Avoid this pitfall with distance/target based ladder test

[Feniks Technologies]

I’ll do a better job and illustration on another day. But here’s a quick synopsis on a trap people fall into with ladder test at distance.

You need to know your rifle’s “precision cone”, usually expressed in moa. For example a rifle/shooter combo being .5 moa.

You need to know the velocity of each shot or a *confident* (not 3 or 5 rounds, more like 30) average velocity.

Then you can predict where a shot or group should fall on a target.

The speed will give you the vertical location a round or group center should be. And the precision cone gives you a circle that is centered on this location.

When you shoot your ladder test, and you see a “node” where the POI looks “flat”, you need to make sure it’s not just statistical variance that caused this flat area.

Here is a crude example. Three different charge weights with their respective cones. The small solid circles are examples of where the bullets may impact the target.

This is a common occurrence that will show up and give the shooter the idea there’s a “node” when all that happened was three shots landed inside their respective cones and happened to be in the overlapping areas.

 

[jakelly]

Using this logic, how could anything even remotely useful be determined shooting a long range ladder? Even 50 of them likely wouldn’t “prove” a node. Are you trying to say nothing useful is found using them, or are you really saying “nodes” don’t exist? If nodes don’t exist, I also wonder if the same 30 and 50 shot strings are used to evaluate the “tuning” done with seating depth tests, or can that info be “trusted” in as little as 10-15 rounds? In fact, if I were to accept everything you’ve posited on the topic of load development, I think I would be forced to a conclusion that load development doesn’t exist…
Is that really where you’re headed?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Using this logic, how could anything even remotely useful be determined shooting a long range ladder? Even 50 of them likely wouldn’t “prove” a node. Are you trying to say nothing useful is found using them, or are you really saying “nodes” don’t exist? If nodes don’t exist, I also wonder if the same 30 and 50 shot strings are used to evaluate the “tuning” done with seating depth tests, or can that info be “trusted” in as little as 10-15 rounds? In fact, if I were to accept everything you’ve posited on the topic of load development, I think I would be forced to a conclusion that load development doesn’t exist…
Is that really where you’re headed?

I didn’t say any of this.

But if all shots land inside where they are predicted via velocity and the precision capability of the system, then yes, for that particular test, there is was no “node”.

A positively compensated rifle would have to give you charge weights in which they do not fall into the area which these things would predict.

That’s how positive compensation works. And proponents of it also say some barrels/rifles display it better than others, and some don’t display it at all.



I’m not saying positive compensation doesn’t exist (though there are many that do real testing with loads and loads of data that are skeptical).

But I’m absolutely saying, if your “node” falls into the above scenario, it’s just math. Not some positively compensated node.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Using this logic, how could anything even remotely useful be determined shooting a long range ladder? Even 50 of them likely wouldn’t “prove” a node. Are you trying to say nothing useful is found using them, or are you really saying “nodes” don’t exist? If nodes don’t exist, I also wonder if the same 30 and 50 shot strings are used to evaluate the “tuning” done with seating depth tests, or can that info be “trusted” in as little as 10-15 rounds? In fact, if I were to accept everything you’ve posited on the topic of load development, I think I would be forced to a conclusion that load development doesn’t exist…
Is that really where you’re headed?

Also no, 10-15 doesn’t work like 30 shots.

You’ll have a higher degree of confidence than 3-5 round strings. But still far below the confidence of 30.

I don’t remember the % off top of my head. But let’s say 15 rounds is 70% confidence and 30 is 99%.

You’d still have 30% chance to be variance (dumb luck).

That’s just the way it works with stats.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Using this logic, how could anything even remotely useful be determined shooting a long range ladder? Even 50 of them likely wouldn’t “prove” a node. Are you trying to say nothing useful is found using them, or are you really saying “nodes” don’t exist? If nodes don’t exist, I also wonder if the same 30 and 50 shot strings are used to evaluate the “tuning” done with seating depth tests, or can that info be “trusted” in as little as 10-15 rounds? In fact, if I were to accept everything you’ve posited on the topic of load development, I think I would be forced to a conclusion that load development doesn’t exist…
Is that really where you’re headed?

Also, a whole other can of worms.

If you’re not using a BC system like an oehler, and you shoot single round (and at times even 3 shot groups)…..

You have no idea if the reason for the round falling outside of the predicted area was a product of bullet to bullet BC variation.

This is one of the biggest culprits of “my load fell apart at distance.”

 

[MarkyMark007]

fenix is just trying to say, that with your shitty rifles and crapy technic wont be able to see nodes with only 2 or 3 shots (like F-Class/BR masters are showing on YT), but with a lot more shots, because your groups are too big and your 'node' will not be real node.
and you must measure velocity.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

fenix is just trying to say, that with your shitty rifles and crapy technic wont be able to see nodes with only 2 or 3 shots (like F-Class/BR masters are showing on YT), but with a lot more shots, because your groups are too big and your 'node' will not be real node.
and you must measure velocity.

This is definitely not what I’m saying.

Also, this applies to everyone, including F class and BR. Better rifles and equipment helps and you have to be able to exploit the equipment. But they are still bound by the same math everyone else is bound by.

I promise you more than one record has been set and more than one match has been won by amazing shooters who misjudged a “node” and other such things. Many times we humans succeed in spite of something, not because of it.


The smartest people in the world at the time thought the world was flat. The founding fathers who wrote a mostly great constitution along with bill of rights were fine with slavery…..etc.

No matter how good any of us become, there is always more to learn and the next generation/s will likely make a better mousetrap.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Also, many top F class and BR shooters don’t measure velocity.

Right or wrong, doesn’t matter. Many of them don’t use one.

 

[MarkyMark007]

I promise you more than one record has been set and more than one match has been won by amazing shooters who misjudged a “node” and other such things.

I am aware that node is not a point of global and ultimate accuracy, but more than a point where you have a wider range of 'acceptable' accuracy

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I am aware that node is not a point of global and ultimate accuracy, but more than a point where you have a wider range of 'acceptable' accuracy

I don’t think you know what any of this is.

You’re either the best trolls on the internet or one of the least informed people on this forum.

Jury is still out. Though I’m leaning toward the latter.

 

[MarkyMark007]

I think you are contradicting yourself.

and it is true what am I saying: node does not mean that there will be your rifle the most accurate, even if everybody believe this because of ''harmonics'', ''positive compenzating'' etc...
but people use notes for wider range of accuracy, that you dont need to tweak your load every time when it is hotter/colder, different altitude...

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I think you are contradicting yourself.

and it is true what am I saying: node does not mean that there will be your rifle the most accurate, even if everybody believe this because of ''harmonics'', ''positive compenzating'' etc...
but people use notes for wider range of accuracy, that you dont need to tweak your load every time when it is hotter/colder, different altitude...

I haven’t defined a “node” to contradict anything. I’ve only listed a single possible reason for misinterpreting shots on a target as a “node.”

As usual, you’re making up some weird narrative in your head.

 

[smoothy8500]

Also, many top F class and BR shooters don’t measure velocity.

Right or wrong, doesn’t matter. Many of them don’t use one.

Funny how that is true....

 

[Cascade Hemi]

"Avoid this pitfall with one simple trick"

 

[Milo 2.5]

I’ll do a better job and illustration on another day. But here’s a quick synopsis on a trap people fall into with ladder test at distance.

You need to know your rifle’s “precision cone”, usually expressed in moa. For example a rifle/shooter combo being .5 moa.

You need to know the velocity of each shot or a *confident* (not 3 or 5 rounds, more like 30) average velocity.

Then you can predict where a shot or group should fall on a target.

The speed will give you the vertical location a round or group center should be. And the precision cone gives you a circle that is centered on this location.

When you shoot your ladder test, and you see a “node” where the POI looks “flat”, you need to make sure it’s not just statistical variance that caused this flat area.

Here is a crude example. Three different charge weights with their respective cones. The small solid circles are examples of where the bullets may impact the target.

This is a common occurrence that will show up and give the shooter the idea there’s a “node” when all that happened was three shots landed inside their respective cones and happened to be in the overlapping areas.

So you are basically saying one shot ladder tests could be a fluke? If so, I agree, and had one heck of a fight with the demigod lynn jr over the same topic, the farther you go out to shoot the ladder, the more outside interference, including yourself can play.
Most people use cardboard off a dishwasher or fridge box to shoot the ladder, just do an OCW test at that distance. POI to POA is right there, is your vertical dispersion where you want it, if so, button it up.
5 yrs ago the goal was to find a load in under 20 rds, now today we need 200 min for statistical data.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

So you are basically saying one shot ladder tests could be a fluke? If so, I agree, and had one heck of a fight with the demigod lynn jr over the same topic, the farther you go out to shoot the ladder, the more outside interference, including yourself can play.
Most people use cardboard off a dishwasher or fridge box to shoot the ladder, just do an OCW test at that distance. POI to POA is right there, is your vertical dispersion where you want it, if so, button it up.
5 yrs ago the goal was to find a load in under 20 rds, now today we need 200 min for statistical data.

20rds is statistically irrelevant and 200rds has too much human influence. Any load data you post that contradicts my opinion or the conventional wisdom falls into either of those two categories. From here on out your posts must contain 200rds per charge weight and seating depth, fired from a machine rest, in a climate controlled environment. You can sign up for my news letter to receive more tips and tricks on how to avoid this or that one thing.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Also, many top F class and BR shooters don’t measure velocity.

Right or wrong, doesn’t matter. Many of them don’t use one.

Maybe because velocity is irrelevant to accuracy.

 

[Milo 2.5]

20rds is statistically irrelevant and 200rds has too much human influence. Any load data you post that contradicts my opinion or the conventional wisdom falls into either of those two categories. From here on out your posts must contain 200rds per charge weight and seating depth, fired from a machine rest, in a climate controlled environment. You can sign up for my news letter to receive more tips and tricks on how to avoid this or that one thing.

Do you have a link to your newsletter, or do I need to google it? My methods lack hard data, and only work for me, it became easier when I came to terms with these facts.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

So you are basically saying one shot ladder tests could be a fluke? If so, I agree, and had one heck of a fight with the demigod lynn jr over the same topic, the farther you go out to shoot the ladder, the more outside interference, including yourself can play.
Most people use cardboard off a dishwasher or fridge box to shoot the ladder, just do an OCW test at that distance. POI to POA is right there, is your vertical dispersion where you want it, if so, button it up.
5 yrs ago the goal was to find a load in under 20 rds, now today we need 200 min for statistical data.

Or even if your higher round count groups overlap, you need to know if they overlap because that’s where the literal math says they will. Or if in fact you have a positively compensated rifle.

And ya, I would love to have a real load development in 20 rounds. But it just doesn’t happen that way. Rifles will likely shoot very well with most ammo made with good components.

But there’s a reason guys at the top of their respective discipline are always “tweaking.” Load development isn’t one and done. It’s continuous…..if you need it to shoot that small that is.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Do you have a link to your newsletter, or do I need to google it? My methods lack hard data, and only work for me, it became easier when I came to terms with these facts.

Pretty sure he’s poorly trolling the fact our company is ammo and loading related and such. And that it’s fairly obvious we will be rolling out training and other such things.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Maybe because velocity is irrelevant to accuracy.

Depends on the discipline.

It surely matters in ELR and other such things.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Pretty sure he’s poorly trolling the fact our company is ammo and loading related and such. And that it’s fairly obvious we will be rolling out training and other such things.

I don't know who you are.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Depends on the discipline.

It surely matters in ELR and other such things.

Is it really though?

Or is it just neccesary as a variable to calculate trajectory and get first round impacts in a varied environment? That and velocity consistency as more of a test to quality of reloads.

If you can develop a super accurate load at long distance does it matter what velocity? Naturally a faster will be better and you probably want the fastest most accurate. But the actual number is irrelevant to accuracy.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Depends on the discipline.

It surely matters in ELR and other such things.

Is it really though?

Or is it just neccesary as a variable to calculate trajectory and get first round impacts in a varied environment?

If you can develop a super accurate load at long distance does it matter what velocity? Naturally a faster will be better and you probably want the fastest most accurate. But the actual number is irrelevant to accuracy.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Is it really though?

Or is it just neccesary as a variable to calculate trajectory and get first round impacts in a varied environment?

If you can develop a super accurate load at long distance does it matter what velocity? Naturally a faster will be better and you probably want the fastest most accurate. But the actual number is irrelevant to accuracy.

It is if one round comes out the barrel 35fps slower or faster than the last round. Hence why guys like David Tubb shoot with a chrono monitoring it all times.

So, for ELR, you'll definitely want a chrono while developing your ammo.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Is it really though?

Or is it just neccesary as a variable to calculate trajectory and get first round impacts in a varied environment?

If you can develop a super accurate load at long distance does it matter what velocity? Naturally a faster will be better and you probably want the fastest most accurate. But the actual number is irrelevant to accuracy.

Which goes hand in hand with my original post.

If you're shooting a target at say 2500yds. And you miss low or high......

If you don't know the velocity of that round, you don't know if it was shooter, environment, or just the velocity.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Well in the context of load development.

You could develop a super accurate load at 1000yds without ever knowing your velocity.

If you want to take said load and shoot it in different environments accurately you want to know velocity.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Well in the context of load development.

You could develop a super accurate load at 1000yds without ever knowing your velocity.

If you want to take said load and shoot it in different environments accurately you want to know velocity.

Yes, you can. But a chrono *may* make it easier/better, depending which load development method you subscribe to.

There are some very high level shooters who believe in positive compensation, and some very high level who do not. There are also some very high round count data studies which don't support the theory either. Thus far, it hasn't been proven or disproven.


But, if you do in fact use a chrono, you can eliminate another variable in the load development process, if you so choose.


The example I provided is one example how you can do this.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Is it really though?

Or is it just neccesary as a variable to calculate trajectory and get first round impacts in a varied environment? That and velocity consistency as more of a test to quality of reloads.

If you can develop a super accurate load at long distance does it matter what velocity? Naturally a faster will be better and you probably want the fastest most accurate. But the actual number is irrelevant to accuracy.

Not implying, or saying anything, but people tune small 6mm cartridges at 1K often. I have done this a time or 2, conditions need to be almost perfect, stable may be the better choice of words. I have also tried to tune a 7 saum at 1450 yards, and actually did it, 3 perfect sunups in a row.

Tuning any rifle past 1500 yards, you would be at the mercy of conditions, with only really 2 opportune times, just after sunup, or an hour or so before dark minus winds.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Don't get me wrong I almost always shoot with a chrono on when I can. more information and feedback the better imo.

I could "just shoot" and eventually settle on the best shooting.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Not implying, or saying anything, but people tune small 6mm cartridges at 1K often. I have done this a time or 2, conditions need to be almost perfect, stable may be the better choice of words. I have also tried to tune a 7 saum at 1450 yards, and actually did it, 3 perfect sunups in a row.

Tuning any rifle past 1500 yards, you would be at the mercy of conditions, with only really 2 opportune times, just after sunup, or an hour or so before dark minus winds.

In that case do you chase the group size or chrono numbers?

 

[Cascade Hemi]

In that case do you chase the group size or chrono numbers?

At a thousand yards you need to chase both.

 

[Milo 2.5]

There are some very high level shooters who believe in positive compensation, and some very high level who do not. There are also some very high round count data studies which don't support the theory either. Thus far, it hasn't been proven or disproven.

I shouldn't open this can of worms, but there is a range in SW Montana that will at some point own every LR benchrest record known to man. Whether it is positive compensation, or if another borrowed term from another industry is hijacked, they are doing something right.
I am not about to question any of it, as it is a great time to learn as a shooter-reloader, there is way too much put forward to not absorb the high spots and try make them work.
With shooting, and top level shooters, there has to some level of secrecy, hell, Jerry Miculek is fun to watch, I have yet to see him give his successor instruction.

 

[Milo 2.5]

In that case do you chase the group size or chrono numbers?

I don't really make a habit of doing it, but in general, I use a combo of both. I trust the target more than numbers. I took issue with AB WEZ right from the start.

 

[Seymour Fish]

Or even if your higher round count groups overlap, you need to know if they overlap because that’s where the literal math says they will. Or if in fact you have a positively compensated rifle.

And ya, I would love to have a real load development in 20 rounds. But it just doesn’t happen that way. Rifles will likely shoot very well with most ammo made with good components.

But there’s a reason guys at the top of their respective discipline are always “tweaking.” Load development isn’t one and done. It’s continuous…..if you need it to shoot that small that is.

Felix, Let’s assume you have a new bbl run in with 200 rds, with no known cone of accuracy. Imagining there is always some cone, be it large or small, it seems there is a bell curve distribution of shots with progressively fewer toward the periphery such that an apparent powder node, based on probability, is less likely to be a fluke Due to random overlap of cones, and more likely a potential winner.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I don't really make a habit of doing it, but in general, I use a combo of both. I trust the target more than numbers. I took issue with AB WEZ right from the start.

The target can lie without enough repetition. Your ES is your minimum mechanical accuracy at long distances, all else being equal.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Do you think inconsistent velocities are more a testament to reloading quality and predestined to effect velocity numbers before the shot is even taken? We're just measuring it after the fact.

Tighter group with higher ES/SD
or
looser group with better ES/SD?

 

[Milo 2.5]

The target can lie without enough repetition. Your ES is your minimum mechanical accuracy at long distances, all else being equal.

I have been relatively confident in the loads I develop, if there is one thing I have observed over the yrs is that group size generally increases with more rds fired. The longer you shoot at one target, the chances of missing condition changes becomes real, is it velocity spikes, or wind, or is your barrel hot and needs a rest.
About all i know is, my 6BRA eithers needs a full day cleaning session, or load work revisited, because my last outing was embarrassing.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I have been relatively confident in the loads I develop, if there is one thing I have observed over the yrs is that group size generally increases with more rds fired. The longer you shoot at one target, the chances of missing condition changes becomes real, is it velocity spikes, or wind, or is your barrel hot and needs a rest.
About all i know is, my 6BRA eithers needs a full day cleaning session, or load work revisited, because my last outing was embarrassing.

Agreed.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Agreed.

Life would be simple if there was one and only one way to do this, instead we talk like girls about it, and spend exorbitant amounts of coin to make ammo.
Fuck, I have a V4 that I needed so badly sitting in a box downstairs, for 2 months, winners circle shit sitting idle

 

[Long Range 338]

All this talk of "statistically significant" sounds like it would require burning thru several barrels to accumulate enough data to prove out the load. This may very well be true for proving a load for commercial sales or use across several barrels. I believe most of us are simply trying to find the best load for a current barrel without burning it out, which is the resistance to the methodology in a sense.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Life would be simple if there was one and only one way to do this, instead we talk like girls about it, and spend exorbitant amounts of coin to make ammo.
Fuck, I have a V4 that I needed so badly sitting in a box downstairs, for 2 months, winners circle shit sitting idle

If you're not gonna use it, I got fitty bucks in my wallet and I'll trade you straight up for it.

 

[Milo 2.5]

If you're not gonna use it, I got fitty bucks in my wallet and I'll trade you straight up for it.

Lucrative offer, tough call here, lol
Covid ruined plans for a ND trip in October, I am sitting on hundreds of loaded rds, laziness is the only reason it is not in service.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Lucrative offer, tough call here, lol
Covid ruined plans for a ND trip in October, I am sitting on hundreds of loaded rds, laziness is the only reason it is not in service.

That's why I road trip instead of flying.

Rebecca said she'd float me another $11.75 if that will sweeten the deal.

 

[smoothy8500]

Tighter group with higher ES/SD
or
looser group with better ES/SD?

This is the phenomenon that makes me question the necessity of tight SD. It seems to occur with a lot of accomplished F class shooters that don't use a chrono and just happen "test" their load and find atrocious SD's. Here everyone says there "no way a wide SD can maintain a flat waterline at long-range", but it does.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

This is the phenomenon that makes me question the necessity of tight SD. It seems to occur with a lot of accomplished F class shooters that don't use a chrono and just happen "test" their load and find atrocious SD's. Here everyone says there "no way a wide SD can maintain a flat waterline at long-range", but it does.

Imagine developing a load and never running a chrono. Only paying attention to the target. Witchcraft.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

This is the phenomenon that makes me question the necessity of tight SD. It seems to occur with a lot of accomplished F class shooters that don't use a chrono and just happen "test" their load and find atrocious SD's. Here everyone says there "no way a wide SD can maintain a flat waterline at long-range", but it does.

Interestingly enough, when shooters are invited to testing facilities with Doppler and such…..

The tight waterlines are always shot with SD and velocities that support the waterline.

Case in point, unless something has changed in the last 6 months since I spoke to AB, no one has been able to bring their rifle, run it for 2-3 days over their doppler, and show them any rounds consistently not hitting the target or grouping where the velocity and BC mapped with Doppler predicts it will go.

They have open invitations for anyone who wants to “prove” positive compensation and such. Plenty have come out and tried, but non have succeeded. They won’t publish the names of the shooters as that would dissuade people from showing up, knowing their reputation may take a hit.


If anyone here has a rifle they feel consistently groups better at distance than their SD/velocity predicts, seriously call up AB and go shoot over their Doppler. Or if you feel the waterline is smaller than the recorded velocities say, take it out there.

It’s extremely easy to prove if it’s in fact real. Yet there’s zero long term data to support the phenomenon.

 

[smoothy8500]

Guess those guys I'm shooting with that don't use a chrono happened to test loads at distance that probably do just happen to maintain lower SD's. Explains how they follow the ballistic prediction. Their belief is everything looks good at 100, but they test at 600 to find the best load.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Guess those guys I'm shooting with that don't use a chrono happened to test loads at distance that probably do just happen to maintain lower SD's. Explains how they follow the ballistic prediction. Their belief is everything looks good at 100, but they test at 600 to find the best load.

Hard to say without real testing. As there’s people on the opposite side of that coin.

Lou Murdica for example does all his development and testing in his 100yd tunnel and doesn’t take it out to distance. Just philosophy is that if it shoots at 100, it will shoot at a 1000. Which is the philosophy of many just as many others say the opposite and insist you need to tune at distance.

They may very well both be correct and both methods work. One or both could also be wrong and succeed in *spite* of what they do.

Proper and real testing is the only way to know for sure, and most don’t actually test, let alone have the equipment to properly test. Nothing wrong with that as it takes time and components.

But it’s not just as simple as “so and so wins and does this.” That’s not now you advance knowledge in something.

 

[jakelly]

Interestingly enough, when shooters are invited to testing facilities with Doppler and such…..

The tight waterlines are always shot with SD and velocities that support the waterline.

Case in point, unless something has changed in the last 6 months since I spoke to AB, no one has been able to bring their rifle, run it for 2-3 days over their doppler, and show them any rounds consistently not hitting the target or grouping where the velocity and BC mapped with Doppler predicts it will go.

They have open invitations for anyone who wants to “prove” positive compensation and such. Plenty have come out and tried, but non have succeeded. They won’t publish the names of the shooters as that would dissuade people from showing up, knowing their reputation may take a hit.


If anyone here has a rifle they feel consistently groups better at distance than their SD/velocity predicts, seriously call up AB and go shoot over their Doppler. Or if you feel the waterline is smaller than the recorded velocities say, take it out there.

It’s extremely easy to prove if it’s in fact real. Yet there’s zero long term data to support the phenomenon.

The way I’ve heard people define positive compensation seems as illogical as thinking bullets shoot tighter as distance increases.