article for comparison.
Regards,
hm
This article describes Audette's ladder method and Dan Newberry's OCW method which is an alternate method is linked within the article for comparison.
Regards,
hm
dan newberry
New member
hm1996... thanks for the kind words.
swift one
New member
Quote:At 500 and 600 yards, all you are seeing are the vagaries of atmosphere and mirage.
If a "Magic System" can't show you something at 200yds, it is all BS.
I must agree with this. At 500/600yds, there are too many other variable to determing an accurate load during the work up phase.
I have used a ladder test twice to work up a load. I had a 50% success rate. With my 308, I conducted it at 200yds. I had three charge weights that were very close to each other. I then loaded 5rds up in each of those 3 charge weights. All three charge weights shot very good groups at 200yds- all were so close to each other in spread that I ended up shooting the 3 charge weights again at 200yds THROUGH A CHRONY. Again, all three were so close in groupig that I ended up going with the group that was more consistent in the chrony. But, like what was said earlier, chronys can be some fickle pieces of equipment. My final load has worked well in various temps out to 600yds.
The other ladder test I conducted with my 223 proved to be unreliable. I ended up just going with a load that consitently shot 3rd groups at 200yds. If you ran this load through my chrony, there is about 30FPS difference. But, why fix what isn't broken?
If a "Magic System" can't show you something at 200yds, it is all BS.
I must agree with this. At 500/600yds, there are too many other variable to determing an accurate load during the work up phase.
I have used a ladder test twice to work up a load. I had a 50% success rate. With my 308, I conducted it at 200yds. I had three charge weights that were very close to each other. I then loaded 5rds up in each of those 3 charge weights. All three charge weights shot very good groups at 200yds- all were so close to each other in spread that I ended up shooting the 3 charge weights again at 200yds THROUGH A CHRONY. Again, all three were so close in groupig that I ended up going with the group that was more consistent in the chrony. But, like what was said earlier, chronys can be some fickle pieces of equipment. My final load has worked well in various temps out to 600yds.
The other ladder test I conducted with my 223 proved to be unreliable. I ended up just going with a load that consitently shot 3rd groups at 200yds. If you ran this load through my chrony, there is about 30FPS difference. But, why fix what isn't broken?