Creighton Audette Ladder Test

[Mram10us]

Thought I would post these cool links that explain a lot of variables relating to the real CA test from the Precision Shooting Reloading Guide, rather than all of the offshoots that have followed.
http://2poqx8tjzgi65olp24je4x4n-wpe...audettes-20-round-string-load-development.pdf

http://2poqx8tjzgi65olp24je4x4n-wpe...12/07/incremental-load-development-method.pdf

 

[LongBomber]

In the last couple years I have shifted pretty much all of my loading over to this method. I also started tracking the velocities more closely with it since I got a L-radar. Now I put the results together paper and fps, usually you can find a great load very quickly.

I find that going strictly by paper you can develop a load that is likely the best at the distance the testing was done at. If you shoot square ranges (F-class style, fixed rages to a match) a ladder at each distance may show a slightly different result. My 300wsm really showed that, the load that was the most consistent at 600m was not the best at 300 or 900m. That rifle almost needed three different loads to maximize its performance at a competition. Well it would if my wind reading was better...

 

[Bob Wright]

I have been experimenting with Saterlee's method of velocity flat spots on 10 rounds, with Labradar and also 10, 2 inch targets, at 200 yards on my last build, a 280 AI. The amount of info I got out of 2 tests combined into 1 was encouraging. It becomes easy to see velocity flats to point at a grain weight loading and verify it on the individual targets.
I also verified sticky neck issues on reloaded Nosler brass. When I took those same brass back out and fired them in the same order and charge weight, I could immediately tell if polishing the necks internally solved the issue. It did and it furthered my confidence that I had a whole bunch more data and controlled testing than anything I used to do, in a whole lot less shots. Pretty encouraging to me.

 

[Mram10us]

In the last couple years I have shifted pretty much all of my loading over to this method. I also started tracking the velocities more closely with it since I got a L-radar. Now I put the results together paper and fps, usually you can find a great load very quickly.

I find that going strictly by paper you can develop a load that is likely the best at the distance the testing was done at. If you shoot square ranges (F-class style, fixed rages to a match) a ladder at each distance may show a slightly different result. My 300wsm really showed that, the load that was the most consistent at 600m was not the best at 300 or 900m. That rifle almost needed three different loads to maximize its performance at a competition. Well it would if my wind reading was better...

That doesn't make sense to me. How can a load shoot great at 600 but not at 300? I'm a math guy and it doesn't check....

 

[Bob Wright]

That doesn't make sense to me. How can a load shoot great at 600 but not at 300? I'm a math guy and it doesn't check....

He mentioned his wind reads weren't good. That's what I get out of it.