|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,126 Likes: 12
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,126 Likes: 12 |
The "ladder" test popularized by Creighton Audette and since turned into some kind of "net" load developement mantra on the "correct" way to develop loads, has been used is some form since the late 50's...not by that name because Audette "systemitized", published and popularized it. I've been using a variation all my shooting life, which means I can short cut some of the steps and use some simple mathamatical models to increase the likelyhood of hitting that "sweet spot". Basically...It ain't no thang, Bro...lots of ways to Nirvana, none being the only "right"? way. Audette is very good at doing what it's supposted to do, but too many shooters just do it by rote mindlessly, then don't or understand HOW to do the additional work to refine what the test told them. AG...you ask for "interpretations" and that is what you got...although I'm totally at a loss WHY?, if you know what an "Audette" is, did you post that picture and ask for interpretations when the initial steps and follow up steps are very apparent by reading the various articles and you DIDN'T DO THEM...no flame or diss intended...just wondering what your ulterior/alterior motives were. ANYONE/EVERYONE...all you have to do is Google "Creighton Audette" and out pops SEVERAL very good articles on the subject. BUT...The "Audette" is ONLY AS GOOD as the rifle, shooter AND ammo. If you haven't done all the work systematically, to "optimize the accuracy" of all the components, Audette won't show you DOODLY...it will only show you that sometimes you get everything in line and shoot a small group, but most of the time all you get are hole in the target without ANY apparent rhyme or reason. BELIEVE ME...I have tested and retested the "Audette" with benchrest quality rifles and ammo and off the shelf rifles and ammo, factory MATCH ammo in benchrest rifles, ACCURIZED factory ammo in benchrest AND factory rifles and rifles I have built and/or accurized with factory match ammo, factory premium ammo, factory cheap 'Mart ammo and my own benchrest prepped ammo...over the last 35 years at least. I spent many years keeping my components all stocked up by accurizing and developing loads for rifles...not for money, but for the components and knowledge gained from "diddling" shooters...in both senses. Basically and arguably, there isn't a quick and dirty way to consistent accuracy of a requesite level for 3-400 yds and beyond without FIRST optimizing the rifle and ammo system. If you only want hunting accuracy, don't bother with the 'Audette"...just pick up several boxes of factory ammo and see which shoots the best in our rifle. If you want to shoot flies at 500 yds you better start with a TUNED rifle, scope and ammo and then learn how to shoot all over again. There is another aspect about the "Audette" I haven't seen too much written about, but probably has somewhere along the line...powder weight variation is only ONE component that most people normally think about when they here "Audette"...BUT...seating depth, powder TYPE, PRIMER BRAND, case brand and bullet type/construction can ALL be included at multiple layering by using mathamatical prediction models at the SAME time. Set up a 4x4, 5x5 or 6x6 matrix and "GET'R'DONE".  Damn fine/awesome post. Surprised you left out concentric ammo....That should be part of the equation as well....Great post though...
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 39
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 39 |
Good post NFG, I've added some of my thoughts below. The "ladder" test popularized by Creighton Audette and since turned into some kind of "net" load developement mantra on the "correct" way to develop loads, has been used is some form since the late 50's...not by that name because Audette "systemitized", published and popularized it. I've been using a variation all my shooting life, which means I can short cut some of the steps and use some simple mathamatical models to increase the likelyhood of hitting that "sweet spot". Basically...It ain't no thang, Bro...lots of ways to Nirvana, none being the only "right"? way. Audette is very good at doing what it's supposted to do, but too many shooters just do it by rote mindlessly, then don't or understand HOW to do the additional work to refine what the test told them. AG...you ask for "interpretations" and that is what you got...although I'm totally at a loss WHY?, if you know what an "Audette" is, did you post that picture and ask for interpretations when the initial steps and follow up steps are very apparent by reading the various articles and you DIDN'T DO THEM...no flame or diss intended...just wondering what your ulterior/alterior motives were. I posted the pic and asked for interpretations because I've done a fair bit of reading about it, but this is one of my first attempts at conducting this type of test. I was hoping that folks who have this thing down pat would offer some good sound advise that would either confirm or squash my take on the results. From what I understand, the only area where I deviated was firing 2 strings instead of 3. ANYONE/EVERYONE...all you have to do is Google "Creighton Audette" and out pops SEVERAL very good articles on the subject. BUT...The "Audette" is ONLY AS GOOD as the rifle, shooter AND ammo. If you haven't done all the work systematically, to "optimize the accuracy" of all the components, Audette won't show you DOODLY...it will only show you that sometimes you get everything in line and shoot a small group, but most of the time all you get are hole in the target without ANY apparent rhyme or reason. Respectfully, I think I have to dissagree about the test not showing you "DOODLY" if you don't bench rest prep your ammo, or shoot a >3000.00 rifle, or aren't a master class shooter. Can you elaborate on where your coming from with this? BELIEVE ME...I have tested and retested the "Audette" with benchrest quality rifles and ammo and off the shelf rifles and ammo, factory MATCH ammo in benchrest rifles, ACCURIZED factory ammo in benchrest AND factory rifles and rifles I have built and/or accurized with factory match ammo, factory premium ammo, factory cheap 'Mart ammo and my own benchrest prepped ammo...over the last 35 years at least. I spent many years keeping my components all stocked up by accurizing and developing loads for rifles...not for money, but for the components and knowledge gained from "diddling" shooters...in both senses. Basically and arguably, there isn't a quick and dirty way to consistent accuracy of a requesite level for 3-400 yds and beyond without FIRST optimizing the rifle and ammo system. If you only want hunting accuracy, don't bother with the 'Audette"...just pick up several boxes of factory ammo and see which shoots the best in our rifle. But trying different factory ammo to see which shoots the best in the rifle is exactly what the ladder testing is doing isn't it? I fully agree that groups will shrink with more resources thrown at them but having read "precision shooting" by Dave Brennan, he claims that running bench rest quality ammo tuned to an off the shelf hunting rig will induce better accuracy than would be acheived running factory fodder through the same rifle. Conceding of course, that the rifle would be the limiting factor in this case and "bench rest accuracy would be unobtainable. If you want to shoot flies at 500 yds you better start with a TUNED rifle, scope and ammo and then learn how to shoot all over again. I'm not trying to shoot flies at 500 yards  I'm trying to work up the most accurate load in my rifle, while expending the least amount of resources to do so. There is another aspect about the "Audette" I haven't seen too much written about, but probably has somewhere along the line...powder weight variation is only ONE component that most people normally think about when they here "Audette"...BUT...seating depth, powder TYPE, PRIMER BRAND, case brand and bullet type/construction can ALL be included at multiple layering by using mathamatical prediction models at the SAME time. Set up a 4x4, 5x5 or 6x6 matrix and "GET'R'DONE".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 11,654
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 11,654 |
Always a good idea to make sure the rifle is "set-up" correctly before one starts flinging bullets downrange. Unfortunately, some think tightening the guard screws is the only thing required.
Far from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,200
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,200 |
Sorry AG After reading this link I do remember reading it before years ago, had no idea some still do it this way. The way I have done ladder test's in the last 20 years is a modified variation apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 406
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 406 |
It's pretty hard to hit ALL the things you could/should do in any one thread...many things I do "in the course" of reloading just gets passed over, done but forgotten to be included, etc... having good equipment that is continuously tested for accuracy does reduce the amount of "analosity". I use Forster inline seaters that have proven to keep fairly close to 0.000" to 0.001" runout time and time again so why bother checking runout, except for maybe 1 in 10 or so. I don't bother now with "spinning" bullets as that onerous chore is pretty much taken care of by the bullet makers and I just can't afford Verne Juenke's fine ICC machine, nor justify it for whacking sage rats.
AG...I DON'T have 3 large priced rifles, I just have TUNED rifles, most I build at the economic end of the scale or relatively cheap factory rifles...many go back to the 60's up to the Savage 338 Lapua I just bought. I have in the very distant past made "Maste Class" in pistol and rifle, or a variation of that, and if the ammo isn't consistent all that Audette will show is just that...NO CONSISTENCY...you might re-read what I said about reducing variation and tolerance.
You're missing the difference between "strings" and "number of shots". I only shoot 2-3 shots per target("string" the way I'm understanding you"). The number of "required" shots per target is HIGHLY ARGUMENTITIVE...do some research on this forum and see what I mean...I HATE to waste money or time so 2-3 shots will tell me pretty much ALL I need to know...BUT...ONE TARGET doesn't really tell you anything except that ONE set of shots produced THIS particular arrangement. If you don't have anything to compare it against you have DOODLY as far as information goes. Better to shoot one target, see something that MIGHT be of value, THEN shoot one or two more to see if it is a fluke or it is showing some kind of consistency.
I have fired a 3 shot bugholer with random picked cases and random picked bullets, walked over to my reloading room and reloaded the SAME 3 CASES, with the same components but again just randomly picking bullets out of a box and refired within 15 minutes and have the group open up to 1" or larger.
Go back to the loading room and weigh 10 cases, pick 3-4 out that are within 1 gr or less, depending on the case size, turn the necks about 75-80%, pressure will take care of the other percentage, weigh/ogive sort a few bullets, number and fire those 3-4 using the same powder/weight, primer and seating depth and do another bugholer, followed by another bugholer and another. THEN go pick 3-4 cases at random, bullets at random use the same load, fire several targets and come up with several different groups, but knowing the firing order and watching WHERE...JEZZZZZ I HATE THIS KEYBOARD...sorry...the bullets hit, a pattern can sometimes be seen that will indicate a case that consistently goes out of the group. Check that case and the neck might have a "thicker" side or be heavier/lighter than the others or othe minor problems I've done this litteraly hundreds of times with many different rifles/calibers from 17 to 50 cal over the years. This ISN'T my first rodeo.
It's not my intention to embarrass, diss, put you down...all the rest of that kind of garbage. I'm NOT politically correct and more direct that is comfortable to some people, but I try to not to be too grumpy...I learned all this "schat" the old fashioned way...I WORKED...I PAID for what I know out of my own pocket or through sweat equity long before the advent of the net, so I'm not blowing smoke up your arse, strut some walk, get all superior, etc, nor would I bother...this net just isn't worth the candles. I owed a debt of knowledge and gratitude to many people for their tolerance in teaching a dum-bass newbie that I'm trying to pay down...but I'm just about to call it paid in full.
The information is there for you to use or not...it is directed not only to you but to ANYONE reading this tome for whatever value they find...doesn't much matter to me whether you or anyone else uses it or not.
Basically the only way to learn HOW to use the Audette...in terms of Aristotles "Allegory of the Cave"...is to understand the basic concept and not get bogged down in some fanciful nuance or "shadows on the wall".
"Audette"...I really hate that designation as there is at least one other person, Dan Newberry's Optimum Charge Weight load development program, that is also useful and basically the same thing...so I guess this idea should be more properly called the Audette/Newberry "systems"...but I would get VERY TIRED of typing that over and over again trying to keep clarity.
Both programs outline a systematic way to approach load development that is NOT LOCKED IN STONE, has MANY variations and is only as useful as the persons ability to understand that concept.
EOF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 39
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 39 |
![[Linked Image]](http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd331/00183/SAM_0746.jpg) I've tried to re-post the pic so that the numbering is more clear but I don't think it worked any better. What I mean by "string" is shots 1 through 6 fired consecutively. Going back to my original post, 1-6 vary from 41.5 to 44 grains, going up in .5 increments. I then look for a "group" so to speak in that string. What I see is shots 2, 3, and 4 (pink, green, orange) having the least amount of vertical disperstion between them and forming a "rung" on the ladder. I then repeat that test, firing string number two. Again string two is identical to string one in terms of powder charges. Looking at string two, I see that shots 8, 9, and 10 (pink, green, orange) have the least vertical dispersion between them and also form a "rung". Shots 8, 9, and 10 correlate and are the same as shots 2, 3, and 4 from string one. From that test, my interpretation was that I have an accuracy window within shots 2, 3, and 4 (or 8, 9, 10 if you will) which in terms of powder charge is between 42 and 43 grains. That was my interpretation of this test. I posted and asked the question to see if anyone else would see the same thing I did from it
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,437
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,437 |
I am assuming that shot 1 is 41.5 grs and shot 2 is 42.0 grs
I would shoot a 3 or 5 shot group o f 41.7 grs. if that works a little bit then play with seating depth to see if it tightens up. Then try different primers.
Same for 9 and 10. Take the charge in the middle.
Since you said there was some wind. I would be inclined to re-shoot 9,10,11 and 12. There is only 1" vert in the 9,10 and 11.
|
|
|
|
|
720 members (1eyedmule, 160user, 12344mag, 163bc, 10ring1, 007FJ, 83 invisible),
2,566
guests, and
1,256
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,728
Posts18,494,782
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
