Ladder Method Experts Needed

[BigBlack]

For those who use the ladder methods tell me you thoughts on this attempt

Setup:
I loaded 10 cartridges increasing powder by .3 grains for each round. Setup a 300yd target and shot the round in order and numbered them as I went. I also chrono’d each shot. I was shooting from a solid bench rest. No pressure signs AT ALL! No hard bolt, not even snug bolt lifts, No flatten primers, and still a very noticeable radius on edge of primer. Chrono set up 9 feet from muzzle. No noticeable wind, a little but not enough to move the ribbon on the 300yd target, maybe wiggle it a little.

Rifle:
.243 Remington 700 ADL 22” Barrel, floated barrel but no other work.

Ammo:
Winchester Brass
CCI BR-2 Primer
H4350 Powder
100gr Sierra Game Kings
Seated .020 off lands

Chrono Numbers
1. 2699.1
2. 2708.8
3. 2744.6
4. 2736.5
5. 2827.9
6. Chrono missed this one
7. 2843.4
8. 2877.9
9. 2896.0
10. 2945.4

Attached is target with most of this info written on it.

 

[BigBlack]

From my responses on other forums I guess I understood the ladder thing all wrong. I understood it to be this:

1. Load up 10-20 cartridges incrementing the charge up by .3-.4 to your max charge.
2. Shoot at target 200-300 yards away and shoot the charges from low to high watching for signs.
3. Hits should have "walk" up as the charge increase
4. Somewhere there should be a grouping
5. Take the charges for the groupings and work with them using 3-5 round groups at 100.

I thought the ladder would save me some time getting close to the sweet spot, but I guess I am way off. Newbie mistake I guess but was still a learning experiment. Guess I am back to the bench to load up more and back to the range for fun.

 

[Cypress]

I've been reloading for quite a while and have never really heard of the method you describe. If your looking for accuracy I will generally load up 5 rounds of each load. Usually from low to high on the load data omitting the charges that give unacceptable velocity. I've found that it saves time and money to go up in full grain increments. You will usually find a 2-3 grain region that gives better accuracy. You can then break down into smaller increments in that 3 grain region. Hope this helps!!! I'm sure others will chime in soon.

 

[Mal H]

I think you understand the ladder loading correctly, but your results are a little questionable.

Either your barrel has a resonance that persists from rounds 1 through 7 or your bench aiming technique leaves something to be desired. The "group" shouldn't be quite that large and spread out.

However, rounds 8 and 9 seem to have hit a sweet spot which is what you're looking for. If I were you, I would concentrate the next set of loads in that area. Maybe include a few in the 6-7 area just to verify the resonance.

 

[Der Verge]

I have been doing the ladder method of load development for a while now, and love how it works. You are executing everything properly, but may I make a few suggestions? Well, let me babble for a min....

I think your choice of .3gr increase is just right, but you should have made 4 rounds with the starting charge. 3 for foulers, 1 for testing purposes.

I think 300yards, though the most recommended distance, is a bit far. Most guys who have written the articles explaining this method of development are shooting heavy barreled target guns, that are most likely going to be less picky about what they are fed. I do this test at 100yards to start, but only because any rifle range that goes beyond that is too far away. I would like to do 150 yards, or 200 to start, but not 300.

The biggest thing here is consistency from shot to shot. Especially with sporter weight barrels. You do not want the barrel heating up. If your barrel tends to shoot increasingly "loose" as it gets hotter, then you are not going to get good development data. Give it a minute or two between shots.

Lastly, the biggest mistake I have seen people make while doing this method, is poor record keeping. They mix up the hits on target. Here is what I do.....
I make my own targets.....1" stick on orange dot in the middle of some 8-1/2" X 11". I will put one dot on a piece of paper, then lay a blank piece over it so I can see exactly where the dot it. Then I do my best to put the next dot in the same exact place. Repeat. Anyway, I keep one target at the bench to record the hits with a pen. As for down range, I will stack 3 or 4 targets over each other. After say, 4 or 5 shots, I will peel the top target off, take it to the bench, and write the number of each hit next to the appropriate hole. 5 more shots, repeat the process. This way, I cannot mix up the hits, and know my data is correct.

From what I see in your results, I would be looking to change something. Your results are very erratic. All in all, your shots did climb as the charge increased (which will not necessarily always happen) but you have a wide horizontal spread. Vertical spreads tell you things like variations in charge or seating depth (variations in working pressure). Horizontal spreads tell you that there is/are a component or components the gun is not happy with (assuming the gun is tip-top).

I would start with changing the powder, then the bullet, then the primers.
If you change the powder, but still have too much horizontal spread, I would guess you are having trouble stabilizing the bullets. In your case, go to 90gr projectiles. If you change the bullets and are still having a problem after trying a few different powders, change primers. Many people will tell you that the primer will have no or almost no effect on accuracy. From my own experience, I had a 7 Rem Mag that could not hit the farm, much less the broad side of a barn when loaded with magnum primers. I switched to large rifle primers, of the same brand, and ended up with a load in the .3's. If you change all of the above and get no where, you need to closely inspect your rifle, scope, mounts, bedding, and lastly, your reloading equipment.

Hope this NOVEL helps. Any other questions?

 

[BigBlack]

Der Verge,

Thanks I will try your suggestions.

 

[Slamfire]

I never understood the "ladder method".

From what I can tell, the method assumes that each shot represents the true average of all rounds with that powder charge.

Which is bogus as all get out.

All you have to do is shoot ten rounds of perfectly weighed powder, in same lot, same weight brass, weighed bullets, all that bench rest stuff. And then you find that a lot of good loads have SD's in the 20's and 30's, ES's in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

I am not a statistician. But I think the ladder method is totally bogus as a way of sorting out population groups. It is right up where with rabbit feet, four leaf clovers, Celtic Druid BS.

Maybe someone who is a ballistician can chip in on this, or a statistician.

 

[lonniemike]

Slam and others who might be interested in finding out more about the ladder method, also known as the Incremental Load Development Method, championed by Creighton Audette. Do a search on this old timer and his method. best-o-luck

 

[ranger335v]

"I never understood the "ladder method".

So, from your admitted lack of understanding of a known load development process, you deem it "bogus"?

Interesting point of view.

 

[RonO777]

Try this, it is what I use. http://www.clik.to/optimalchargeweight

Ron

 

[snuffy]

Try this, it is what I use. http://www.clik.to/optimalchargeweight

Ron

The "ladder system" is bad enough, but Dan Newberry bastardizes it into a totally unusable waste of components.

I agree with slam, it's bogus. Have I tried it? No, why should I? The method I and most others use works just fine, and I can do all my testing on a 100 yd. range.

Pick a purpose, select a bullet, look for the powder that most closely does what you want, then load a batch of test loads with that combo. Starting at the recommended starting load, then in increments go from there to max, 5 rounds at each increment. Your best group is your load, what could be easier?

To each his own I guess. But don't come on here telling everybody that the ladder or OCW is the ONLY way to an accurate load!

 

[Slamfire]

So, from your admitted lack of understanding of a known load development process, you deem it "bogus"?

Interesting point of view.

It is not up to me to explain the process and show that it is valid. I think the burden of that is on the folks who claim it will produce an optimum load with a streamlined procedure.

 

[~z]

My experience with ladder tests is that it can be a valuable tool to find a good powder. Not gonna get into the pros and cons, just throwing out an answer for the op.

In my experience with a proven rifle is that 300 yds is a good distance for the test. At 100 I got ragged holes, 200 the shots were still too clustered to record shot numbers (however, Der Verge's "stack-o-targets" idea may be quite useful) 300 yds allowed me to track each shot as the group was larger. One difference, I load 20. In that I would find 2 or sometimes 3 clusters. It is possible, in my opinion, that you may have simply chosen a starting and final load that were just outside of the IDEAL range.

Just a suggestion, but if you want to use the ladder to find a load, try again with more ammo. My 20 round ladders usually take about 2 hrs to fire. I track my shots at the bench and every 5th shot I walk up and mark my shots on the target just to avoid confusion.

It sounds like you are doing everything right, maybe just need more ammo.

Again, I do not care to get into a debate on statistics, as the ladder is not a good statistical test, it is just a way of finding a suitable range of powder volume.

Good luck and let us know how it works for you.
~z

 

[RonO777]

Snuffy, I didnt tell anyone that The "ladder system" or OWC is the only way to get an accurate load. You are the one who said that your way is the best way to load. If you bother to read the OWC instructions it is very close to the way you are loading. SO you are using a version of the OWC. But instead of loading one grain increment at a time you load them all.
Ok lets say Im looking to shoot to shoot bullet X with powder Z. The manual gives a starting load an a max load range of 2 grains. I divide that by .3. Thats 6 differant loads with 3 rounds per load thats 18 shots plus a couple of foulers. Thats 20 shots. You said you load 5 per increment that 30 rounds plus a couple of foulers, 32. So Ive now got my load in 12 shots less than you . How is that a waste of components? All of mine are shot in one trip to the range. So I take weather out of the factor.
Ron

 

[snuffy]

Ron, 3 shots per load/group are not enough to see if a load is good or not. 5 shots really isn't either, but it's better than 3. 10 would be a lot better, it would prove a load, especially if you were chronographing at the same time.

~z, 2 hours? Why? Barrel heat? I don't subscribe to the theory that barrel heat causes warping. Of course excess heat causes throat erosion, but warping? If it's a quality rifle, I doubt it will warp the barrel. When I'm shooting 5 round groups, I fire them in a couple of minutes. Then I let that rifle rest/cool while I pick up another rifle and shoot that, either for groups or just fun shooting, plinking. I use the hand test, if I can grab it hard without discomfort, it's ready for another group. I'm lucky if I can pry loose 2 hours for an entire range trip, let alone spend all that time just shooting 20 rounds!

I was going to hijack this thread, but thought better of it. Then slam did, so now it's okay! Ya know, I do have access to a 200 yd. range. I might just try the ladder system some time, so I can say yea or nay. Apparently some have success with it, maybe it's time I try it!

 

[~z]

Snuffy, yea 2 hrs. I'm interested in the "cold bore shot". Mind you I may be doing the same thing on two rifles at the same time and prolly have another 1 or 2 along for the ride. So I'm actually shooting around 60 or more shots in that 2 hrs. However, that rifle sees 20 shots in 2 hrs. It is a quality barrel, however I have noticed it has a tendancy to open up when it gets hot (becomes obvious on the 4th or 5th shot).
You dont have to subscribe to the theory, thats just how I do it. Black prolly would not need to wait that long with a 22" .243, however, mine is bigger and longer. Works for me.
~z

 

[Der Verge]

Ok, for all of you non-believers, If you have not tried this method, YOU HAVE NO OPINION. Get it?

I use it, I like it, and it has worked well for me. Ok, it is not for you. Well then, it is not your thing, go harrass someone about the method you DO know something about.

Lastly, this is not the way to get your perfect load. It is a good, working, shortcut intended to save you time, components, and barrel life. It shows you the ranges to spend your time investigating, instead of investigating the entire spectrum of possible charge weights.

At this point, the method has worked beautifully for me.

 

[RonO777]

I tried to use the ladder method but my max range to shoot is only 200 yards. The results looked like bigblacks target and I could never get a good read on it. Plus at the time I didnt have a really good bench rest setup so I was always unsure of my shots because they were so scattered.
The OWC is shot at 100 yards and that works better for me since I can shoot at the correct range. I normally wait about 2 minutes between shots unless the barrel starts to get really hot. Then I go longer.
But you are right it just gives you the powder range to focus on. It just keeps you from :banghead:.
Ron

 

[Grump]

When I looked at the Sierra manual and saw something like 1.4 grains increase in charge weight for a 100 fps change in velocity, I estimated that a charge right in the middle would be tolerant of charge variation.

It was. As thrown from the Dillon, the weights were +/- .2 grains for 9 and +.3 grains for the one statistical "outlier".

ES was small enough, SD was 14 or less, and the 2 groups (different brass) were as good as I've been getting lately from that barrel.

I'd like to have 50-100 fps more juice out of them, though. I'll do the max charge next.

155-gr Bergers from an M1A, with a stick powder that "meters lousy".

 

[kelbro]

I have several rifles that responded well to the OCW method. It allows for variations in brass, primers, and temperatures when done correctly. The loads developed with this method have proved very consistent and repeatable.

In all fairness, I had one rifle that didn't respond well to this method but I gave up after only trying two different powders and sold it!

 

[ranger335v]

"So, from your admitted lack of understanding of a known load development process, you deem it "bogus"? Interesting point of view."

"It is not up to me to explain the process and show that it is valid. I think the burden of that is on the folks who claim it will produce an optimum load with a streamlined procedure."

I'm not trying to convience or dissuade anyone to anything, to each his own. I only question saying something that you admit you don't understand is, ip so facto, bogus or BS. I do understand the ladder method of load development. It does work to abbreviate the process but I feel no burden to write a ten page expanation of why it works (and that's what it would take, for me anyway but I make no claim to be a writer).

It's enough to say that I've been loading since the mid 60s and I used to develop loads as you suggest, we all did it that way in the old days. And we still use that method to fine tune for the sweet spots. But, learning about the ladder system to quickly find the range of the sweet spots for both charge and seating depth has saved me a lot of time and a ton of component money.

Understand that there is no requirement, per se, to do ladder tests at 300 yards, that just makes it easier to keep track of where the individual shots strike. My variation of the system uses only ONE numbered target for EACH numbered round, and that works fine at 100 yards.

 

[Mal H]

To be honest, I'm a little surprised at the way the use of the method seems to have been misconstrued by a few here. I see it as a way to get inside the ballpark, no one expects to have an accurate load after using the ladder method. It just helps to narrow the load range, then the more traditional methods of load development take over.

The word "optimum" or any word remotely resembling it wasn't mentioned until post #12. It may be mentioned in the linked piece, but no one here said anything about optimum loads.

Then snuffy sez, "But don't come on here telling everybody that the ladder or OCW is the ONLY way to an accurate load!" I pored over the posts carefully and found nothing even hinting at that assertion. (Although he did come back later and recant that somewhat.)

 

[Slamfire]

It's enough to say that I've been loading since the mid 60s and I used to develop loads as you suggest, we all did it that way in the old days. And we still use that method to fine tune for the sweet spots. But, learning about the ladder system to quickly find the range of the sweet spots for both charge and seating depth has saved me a lot of time and a ton of component money

I started thinking about my timelines to the range. It takes at least 20 minutes to load up with scope/stand, rifles, gear, etc. Then it is another 45 minutes to get to the range, an hour if I stop to purchase a burger and fries.

Once at the range it is at least another 20 minutes putting up targets and getting everything out of the truck and arranged on the bench. It takes at least 10 minutes to set up the chronograph, plumb it, check the alignment from the bench a couple of times.

So I have 1.5 hours of work just getting there.

I don't reload at the range. If you could reload at the range, then maybe you could pick the velocity range you want, and go from there. However reloading takes time, and it takes a lot of time to set up a bench, scale, and trickle powder. Assuming the range Gods don't rain on the scale, or blow the bench over.

So I prepare my loads at home. I don't always shoot ten shot groups, if things are not going well, I will pack it up after five, just want velocities for the data base.

And since I keep track of my elevations, I like to have the bullets in the middle of the target, I can tell when the big elevation and windage movements cease. Which incidentally, are very interesting to see how groups walk around on target based on velocity.

I can tell very quickly if something is going wrong. I mean if you are shooting one shot groups with a rifle that has poor bedding, loose scope, or a barrel defect, or are just flinching, will you really be able to pick it up? After all the ladder method seems to assume that the only thing changing is the velocity and the dynamic system response. It assumes that the rifle is perfect, the shooter is perfect, velocities represent the true average, and that the holes on target are actually the aim point.

Why spend 1.5 hours going to the range, and about 1.5 hours back, just to rapidly shoot ten rounds? And it takes an hour (or more) to clean all the rifles I bring back.

I often shoot 100 rounds during load development. If my eyes start crossing from the recoil, I take a break, or quit.

Once I find a promising load I will shoot it in a 100 yard reduced match. If it truly works, then I take it across the course and try it at 200/300/600 yards. Most of the time, it works.

I am skeptical of systems that promise a lot with little or no effort.

 

[BigBlack]

Well, this turned into something I did not want. Sorry THR!

I do have a game plan if all my parts come in for my next range trip, hopefully saturaday. I will be taking 4 rifles, 3 of which I will have some hand loads for. This way I can let each rifle rest more.

With me I will have my

223
243
8x57

and the 10/22 for casual relaxtion.

 

[Mal H]

SlamFire1 - There's absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical. What I had a problem with is the way you dismissed the method out of hand and practically denigrate anyone who uses it.

Surely you don't think all range sessions mirror your logistics or procedures? It takes me about 3 minutes to get to the range (maybe 10 if my dog wants to play frisbee on the way. ) Therefore, if I need to make up a different load it's a 6 minute round trip along with the time it takes to weigh the loads and seat a bullet or three. What I'm saying is, the difficulties of a range session itself may or may not be a factor as pertains to the method used to arrive at a good load.


BigBlack - don't fret over it. No one's mad at anyone. We just disagree on a few points, and there's nothing wrong with that.