Ladder Method

[Doggorloader]

One of the old guy's at our club asked me the other day if I use the "Ladder Method" to work up loads.

I kind of passed over it but.......what does "Ladder Method" mean?

I work up using a starting load and the chrono from there watching for the signs as usual.

I've played around with the charge on my rifle rounds working fraction of a grain at a time within my envelop to see if my rifles "like" a particular load with lower velocity than the high end for accuracy. Is this what he means?

Tom

[Ray S.]

I dunno, and I don't remember what it's called, but it's possible he's talking about this:

Make up 20 loads, a tenth apart. Fire from a solid rest, one shot each load, same aiming point. The longer the range the more accurate the test.

Plot on paper (x/y axis stuff) each shot. A pattern should emerge after the 20 shots, with "sweet spots" (usually more than one) grouping close together, at least on the vertical axis.

Designed for rifle, don't know how it stacks up at shorter ranges from pistol barrels, though it may depend on the gun's accuracy capability. Would think it may work at 100 yards from a Ransom, though. Been thinking about trying it with a couple of pistols for a long time, but haven't done it.

[JD45]

I have read so much about reloading in my life that its stupid, and I have never ran across that term. So it must not be too common.

[TBF]

It started, as far as I know, with a guy named Creighton Audette ( a shooter by anyones standards ).

He noticed that in firing rounds on the same target, with steadily increasing charges, the progression was not linear. Some small increases in powder did not affect elevation.

This " flat spot " in elevation for several charges , each slightly higher than the last , is sometimes called a " sweet spot "

The trick to finding the sweet spot is to shoot far enough away to see the elevation " flat spot " , with no error added to the shots.

Piece of cake, right ? ( joke )

The thing is, finding the " sweet spot " is not a guarantee that the load will actually shoot well.

Never tried it with a pistol , the " no error " part combined with the range required for seeing the elevation would be the difficult part.

Travis F.

[Gun Geek]

Ahhhhh, a subject near and dear to my heart.

There are 2 methods that attack the load development question from slightly different perspectives, one called "Ladder Method", and the other called "Optimal Charge Weight (OCW)". They are both looking for the sweet spot in barrel harmonics that produces the tightest group. There are a couple of differences, however.

Here's a quick summary of the ladder method, and a link:.

Creighton Audette Incremental Load Development Method (or ILDM far short) essence is: Settle on Choice of Bullet, Primer and Powder and Case brand. Once you picked these things, there are two numbers you have to make up to use this Method: A Start load and a Load increment. That chosen, load 20 Rounds, start with the Start load and increase the Charge weight stepwise by the Increment for each subsequent Round. Load only one Round with each Charge weight. Then, using the same Aim point, fire all these Rounds on one Target and interpret the results. Here are the details... Ladder Method Explained

The deal is that you load several rounds (3 to 5) at a particular powder weight in graduated steps between the minimum and the maximum loads. You then proceed to fire the loads in sequence at target (preferably) 300yds away. By recording where each shot hits, you can tell which weight groups the tightest. Problem is:

1) You have to be able to see and record the hits from 300yds. Could be tough (I used a video camera set up about 10yds from the target)

2) By shooting in sequence, you can introduce error - are you as good on the 20th shot as you are on the 5th?

3) (This is the important one). By looking only for group size, you may pick a very accurate, but very finicky (unstable) load. It will be great when every thing is just like it was when you tested the load - case volume, bullet weight, temperature, gravity waves, sub-space interference, etc. The real world doesn't work that way.

The other method is called Optimal Charge Weight (OCW). I have not used this one, but I'm getting ready to. I'm working up a load for a 22" heavy barrel AR.

Link to Optimal Charge Weight (OCW)

The advertised advantages are:

1) You're not shooting 300yds and don't have to record where the shots hit the target. You analyze several targets after the shooting is done.

2) Shoot round-robbin. Weight 1, weight 2, weght 3, weight 4, weight 1, weight 2... Helps remove shooter and other (fouling, heat, etc) variables.

3) The target analysis leads to picking the most stable load - a few thenths of a grain +/-, a hot/cold primer, temperature variations, etc won't cause the groups to open up.

Should have some actual results early next week. Just got the cases prepped tonight. I will stuff over the weekend and fire Monday or Tuesday.

A bit later I plan to test one of the claims of the OCW method by using not-so-carefully prepared once fired mixed stamp 223 brass and the (as every rifle shooter knows) terribly unreliable Dillon powder measure to reproduce the chosen load. I'll then poke a few holes on a target and see if the groups hold together.

I think these methods only make sense for rifles, or maybe long barreled pistols (a 44 with a 12" barrel used for hunting). Barrel harmonics just don't seem to be much of a factor with short stiff pistol barrels.

Geek

[Doggorloader]

Wowee Zowee

It seems I've only made it to Kindergarden with my rifle experiments.

I spend alot of time with my rifle loads playing with bullets both type and weight and charges both powder type and weight. I do things with my brass that many would think are a total waste of time. I do it cause it's fun.

This sounds interesting and I'm going to read up and start setting up some tests. It gives me a new anticipation for experimentation.

Thanks for the info.

Tom

[tightloop]

The Ladder method seems a bit obsolete to me, with so many great loading manuals out there. I have always been able to find a sub moa load by using the data in the manuals and working with them a bit. Just my thoughts..

[ppro]

Hey all

I have used a modified ladder load method for years and it has solved some problems and explained a few issues.

By the way, this general method is used very often by long range competitors and especially at 1000 yd comp. (rifle of course)

I most value a load for competition that permits the least change in POI due to variables like temperature and the two methods described are intended to do exactly that....identify the loads with the least amount of change and best potential for good accuracy.

The comment that laddering does not guarantee accuracy is not exactly correct but it can be to a certain extent....for example: If you do a ladder load test at closer ranges (say at 100 yds.) you may find a very accurate load and that load also shows little suseptability to temp change (the load POI'S closely over say maybe a grain or more of charge change.) A load can be very accurate and stable at closer ranges but still have a large standard deviation. That in turn will guarantee verticle dispersion at long ranges i.e. won't be that accurate at long range. So, when you find that load that is stable and accurate, you should still check it for long range accuracy i.e. shoot it long range or put it accross a chronograph.

I have run into a few amazing ocw loads with this method and it surely puts the mind at least between the cool morning and hot afternoon.

One thing it does for me, is point to combinations that are generally very stable (as I run a ladder load test) and as suprisingly, some combinations that are incredibly bad. I usually do a initial test at 100 yds with one round per 2/10 gr. increments. Saves time and barrel and gives me a good idea of whether or not to even look further at that particular potential general combination. If the load checks out well, I move on to more thorough tests and then the long range test where warranted.

It's perfectly ok not to use any of these methods.....but for myself, I only wish I had known of it 25 years ago.....would have saved a small fortune in barrels and components.

regards

Paul