ACCURACY SEARCH PROTOCOL

  • 15K Views
  • Last Post 12 November 2007
CB posted this 09 October 2007

As I've proven here to the satisfaction of the most erudite observer, the following don't matter in the cast bullet world:

Powder charge weights that have any digit to the right of the decimal point other than a 5 or zero

Lubricant choice

Alloy composition, within broad ranges 

Primer choice, within reasonable ranges

Bullet sized diameter, S.T. the throat-fit requirement

Bullet design, bore ride, Loverin, Pope, Lyman old stand bys

Brass make or weight or primer pocket uniformed or flash hole deburred or neck turned precisely

in the world of five shot five group 100 yard averages between 2” and 1.5".

Since my world-rocking experience with IMR4198, I'm wondering just what the accuracy search protocol should be for a gun that is going to remain stock. This means before re-throating, bedding, bore-lapping, muzzle crowning or sending the stock out for the cryo treatment.

For, for instance, a military rifle or M700 Rem/M77 Ruger/Savage 1X/ other non-target rifle, new or used. Or a Competitor pistol.

You ended up with this rifle, you want to get it shooting cast bullets, you're a reasonably experienced reloader/caster, what do you do and in what order?

(Pat; don't help them. Can you see the article?)

Huh?

joe b.

  

 

 

 

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
shooter93 posted this 09 October 2007

Well...if you're talking about a box stock out of the box factory rifle then I'll agree with some of the above and I'd focus first on different powders. I've had a number of rifles that all of a sudden preformed great when the correct powder was found. However...when it comes to the ultimate accuracy with a cast bullet then several of the things above can and do often make a measurable difference. The problem with a lot of accuracy questions or debates is the desired accuracy goal isn't out forth at the start. If you want hunting accuracy like your 1.5 to 2 inches at 100 yds then I'd work powder first then if I wanted to know I'd do primers...then brass prep...all assuming ofcourse you have the right size bullet. if you want to break a world record...then you better sweat every detail because you can see differences at times from small changes...atleast in my experience. Bullet style means the least I think as long as the velocity is right for the particular style. Alloys I don't think matter as much either given the velocity restrictions but for maximum accuracy I think consistent temper or hardness does. A bit off track maybe for a question about factory rifles but my thoughts on it anyway.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 09 October 2007

Joe Brennan wrote: As I've proven here to the satisfaction of the most erudite observer, the following don't matter in the cast bullet world:

Powder charge weights that have any digit to the right of the decimal point other than a 5 or zero

Lubricant choice

Alloy composition, within broad ranges 

Primer choice, within reasonable ranges

Bullet sized diameter, S.T. the throat-fit requirement

Bullet design, bore ride, Loverin, Pope, Lyman old stand bys

Brass make or weight or primer pocket uniformed or flash hole deburred or neck turned precisely

in the world of five shot five group 100 yard averages between 2” and 1.5".

Since my world-rocking experience with IMR4198, I'm wondering just what the accuracy search protocol should be for a gun that is going to remain stock. This means before re-throating, bedding, bore-lapping, muzzle crowning or sending the stock out for the cryo treatment.

For, for instance, a military rifle or M700 Rem/M77 Ruger/Savage 1X/ other non-target rifle, new or used. Or a Competitor pistol.

You ended up with this rifle, you want to get it shooting cast bullets, you're a reasonably experienced reloader/caster, what do you do and in what order?

(Pat; don't help them. Can you see the article?)

Huh?

joe b.

  

 

 

  Is this meant to be funny.... or thought provoking?

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 09 October 2007

Joe, here is my take on this broad subject:

  1. Powder charge - 0.25 grains is close enough, as long as it isn't leading

  2. Alloy - by itself, doesn't mean much

  3. Primer - if it fits in the hole, and they are all the same, use them

  4. Sized diameter - bullet has to fit the throat

  5. Style - see #4 above

  6. Brass prep - not till you are looking for 0.01” improvements

  7. Powder choice - depends on #'s 2,3,4 above

  8. Lube - I have never found any difference in accuracy, but have in how long it will shoot without cleaning before accuracy gets worse

Five 5 shot groups? Doesn't mean anything to me! Too much luck involved in 5 shot groups. Talk to me about 10 shot groups.

Here is what I do for “new to me” guns:

  1. Get all the bullet moulds for that caliber I have and make 12 or so of the best bullets, weight sorted.

  2. Size each bullet to fit the throat the best I can.

  3. Pick a “standard” cast bullet target load for that caliber.

  4. Shoot 10 shot groups to find the best two bullets.

  5. Make more of those and try 10 shot groups with at least 4 suitable powders.

  6. Using the “best” bullet, work up and down 0.5 and 1.0 grains with the two best powders.

  7. Match prep 20 cases and load best bullet and two powders and work up and down 0.1 grains for 1/2 grain.

  8. Try a couple types of primers to see in any is significantly better.

  9. Start shooting.

  10. A note on lubes: I normally avoid all discussion on bullet lubes. For everything other than match guns, I use NRA formula and clean at the end of the day. For match guns, I use Grey #24. At the end of the match I use a dry patch, and at the beginning of the next match I use one more. Then I start shooting. At the end of the year, I clean with Ed's Red and store for the winter. Next spring, I shoot 10 in the back stop and start shooting matches. 

  11. Benchrest skills: For years I helped my range and rifle club during “sight in day” for hunters, no range fees. This is everyone from tyro to Hi-Power and competitive pistol shooters. Almost none have the ability to shoot 2” groups from the bench. So it doesn't matter if the rifle will shoot into 0.1", they can't do that good. I had a Martini International Mk III that would shoot 0.1 inch groups at 50 yards. No one, who wasn't an experience benchrest shooter, ever shot better than 1"! They just didn't have the ability to do it.

Ric

Attached Files

linoww posted this 10 October 2007

"For, for instance, a military rifle or M700 Rem/M77 Ruger/Savage 1X/ other non-target rifle, new or used. Or a Competitor pistol.

You ended up with this rifle, you want to get it shooting cast bullets, you're a reasonably experienced reloader/caster, what do you do and in what order?"

Use any rifle primer.

Use 13-20g of medium(ish) powders from 2400-4198.(30-30 to std mag capacity)

Pick a two diameter bullet if available (heavy for the caliber) that is as close to bore riding nose as possible without being overly large.

Lube with any commercial lube( velocities over 2000 are special deal though)

Bullets sized carefully(I like Lee push through dies) and as big as throat/neck diameter will allow.

Seat the bullet in the throat as much as possible.

Alloy can be important. Rick Bowmans buddy Joe Gifford took a 25-20 rifle and got linotype bullets to shoot well, where the same in W/W tumbled onto the target. I have gotten plain base 30 cals to shoot better in lino rather that softer lead.

Here is the most important thing-

Go shoot the load, and more that one or two groups. Shooting one or two groups and switching around is a waste of time.Dont discount the “bad day” thing and shoot the load again if it showed promise. Learn the gun peculiarities on the bags, they all are different. Run an experiment to the end. Don't switch bullets,lubes,etc..too fast you will never be able to understand what really worked. Don't be too “Horney” to clean the gun if using the same lube. See what it does first. Base theory's on range results, not the other way around.

What I am saying is shoot,shoot shoot......

 

George

(all of this works for me, but I bet everyone has as good or better theory's)

Attached Files

giorgio de galleani posted this 11 October 2007

Wise advice ,that is why I like gang moulds,I get lots of good and reasonably omogeneous bullets.

So shoot a lot and get to know your rifle's quirks,

regards,Giorgio.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 11 October 2007

You're getting ahead of yourselves.

I think the first thing to do is to find the twist, the bore/groove sizes if possible at muzzle and breech end, and slug or cast the chamber end to know what the throat looks like.

Next is to look over reloading manuals and other info for loads/bullets.

Then select bullets from one or some or all of your molds.

Then size / bump bullets to get toward throat size The key here is that the bullet in the chamber where it would be in the ctg. shows no light coming through from the muzzle. Lube the bullets.

Pick a primer, I like LP primers for CBs. Others LR.

Get some brass. If you have the tools, blow it out, trim to length, uniform primer pockets, deburr flash holes, anneal the necks?. 

This is the kind of thing I'm looking for.

How many to load? I don't have a lot of molds, I sell the ones that don't work for me. Heres what I have.

31141 DC, 314299 DC, 311299 DC, 311299 SC, PB Custom 185 gr., 311291 GC cut off, 311241 SC, 311 NGG, have to look, but counting the cavities here are 11 possible bullets.

I think at first it may make sense to load 10-12 each and look for the WILD shooters. But I don't know.

Ric, I like 5/5 shot groups-others, like you, differ.

That's where I want to go, to know what to do when. Here's an example. We load some, shoot them, load the best ?3, shoot, keep it up until we can reliably average 5/5 shot groups 1 1/2” at 100.

What to do next. Vary hardness or size of bullets, change lube, or primers or seating depth or powder charge in .01 grain steps, or powder. All the variables affect accuracy, some more than others. We should change the biggest-effect ones first, I'm thinking. I think we will agree that changing powder will have a bigger effect than changing the charge .01 grain.

Maybe we could rank order the variables.

joe b.

 

Attached Files

linoww posted this 11 October 2007

giorgio de galleani wrote: Wise advice ,that is why I like gang moulds,I get lots of good and reasonably omogeneous bullets.

So shoot a lot and get to know your rifle's quirks,

regards,Giorgio.

I have a four cavity SAECO #630 plain base .30 I love.It may not be the most accurate,but I like you shoot  alot.It helps to get used to a rifle.In my 30-06 Springer' it shoots about 1.5-2.5"at 100 yds, but it is consistant.My good GC loads do about 1.25-2.0".I try to keep a few hundred arround for the new 30 caliber rifles that seem to show up.

I dont  shoot any fewer than 50 rounds out of each rifle when I go to the range.I get those rifles all warmed up.It is too hard to make an assesment of a rifle with a bunch of trips just shooting 10-15 rounds.I have fired my 22-250 lead gun almost 1000 rounds in the last month so far.I have a near empty can of GC's to prove it.

 

Geo.

 

 

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 11 October 2007

Joe,

Like you I have a new gun to play with: Winchester 54A in 30/06.

Any I going to slug the bore? No. Measure twist rate? No. Make a slug of the throat? Yes. That will tell me what I have to do to make each bullet fit the throat and initial seating depth. For me, that is the first order of business.

If the throat is short, I'll start with 311679, 31141 and if long 308284.

Primer? Federal LR as that is what I have a lot of right now.

Powder charge? 15.5 grains of new A2400.

Ric

Attached Files

linoww posted this 12 October 2007

RicinYakima wrote: If the throat is short, I'll start with 311679, 31141 and if long 308284.

 I dont own this bullet as of yet,because I didnt realize it worked for short throated rifles.Does the 311679 have a tapered band to nose section?

 

Geo.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 12 October 2007

I think this was made for 308 Win throats: gas check then a short driving band, one fairly wide lube groove, wider driving band, than a 1 1/2 degree taper to about 0.301. Nose size seems to vary between 0.300 and 0.302 depending upon mould. HTH, Ric

Attached Files

CB posted this 13 October 2007

Geo.,

I like the 311679 because of the taper instead of a drive band, since I also like the MX4. Mine doesn't work in my old rifles because of the .300” nose.  I need .301” and .302", but I think it would work good with just about any new throat in 30 calibers.................Dan

see:  http://www.castbulletassoc.org/forum/view_topic.php?id=391&forum_id=10>http://www.castbulletassoc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=391&forumid=10

Attached Files

PETE posted this 15 October 2007

 Joe,

  I see you're stirring the pot again. :)

  I'm working on a stock .30Govt06 Win. Mod. 70, pre 64 right now. It's getting down below 1” on a regular basis now, but it's been a chore getting there.

 Lets go over your points in your first message. Of course you check the gun over for bore, & groove diam.  at tthe muzzle and in front of the throat, plus the throat diam. I see you mention these in your 2nd message but not the first so I thought I'd throw them in.

Powder charge - I try two or three known clean burning powders in that cal. Seems I always end up going to IMR 4227. .2 gr. does make a difference in accuracy.

  Lube - I KNOW you aren't that forgetful. The test I ran for you a while back shows lube can be a very decisive factor.

  Bullet alloy - It does make a difference. With the above gun I found that a 50/50 Lino/WW shoots a bit better than straight range scrap. In Schuetzen it can make a major difference.

 Primer choice - In the above gun I halved the groups just by going from Win LR to CCI 200 primers.

  Bullet size - For fixed ammo I go with the throat fit theory. For breech seated Schuetzen I go with approx. .0015-.002” over groove size.

  Bullet design - To some extent you're right. Most of the “oldies” do ok. But most guns will prefer one over another. The above gun likes the Lyman 311334 (aka 308334) and not the Lyman 311291.

  Brass - Personally I don't fool with that since factory chambers can't utilize all the things you can do to “even” it up .

  Average end result group size - I won't settle for anything less than a long term average of 1” for 5 shot groups. Around 1 1/2” for 10 shot groups.

PETE

Attached Files

linoww posted this 15 October 2007

"Primer choice - In the above gun I halved the groups just by going from Win LR to CCI 200 primers"

I have been using the MAGTECH 9-1/2 Brazilian(?) primers recently.Cheaper and pretty uniform from what I have seen.Standard Dev's are fantastic.Shot them in the 30-30,30-06,22-250 and 45-70 with good results.

"Lube -The test I ran for you a while back shows lube can be a very decisive factor."

I agree on lube.I just switched lubes in my 22-250 and my grouping is better and the thing “settles down" much faster.

I think Joe,s search for the "Magic Formula" is experience and range time. You get one from the other.

 

Geo.

Attached Files

linoww posted this 17 October 2007

I have an atricle by Frank Marshall form a 1982 Fouling Shot .that I think it is a good basic anwser to what you have asked.I can scan it and send it along if anybody wants to read it.Maybe the CBA has a copy that can be posted??

 

It is a real classic

 

George

Attached Files

CB posted this 04 November 2007

Here's the 100 yard ladder test, yesterday, 100 yards, clear and windy.

joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 05 November 2007

Here's a better picture of the ladder test, I'm no photographer.

Loring Hall advised me to let targets sit for a while, settle down, then examine them. It took me a couple of days to see the lesson here.

joe b.

Attached Files

linoww posted this 05 November 2007

Joe Brennan wrote: Here's a better picture of the ladder test, I'm no photographer.

Loring Hall advised me to let targets sit for a while, settle down, then examine them. It took me a couple of days to see the lesson here.

joe b.

What is the lesson??

George

Attached Files

CB posted this 05 November 2007

George;

Copy the picture, make it bigger if you wish, and look at it several times over the next day or so. My initial response was that it did not work, maybe me or the wind or most likely, 100 yards was too short. I was wrong.

See if you get the same answer that I did. PM me, I'm checking on me here.

joe b.

Attached Files

linoww posted this 05 November 2007

I plotted them as seperate groups per powder charge.See attached picture.All I see is a bunch of three shot groups slowly “sort” of raising up as the charge is upped.I dont know how fast they were shot  or other data to take a guess at what has happened.

 

Geo.

 

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 05 November 2007

I thought Audette did the ladder test at 300 yards to get better separation between the bullets.

Attached Files

CB posted this 06 November 2007

Bill;'

It's clear that you are the only interested person for this topic, and me of course. There are seve charges from 18 to 21 grains of IMR 4198. Bullet holes are numbered 1-7, corresponding to the charges. The rightmost target has no #1 bullet hole. For the first time in memory a primer didn't fire a cartridge.

My “best” load with this bullet is 19.5 grains.

I looked at the target, and didn't see anything. I figured that the range was too short. I waited and looked again. Finally it jumped out at me. Shots 5,6,7 were close to the same elevation. One target doesn't tell the story, but the three show me that 20, 20.5 and 21, so far, are the Creighton Audette close-together-in-elevation set.

The question is: Does the ladder test work with CBs at 100 yards?

More shooting tomorrow should help answer that question.

It would be nice if some of the others here would try it.

joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 06 November 2007

Joe Brennan wrote: It would be nice if some of the others here would try it.

Joe,

There you go again. You started this thread about Accuracy Search with a whole list of confusing load variables and now you're off on 'ladder testing' out of the blue! I have no idea what a ladder test is or who Audette is, and you never explained it to the forum readers so don't expect anybody to follow down your scattered trail.

Attached Files

linoww posted this 06 November 2007

"It's clear that you are the only interested person for this topic, and me of course."

I am interested; I just don't see the value at this point.  At 300 yards it may let you see velocity variations (or uniformity within a velocity range) if you didn't have a chronograph to measure it. Audette may not have had one during his tests, I don't know?

"My “best” load with this bullet is 19.5 grains."

Is your best load based on essentially one three shot group? Did you look at my plots of the actual groups forming? It looked like 18.5 and 19.5 were about the same size. I am not sure how this is giving you more data than shooting a few 5 shot groups with each load. A bunch a of three shot groups can sort out a decent load from dog meat, but more shots are required. A total of 21 shots is not alot of data.

Just my opinion and keep up the tests maybe we'll learn something.

 

Geo.

 

 

Attached Files

CB posted this 06 November 2007

Dan Willems wrote: Joe Brennan wrote: It would be nice if some of the others here would try it.

Joe,

There you go again. You started this thread about Accuracy Search with a whole list of confusing load variables and now you're off on 'ladder testing' out of the blue! I have no idea what a ladder test is or who Audette is, and you never explained it to the forum readers so don't expect anybody to follow down your scattered trail.

Dan;

My aplogies. Jesse Miller wrote about ladder testing, it's in the book.

Creighton Audette was a Vermont gunsmith, experimenter and writer, who wrote an article about ladder testing. Set up a target, zero in some, start low and increase the charge ?1/2 grain at a time. Bullet elevation goes up for some increases, then remains ~the same for some charges, then goes up again. Where the elevation doesn't change (much) is the “sweet spot", and best accuracy is found there.

Much has been written on “ladder testing” by those who followed Creighton, many times without acknowledging his initial work.

On Cast Boolits a poster suggested ladder testing as part of the Accuracy Search Protocol, I didn't know if it would work at 100 yards with CBs, Creighton worked at 300 yards.

Saturday I tried it with 31141, 18-21 gr. IMR4198, the targets are posted, after a while I saw that 5,6,7 were clustered in elevation, that's 20, 20.5, 21 gr. I thought/think my “best” load is 19.5.

Today I made 3 sets of 10, feom 18 to 22.5 in .5 grain steps, will shoot them tomorrow.

This thread is about how to get a CB rifle to shoot accurately.

It may be that ladder testing is one technique that can be used effectively.

This is how I remember Creighton's work and that of others. Search on Creighton Audett or ladder testing and there's a lot of stuff. I have other sites if you want them, I think.

http://home.earthlink.net/~dannewberry/dannewberrysoptimalchargeweightloaddevelopment/

for example.

So, tomorrow I should have a better idea about if it works for CBs at 100 yards.

Sorry about the confusion,

joe b.  

Attached Files

CB posted this 06 November 2007

linoww wrote: "It's clear that you are the only interested person for this topic, and me of course."

I am interested; I just don't see the value at this point.  At 300 yards it may let you see velocity variations (or uniformity within a velocity range) if you didn't have a chronograph to measure it. Audette may not have had one during his tests, I don't know?

"My “best” load with this bullet is 19.5 grains."

Is your best load based on essentially one three shot group? Did you look at my plots of the actual groups forming? It looked like 18.5 and 19.5 were about the same size. I am not sure how this is giving you more data than shooting a few 5 shot groups with each load. A bunch a of three shot groups can sort out a decent load from dog meat, but more shots are required. A total of 21 shots is not alot of data.

Just my opinion and keep up the tests maybe we'll learn something.

 

Geo.

 

  George;

I can't get into your .pdf file, and I don't know why.

Whatever you did isn't to do with ladder testing, Creighton will roll over in his grave!!

Ladder testing is purported to allow load development with fewer shots, more efficient, more better. Search on it and see the enthusiasts!

I don't know if it works at CBs at 100 yards-the max range I've got.

I'll know soon.

Just keep asking questions as you get confused, I'll try to help.

How about testing your scope/s with the USAF target?

Thanks for the interest;

joe b.

Attached Files

linoww posted this 06 November 2007

"Just keep asking questions as you get confused"

joe b."

Just keep getting confused and ask questions.

George

Attached Files

linoww posted this 06 November 2007

I resent my file so you can see it now.See post from yesterday.

 

George

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 06 November 2007

Hey Pete... in your Schuetzen shooting, does anyone play with the ” Neidner” system ... bullet pretty much bore riding, just an enlarged rear on the bullet,  no throat in chamber, .... I just finished reading for the nth time ” Bullet's Flight.. Mann ” and I noted he thought that was the very best... he did get pretty good results with that method, .... well, for those times ...  For a while, he even squoze down jacketed bullets to be bore riders ... not sure if he ever changed that technique ...


Just wondering, for years now I keep bidding/begging on a genuine HiWall .22 Baby Neidner, but the owner keeps stalling ... must be obeying my own Rule1 .. don


regards, ken campbell, lower Iowa

Attached Files

CB posted this 07 November 2007

Joe - Some miscellaneous comments.

You appear to be dead wrong about nobody being interested. With over 600 views it seems there are several interested but maybe have nothing to say.

Dan Willems question was excellent and overdue. Your answer was excellent and I'm sure it helped some of us lurkers get up to speed on what you are trying to do.

Audette might rotate a bit in his grave but he had some quirks of his own not to mention the ego. Why isn't it a good idea to shoot say three shot groups with different powder charges instead of single shots as Geo. suggests? Looks like it would be easier to see what was happening. I can see that using ten shot groups might lead to groups being shot under different conditions.

Glad you brought up such an interesting topic even if some of us didn't know what the hell you were talking about at first. When I get back to shooting I will do a little “ladder” shooting with the small bore.

John

Attached Files

CB posted this 07 November 2007

My thoughts on ladder testing. 100 yards to too close and you have to have a pretty accurate rifle to draw any conclusions.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 07 November 2007

pat i. wrote: My thoughts on ladder testing. 100 yards to too close and you have to have a pretty accurate rifle to draw any conclusions.

This was my thought too.   From groups and sighter targets I've seen, shots move all over the place from many reasons.  Wind direction and velocity, hand position, shoulder position, case neck thickness, case neck tension and then the mysterious reasons I can't even come up with an explanation for.

After I mentioned (to Joe) that Audette had done his testing at 300 yards I remembered how much cast bullets moved around at 200 yards (in the matches) and realized it would be hard to draw “ladder testing” conclusions based on bullet location on the targets.  Other variables, mainly wind direction and velocity, would affect bullet location more than the variable powder charge.

Attached Files

CB posted this 08 November 2007

Ladder Testing To Date, 11/8/07

Attached, perhaps, is the 7/11/07 ladder testing target. This is with 31141, 100 yards, IMR4198. The bullet holes are numbered. 1 = 18 gr., 2 = 18.5, 3 = 19, 4 = 19.5, 5 = 20, 6 = 20.5, 7 = 21, 8 = 21.5, 9 = 22, 10 = 22.5. Ladder testing is a method of quick and easy and not-many-shots getting a clue about which of a series of powder charges might be found to be the most accurate. It isn't and never was touted to be the secret to accuracy testing, and it won't make your hair grow back. The theory behind ladder testing is that as powder charges are increased, bullet hole impact rises. Then, around the best charge, over some few increasing charges, elevation doesn't change (much). Then, still increasing the charge, elevation continues up. The object of this exercise is to see if ladder testing with cast bullets at 100 yards works-will it give us that clue about where on the scale of powder charges we should look for best accuracy? As you can see, we've got 30 holes in the paper, in ten sets. Perusal of the target and much thinking may get us to some conclusions, but I think analysis is better. We're looking for a series of consecutively made holes where the elevation doesn't change much.  We don't care if hole 1 is close in elevation to hole 10, or to hole 3. So the questions are, Is the elevation of hole 2 about equal to the elevation of hole 1? Code the question to Is #2 E ~ = #1 E?. Then, since there are 10 holes/loads, there are 9 questions, ending with Is #10 E ~ = #9 E? Put the questions in a column, put the answers for the first, second and third targets in adjacent columns. Here's what I got.     11/7/2007 11/7/2007 11/7/2007 IMR4198   First Second Third Grains Is #2 E ~ = #1E? No Yes No 18 Is #3 E ~ = #2E? No No Yes 18.5 Is #4 E ~ = #3E? Yes Yes No 19 Is #5 E ~ = #4E? Yes Yes Yes 19.5 Is #6 E ~ = #5E? Yes Yes Yes 20 Is #7 E ~ = #6E? Yes No No 20.5 Is #8 E ~ = #7E? No No No 21 Is #9 E ~ = #8E? Yes No Yes 21.5 Is #10 E ~ = #9E? No Yes No 22

We're looking for clumps of adjacent Yes answers. It's clear to me that the Yes answers clump about #3 to #6, about charges from 19 to 20.5 grains of IMR4198.

Are the Yes/No answers subjective? Yes. Why did I do 3 tests? Because I don't believe much of any conclusion from a single test. More data is more better, and in this case doesn't cost much time or money. What should the shooter experimenter do next?  Load some cartridges with each of the charges, and test for group size. What do we know about ladder testing at 100 yards with cast bullets? At this point it looks like ladder testing may give us a clue about the powder charges to concentrate on in accuracy testing. How can we be more sure about ladder testing? Do some more tests. Take a known good/best powder charge, EX: 28 gr.. Select a set of safe loads around that load, EX: 25.5, 26, 26.5, 27, 27.5, 28, 28.5, 29, 29.5, 30 Why half grain steps? I suspect that the sensitivity of the test requires these half grain steps. That the test isn't sensitive enough to provide meaningful information with .1 grain or .2 or .3 grain steps. Suspect. Do we have to do three tests, shoot three sets of cartridges? I think so, and think that more would be better.

joe b.  

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 08 November 2007

Just a thought here: If you shot this twice more, you could overlay all of the 1's, all of the 2's, etc., and have ten 5 shot groups to calculate also. Ric

Attached Files

linoww posted this 08 November 2007

RicinYakima wrote: Just a thought here: If you shot this twice more, you could overlay all of the 1's, all of the 2's, etc., and have ten 5 shot groups to calculate also. Ric I agree with Ric.

I also think using the same aiming point would help the confusing cluster of shots on multiple targets. My friend works loads up in a similar manner to achieve the same thing. He starts with a low powder charge on one target and keeps upping the charge. He stops when the shots level out with a charge increase and no longer rises as Joe noted. He then shoots multiple groups with the lower level load and the top level load in the “cluster' that had the same general point of impact. He has the advantage of living on his personal shooting range and loads and shoots from his bench. I am very jealous. When I go to his place for the weekend its like being on F.W. Mann's “homesteadâ€? range with the amount I learn in the short period of time.

Geo.

 

Attached Files

shooter93 posted this 08 November 2007

My thoughts....If you ladder test at 100 yds...velocities need to be slow...sub sonic loads show differences at 100 yds. 200 yds and farther for high velocity loads. The same conditions for the whole string...no wind. As Pat said...the rifle needs to be very accurate to start with. Extreme spread should be very close. After shooting a fair number of ladder groups I'm back to group testing at 100 yds my old way and watching the Chrnograph

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 08 November 2007

when Audette did his ladder testing he also used a chronograph to verify his individual velocities.

Attached Files

CB posted this 09 November 2007

If any of you opinioneers want to do some testing, I'll be happy to include the results. I may do more tests, but for right now I'm happy to conclude that ladder testing with cast bullets at 100 yards may help the load developer zero in on a few charges of a particular powder. Further testing will be required.

joe brennan

Attached Files

utk posted this 09 November 2007

Has anybody heard about this method of finding the “sweet spot": "Dan Newberry's Optimum Charge Weight (OCW)"? (You can also Google for more information).

http://home.earthlink.net/~dannewberry/dannewberrysoptimalchargeweightloaddevelopment/>http://home.earthlink.net/~dannewberry/dannewberrysoptimalchargeweightloaddevelopment/

In a .pdf file:

http://www.twincityrodandgun.com/PDF%20files/Dan%20Newberry%20-%20OCW.pdf>http://www.twincityrodandgun.com/PDF%20files/Dan%20Newberry%20-%20OCW.pdf

Another interesting paper:

http://www.the-long-family.com/OBT_paper.htm>http://www.the-long-family.com/OBTpaper.htm

Attached Files

CB posted this 09 November 2007

shooter93 wrote: After shooting a fair number of ladder groups I'm back to group testing at 100 yds my old way and watching the Chrnograph Two opinoineers that tried it came to the same conclusion except I only use the chronograph to find out how fast the bullets going after I've found a load not in load development.

Attached Files

CB posted this 11 November 2007

pat i. wrote: shooter93 wrote: After shooting a fair number of ladder groups I'm back to group testing at 100 yds my old way and watching the Chrnograph Two opinoineers that tried it came to the same conclusion except I only use the chronograph to find out how fast the bullets going after I've found a load not in load development.

It could very well be that the reason you two gave up on ladder testing is that you did it wrong. If you would like to leave your opinioneering badges behind, and join the ranks of the experimenteers, here's how.

            Ladder testing at lower velocities at 100 yards requires some changes from the published methods. Ladder testing is based on the premise that a series of increased loads will cause bullets to increase elevation for some increments of charge, then cluster at about the same elevation, then commence to increase elevation again.

            At LV 100 yards it is necessary to shoot enough charges so that the difference between “increasing elevation” and “about the same elevation” can be seen. You can't see this with 5 increments.

            For a test of LV 100 yard ladder testing, select a load with known good accuracy, where the powder charge can be increased ~2 1/2 grains safely. Load 11 cartridges, starting 2 1/2 grains below the accurate load, ending 2 1/2 grains above the accurate load. Or approximately.

            Then load three-minimum-sets of these cartridges.

            Fire them at three aimking points at 100 yards, annotating your notes and sketch of the target after looking through the spotting scope after each shot.

            When done, retrieve and mark the target with the shot numbers.

            Then, using the devilishly clever analytical tool explained above, see if the ladder testing worked.

You're 33 shots away from DATA!!!, cast off your chains of opinion and join the ranks of Jonas Salk and J.K. Galbraith and Dr. Shockley and Soichiro Honda and me-become an experimenteer!!!

"Courage is a matter of decision.” Major Major, I think.

joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 11 November 2007

utk wrote: Has anybody heard about this method of finding the “sweet spot": "Dan Newberry's Optimum Charge Weight (OCW)"? (You can also Google for more information).

http://home.earthlink.net/~dannewberry/dannewberrysoptimalchargeweightloaddevelopment/>http://home.earthlink.net/~dannewberry/dannewberrysoptimalchargeweightloaddevelopment/

In a .pdf file:

http://www.twincityrodandgun.com/PDF%20files/Dan%20Newberry%20-%20OCW.pdf>http://www.twincityrodandgun.com/PDF%20files/Dan%20Newberry%20-%20OCW.pdf

Another interesting paper:

http://www.the-long-family.com/OBT_paper.htm>http://www.the-long-family.com/OBTpaper.htm

Yes. I read it some time back and tried to drum up some interest here. Got some people to send in their favorite loads, but the Quickload guy and QL didn't seem able to produce the numbers required.

At CB low velocities there are a lot of close together, so that depending on how you define barrel length there's almost always a match between a node and barrel time. Thus I suspect this whole business for CB applications. If somebody could get Quickload going on this, or send me a pirated copy, we'd know for sure pretty quick. I'll attach the workbook with what I got, see the node times.

joe b.

Attached Files

utk posted this 11 November 2007

Joe, I was more trying to point to the OCW way of shooting the test loads as opposed to the Audette way with a “ladder". A flier could be easier to spot (and disregard) with the OCW targets...

Urban

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 11 November 2007

At CB low velocities there are a lot of close together, so that depending on how you define barrel length there's almost always a match between a node and barrel time. Thus I suspect this whole business for CB applications. If somebody could get Quickload going on this, or send me a pirated copy, we'd know for sure pretty quick. I'll attach the workbook with what I got, see the node times.

joe b.


Hey thar, Joe,  I am losing out here, I guess ... is the purpose of the ladder method to save ammo searching for a ” good load” ....  like maybe in a survival situation, where we are using old 35mm film negatives for gunpowder and matchheads for primers ??

Here is what bothers me a bit ... if we assume you don't have a good load yet, say your ammo groups about 3 moa  ..... then each individual shot can be thought of as pretty sure to be somewhere in a 6 inch circle... ( 100 yds  )  ....  so just draw a 6 inch circle around each shot, heck, put the shot in the middle of the circle.  After 20 shots, you have 20 of 6 inch circles on your target; the twenty of them making what looks a lot like a thick rimmed wagon wheel.

For the ladder method to work well, it seems that it would require a rig/load that is shooting about 1/2 moa or so, these would make high probability circles about 1 inch in dia at 100 yds ... and might show up something to a critical observor.


But then a REAL critical observor might bring up the fact that that method of finding an accurate load/barrel match/.......requires that you already have a good load/barrel match ...


Kinda like the observation that if you have terrific concentric bullets, ie perfect bullets, you can get by with a twist that is on the slow side of recommended .... which helps accuracy because the twist is gentler on the perfect bullet, and not so much “flip” upon muzzle exit.

So, if you have great bullets, you can fudge a little on some other things .... and with the ladder method if you have a rig/load that shoots great groups, it will help you find a rig/load that shoots great groups.  (g) ...


Anecdotally speaking, I do have something of possible interest to add .... in using a chronograph when adding incremental powder charges, I have noted that there are times when adding a little powder does not result in the same increase in velocity as usual in that series ...  kinda like “stick-slip” in bearing applications. Regards, ken campbell, iowa

Attached Files

CB posted this 11 November 2007

Ken Campbell, Iowa wrote: At CB low velocities there are a lot of close together, so that depending on how you define barrel length there's almost always a match between a node and barrel time. Thus I suspect this whole business for CB applications. If somebody could get Quickload going on this, or send me a pirated copy, we'd know for sure pretty quick. I'll attach the workbook with what I got, see the node times.

joe b.


Hey thar, Joe,  I am losing out here, I guess ... is the purpose of the ladder method to save ammo searching for a ” good load” ....  like maybe in a survival situation, where we are using old 35mm film negatives for gunpowder and matchheads for primers ??

Here is what bothers me a bit ... if we assume you don't have a good load yet, say your ammo groups about 3 moa  ..... then each individual shot can be thought of as pretty sure to be somewhere in a 6 inch circle... ( 100 yds  )  ....  so just draw a 6 inch circle around each shot, heck, put the shot in the middle of the circle.  After 20 shots, you have 20 of 6 inch circles on your target; the twenty of them making what looks a lot like a thick rimmed wagon wheel.

For the ladder method to work well, it seems that it would require a rig/load that is shooting about 1/2 moa or so, these would make high probability circles about 1 inch in dia at 100 yds ... and might show up something to a critical observor.


But then a REAL critical observor might bring up the fact that that method of finding an accurate load/barrel match/.......requires that you already have a good load/barrel match ...


Kinda like the observation that if you have terrific concentric bullets, ie perfect bullets, you can get by with a twist that is on the slow side of recommended .... which helps accuracy because the twist is gentler on the perfect bullet, and not so much “flip” upon muzzle exit.

So, if you have great bullets, you can fudge a little on some other things .... and with the ladder method if you have a rig/load that shoots great groups, it will help you find a rig/load that shoots great groups.  (g) ...


Anecdotally speaking, I do have something of possible interest to add .... in using a chronograph when adding incremental powder charges, I have noted that there are times when adding a little powder does not result in the same increase in velocity as usual in that series ...  kinda like “stick-slip” in bearing applications. Regards, ken campbell, iowaKen;My par. on top is about optimum loads, nothing about ladder testing.My request or suggestion is that some others do some testing of the ladder test procedure. If you'd like to join in, have at it.Unfortunately my “It won't work” bin is full, so I'm not able to comment on your other matters, maybe after the scope testing.How are you doing with the two molds I sent? joe b.

Attached Files

shooter93 posted this 11 November 2007

Ok Joe...you mamaged to lose me a bit....this whole thing started with an accuracy search for Mil surp or stock guns and has run away....I seriously doubt you gain much different information using the ladder method with Mil surp rifles....occasionaly there is a good shooter but I don't think often...factory rifles...any bodies quess as to what your get. I still believe...again after shooting a number of ladder tests that it's most beneficial when it's an accurate rifle and shot at a longer range...and not anymore beneficial to me than the way I normanaly test. Thirty six shots away from a new found knowledge???/...today I fired 36 rounds for a friend of mine to find his load for his Martini cadet...I elimnated 4 of the 6 powders tested with those shots which work for me. One will stay the same and I'm 95% sure it's the powder and load right now but from watching the chrno I will bump up the second place powder to try again. It very often works for me this way...will I still fiddle around with it...probably....not because I need to and in the vast majority of cases I will be back where I am now....but because i like doing it.

Attached Files

CB posted this 12 November 2007

shooter93 wrote: Ok Joe...you mamaged to lose me a bit....this whole thing started with an accuracy search for Mil surp or stock guns and has run away....I seriously doubt you gain much different information using the ladder method with Mil surp rifles....occasionaly there is a good shooter but I don't think often...factory rifles...any bodies quess as to what your get. I still believe...again after shooting a number of ladder tests that it's most beneficial when it's an accurate rifle and shot at a longer range...and not anymore beneficial to me than the way I normanaly test. Thirty six shots away from a new found knowledge???/...today I fired 36 rounds for a friend of mine to find his load for his Martini cadet...I elimnated 4 of the 6 powders tested with those shots which work for me. One will stay the same and I'm 95% sure it's the powder and load right now but from watching the chrno I will bump up the second place powder to try again. It very often works for me this way...will I still fiddle around with it...probably....not because I need to and in the vast majority of cases I will be back where I am now....but because i like doing it.

The search is over, see “The Return Of Accuracy Search Protocol” under Cast Bullets, the section above this. It's written, done, everyone agrees since there is no response.

It is clear that ladder testing works at LV with cast bullets, see my data. I've invited others to test the method, and will do so myself in the future.

If you can test 6 reasonable powders with 36 shots and reach ANY conclusion, you are in a completely different world of capability than I. I'm humbled.

joe b.

Attached Files

shooter93 posted this 12 November 2007

Well...not everyone agrees and I did respond It certainly isn't clear to me and I've looked over your “test" Some people are more capable than others

Attached Files

Close