Article proving that ladder tests don't work for load development

[Bobbygun]

Yep varying components often leads to success. His comment about the Powder charge is what I was getting at. Varying the powder charge.

Absolutely. When I wrote "experimenting with different powders", that included brands and weights.

 

[Bobbygun]

Other than that, its well know if you shoot large sample sizes of any single handload literally everyone knows your group size will only get bigger as you shoot more, yet we also know thats not the metric for judging that handloads precision.

I've even read articles written by hunters that plead the case for shooting one shot from a cold bore and then wait for your bore to cool (sometimes just the next day) to get your groupings, because that first shot out of a cold bore is usually the one that counts.

 

[Koda]

I've even read articles written by hunters that plead the case for shooting one shot from a cold bore and then wait for your bore to cool (sometimes just the next day) to get your groupings, because that first shot out of a cold bore is usually the one that counts.

This is true, as a hunter Ive even experimented with this though I found my hunting rifles new barrel will shoot at least 3 rds the same cold or warm bore so I no longer worry about it. It has a heavier barrel now though. The old pencil thin barrel would shoot two rds tight then the 3rd would walk. Cold bore zero on that was much more important to know. Anyways, large sample sizes are virtually impossible for cold bore zeroing many hunters need to do.

More on topic , divide shooters into different groups based on needs: Recreational/target, hunters, competition shooters, self defense. None of those shoot large sample sizes except the self defense group where the precision needed makes handloading testing irrelevant, just hit COM is all that matters there.

 

[bpyycpyy]

I found this to be a pretty interesting article. In a nutshell, the tester indicates that it's "in the preparation of the brass". I also believe, like most here, that the ladder test is pretty effective. If you take velocity alone, the more consistent this value is, your drop point will be less affected by that factor. Finding a node where a slight change in powder charge will result in the least amount of velocity change seems like it would be hard to argue it's effectiveness.

(Edited to change link) Here is a link to website where the pdf can be accessed (about 1/2 way down):

Secrets of the Houston Warehouse – Lessons In Extreme Rifle Accuracy

Back in 1993, Precision Shooting Magazine printed a landmark article about the findings of a group o...

precisionrifleblog.com

 

[Ben B.]

The Hornady angle, and also that reported in the article, is that apparent differences observed in small samples disappear when large samples are run. Big surprise to many, small surprise to some. The article reported that whether he was using OCW, ladder, picking the worst apparent charge from the ladder test, or a somewhat randomly selected charge, the apparent differences observed in small 5-shot samples disappeared when 30-shot samples are run.

I think that is darned interesting.

 

[Ben B.]

I found this to be a pretty interesting article. In a nutshell, the tester indicates that it's "in the preparation of the brass". I also believe, like most here, that the ladder test is pretty effective. If you take velocity alone, the more consistent this value is, your drop point will be less affected by that factor. Finding a node where a slight change in powder charge will result in the least amount of velocity change seems like it would be hard to argue it's effectiveness.

Here is a link to website where the pdf document can be read or downloaded:

https://precisionrifleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/secrets-of-the-houston-warehouse-by-dave-scott-precision-shooting-magazine-special-edition-1-1993.pdf

That link wouldn't open for me. Some cool articles in there.

 

[bpyycpyy]

That link wouldn't open for me. Some cool articles in there.

Thanks. I changed the link.
I think that the more shots you take in a group it brings the element of human error being applied to the shot. That alone could cause an increase in group size. For example, if you could perfectly pull the trigger 8 out of ten 10 times, then a larger sample size will only introduce a larger error factor.

 

[Certaindeaf]

The stepstool method involves using SMK's and calling it good.

 

[Ben B.]

I think that the more shots you take in a group it brings the element of human error being applied to the shot. That alone could cause an increase in group size. For example, if you could perfectly pull the trigger 8 out of ten 10 times, then a larger sample size will only introduce a larger error factor.

Well you can't factor the human error out of small samples or large samples. And that position would be akin to saying, "I know I'm getting unreliable data with this small, beautiful 3-shot group, and I worry I'll make it worse by going for reliable data."

I'm reminded of times when the first shot is dead nuts center of the bullseye, and the shooter will say something like "No point shooting more, it'll just get worse and can't get any better!" Which is both funny and true.

But I will say that shooting a really accurate barrel/rifle load combo somehow reduces those flyers frequency and severity. And has taught me the unreliable and self serving nature of "called flyers." As in, "Oooh, that one felt bad, hmm looks like it went in the center, guess it was OK after all…" vs "Oooh, that one felt bad, yep went outside the group, that's a called flyer, I just knew something was off…"

 

[Spitpatch]

It wasn't a point made. It was a JOKE. And I did not read the whole article. (TLDR = Too Long Didn't Read)


or the depth of the bullet, or the rifle barrel, or the...

Reloading can be a rabbit hole. If I were a benchrest competition guy, I might be willing to go further down that rabbit hole. Most of my rifle loads are for hunting where I would rather have a great bullet with decent accuracy, than an okay bullet with unrivaled accuracy. Handgun loads are 99% for plinking. Like @Caveman Jim, I get along fine with what works for me.

This is a sane philosophy. It lends the entire responsibility, cost/benefit ratio, including time invested toward direct relation to a goal. What do you want, and what do you want to put into that goal?

Benchresters, and Long Range Blackpowder shooters know, have written about, and are very meticulous in what they want and it has to be the very best possible, because they live at the extreme of challenge. They have to know what will produce nothing but precision and no doubt, save the shooter.

I will not grant recognition of that level of dedication to the new crop of Long Range Shooters. I speak not of what is current and popular , but of scientific and careful personal development with a personal rifle for a personal purpose (such as hunting, as @Bobbygun describes for himself).

I admire those who have the skill to complement their wonderful choice of weaponry now available for Long Range Shooting. When I see it performed (and I do it myself with their guns) I am no end amazed. But I very often wonder at the man that is perfectly satisfied with target shooting.

Benchresters and Long Range Blackpowder shooters operate at the base level of riflery, and are required to know and demonstrate it all and learn all of the science of it.

A fair shooter who gets the right equipment for modern Long Range Shooting can plug, play, and go to town, and even impress me when I get behind his equipment.

 

[saxon]

article is half horse bubblegum and 25 % bull bubblegum
1 ladder of 110 grain 300 aac sierra, found the "node" with three rounds
took 3 other 110 grain bullets all with different lengths, ran ladders and duplicated
the sierra load, 4 different bullets repeatable outcome with 4 groups of one ragged hole

 

[Bobbygun]

I found this to be a pretty interesting article. In a nutshell, the tester indicates that it's "in the preparation of the brass". I also believe, like most here, that the ladder test is pretty effective. If you take velocity alone, the more consistent this value is, your drop point will be less affected by that factor. Finding a node where a slight change in powder charge will result in the least amount of velocity change seems like it would be hard to argue it's effectiveness.

(Edited to change link) Here is a link to website where the pdf can be accessed (about 1/2 way down):

Secrets of the Houston Warehouse – Lessons In Extreme Rifle Accuracy

Back in 1993, Precision Shooting Magazine printed a landmark article about the findings of a group o...

precisionrifleblog.com

Interesting article. Thanks for the link. One of the conclusions from this article that is pretty much the opposite of the findings in the OP's original link regarding bullet seating depth:

• You can change the powder charge slightly, and it won't really make any difference, but if you change the bullet seating depth or the grip on the bullet, you're going to see bad things happen fast.

I'm not sure about the original Hornady experiment, but the findings of the author of the 2024 article were based on three rifles - a statistically insignificant sample. Honestly, I haven't historically focused a lot of energy on seating depth. But I had one particular rifle that I felt like I was practically "seating" the bullet deeper when I shoved the bolt closed on factory ammo. That rifle (a Rem 700 .25-06) consistently shot 2"plus groups at 100 yards. After failing to gain much on those sorts of groups experimenting with various bullets and powders, I finally tried using the same bullets and powders and seated the bullets deeper. Now that rifle shoots 3/4" groups all day long.

 

[bpyycpyy]

Interesting article. Thanks for the link. One of the conclusions from this article that is pretty much the opposite of the findings in the OP's original link regarding bullet seating depth:

• You can change the powder charge slightly, and it won't really make any difference, but if you change the bullet seating depth or the grip on the bullet, you're going to see bad things happen fast.

I'm not sure about the original Hornady experiment, but the findings of the author of the 2024 article were based on three rifles - a statistically insignificant sample. Honestly, I haven't historically focused a lot of energy on seating depth. But I had one particular rifle that I felt like I was practically "seating" the bullet deeper when I shoved the bolt closed on factory ammo. That rifle (a Rem 700 .25-06) consistently shot 2"plus groups at 100 yards. After failing to gain much on those sorts of groups experimenting with various bullets and powders, I finally tried using the same bullets and powders and seated the bullets deeper. Now that rifle shoots 3/4" groups all day long.

While I did find the Houston Warehouse article interesting, not sure I buy into everything it says. I'm pretty sure that all the data written about this topic can only be a generalization as every rifle may require it's own set of tweaking criteria that may or may not apply to another rifle. It just seems to scream "common sense" that if you can eliminate ANY varying factors that this will reduce/eliminate the amount of deviation to the desired results. Some interesting videos on YouTube to check out are Erik Cortina Ethical Hunter Challenge series. This series of videos has a group of shooters that try to hit a 1 MOA target at 500 yards with a 1 shot test. These shooters mostly all have high end guns (heavy with large optics) that would be brought to a competition versus hunting and most of them fail to hit the 1 MOA target. Granted, most of this is likely due to wind calls which is more likely to be a larger factor for long distance shooting versus a few hundredths change due to reloading inconsistencies.

Link to part 1:

View: https://youtu.be/6yq4u9INw94?si=IOzJnEe3CLnTF7Tr

 

[Bobbygun]

not sure I buy into everything it says

LOL. I think that about most articles on the subject of reloading. The goals of the writer are often different from my own. Like the original article in the thread saying the accuracy was best with the lower charges. Then saying there really wasn't a lot of difference with differing powder charges. If I could get similar accuracy results, I would opt for the higher powder charge to pick up some speed so my bullet didn't drop as fast at 200 or 300 yards.

I've seen that Youtube video before on a different thread here, but I can't remember which thread it was. I do remember there was a real lack of success. I can't remember the last time I tried to hit anything (probably a rock or spot on a rock) at 500 yards. But then, I've spent the last 25 years predominantly bowhunting.

 

[arakboss]

To clarify this large sample group method: If I load up & shoot 30 rounds with a given powder at a 50gr charge weight, then another group with a 55gr charge weight, they will each have the same group size?

 

[Koda]

To clarify this large sample group method: If I load up & shoot 30 rounds with a given powder at a 50gr charge weight, then another group with a 55gr charge weight, they will each have the same group size?

They might. They might not.

Thats the problem with the article...

 

[bpyycpyy]

To clarify this large sample group method: If I load up & shoot 30 rounds with a given powder at a 50gr charge weight, then another group with a 55gr charge weight, they will each have the same group size?

I think that the variance in powder charges will become more apparent the further out you measure the difference. A few velocity differences at close range will not be that effected but will be more evident the further out you go due to the bullet drop based on velocity. Any standard ballistic table drop chart would show you this effect over distance.

 

[DizzyJ]

Interesting article. Thanks for the link. One of the conclusions from this article that is pretty much the opposite of the findings in the OP's original link regarding bullet seating depth:

• You can change the powder charge slightly, and it won't really make any difference, but if you change the bullet seating depth or the grip on the bullet, you're going to see bad things happen fast.

I'm not sure about the original Hornady experiment, but the findings of the author of the 2024 article were based on three rifles - a statistically insignificant sample. Honestly, I haven't historically focused a lot of energy on seating depth. But I had one particular rifle that I felt like I was practically "seating" the bullet deeper when I shoved the bolt closed on factory ammo. That rifle (a Rem 700 .25-06) consistently shot 2"plus groups at 100 yards. After failing to gain much on those sorts of groups experimenting with various bullets and powders, I finally tried using the same bullets and powders and seated the bullets deeper. Now that rifle shoots 3/4" groups all day long.

Yeah but was that with a 50 shot group? If not, it's statistically invalid.

 

[DizzyJ]

To clarify this large sample group method: If I load up & shoot 30 rounds with a given powder at a 50gr charge weight, then another group with a 55gr charge weight, they will each have the same group size?

They'll be the same size with a 300 shot group.

 

[Ben B.]

They might. They might not.

Thats the problem with the article...

Did you actually read the article? That's not what the data showed or the author's conclusion, at all.

Here's a relevant excerpt:

If these nodes are real, or any optimal charge weight exists, one of these test samples should show significantly better — or even just different results than the others. The Hornady crew claimed to have found no significant change in group size with varying charge weights — except that group sizes seemed to decrease slightly as charge weight decreased. What would my data say?
…
This rifle produced good extreme spread and mean radius numbers in this test too, but I was surprised by the relatively poor velocity SD numbers. From book min to book max for charge weight, you can see that average velocity increased with charge weight in a linear fashion as one would expect, but velocity SD, group size or extreme spread, and mean radius show almost no change from big changes in charge weight. The lowest charge weight produced the tightest accuracy, and it slowly increased along with charge weight, with the book maximum producing the largest group size and mean radius.