Leave the chronograph at home

Impacts on paper at long range matter

the reason it works is because field conditions always change. lots of powder change. for instance I have a load with varget for a 22-250 that has the same POI at 100 yards in a 4 grain window. another instance. I burned up all the n133 for my 17 fireball. I started a new lot that is brand new. load sped up by 100+ fps. same POI. if a load is that finaky you don't want it. I load up 7 or 8 cases with different powder charges up to what I am pretty sure is slightly beyond max. The load that is most forgiving up to and past max is the one that normally gets picked.

Cool vid RC. Thanks.

I thought so as well. I’ve never used a chronograph for the sole purpose of load development by examining SD or ES.

How many shots per charge level are you shooting in your ladder?

When shooting the Audette, only one shot per increment is used

That conjures the demon of statistical (in)significance.

Good video. Didn't need this guy telling me this though. I always say the real proof is on the target. I've seen so many guys struggle at the range, wondering why the loads they are working with that have the best numbers, don't always show the best precision on target. Now throw in concentricity and other factors. That seems to have more of an impact on precision than chasing your tail with SD and ES.

I thought it was good as well, with so many I see doing load development by simply shooting ladders at 100 yards and paying attention only to chronograph readings to choose their load

It really doesn’t rely on statistics.

It’s ALL about isolating a barrel exit time during the muzzle’s movement that nullifies vertical stringing at long range.

The very definition of a good long range load.

Does this mean you are Audistic?

Yeah. The small sample size problem applies to POI as well as velocity.

What may look at first glance like "nullifying vertical stringing" may actually just be random chance. Repeat the same ladder test multiple times with the same results, and there starts to be some correlation.

Shooting the loads in the visibly obvious node and picking the best confirms the nullification of vertical

It also results in good long range load identification in as little as 10 rounds

Seldom have I had to repeat an Audette.

rcamUGLYa,


Your ladder is worthless.


Signed, the bell curve.


https://vimeo.com/7804433

Excellent input, as normal

😂😂😂

Very interesting video. My concern with "my own" accuracy and loads has always been "do I have a large enough sample size to make any determination?". After reviewing this video, it reminds of how I often wonder how many times I have actually discarded what would have been, or was, the optimal load from those I created and tested.

Bench shooters chase the rabbit hole.. every time you improve one thing, you have to go to the next variable to make it better…

Velocity mostly comes from pressure…. And leaving the barrel at the same time comes from another type of consistency, and how many, and much vibrations are in the system you are shooting.

Small samples have always had the issues he’s talking about - however, that’s only one of the variables.

With my PRS rifle I can’t find a group that doesn’t cloverleaf at 100 yards these days so I had to move out further, and shoot at sun up to refine my loads more.

Pencil neck talking nonsense

It's been a number of years.
But I remember you posted a picture of a classic textbook
Ladder test you shot.
As I remember you had 3 rounds in a "flat spot" and everything else was below and above it.
Talk about getting rid of vertical.....

Dave

Generally that’s what you see on the target; 3 to 4 consecutive shots that have the same POI.

Then it’s a matter of shooting groups with those loads in the “flat spot” or node to determine which is best.

The intersection of "Audette Testing" for load development and statistics is ironic for me. I'm a Creighton Audette fan and chased down whatever of his writings I could find; Rifleman, Precision Shooting etc.

Audette was very well versed in Statistics and wrote an article entitled "It Ain't Necessarily So" where he debunked folks making pronouncements of accuracy based on single groups or 3 shot groups etc. The irony is that he used and wrote about load testing shooting single shots at escalating charge weights (he called it the "20 shot method"). And thought nothing of the statistics of if as others are calling out here. The method just flat out worked for him to find a load that had match winning accuracy.

For those that don't know much about Audette, he was a high level Highpower Competitor, gunsmith, and accuracy critical thinker. He was the Harold Vaughn of his generation (if you haven't heard of Harold Vaughn, that 's a discussion for another time).

Others such as Dan Newberry decided Audette needed to bulk up his statistics by shooting 3 shots at each charge weight in a "round robin" fashion. (google OCW or Optimal Charge Weight to read more). Chris Long put his Engineer's stamp on Newberry's theory with his OBT (Optimal Barrel Time) theory. I personally think they missed the point. The 20 shot method is a great shortcut to getting to an accurate load that is conditions, temperature and charge weight resilient. It wasn't meant to withstand statistical analysis.

Closer to the topic raised by the video; Randolph Constantine (he was an actual bona fide Rocket Scientist) decided he would use a chrono at 100 yards in his version of Audette Load Development and called his twist "Incremental Load Development". I shook my head when I read his article in Precision Shooting for much the same reasons as that video called out. Flat spots in a charge/velocity curve didn't match up to 300 or 600 yard accuracy on paper for me.

To address the statistical concerns, the assumption in using a Audette test is your rifle has to be accurate enough to give you high confidence that the elevation differences are load related and not random error (rifle with poor accuracy). A poorly shooting rifle gives too much random noise to use an Audette test.

This video might better be titled Spiraling Toward Statistical Nihilism.

I'm not convinced I should stop collecting as much data as practicably possible.

I’m not convinced that’s a realistic assumption. Shooting groups at 100 yards with all load increments where trajectory differences are negligible would reveal that the precision of the various increments is often inconsistent enough so as to be comparable with the dispersion in the trajectory between increments at longer distance. There is little doubt that the theory of faster bullets exiting the barrel lower in the arc than slower bullets is sound, but in reality all things that have inherent non-deterministic behaviour are at the mercy of statistical uncertainty. The ability to determine a weak “signal” from the noise requires an extremely low level of noise.

For the record, I have experimented with the Audette method at 100 meters out to 600 meters in the past, using rifles that shot in the 2s and 3s.

Yes, the signal gets lost in the noise as they say…hence as described by Audette, he shot at 300 yards to boost the signal and shot prone off a front bag, with a scope (even though the end use was irons for competition), during the early morning when the wind was calmest to reduce the noise.

Curious what the results of your testing was like?

Nice to see someone on the Long Range Forum who is familiar with the method and Long Range Load Development. Not many are, as you can see.





I doubt you’ll get any useful feedback

Here is a well-written detail of how I have modified the Creighton Audette Method. I think I have improved upon it and can finalize a good Long Range Load for any rifle in short order, without multiple trips to the loading bench or range.

Member GSSP here on 24hr is a friend, fellow Precision Shooter and the author of the write-up on longrangehunting.com

RC’s Long Range Load Development Method

I walked him through his first effort over the phone and he had great success

Charges are weighed at the bench, charged cases brought to the range with your press, dies, tools, scale.

Homemade Shoot n see targets so you don’t have to drive down range to mark impacts to keep things straight.

Nice! Audette did his testing on a range equipped with pits and had a buddy pulling and marking his shots. That seems to be the biggest challenge these days; identifying shot numbers and is the subject of many of the tweaks (ie using velocity as a surrogate for impacts rising etc.) ...although...technology is catching up! If you're fortunate to have an acoustic target like a Silver Mountain who needs pits and a puller! DirtyBird type targets are another game changer!

You and your friend have iron nerves to be able to carry and transport a tray of charged cases. I wouldn't do so well and should probably continue pulling bullets from the losers (I can't carry a tray of charged cases across a room without spilling powder!)

I leave them in the loading block and set it on the floorboard or the truck. Never had any issues with spilling

I got burned trying an Audette.

There are two problems with that, the first is that both dispersion due to limited precision of the rifle as well as dispersion due to barrel position when the bullet is released are both angular quantities, so the signal and the noise both get amplified as distance increases. The second problem is that with increased distance comes additional sources of noise, like wind, as you mentioned.

I experimented with the Audette method with a few different rifles at various distances. In a couple of cases, I repeated identical tests at 600 meters to investigate repeatability, and the correlation between the results left me with little confidence in the repeatability of the test.

If the method is truly valid, then it should be repeatable. My experience and sample size is very limited, which is why I’m interested in the repeatability of others’ results, as well.

Does anybody else have any data on Audette test repeatability?

Fortunately for me, the Audette method isn’t the only way to successfully develop a LR load. My methods have done well enough to enable me to place on the podium at multiple precision rifle competitions with stages from 1000-2000 yards.

As I said, I experimented with the Audette method a few times, and didn’t have consistent enough results to adopt the method in general. If others have success with it, great. Whatever works.

There’s no reason to repeat a test that yields the best long range load for your rifle. Why the hell would you want to continue searching for a long range load with minimal vertical after the test produces one?

The “repeatability” is verified every time you shoot practice, a match, or kill something at long range.

Exactly. Whatever works.

For me and the method I’ve refined, the Audette finds the best long range load with minimal vertical the fastest and saves barrel life for the real thing

Curious as to what matches? In the USA? What have you won?

It produced minimal vertical once. You don’t know that vertical is minimal when you are shooting LR afterward, only that it is small enough to be useful.

Repeatability is a primary criterion of any scientific or engineering-related project. Experimenting with the intersection of internal and external ballistics definitely falls into that category. That’s the whole point of the video you posted.

If you’re so sure that the Audette results are definitive, why are you so worried about repeating the test? It’s not a lot of handloading components to invest. If the method works as well as you say, you should be able to repeat the test over and over with the same results. If not, the results of the first test were somewhat random and not all that significant, right?

I guess if you’re obsessed with testing and don’t mind wasting useful barrel life on it instead of actually shooting a good long range load for reelz, knock yourself out.

All were matches in Canada with 60-120 competitors from multiple provinces. I haven’t made it to any US matches yet.

Did the matches have names? Any results posted to the ‘net to share?

Nope. Not obsessed with anything. Interested in validating the Audette method with scientific testing, rather than making claims based on very sparse evidence.

Lol

LOL. Yes, they have names, and some of the results were posted to the net and some weren’t. Some gave out plaques and some didn’t. Why do you care so much? They weren’t as cool as the Steel Safari, if that’s what you’re worried about.

Demanding selfies and pics is the currency of narcissists with grade-school mentalities. Those with a bit more savvy don’t need pics to tell when someone is speaking based on experience and fact. I’m not the kind of guy to cow to bullies’ demands. We’ve been down this road before. Feel free to not believe me if that’s what your gut tells you.

I’m a bully for asking for receipts?

Again, lol

Sorry to trigger you. 😂😂😂

Agreed. I won’t try and tell you how to make spaghetti if you don’t try and tell me about the scientific method.

I’m not saying your method doesn’t work for you. As I said, if it works, great. But you’re making claims about it that are a real stretch and require more evidence in the form of repeatability testing.

You can ask all you want, but I’m not asking for a refund so I see no reason to show you any receipts. I’m not going to show you my wife’s lingerie, either, so don’t bother asking. LOL.

Don’t play dumb. You love holding hands with your partner in crime and demanding pics to try and gaslight and discredit those you don’t like. It’s not hard to see right through the passive aggression.

Not sure where you get I don’t like you. Damn man, settle down

Why bother developing loads when you can simply buy these. Problem solved lol

A quick historical scan through your posts that refer to me points in that direction, but fair enough. Whether you do or don't isn't the point. My preference is to discuss the merit of what is said, rather than trying to scrutinize the authority of the person who says it. Why would I lie to you? Don't worry so much about receipts. If what I say is incorrect, then what does it matter if I've won every PRS match since the league's inception?

I have nothing against the Audette method, or any other. I'm merely interested in the truth. If the truth is that the Audette method has validity and produces the same results whenever the same test is run, I would really like to know. My own limited sample size and my understanding of statistical theory don't point that way, but by no means is my testing conclusive.

That guy should be wearing a bib, would be a shame to get spaghetti sauce all over his beautiful ( . )( . )

Think of the burns.

I really don’t care which way shooters develop their loads. If I’m competing against them, I prefer they find their loads without using an Audette 😉

Well one thing is clear, you have a lot of confidence in your method.

The results speak for themselves

Nipples are sensitive ask any gal lol

You’re giving your fat Fugk broke dick loser boyfriend Burns some stiff competition for the 2022 golden beaver award in the category “biggest douche on the fire”
Attacking a modest yet accomplished and knowledgeable guy like Jordan is a dick move , yet somehow predictable for you and Burns.

Go ahead and quote the “attack”

Go ahead and keep embarrassing yourself.

Good one. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Best barrel I’ve ever worked with. The entire Audette was like a good group. After every shot, the impacts made the black mark just get bigger. It was not possible to mark the individual impacts and it didn’t matter since they were virtually the same POI.






I chose the highest velocity load without pressure and shot a group at 100

You are so far out of your league trying to debate this with Jordan.

You’re a phhuuuukking hack who managed to win a few matches a decade ago using someone else’s work that you “improved” and think that means something. Jordan literally has a masters degree in this type of science and makes a good living applying same.

His understanding of physics and ballistics is far beyond anything your fat spaghetti head could ever comprehend.

Sure Audette’s work but there are other ways that work just as well as may top shooters in multiple disciplines have shown.

Audette, Satterlee, OCW all work fine and neither is better then the other but none are end all be alls as most guys run them once and never again. Shooting a test once as you keep stating could be a fluke and is therefor statistically irrelevant. Doing it 2+ times starts to show patterns. Any serious shooter will do more than one data set to form an actual conclusion.

Thank you for your valuable input

How's your buddy rekobeez?

LOLOLOLOLOLO

He’s about got his land logged and was laying out his rifle range to 600 yds over the weekend. Still jealous your chunk of section 8 land would only allow a 20’ range?


At least your consistent Burns but wipe your chin as RC’s baby batter is rolling down it again.

Mallard, that's almost as funny as me smoking out Burnsie with a generic, unaimed joke and him trying to defend himself using a picture of one of his heroes that he blows! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂


😅😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

They are both legends in their own minds

This may seem too simplistic, but I eventually marked paper targets with individual "bullseyes," in two rows from left to right. Shot around 15 rounds, noting which round landed where on each target--which when the targets were super-imposed provided the same information.

Three shot groups...

Same rifle, two different loads, two weeks apart, 451 yrds.

Really nice. That’s what we strive for.



What was your load development procedure?

Wow.

You need to repeat that at least 30 times to make sure it wasn’t luck.

And then repeat it again, ya know, to solidify statistical stuff.

Here's shots 4, 5, and 6 on the first target. Same POA.

What? There’s 6

^^^The very Definition of passive aggression ^^^^

I’m not looking to argue here, Rick. Your MO to fish for “receipts” is predictable, and I called you on it. You may want to check your dictionary again.

I was actually referring to last part of your reply. Very ironic!

Yall are obviously way more knowledgeable about load development than I am, and I agree with what yall strive for on getting a high dollar rifle to shoot. I mean that's what standard you hold a custom rifle to. But what ever happened to shooting 3 or 5 shots at a hundred yards with various components? To me, I think a chronograph is the only way, my opinion. Same speed, same burn, same result. If your not happy with the speed, switch it up. Once all that's obtained at 100, back that up to 300, then 600, then whatever. Shoot at various Temps. Freezing to 100 degrees or so. Your cases and chronograph should tell all. And duh, the size of the group. Just an outsider looking in. By all means keep up the thread. Pretty good read.

The things I like about Jordan's posts are that he's obviously very knowledgeable, willing to share his knowledge withouot blowing his own horn, and I don't think I've ever seen him go after another poster or denigrate another poster unless like here, someone really provokes him.


Just that.

Pretty much what I gathered.

It's entirely possible to have a load that looks great over the chrono that's not good on the target. So no, the chronograph does not tell all.

Shooting groups at 100 yards is a way many go through load development. It is the way I first began as well. If your shooting is mostly done at ranges that aren’t considered “long range”, it may be fine.

I’m not saying a Good long range load can’t be discovered by shooting at 100 yards, then moving out as you suggest, but sometimes a good 100 yard group and load shows the rifle to be “out of tune” at long range. Generally printing with a lot of vertical stringing.

What the Audette method achieves, and it achieves it quickly saving barrel life, components and time, is a load with as little vertical stringing at as possible at long range with the given components and equipment.

Since this is the Long Range forum, I wanted to share what has worked well for me sinceI have found no other methods that work as well

Everything is entirely possible. Winning the lottery is entirely possible. That chronograph will tell you alot, if your load is within 10 fps or whatever, it stands a heck of alot better chance downrange or whatever, than if it's all over the place. What looks good on paper at a certain elevation or temperature today will more than likely change in a different setting tomorrow. But if it's burning the same speed, chances are they will be consistent.

Jordan hasn’t shared any knowledge about load development on this forum whatsoever that I have seen. If you think “knowledgeable” is trying to discredit a load development method that has been used successfully for decades based on probability and statistics….

You may want to watch the video again.

That’s what it’s all about; consistent velocities don’t mean as much as holes on paper down range

Agree with this too. Different strokes for different folks.

I didn't see him try to discredit your pet method. I saw him ask about repeatability, which is basic to probability and statistics.

Sample sizes of three make for very poor probabilities and statistics.

I addressed that earlier. The “repeatability” is the proven load





See above

So, you're concluding that the method finds the absolute best load, and your confirmation of that is comparing that load to itself, over time. And you're calling that statistical analysis.

That about sum it up?

Target cameras are handy for this. No need for colored markers or separate bulls.

Assertive defence is neither passive nor aggressive.

This is where the passive aggression began in this thread:


I was happy to discuss the topic based on merit, but you wanted to make it personal.

THAT was passively aggressive?


You’re definitely a snowflake and “Ovary” act!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Also, the member asked for the results of your testing.

And, as I predicted, you didn’t give him any feedback


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Close.

The method finds the best load for that combination of chosen components

What everyone is missing who think that velocity stats find “the best load”, is the most important factor affecting the load’s Long Range Performance


Barrel Harmonics

Nah, I just don’t suffer fools, bullies, or narcissists very well. You’ve had the same MO for years. Very predictable.

I did, but you missed it.

LOL

I’m neither advocating for, nor attacking any given load development method. Barrel dynamics are certainly at the heart of the question, and since you want to talk about barrel harmonics, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all about it. Are barrel dynamics repeatable each shot? Is the driving frequency the same from shot to shot? Does every shot drive the barrel on resonance the same way and with the same initial phase? If so, why would identical MV not result in identical POI from shot to shot (ignoring external factors like wind)?

That's interesting there Jordan.

IMO - consistent MV would result in more consistent barrel harmonics which is the desired result.

Because the “flat spot” in velocity may occur at a bullet exit time when the barrel is moving most “violently”.

No matter how carefully one loads his ammo, there is going to be variance in muzzle velocity

The entire premise of the Audette is to load and fire rounds with varying exit times.

The Audette isolates the optimal exit time during barrel movements for the chosen bullet given the other components

Wrong-o


As was shown in the video in the OP

So inconsistency in the speed at which a bullet travels down the barrel (which would be the only thing causing barrel harmonics to happen - just sitting there, unfired doesn't do anything) - makes the harmonics consistent.

Flies in the face of all things rational but....

I’m very familiar with the simplistic, advertised theory. Deeper consideration reveals a more complex system, hence my questions.

This.

I think you may be misinterpreting the message of the video. I don’t recall him saying that less velocity dispersion is not good for load performance. He was mainly addressing the sampling issue in load development. My interpretation of the video’s message is that using impacts on target is a more reliable way to develop loads than searching for minimum velocity dispersion in data sets with insufficient sample size.

Amazing, isn’t it?

Thought the 24hr “brain trust” might know more, but it’s quite revealing how much they don’t, but pretend to.

Dunning-Kruger on display

That’s exactly what he’s saying and that’s exactly what the Audette isolates

LOL, it sure is.

Well, you’re at least half right.

It never fails . The man sauce twins , Burns and Camuglia , giving their all. LMAO

You go Burnsie!!!

JFC?



Go back and watch the video before yappin.

If you would have known proper load developement and shooting techniques you might not have puzzied out on the Sand Dune Elk Cull qualifier.



Commenting in the LR Hunting Forum when you are afraid to shoot 300yds in front of people is Duly Noted.

LOL, "Didn't see that coming."


I have a great load for that rifle, but nice try. Go have some more mashed potatoes and gravy and think about that.


Shooting in front of people had zero relevance. Having to take a day off work and drive 8 hours for the privilege of participating in a goat rope "qualification" where five out of 30 passed, and the guy who set up the course missed 5 out of 6 shots all to drive elk off the national refuge so that hunters on private land could get at them kind of persuaded me that it wasn't for me.


"Hunting" is supposed to be fun and that goat rope sounded like neither. It's funny that I could let that go but you and RC can't.

Mind other people's business much?

Especially when you know the results will be embarrassing

Lie as you must.

Anything can be improved apon unless you are so smart your done learning

Pick two different seating depths 30 thou apart and run your test again. When you come up with two different answers you will understand that you haven't found the holy grail.........



Trystan

No schidt Sherlock

Change anything in the test and your load may change

EXACTLY!

I'm surprised your connecting to dotz but nonetheless you seem to be although I still think you completely missed the obvious

Trystan

LOL, go have some more mashed potatoes and gravy.

What does anything you quoted have to do with "shooting in front of people?" I believe I made it clear that I didn't have confidence shooting by myself at my home range.

You're projecting again, Seinfeld. What drives you matters little to me. Narcissism, it's real.

His quotes prove you’re a liar.

🤷🏿‍♂️

Jag? Jag, is that you?

And your posts prove you’re his ball washer.
🤷🏻‍♂️

LLC principal or principal member, also called the responsible party, is a person who has been authorized by the LLC to act on its behalf in legal and tax matters. Such a person usually has financial and decision-making powers on behalf of the LLC.

Kyle reschedule the “hunt” yet?

Black olives matter!

Why would he?

It's done.

No glory hole pics?

For your Spank Bank?

Sick homoerotic fugg…

jackoff and alwaysadick vying for biggest POS on the Fire

LOL, bullsh*t.

Homoerotic? You’re the one that’s lgbtq+ friendly?

Good thing you have no competition for biggest hypocrite on the fire. Homophobic poster that advertises as lgbtq+ friendly for a couple $$.

Is this comment LGBTQ+ friendly? Laffin’!!

Youve made my point to an absolute perfect T!

Any system of reloading can and will be improved apon! There is for a fact wisdom in the multitude of counsilers all which have proved to elude you. To the contrary you are rather prone to not asking a single question, you have proved to be incapable of exploring further growth in ideas! It is in fact far beyond your capabilities when you are sober and even further from your grasp once whiskey has fed your narcissistic brain.

There is also a reason why I waited until further into the evening to post another reply! It is more than likely that alcohol consumption is to such a point by now that slanders or slurs is at the height of your capabilities. Your an easy one to read and any person of wisdom knows that humility is the key to gaining further wisdom. It is exactly why you have not and never will excell to the the very top of your competitive ability. Smarter people than yourself completely understand the prerequisite that must exist to learn at a much higher level than your self appointed grandeur that is both delusional and not intellectual in any sense of the word. Congratulations on your pure dumbfhuqkitude.........and how exactly is it that your alcoholism is so Fhuqking easy to see?

Carry on


Trystan

So camuglia's a woke homo? Who would've guessed? I guess that explains his mancrush on Burns though.

LOL!

Lunch invitation is still on the table

I've been thinking on that invitation. I'll be hunting mule deer through January, whitetails through February, on to Toledo Bend to catch the spawn in March, Spring turkeys in April, axis meat hunt in May. Thought I could work you in my schedule in June, but after this LGBQT stuff I may reconsider.

Good move

You and Burns make a nice couple. Wouldn't want to ruin such a great relationship.

You must be asking yourself, after all of the accolades, you've inherited a rat infested, hand-me-down restaurant that caters to queers and lesbians, and you live in a dump in schittthole ALBQ, NM of all places. Looks like your resume didn't quite pave the way for success in life, huh?

It's the sand.

Lots and lots of sand packed deep. Probably from the Sand Dunes.

Packed deep.

Phonetically

Something damn sure eroded all that success and it isn't hard to figure out what is was either.....Lauphing

Like I said! Almost made it but not quite

Congrats, you made it on the radar.

Enjoy what follows.

If you boys want to meet up in person and sort this out like real men just say the word! I'm not against putting together a legal event where the campfire touph guys and loud mouths can meet up for a videoed event that can be posted on the campfire for the veiwing pleasure of all! I personally think a lot of people would be surprised how many pussies are touph when there on the end of a keyboard and I know for a fact many here on the campfire would love to find out who's really who

Of course there's always slinking around behind the shadows trolling people that the scared schitless chickenshit kind prefer. I'm not part of that crowd


Trystan

You're to afraid to post under your name and even fear putting up your state.

You're a blow hard who posts stupid stuff you have read on the internet with zero experience actually doing things.

Shooting is always fun.
No one likes getting beat and no one wins all the time.
I only do maybe one competition a year, maybe two, but that doesn’t mean I still can’t have fun😁
besides a personal distance goal for a center-grip XP, the other thing I want to focus on more is shooting off of a tripod, again with a center-grip XP.
If I have to use a rifle, well, I could do that too😎

Interesting thread turned to schit with the usual dirt bags just bashing those that can and do.

Since youve admitted to be a scared schitless chickenshit I will simply take my leave now! I don't associate with cowards! Adios Amigo

Trystan

You are way more accomplished than the fraud even if it was only one comp ever.

you guys are too old to be using all these gifs

They're too old to be spooning as well.

Where's that one with the guy wearing the funny hat and smoking the cigar?


I haven't seen that one in at least 8 hours?

That there is called a “meme”, not a “gif”

Ya old fart

Yeah I know, but it's my favorite.

LOL, now that was a great film, Billy!!

Are you talking about a shooting contest?

Or a spelling bee

Pistol duel

You know, I think I'd pay to see RC, Burns and Stick in a live LR shooting match at 600+ yds. They could shoot their mouths first, then the rifles - I would be EPIC!

We would need some creative rules to handicap Rick cause he shoots really good.

LiL Fish won't show.

Plenty of others here I would love to see show.

Maybe we could have an obstacle where reverse kneeling would be obvious

‘Pole and travis the “instructor” could attend

🤣

I just have to figure out some rules that handicap you.

Like all Italians have to shoot with an eye patch over their right eye and mittens on both hands.

Otherwise I am shootin for Second Place.

Lol

I’m not buying it


😂😂😂

Shot the ladder then started to fine tune and thought I was going to end up at 69.5.

Shot at 400 yds to fine tune and settled at 69.0

Pure cringe

Target orientation is a thing of importance

Speaking of Italian loafers.....

Getting pretty tight there!
Chambering and bullet used?

Can you post a pic of your ladder?

[video:youtube][/video][/quote]

Kiss,find pressure and rock on. Hint.

On a new rifle,I'm done with "Load Development",before I even put bases on the receiver,let alone a scope. Seldom does that take more than (2) powder charges. Hint.

I've got 100's and 100's of spouts,keep GOOD notes and tend to pay attention,to that which matters. While rifles talk,nobody seems to listen. Hint.

Brass of repute,loaded in dies of repute,with propellant of repute,with primers of repute and projectiles of repute,will never not do sensational things,in a rifle of repute. Most mechanical woes,are base,rings and optics driven. Hint.

New rifle from last pass. .003" constriction,positive headspaced and a Smooch...outa' the fhuqking gate. Hint.








It simmered,as moly was laid down and is a Skookum platform. Hint..............

Always have, always will. Though the further out you get ES does start to matter if its horrible. But a good paper test tells more than a chrono ever will.

It’s A 77 mark ll that was a .300 Winchester that shot in the .3s throughout its life until I had a new barrel installed and rechambered it in 7 mm Remington Mag and rebedded. I’m shooting 180 vlds in front of retumbo at 2900 fps and have shot it out to a mile. The group is 1.266”s which puts it in the .3s as I saw at a hundred yards during the load work up and barrel break in.

So no Audette ladder as you posted?

Just having coffee this morning and that comment almost made me spit my coffee on the floor.....Lol

I would pay good money to see that as well.....Lol

Really, instead of all the arguing we should all meet up for a videoed event. We could have a spelling contest, a shooting contest, and cage fights for anyone who wants to do that! The video could be released for sale to the campfire to pay for the event and a cash reward for winners of each event. I think it would go viral

600 Yrds Ain't far, try 1000-1200, then a Mile. then break out the tape and start measuring Dicks. Rio7

Start at 400 to make everyone feel good, then 600, 800, 1000, 1300, 1500, and a mile.
I would make the mile just for fun and giggles.
If shooting steel, just make all the targets approximately 1 MOA in size for the distance being shot.
Up to 2-shots per target, with the 1st shot impact counting 2 points and if they hit it on the second attempt one point.
Beyond 1K give three shots, with first round impact being 3 points, 2nd round hit 2 points, etc...

8 and on can get snarky real quick depending on the conditions and or target size and or varied field shooting positions.
Depending on target size and conditions, even 600 can be humbling.
Steel is easier in the sense, you can see to correct easier (depending on how you set it up), however a large paper target...

If someone pulls out a comp rig for a 2-mile comp, obviously they would have an epic advantage, if they know their drops and are decent at reading conditions

Paper doesn't lie.

They could each shoot a 600 yard F-class match. The format wouldn't leave any room for creative interpretation and the results would be published by a 3rd party, the witnesses would impartial. None of these guys would clean the target.

It would be like a postal match with real verification.

We could call it the "Gynophobe Invitational"

True
TR or Open?
There are more 600 yard F-Class matches around than there are 1000 yard.
A 20 shot string does tend to tell you how good you are at reading conditions and how consistent your set-up is.
I have shot F-Class very little, and most of mine was at 1K. I also shot at 8 and 9 a few times.
I have never shot at 6 yet.
I keep trying to get Dan to go with me to some of the closer 600 yard matches, but we haven't done it yet.

Open would let them showcase their "knowledge" of cartridges too.

I predict Rick would take it. He's the only one among them that has allowed the hot light of competition shine on his shooting.

I can clean a 600 yard F-Class target with my 44 mag!

…if you wrap a scrubbie around it and use Pine Sol

That was funny!

Shooting Paper at any distance is BORING !!! as HELL, shoot Steel. Rio7

You’re right.

Audettes might work on a big steel plate at looong range

As a person who does not own a chronograph what I'm hearing is your group at the target (group size) is more important than knowing your velocity. It sounds like shooting a ladder of different powder load sizes until you find an accurate load is more important than knowing what your velocity is. Factoring in good sound loading techniques of course.

It's not that having a chronograph is not helpful, (to determine ballistics) but it should not be the primary deciding factor. Ultimately the group size is the ultimate decision maker when you choose powder, load and bullet selection ?

kwg

Edit:
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2012/07/13/creighton-audette-ladder-testing/

You shoot a bunch of one-shot "groups" at a piece of paper. The Audette method looks for tight vertical dispersion, not a "group" per se.

I interpret that as the charge gets larger you would expect the POI to rise. However, when you get to a string that is flat with the same or similar POI's a person could look at those loads closer in order to find the "best" load.

Just my interpretation . Thanks, I appreciate the information.

kwg

Not necessarily.

I knew Creighton quite well! A really good Palma shooter! An engineering shooter he was!!

Audette is about people too lazy to use a scale.

"When shooting the Audette, only one shot per increment is used"

Which is why it is not a desireable method.

Tell me one other scientific process that relies on a quantity of 1 to base a decision on.

Now if you shoot the ladder 6 times well that's different but if your shooting the ladder 6 times you are really doing optimal charge weight in a different form.

Wrong

The decision is based on all of the impacts

You are taking your decision based on the relative position of one impact, which does not mean anything, against another, which does not mean anything, against another, which does not mean anything, against another, which does not mean anything... and so on.

If the results obtained in such a way would be repeatable time after time I would change my mind but I have never seen anyone even trying.

Disclaimer: It would work for someone and his gun who shoots one-holers only, of course.

Chamois is correct. Run the same Audette ladder 24 times and you have the equivalent of this Optimal Charge Weight method target below.

I have yet to see a post on any internet forum where some states that they even ran their Audette ladder even 3 times.

To prove the point, had the target below been shot as an Audette; single rounds of 44.8, 45.2, & 45.6 could have easily made 45.2 look like a good Audette load where a better load is 46.2.

Mike,

You rifle likes the right side of the target page.