Advice on which load

Matty308

Matty308

CGN frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Location
Okanagan
So I made up some new loads and did some group testing with them. I did up some 69 grain SMK's behind IMR 4895 and had some pretty good success, just unsure which load to pick as it seems they went from good to worse to good again so not sure if that was me or where to go next. What would you guys do? Here are some pictures of my targets labeled with numbers 1 - 14. This was shot out of my Noveske Recon with 16" stainless barrel and an Aimpoint Micro H1.

These were 5 shot groups. To me it looks like 1,2,4,8,12,13 were the tightest groups with 4 being the smallest by far. I just don't get why the groups would bounce around so much, or it was probably me? Anyways just looking for advice on where you guys would go next.

Groups:
1,2: 22.5 gr
3,4: 22.7 gr
5,6: 23.0 gr
7,8: 23.2 gr
9,10: 23.4 gr
11,12: 23.6 gr
13,14: 23.8 gr

20140217_175255.jpg

20140217_175316.jpg

20140217_175335.jpg
 
Last edited:
Where are the results of your ladders test?Ladder tests don't do group shooting.

Delete - didn't look at photos proper.I will re read this, as I think you pictures aren't as you shot the targets.

Ok, if I did those groups I would change my test method as there isn't any groups that were really duplicated.I would do each powder charge one at a time and in order, not doubling up on the test group at this point.You may be having issues from heating/cooling of the barrel.Do two separate tests of your loads on two separate days and duplicate frequency of shots and cool down times.Group 6 looks to be the most promising in my eyes as it has the least vertical stringing.

Or do a true ladder test and save on time and ammo.

You should do some reading on the ladder test and what it is and does. http://www.6mmbr.com/laddertest.html

Here is a ladder test:

 
Last edited:
Yeah sorry I used the wrong term, I will read up on that and I will take it out again and try to be consistent with everything. I made 10 bullets of each charge and shot 2 5 round groups with each charge then moved on to the next.
 
This discussion will be interesting to me.

I understood a 'ladder test' to be something like X number of groups, with each group containing N rounds, and the charge for each group moving from a minimum charge to a maximum charge in specific increments. So you wind up with X * N rounds, which you shoot in round-robin fashion.

E.g.: You start with 21 gr of powder and end with 25 gr, and you move up in .5 gr increments. You use groups of five. So you load five rounds at 21 gr, five at 21.5 gr, five at 22 gr, etc., until you reach 25 gr. So you'd have 9 groups for 45 rounds total.

You would shoot each group, at a different target, in round-robin fashion. E.g.: shoot round 1 from group 1 at target 1, then round 2 from group 2 at target 2, and so on, until you come back to shoot round 2 from group 1 at target 1.

Shooting round-robin evens out the effects of changing environmental conditions, shooter fatigue, barrel temperature changes, ammunition temperature changes, etc.

I'm just reading this document and it describes an entirely different process.
 
PS: I'm reading all about ladder tests (now that I've realized I don't actually know how to do one) in the document reference above. It seems to me that the whole point is to find a place where barrel vibrations and muzzle climb/bullet time in barrel destructively cancel each other out to create a 'sweet spot' that is insensitive to variations in powder charge.

That doesn't seem incredibly useful for people who measure powder charges very carefully with scales that are accurate to below .1 gr of variation..

So I must be missing something..
 
I dunno, but if it were me, I would be focusing on group 6 - almost no vertical - thats gonna be a good long range load if its repeatable.
 
chrismc said:
I dunno, but if it were me, I would be focusing on group 6 - almost no vertical - thats gonna be a good long range load if its repeatable.
Click to expand...

Group 5 had the same powder charge, so why are the two groups so different?
 
Look at groups 3 & 4 as well. Group 4 displays a very tight group, while group 3 appears to be average, compared to the rest. While 7 & 8 are no screaming hell for vertical, the 'patterns' are similar. This, to me, shows that either technique or load was consistent. Once you can get a given load to print the same way each time, then you refine it from there.

Personally, I see technique as the biggest thing here. Also, a better / higher mag scope would benefit you greatly for testing purposes.

On a side note, is there any particular reason you used .2 grain increments across the board but made the .3 grain jump between loads 3/4 & 5/6? Not that it's likely to make a huge difference but there's that consistency thing again. Nice guy, huh?;)

Rooster
 
OK, I'm just back from reading all about ladder tests and I'm a bit confused.

I did exactly what OP did (I think), and loaded up a bunch of rounds with incremental charge weights, then fired them in groups at different targets. I.e.: each charge weight was fired at a different target and all rounds loaded to that charge weight went to the same target. I thought that the intent of a ladder test was to determine the best groups, including vertical and horizontal dispersion.

That's not what a ladder test does; at least not the ILDM (Incremental Load Development Method) originally described by Creighton Audette as discussed here and refined by guys like Jason Baney here.

I think (some) people here are looking at OP's targets and looking for vertical stringing across varying charge weights, but the charge weights on each target do not vary.

Also, OP: are your photos rotated 90 degrees, or did you mount and shoot the targets exactly as shown in the photos? If they're rotated, everyone commenting here about vertical stringing is actually talking about horizontal stringing :)
 
Hey Matty, any reason why you're jumping from 0.5gr increments to 0.3gr to 0.2gr? Just load up in 0.5gr increments. Once you get the best/consistent load of the bunch. You can start narrowing it down by 0.3gr on either side. I don't think you're going to see a whole lot of difference with 0.2gr increment.
 


Six shots in my version of a ladder test where I was also trying to exceed 3000 fps with a 280 Remington and 140 grain Barnes TTSX.
2, 3 and 4 appeared to show little preference but then so did 5 and 6.

This was a repeat of 6 and confirmed the velocity was maintaining over 3000 fps



This was using a similar process with a 260 Remington.



You are really looking for something similar in barrel harmonics and then going back to search for the one that will work best. Many variables and more causes.
 
HeavyTread said:
PS: I'm reading all about ladder tests (now that I've realized I don't actually know how to do one) in the document reference above. It seems to me that the whole point is to find a place where barrel vibrations and muzzle climb/bullet time in barrel destructively cancel each other out to create a 'sweet spot' that is insensitive to variations in powder charge.That doesn't seem incredibly useful for people who measure powder charges very carefully with scales that are accurate to below .1 gr of variation..

So I must be missing something..
Click to expand...


Okay, here goes my bestest shot at this one!!

The ladder test:

Best done at as far a distance as practical.This causes your results to be as pronounced as possible.Ideally you want to see your shots "climb" the ladder.

Start at the bottom of the recommended charge weight and work up, the amount you increment this will obvious depend on case capacity.Maybe .2 or .3 in 5.56 , .5 in 7.62 or maybe 1.0 in 338LM.You want to look for the trend or cluster or tightening of your ladders so called rungs.Look at my previous post with the photo and you can see where the shots group together vertically and then separate, don't worry too much about horizontal deviation at this point but closer together isn't a bad thing to observe.You are looking for long range accuracy based on velocity variances vs rifle/barrel harmonics.

Now you will find a "group" , try to duplicate this pattern to see if you did find it to be consistent.Now you can either refine your ladder test by going in smaller increments or if you are happy with the initial ladder test you can now do some grouping( 5 or 7 or 10 shots, the more the better) to see where you are at.Once you have repeatability , now you can fine tune going just a bit light and heavier on either side of those charge weights.

You can see different nodes or tight spots in more than one area of the ladder as shots may open and close the distance more than once during a test with a wide range of charge weights.

The ladder test above IMO needs more shots done(wider range of weights) As well it looks like something is a bit out of whack because the ladder isn't really formed in a consistent rising pattern.Possibly this combo isn't consistent or the ladder test was done at too close a distance.As the velocity increases your POI should typically rise as well.

I hope that makes sense and helps out.

I do very much enjoys the quick results of the ladder test and time and components it saves.After all we are looking for long range horizontal tightness and this test gets you right in the zone immediately.
 
Matty308 said:
Yeah sorry I used the wrong term, I will read up on that and I will take it out again and try to be consistent with everything. I made 10 bullets of each charge and shot 2 5 round groups with each charge then moved on to the next.
Click to expand...

This is a valid way to test. But when I do this with a AR15 or hunting rifle, I put on a powerful target scope of 15 x to maybe 24X. I dial out the parallax error and reduce the aiming error from the test.
 
H4831 said:
Group 5 had the same powder charge, so why are the two groups so different?
Click to expand...

Id say #6 looks good, 5 isnt bad, looks like a pull on one of your shots, try around there and start again and see if its repeatable. It takes time to get a good reload going and making sure bullet depth is kept consistant with Ogive, OAL has too much deviation bullet tip to bullet tip, each one are different.
 
I've done a ton of reading since I last posted.

What OP (and I) were doing is more consistent with the OCW (Optimum charge weight) load development method. The vertical string posted by Kelly Timoffee and horseman2 are more like traditional ladder tests.

What I did on the weekend and what OP did still has merit.. It's just a different approach.
 
Thanks guys for all the tips, the ladder test sounds pretty technical haha. I think I am going to put my Leopold 2.5-8x on it and do some more testing as it will take out some more of the uncertainty.
 
The ladder test does not cut it for me. It assumes that every shot you fire will be in the center of your group or that your rifle shoots an extremely small group with all loads. If you shoot 2 consecutive shots and they are 1 1/2 " apart and your rifle is inly capable of 1 1/2" you don't know if the actual point of impact is the same or 2 1/4 apart. I fire three shots with each charge.
When I was shooting DCRA and my sighters were together I hated it because I had no idea if they were in the center of my group or bottom or top etc. 2 sighters that pretty much match what you know the group size to be gave a much better idea of where the center of the group would be.

Just my thoughts but I will keep on doing things my way

Neilm
 
Neilm said:
The ladder test does not cut it for me. It assumes that every shot you fire will be in the center of your group or that your rifle shoots an extremely small group with all loads. If you shoot 2 consecutive shots and they are 1 1/2 " apart and your rifle is inly capable of 1 1/2" you don't know if the actual point of impact is the same or 2 1/4 apart. I fire three shots with each charge.
When I was shooting DCRA and my sighters were together I hated it because I had no idea if they were in the center of my group or bottom or top etc. 2 sighters that pretty much match what you know the group size to be gave a much better idea of where the center of the group would be.

Just my thoughts but I will keep on doing things my way

Neilm
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the ladder test as originally described by Creighton Audette was intended for use on benchrest and F-class rifles, and is supposed to be fired from a rest that basically removes the human from the equation, over very long distances (300 yards at *minimum*).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom