Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Ladder test, How, why?

I knew it,,,, My brother.

All I ever shot was a spike.

Why's it all twisty like that?

Seems unnatural,

Greater New Mexico Blacktail?

Protein deficiency causes the twists like that in Rocky Mountain elk.

It can also cause left-handedness.

Tanner

The 4 stripes on the side means that it is/was a Democrat,so I culled it from the herd.

Was that a shot?

You dumdass,

it just dawned on me,

that's no Elk...



Is it?

Liar, Democrats tend not to "run in herds"

Gotcha!

Only a Democrat would know that!

GOTCHA!!

R,

I got distracted by my Chese-schutz Repeater the other day. Back to ladder shopping

My thought on the 600y Audette for the 300 Win was the fact that the final load (76.5gr) didn't shoot as well as the ladder test with 1.5gr spread (76-77.5gr). How could 3-rounds with a 1.5gr spread shoot better than 3-rounds with the same charge? Variation in wind?

Doesn't the pressure and velocity increase with an extra 1.5gr of powder? Vibration and harmonics can't be the same. Add the fact that 77gr is above the other three-shots.

I can't criticize this one too much because the load, rifle, shooter, etc. all came together for 0.5 MOA so its tough to argue with the final results. But, it seems that there are variables that aren't quite controlled. A larger sample size with each charge weight would give better data. But this means more shooting.

And we haven't discussed the Ring of Pressure yet

Jason

R,

I think the ladder below explains my thoughts a little better. The 7-shot group from the Final load isn't much better than the Ladder test with loads #2-7 (45.6 - 47.1gr...assuming 0.3gr steps in the ladder?). If my guess is correct, this is another 1.5gr span... with the pressure/vibration/harmonic differences that go with it.

And its not just windage, as ladder users ignore it (but wind can affect vertical!). There is considerable elevation with the 7-shot Final load. Based on the data, I can't tell if the POI differences in the ladder are due to charge weight or shooter/rifle/environmental variables since the final load with a single charge weight looks very similar. The rifle, for example, could have mechanical issues which are causing the change in POI, along with charge weight steps.

My argument has been that we need normally distributed data, and that requires more shooting so we analyze mean data, not single samples for each charge. Then we can see if the Ladder method is repeatable by finding the same Final load by comparing several Ladder tests against each other. And we ensure that the other variables are in check.

Jason

I will post this again

http://www.varmintal.com/aeste.htm

Read the page. Pay particular attention to this:





When a load is in tune, the muzzle is on the upward swing. All bullets will exit the bore before it reaches the peak or at the peak.

Stay with me

All ammo will have velocity variations no matter how carefully you load it. The higher velocity shots exit earlier in time while the barrel is on the upward swing but it pointing lower at the target. These higher velocity shots drop less.

The lower velocity shots take fractions of milliseconds more to leave the muzzle. The barrel has swung more upwardly toward the peak of its path and is therefore pointing higher on the target. These shots have lower velocity and therefore drop more impacting lower.

The combo is a good additive combo where the muzzle movement counteracts changes in velocity from shot to shot


The Audette finds the best velocity and harmonic node

R,

I will read the info in more detail later. For now, I will say that your info from Al is in regards to barrel time. I don't dispute it. Its physics.

What is missing is whole body motion of the rifle under recoil. You can have a faster load with a higher POI due to the greater recoil (mo' motions of rifle), barrel time or not. Very common with handguns where heavy bullets hit at the same point as lighter bullets. Longer barrel time with the 300gr vs. 240gr. but the overall recoil of the firearm points the barrel higher on the heavies. Have seen this with rifles too.

And barrel harmonics happen mucho fast. It rings like a bell once the primer goes off. In other words, before the bullet even gets anywhere near the muzzle.

Al is a varminter, and his findings *might* be geared towards light recoil, low weight bullets. I'd be happy to discuss in more detail, but give me a chance to review.

Jason

R,

Back to my question on the "vertical" of your 7-shot group of your Final load looking similar to your ladder with 1.5gr spread (45.6 - 47.1gr). I'd expect this Final load to be tighter, especially at 330 yards. But, its got similar vertical to your ladder with loads that span 1.5gr? This don't make sense or sell the ladder very well. You impressed with the 600 yard shooting. What happened at 330 yards?

And I'm ignoring horizontal because Ladder-ers ignore it, even though it affects vertical.

I know you were being generous with the hypotenuse, but vertical is better for this discussion. It'll be less. Now, if you are generous enough to give me the Ladder loads #2,#3,#4,#5 against your 7-shot Final load, it looks like the Ladder shot better (vertical), no? How can the Chosen One shoot less good than the Ladder with gross charge weight variations (0.3gr is 'mo worse than measurement error in your scale/thrower)?

We can go round and round, but Extra-Ordinary Claims require Extra-Ordinary Proof.

Sell me a ladder!

Jason


imag

Varmint Al is an engineer who loves to shoot rifles. He also love to run very complex tests and experiments with rifles, and accurately measure the findings with computer programs most have no access to.

He uses FEA analysis

He didn't invent the Audette and his name has nothing to do with his former occupation.

Read more, assume less.









The great thing about the Audette Ladder is that you don't have to think about all of this crap. You just shoot one, look at the target and it tells you what you really need to know.

Worse than the Ladder? I don't see where you can possible think this.

The entire group with the load chosen is right at 1/2 MOA, the ladder impacts comprise closer to 2 MOA

6 of the 7 shots with the load chosen have less than 1/3 MOA of vertical.

You may find THIS helpful

Please send 14.95$ plus 10.00$ shipping and handling to:

You Bought a Ladder
1/2 MOA Ave.
Creighton, USA

Now you talking my language R'!

I try to avoid qualifications and occupations in the discussions relating to my hobbies, but I test schit for a living as an engineer. If I [bleep]-up it costs my company big bucks. And my boss is on my ass, along with the VP and Pres. Yesterday I was asked to be an ISO auditor for my company. More of a pain in the ass than anything (my time traveling to our sites around the globe) but I don't [bleep] around when it comes to testing and data. That might be why I was asked to be an auditor? In another life I published peer reviewed papers on testing but that ain't nothing.

We need to get Al involved because Virtual Test ain't always the same as real-life. Would love to say all FEA is done right but that ain't the case. And Virtual Test requires assumptions. You have certain conditions that are unknown, so you "assume". Have run FEA tests my-own-self and know the limitations. The ball busting that goes between Virtual and Test (real physical testing) is epic. Sometimes the data jive, other times not so much. Just because FEA is run don't mean much. But I will "assume" Al knows his stuff.

But you know what? I ain't above anyone. I've dug holes for a living, drove truck, worked a dock in AK, and dorked with construction. My experience and jargon ain't needed to ask for more "proof".

I know there is always a better mouse-trap, and I'm willing to buy a Ladder, but I want data and scientific testing to prove it as I have a low tolerance for myth and superstition without any data to back it up . I tried contacting Loubser for a "real" test of the ladder method, but apparently he has moved on. Might try Litz to see if any real validation has been done.

And Rick, I ain't trying to pick on you, seriously. But if we continue down this path you're gonna need to start providing some scientific proof of the method. I've done my stint as a researcher/engineer and have done my due-diligence. There ain't ANY truly scientific study done on laddering. I'm willing to eat my words here publicly so I hope you to prove me wrong. But NOT with anecdotal stories, or theory. I want real proof.

Jason