If a new rifle is only good for a minute of angle at best and one fires a ladder test at 400 yards, how does one know any bullet hole is at the top or the bottom of the rifle's group ?
Should one fire three or four of each amount of powder at 400 yards?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
If you are at 400 you should see the progression. It can be useful to shoot up the ladder and then down for better data. 3 tenths between loads should do fine. You should see one or two groupings.
There is a thread on http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/ where a guy shows how to get to the correct load in about two dozen shots. He does a few shots to establish the best over all length and then does a ladder, one time, and he is finished with that load for that rifle.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
There is a thread on http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/ where a guy shows how to get to the correct load in about two dozen shots. He does a few shots to establish the best over all length and then does a ladder, one time, and he is finished with that load for that rifle.
The other day one of our .com friends suggested I get some Nosler Accubond 140 for my other 6.5mm rifle. I did and while I was at it also snagged some H1000. I fired one ladder test at 300 yards on a day when there was a varying breeze. Sometimes it was coming from the left and sometimes from the right. I fired eight shots. Even the highest loads didn't cause any bolt lift resistance, but I figured I was finished anyway since the velocity was 3278 feet per second. The "group" was 3 1/2" X 4 3/4". From top to bottom, shots numbers 1 - 5 were only 1 1/4" with #2 right in the middle. I chose that one and used it to establish over all length. Then I ran several groups with that over all length to discover what powder charged it likes. Using that one I started getting several groups at 3/4" or under and switched to checking different primers. Tomorrow I think I will finish my quest for the most preferred primer.
The frustrating rifle with the Christensen Arms barrel is no longer. I disassembled it and sold the parts; except for the Pierce titanium action. The guy changed his mind.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
The ladder method reminds me of my 70 year old grandfather water witching to find where to dig my aunt's well in the 1950s. My father did not believe in it. My grandfather, aunt, and father are all dead, but people are still drinking the water from that well. I don't believe in the ladder method, but when I am dead in 20 years there will still be people using it.
Feynman did not believe in Carl Sagan's climate change model. In reaction Feynman made videos on scientific method. Feynman has been dead for 30 years and people are still violating scientific method and believing in easy to make climate change.
I spent the day yesterday working with an 85 year old PhD who also told off Sagan at a symposium back in the 80s about the same topic. I don't often get to be around people who understand scientific method. I spent most of my life supervising tests I wrote, trying to keep technicians from introducing out of control variables.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Rost, my aunt's well has been working well for 60 years. That does not disprove the notion that my grandfather's water witching was a pointless ritual. Who could imagine that some accuracy rituals have no reproducible measurable effect? That is called the null hypothesis. It is rat poison for bad science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Are you saying water witching does not work or does work? What would be a scientific test to prove or disprove it? If it works every time for a certain percentage of the population and not for the rest of the population, for those whom it consistently works does it fall into anecdotal, or an anomaly or are the others anecdotal or anomalies?
Scientific minds want to know.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Just stop right there with Ringman. You never need to say any more, regardless of topic.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Rost, my aunt's well has been working well for 60 years. That does not disprove the notion that my grandfather's water witching was a pointless ritual. Who could imagine that some accuracy rituals have no reproducible measurable effect? That is called the null hypothesis. It is rat poison for bad science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
I've gotten better or the same results, with much less work.
I don't care if you want to just punch holes anywhere looking for water though, its your money.
RE water witching, I never could, but I sure could locate all kinds of pipes in the ground using a pair of wires held in my hands... flat amazing that you can do some things but when they work, asking why or trying to disprove them, sure annoys the pig.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
If a new rifle is only good for a minute of angle at best and one fires a ladder test at 400 yards, how does one know any bullet hole is at the top or the bottom of the rifle's group ?
Should one fire three or four of each amount of powder at 400 yards?
With the Audette Ladder, you must ID each bullet strike to know what you have. Otherwise, it's just chaos.
I keep a target at the bench, draw in and number each bullet strike as I view the target thru the spotting scope. I transfer the number sequence to the real target when done.
I also have a target diagram drawn on my load notes and try to mark the hits. It gets hard when your shooting tests at 500+. I like to color my bullets and use about 4 different colors. Usually I end up with 2 of each color but it's easy to see which bullet holes are which color especially on white paper.
Yeah, that can be a real challenge, especially with a half MOA rifle. I've made several 4-wheeler trips to the target when the bullet holes were too close to sort out thru the spotting scope. 500 yds. would be better than 400 in that setting, would spread them out some. It takes a good scope to see small holes at 500.
