The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

snuffy · April 16, 2013, 01:06 PM

The only ladder test I ever used was to stand it against the barn, jump on it to see if it fell apart!

I just never could wrap my mind around the validity of that method. For one, you have to track each and every shot. AS YOU SHOOT THEM! (Expensive spotting scope). Two, you have to have a very stable bench and spend some money on a good rest and bags. Three, good shooting conditions. Four, having a range with no interruptions, like a curious bystander to interrupt your session-------. Five, a target stand that will not move in the wind. No off the hood of a car, or over a rolled up jacket. Six, a rifle that has inherent accuracy. Meaning it can shoot good groups with either factory rounds, or good handloads. Seven, a good scope of high enough power to see the aiming point clearly. My way of saying it is; if the scope didn't cost about what the rifle cost, then you don't have a good enough scope.

Here's a discussion over on the AR forum;

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/...271#5771015271

Especially Larry Gibson's take on it:

"Unfortunately pundits would have us believe it is the end all method for general load development. It is not.…

"Reason is even though those shots may hit close together with such a wide variation in velocity at one range the velocity ES will eat you up with large bullet drop at longer ranges.…"

{Edit for board copyright policy}

Then there's Dan Newberrys bastardization of the Audeette method called OCW, Optimum Charge Weight;

http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/

Do whatever you want, it's still a somewhat free country. To me, it's a waste of hard to get components.

April 16, 2013, 01:06 PM	#11
snuffy Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2001 Location: Oshkosh wi. Posts: 3,055	The only ladder test I ever used was to stand it against the barn, jump on it to see if it fell apart! I just never could wrap my mind around the validity of that method. For one, you have to track each and every shot. AS YOU SHOOT THEM! (Expensive spotting scope). Two, you have to have a very stable bench and spend some money on a good rest and bags. Three, good shooting conditions. Four, having a range with no interruptions, like a curious bystander to interrupt your session-------. Five, a target stand that will not move in the wind. No off the hood of a car, or over a rolled up jacket. Six, a rifle that has inherent accuracy. Meaning it can shoot good groups with either factory rounds, or good handloads. Seven, a good scope of high enough power to see the aiming point clearly. My way of saying it is; if the scope didn't cost about what the rifle cost, then you don't have a good enough scope. Here's a discussion over on the AR forum; http://forums.accuratereloading.com/...271#5771015271 Especially Larry Gibson's take on it: "Unfortunately pundits would have us believe it is the end all method for general load development. It is not.… "Reason is even though those shots may hit close together with such a wide variation in velocity at one range the velocity ES will eat you up with large bullet drop at longer ranges.…" {Edit for board copyright policy} Then there's Dan Newberrys bastardization of the Audeette method called OCW, Optimum Charge Weight; http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/ Do whatever you want, it's still a somewhat free country. To me, it's a waste of hard to get components. __________________ The more people I meet, the more I love my dog They're going to get their butts kicked over there this election. How come people can't spell and use words correctly? Last edited by snuffy; April 17, 2013 at 12:32 AM.