Ladder Test - Definition

[Brians356]

At the risk of beating a dead horse: I was reading a shooting sports periodical this week, and stumbled on an article about wringing best performance out of hot a new "long range" 22-cal centerfire cartridge. The writer commenced to describe his "ladder test" and, intrigued, I was disappointed to find he did not refer to shifting POIs, vertical displacements on target, or any other metric other than group size. I.e. he was simply shooting one group per charge using a 0.5-gr increment, and choosing the most promising (smallest) group size/shape to decide which charge around which to center a second round of testing using a finer charge increment.

I suppose I am not the sharpest tack in the box, but this seems like entry-level accuracy testing as I performed when I started handloading some 25 years ago, not "ladder testing" as I've grown to think of it from reading this and other forums. Have I been reading more into the term than I should have been all these years?
-

 

[jpx2rk]

Everyone has their own method of madness, the writer's mentor may have done it that way, or he developed his own from other methods he read about or was shown.

 

[Brians356]

Everyone has their own method of madness, the writer's mentor may have done it that way, or he developed his own from other methods he read about or was shown.

Where's the fun in that attitude? Can't we all get along? I'm ok, you're ok. Different strokes ...
-

 

[jpx2rk]

Where's the fun in that attitude? Can't we all get along? I'm ok, you're ok. Different strokes ...
-

Wasn't trying to being sarcastic or anything with my comment.

I read a lot on different forums, take bits and pieces from all of that and form my own method of madness. My "mentor" or "coach" as I refer to him gets frustrated with me when I don't follow his line of thought or suggestions. Sometimes I prove him wrong, but he is usually pretty much on the mark with where I will end up in my travels down the numerous rabbit holes in this hobby/sport. I do learn from my mistakes, and "coach" has kept me from wasting too much time/$$ on some of my travels.

 

[jepp2]

Have I been reading more into the term than I should have been all these years?

The reason I enjoy reading forum threads is the variation of opinions you will get. Just to mention a few:
- barrel break in
- barrel cleaning
- brass annealing

And in the famous words of Lou Holtz, I never learn anything when I am talking.

 

[Brians356]

The reason I enjoy reading forum threads is the variation of opinions you will get. Just to mention a few:
- barrel break in
- barrel cleaning
- brass annealing

And in the famous words of Lou Holtz, I never learn anything when I am talking.

Yeah. I have to say, though, my issue here is with the simple definition of a common term "ladder test", and there really is scant room for debate about what that means. A reasonable debate might ensue over how to best implement ladder testing (e.g. charge or jump increments, number of shots in each group, interpretation of results, etc), or over the merits of ladder testing vs another approach to load development.
-

 

[JFrank]

At the risk of beating a dead horse: I was reading a shooting sports periodical this week, and stumbled on an article about wringing best performance out of hot a new "long range" 22-cal centerfire cartridge. The writer commenced to describe his "ladder test" and, intrigued, I was disappointed to find he did not refer to shifting POIs, vertical displacements on target, or any other metric other than group size. I.e. he was simply shooting one group per charge using a 0.5-gr increment, and choosing the most promising (smallest) group size/shape to decide which charge around which to center a second round of testing using a finer charge increment.

I suppose I am not the sharpest tack in the box, but this seems like entry-level accuracy testing as I performed when I started handloading some 25 years ago, not "ladder testing" as I've grown to think of it from reading this and other forums. Have I been reading more into the term than I should have been all these years?
-

I wonder if the author got paid for that article?

 

[Ned Ludd]

Yeah. I have to say, though, my issue here is with the simple definition of a common term "ladder test", and there really is scant room for debate about what that means. A reasonable debate might ensue over how to best implement ladder testing (e.g. charge or jump increments, number of shots in each group, interpretation of results, etc), or over the merits of ladder testing vs another approach to load development.
-

I'm in complete agreement with your observation. What that guy described wasn't a ladder test. In fact, it really wasn't even an OCW test. He simply shot groups at different charge weights. Although it may be possible to use a wide variety of load testing methodologies and end up with something usable, that's beside the point. How can people even discuss and share their results if some relatively consistent system of nomenclature isn't used? I see people here post on occasion about their "ladder test", when it's clear they were using an OCW-based approach. Usually, it's pretty easy for me to figure out what they did, but that may not be true for someone with less experience. Why confuse someone by using incorrect terminology? Yet it still happens.

I read a similar type article to what you described the other day about a new bullet being offered. This bullet was designed by a different manufacturer with a similar double ogive radius as Berger's Hybrid bullets. The author of the article incorrectly stated that the short secant portion of the ogive closest to the bearing surface was for the purpose of entering the rifling more efficiently, and the long tangent portion of the ogive was to provide the needed aerodynamics. In fact, the short tangent portion of the hybrid ogive is to facilitate transition into the rifle and the longer secant portion of the ogive improves BC; completely opposite of what the author stated. It drives me nuts when I read things like that, but it rarely seems worth it to point it out when it happens here in the forum.

 

[dcali]

That is not a ladder test as most define it. I believe it was Creighton Audette that originally coined the term. The point being to observe the changes in the point of impact over a range of charges, not just to shoot groups and pick the smallest one.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Yeah that guy is totally wrong. What he was doing is what I just call "basic load testing"

Here's a pic the last 100 yard "ladder test" I conducted. I'll usually check them at 100 then take the same test out to 500 or 600 yards. (Which I never did with this gun )

 

[chop house]

Here's a pic the last 100 yard "ladder test" I conducted.

what were your conclusions from this test? (btw, not sarcastic, a real question) are the velocity clusters meaningful with single samples? how do you interpret the big poi jump at virtual equal velocities? or was, as stated, this simply preliminary to see what to try/expect at longer range? what if one only has, say, 200 yards available. can anything definitive be determined at that range? thanks.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Yeah. I have to say, though, my issue here is with the simple definition of a common term "ladder test", and there really is scant room for debate about what that means.
-

Exactly right. Can't be using a term to describe something it is not. If we leave "definitions" open for debate then nobody would understand what the hell anyone else is taking about.

To hell with "live and let live" or "different folks, different strokes". NO. We have to at least have a common language. Sure theres different types of ladder testing, but not definitions.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

what were your conclusions from this test? (btw, not sarcastic, a real question) are the velocity clusters meaningful with single samples? how do you interpret the big poi jump at virtual equal velocities? or was, as stated, this simply preliminary to see what to try/expect at longer range? what if one only has, say, 200 yards available. can anything definitive be determined at that range? thanks.

I already know the rifle can shoot 1/4 MOA three shot groups with RL-16 and Berger bullets (just a hunting rifle). I'm looking for when POI starts to change. I really don't care about speed because there is gonna be velocity spreads at different charge weights and I'm only using one round at each weight. I record the speeds for reference to see if something drastic happened when POI shifts. 77gr of RL-16 is total MAX load. I'm looking for the point at which the group goes to hell. Basically simulating a change in ambient air temperature. As it gets hotter, powder pressures and bullets speeds can increase.

I conclude this as a good ladder test. Not complete, but good. The POI was pretty consistent over a fairly wide spread of powder charge weight. Need to run the test again at farther ranges to fully conclude anything.

 

[JFrank]

Nice test,
For myself i find 100 yard ladders a bit clustered (preference is 200 ladder and 300 for seating) I also like to see a flat spot on paper.

But you got er done that's all that matters. Good work son
J

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Nice test,
For myself i find 100 yard ladders a bit clustered (preference is 200 ladder and 300 for seating) I also like to see a flat spot on paper.

But you got er done that's all that matters. Good work son
J

Yeah it's just easy to throw up a test at 100 to get an idea. If I'm getting crazy vertical at 100, like an inch or more, then I know it will be really bad at longer ranges. Still need to test at long range tho.

Probably add a 5th round at 76.1gr

Of course the problem with any of this testing is human error

 

[TC260]

I suppose I am not the sharpest tack in the box, but this seems like entry-level accuracy testing as I performed when I started handloading some 25 years ago, not "ladder testing" as I've grown to think of it from reading this and other forums. Have I been reading more into the term than I should have been all these years?

I've seen the term being misused too on some, let's say, "less technical" forums and podcasts. They're using it to describe a basic "shoot-for-group" test (for lack of a better term). Like was mentioned above, I think they're using the word "ladder" to refer to increasing charge weights and aren't aware that's it's a specific type of load test that doesn't entail group shooting.

In general, internet forums are lot more of an echo chamber than sometimes I think we realize. There's a bazillion writers but no editors so if incorrect information gets repeated a few times it starts to show up in google searches and from there it gets regurgitated as truth.

 

[Brians356]

FWIW the article I referenced is in the newest Blue Press. Not exactly a mainstream publication, but there are sometimes good loading articles and reviews of new and classic firearms in it.
-

 

[Dusty Stevens]

These days everybody calls load development a ladder test not even knowing there is such a test. They just hear the term and use it

 

[Brians356]

These days everybody calls load development a ladder test not even knowing there is such a test. They just hear the term and use it

Fair enough, and true enough, sadly. But paid writers, presented as experts, should know better. The dumbing down of America continues ...
-

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Fair enough, and true enough, sadly. But paid writers, presented as experts, should know better. The dumbing down of America continues ...
-

Ive seen these “experts” in action way too many times. Heres one example:
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/fake-news-in-gun-mags-now.3954743/