[ QUOTE ]
If you'll carefully study what the OCW method is designed to accomplish, it is simply this: Three ladder tests, fired in round-robin fashion. And that's it. It has a significant statistical advantage over the results of a single ladder test, which I explain more in depth here-->
[/ QUOTE ]
That is totally incorrect. OCW is not three ladders in round robin. It is at best three half ladders with 50% data. 3 times 50% data does not equal better than 100% or even 90% data.
OCW does not use a chrono but simply relies on a repeated "coincidental POI". A true ladder uses a chrono to spot the tuning nodes of similar MVs which exist with a node, ALONG with the coincidental POIs. I might get a POI without the similar MV closeness and therefore I would normally skip that node or at best repeat that short string to confirm no node. That is a very fundamental difference and that does not make OCW remotely close to firing 3 complete ladders.
OCW is based on correcting issues or problems with the ladder technique as you understand it. Therefore it ASSUMES that you fire the ladder in bad conditions and make a bad shot, therefore the need to fire three groups of everything. OCW assumes that fouling with dramatically effect POI but matches are normally shot with as much as 80-120 plus shots w/o cleaning and zero loss of extreme accuracy. So I am not worried about 30-35 shots with zero and a ladder. So that is a false issue unless your barrel as pits or occlusions which is a whole different issue. I know when I make a bad shot and I never test LR in windy conditions, as that is dumb to test in those conditions.
A ladder will normally go 15-25 shots and ID 2-4 nodes. I have never seen any pics of OCW going over 6-8 intervals max and somehow a node is always found. Now is it really a node or is it the tail end or start of a real node? Is it the best node? Is it the node at the desired MV range (w/o chrono cannot tell and OCW does not use chrono). OCW cannot really answer those questions while a real ladder and chrono will answer them.
Bottom line is no way OCW is a super repeated ladder w/o a chrono. It is at best a repeated half ladder and waste of bullets and powder for accuracy that is consistent at the extreme levels. It is based on a bunch of false issues or lack of common sense and that is not how I want to go into my load development.
Dude I'm sorry... There simply will not be fourtrue accuracy nodes in a ladder test. Generally, there will be two, and if you're dipping really low with the powder charge you might find three.
If you're finding four nodes at least one of them is going to be a false node.
If you're finding three nodes, one of them is going to be at way under useful velocity and load density--or else way over max.
By following the OCW instructions at my site, a handloader backs down 7 to 10 percent under max and fires three test charges, graduated in 2% increments. Then the OCW test moves up in 1% increments until you reach the published maximum.
By working near the maximum, and identifying the highest accuracy node, better load density is realized, and generally speaking better accuracy as well. Another plus is the bullet will have its highest velocity in this area, so your 22-250 isn't acting like a .223, which would be the case at one of the early "four" accuracy nodes you mention.
You claim that you would toss out a tight group if the chronograph didn't show good numbers. You should not do this. Chronographs can and do make errors. ES can almost always be improved with different seating depths, or even primer swaps. If you're showing a tight group in a ladder at 300 yards I wouldn't let some possibly bogus chrony numbers put me off the trail.
I must admit that I have hijacked some threads in my time , but , you two take the cake ! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
Way in or way out ? that is the question [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Really was looking to see if there were a substantial number of folks that were shooting loads that are very accurate AND seated way IN . Is that to much to ask ? And please , I'm not looking for theoretical answers , just actual experience [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
As a result of a bored condition I made this post . That is not to say that I didn't want to hear actual results that others have had in this area . But..........what? .................... head butting , that's what , ( I must say that y'all are being very congenial in your head butting at this time )
Anyway, I reckon this is enough ******* and moaning on my part .............. but you two do owe me an apology for wrecking an honest post /question [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] even if it was posted out of sheer boredom .
Ive got a mag length load for my 300 that uses H4831 instead of H1000, and a 220SMK, and it will shoot under 2" at 400 most days, and smaller some days. Is that small enough to be "very accurate".
Oh, factor in my bipod and the oklahoma wind... some might add my Savage rifle to that list of handicaps, but ill let it slide for now [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]