Thread: Best/simplest alternative to a ladder chart?

I follow the sweetspot method and has tweaked it over the years. Currently I do Quick load
.

I load 5 cartridges, head off to the range, shoot them and measure the speed, I then get all the info and supply it to a fella thats a QL genius, pay the $40 and the next day I get a suggested load and speed.

I then start a bit lower than suggested and work my way up to the suggested speed(Normally 3 different loads to test). I do not even worry about groupings, I work toward the speed. Once I get the speed I load 50 and head to the range to tweak seating depth. Sometimes I just take my loading gear to the range, text him the data, pay $50 and get the suggested speed on the spot, then I just load to his speed and I'm done.

Done!

I know a lot of people will go - Why pay $40?? Because driving to the range for a full load development cost me 3 to 3 tomes that. And the fella has proofed himself to be an absolute QL guru. I dont have the time to gain the skills or experience needed to run QL as well as he does. I do own QL and Gordons by the way.

I don't know if you'd call it simple, but I normally load a max pressure ladder, start mid range according to a data source (book or hodgdon website) and load over book max and shoot until I get pressure signs. Say if the powder weight range was 39 to 43 I would start at 41 and go up in 0.5 increments until I got to 44.5.

Usually about 10 rounds. Chronograph these. Then load 3 lots of 4 at different charge weights up to where I found pressure signs during pressure test. One of these usually shoot really well, job done. Or if you want to you can then refine with seating depth but last two times I haven't needed to.

You are right to question the value of ladder testing as typically carried out, particularly in the present day when consumable costs are pushing reloaders in the direction of attempting to extract more information from less data. I posted my thoughts here several years ago: https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....testing-45701/

Some might say I'm sidestepping the original question, but I'd propose as the most cost effective approach; to put a barrel from one of the top tier manufacturers onto the rifle, and have it chambered by someone who knows what they are doing, use quality components in making the ammunition (including a temperature-stable powder) and with a bullet that is well matched to the twist rate; then the rifle should have a good chance of shooting well with any charge weight within the recognised range for the cartridge each time it is taken out, and it isn't necessary to go wasting ammo.

Brian Litz interview videos are always interesting to watch. It never takes long before he gets into discussing the importance of statistical variation in group sizes, and with good reason. Here are a couple of many such interviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSLQ01VX3yM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0RC17Dbtws

Originally Posted by Puffin

You are right to question the value of ladder testing as typically carried out, particularly in the present day when consumable costs are pushing reloaders in the direction of attempting to extract more information from less data. I posted my thoughts here several years ago: https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....testing-45701/

Some might say I'm sidestepping the original question, but I'd propose as the most cost effective approach; to put a barrel from one of the top tier manufacturers onto the rifle, and have it chambered by someone who knows what they are doing, use quality components in making the ammunition (including a temperature-stable powder) and with a bullet that is well matched to the twist rate; then the rifle should have a good chance of shooting well with any charge weight within the recognised range for the cartridge each time it is taken out, and it isn't necessary to go wasting ammo.

Brian Litz interview videos are always interesting to watch. It never takes long before he gets into discussing the importance of statistical variation in group sizes, and with good reason. Here are a couple of many such interviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSLQ01VX3yM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0RC17Dbtws

Thanks Puffin for your most excellent posts on this subject, especially in the linked threads. To your thoughts I would add that many shooters (me included haha) are seeking groups to stoke their ego rather than meeting the purposes of "the rifle package" be it a PRS, NRA or a hunting rifle where long range shots are contemplated. This is why 3 shot groups are so useless due to their statistical unreliability! I RO a lot and see some excellent shooting by guys who "can shoot" but at least 50% of them stuff themselves up by shooting a couple of very small 3 shot groups (often having used up quite a bit of barrel not to mention componentry) and calling it good. Then I hear a match report from them that "my rifle shot like shit" or "my zero was off". A ten shot group might not have produced a very "show off" target but I bet their match score would be significantly better.

Just for a laugh I'll soon post up a OCW test I went out and shot with a new rifle just to test my own advice at the beginning of the thread.

So here is a OCW test shot on Sunday last. Conditions were practically perfect, just a bit of mirage which we seldom encounter here, off a pretty good benchrest at 100M. I always shoot a group with another rifle just to make sure I'm up to the mark . . . . And yes I'd say I was shooting 0.5 MOA or better.

The rifle is a new Bergara B14 extreme in 223, I saved up for a good while to get one of these, so despite it being a "middleweight hunting rifle" I have/had fairly high expectations of how it might shoot. It's had about 50 rounds of factory ammo through it to start a bit of a break-in process, and I'd usually try for about a 100 normally but wanted a picture for this thread.



So a 18" barrel 1:9 twist 223 with Hornardy bulk 55gn projectiles. Brass is once fired hornady, powder is 8208, Garmin chrony. Target is shot "round robin". I was a bit reluctant to post up this target initially (until Puffins posts) because I thought it would possibly confuse the OP. It sure confused me (although my ego was stoked by the 25.1 group) until I recalled the "statistics and dammed statistics " of 3 shot groups. What would you guys do next?

Originally Posted by Tentman

So here is a OCW test shot on Sunday last. Conditions were practically perfect, just a bit of mirage which we seldom encounter here, off a pretty good benchrest at 100M. I always shoot a group with another rifle just to make sure I'm up to the mark . . . . And yes I'd say I was shooting 0.5 MOA or better.

The rifle is a new Bergara B14 extreme in 223, I saved up for a good while to get one of these, so despite it being a "middleweight hunting rifle" I have/had fairly high expectations of how it might shoot. It's had about 50 rounds of factory ammo through it to start a bit of a break-in process, and I'd usually try for about a 100 normally but wanted a picture for this thread.

Attachment 248289

So a 18" barrel 1:9 twist 223 with Hornardy bulk 55gn projectiles. Brass is once fired hornady, powder is 8208, Garmin chrony. Target is shot "round robin". I was a bit reluctant to post up this target initially (until Puffins posts) because I thought it would possibly confuse the OP. It sure confused me (although my ego was stoked by the 25.1 group) until I recalled the "statistics and dammed statistics " of 3 shot groups. What would you guys do next?

If I wanted it ready for the weekend I'd load a bunch more at 25.1 and be happy until I got home again

Then if I hadn't run into pressure during the outing that produced the groups above, I would probably (definitely) load some more charge weights going up in the same style until I did. See what that looked like and go from there.

Or tune the 25.7 load with seating depth.

well I will say it if noone else game to or to polite to...for a new rifle in .223 that is terrible..
I dont think my cheaper rifle has ever shot that badly with any load tried..granted I only shoot paper to sight in...but normally my groups as such are like group #2 at worst.
24.5grns of ar2206 was for years my only load regaurdless of projectile as long as was between 50-55grns
TRY a smaller aiming mark..eg put a half inch round sticker in bottom corner of your diamond...or aim for bottom corner itself....seen it time and time again,group size is similar to the aiming point size...

Now MD that's very uncharitable to take my shooting to task. I'd already covered this and previously shot two 5 shotters with my K Hornet of 0.6 and 0.4 - with the same target and a 7x scope. It wasn't the shooting, go teach your granny how to suck eggs.

However I do agree it's not too good, the rifle was shooting nearly MOA 5 shot groups with cheap factory ammo like PMC/ Fiocchi 55s, but blew out over to 2 MOA when I tried Federal GMM 69s. It was "patchy with my usually very trust Lapua ammo, it's had the FMJ pulled and replaced with Hornady SPs. Hmmm. It's had a good deep clean and didn't show excessive coppering. Rings etc have been checked.

What I think is happening here is a new barrel still seasoning, combined with bulk projectiles. I'd just opened a new bag and just now on a thought provoked by @Kiwi-Hunter I went and weighted some - 4 out of 10 with nearly a grain of weight range. So I'll reshoot the test with decent projectiles and look at going a bit "snottier" - GRT estimates I'm still well under max pressures for the velocities I'm measuring.

As I mentioned I don't want to thread hijack but often we can learn more from a problem rifle than an easy one and this rifle will show every weakness of relying on 3 shot groups!

mate I wasnt having a go at your shooting ability..... for a .223 those groups arent flash...from a near new rifle they are shocking.
good on you for working out the kinks. great you already KNOW ABOUT smaller aiming point..LOTS OF FOLKS DONT....
good mate tried five different loads in his .223 and said groups werent flash..I got out calipers and none were worse than an honest inch and suprise surprise so was his aiming mark...why I mentioned it.
from my experience the big advantage of 5 shots over 3 is when you make it a four shot group by discarding one LOL....
again,sorry if caused offence...it wasnt intended.

Hey just banter both ways . . . .

Greetings @Tentman.
Regarding BM8208 earlier data including that from Hodgdon and ADI seems to have used a powder that was faster than the current production. I ran into this when I was working up some loads for the 60 grain Vmax. The best data I have found is from an article in Handloader by Brian Pearce. This agreed with my chronographed results> Brian showed a max load of 26 grains of IMR8208 XBR (BM8208 in a different container) producing 3,251fps in a 22" barrel with the 55 grain Nosler BT. I have not chronographed the 55 grain with 8208. As far as the 55 grain Hornady projectile goes I have used a lot of them with good results in 3 different .223 rifles, one with a 1 in 8" twist, over the years but they are a bulk low cost alternative so quality may have suffered from time to time. Regardless you may have found a sweet spot around 25 grains so that could use some more testing. Brian used Hornady cases in his tests so there is one less variable.
Regards Grandpamac.

I decided to pursue this a bit and was able to get a spare hour plus to throw some new loads and get to the range.

So the cheapie Hornadys with a fairly "loose" weight tolerance were identified as a possible culprit. A new rifle with well under 100 rounds through it . . . . not much can be done about that except clean it - done. But I did redo the scope bases, put another scope up, checked action screw torque and made sure the mag box wasn't binding between the bottom metal and action - a common bug bear of remmy type actions with BDL arrangements.

The new load substituted Sierra 55s for the Hornadys. From the data gained from the previous session it was clear (via analysis with GRT) that it was safe to go up another step. GRT also suggested a node at 25.8gns but I resisted the urge to deviate from the initial test regime.

So hear are the results:



A wee bit different from the first but just as interesting!

Firstly lets deal with the shooting,the light was very low here, and that necessitated the exact opposite approach @Micky Duck suggests, a small aiming point will kill you in these conditions, use a generous one and let your eye centre the white/black elements of the target and reticle. Groups were shot round Robin style again, no allowance for cooling etc, just a very very hot and angry suppressor at the end!

The groups are a vast improvement but do they convey any different info - I don't think so. They still show a node where the point of impact change is smallest at just under 25.0 gns and with the benefit of the extra group, another at 25.8ish - which coincides with the GRT prediction.

Cheers

much betterer....you will note that all groups are still about the size of your square LOL...... I do agree 100% if you can cut the square with cross hairs it works great..a plain X works for same reason if got enough magnification.
I would go two clicks left and call that sighted in.......if you take all groups and put together its not 6x3 shot groups its a 18 shot group that isnt terrible...

Originally Posted by Puffin

You are right to question the value of ladder testing as typically carried out, particularly in the present day when consumable costs are pushing reloaders in the direction of attempting to extract more information from less data. I posted my thoughts here several years ago: https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....testing-45701/

Some might say I'm sidestepping the original question, but I'd propose as the most cost effective approach; to put a barrel from one of the top tier manufacturers onto the rifle, and have it chambered by someone who knows what they are doing, use quality components in making the ammunition (including a temperature-stable powder) and with a bullet that is well matched to the twist rate; then the rifle should have a good chance of shooting well with any charge weight within the recognised range for the cartridge each time it is taken out, and it isn't necessary to go wasting ammo.

Brian Litz interview videos are always interesting to watch. It never takes long before he gets into discussing the importance of statistical variation in group sizes, and with good reason. Here are a couple of many such interviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSLQ01VX3yM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0RC17Dbtws

My opinion is wear out a barrel learning how to shoot and Puffin has worn out more barrels than I’ve owned.
When you have worn out your barrel then replace as per @Puffins advice then we can talk about ladder tests!