Range Report Ran some ladders - what do yall think?

[turbo54]

Ran ladders with my FN SPR A3G. In 1/2 grain increments, I tried 168, 175 and 180gr smk's.

168: 43-47.5gr Varget
175: 42-46.5gr Varget
180: 41-45.5gr Varget

Again, my step size for all was 1/2 grain. Each charge is +/- .02gr (not a typo), and all were loaded to 2.800" OAL.

Tests were run at 600 yards on a pretty calm day. Light breeze but nothing serious.

I fired all rounds with no pressure signs, EXCEPT for 45gr with the 180smk, which had a SLIGHTLY difficult bolt lift - I mean SLIGHT! I didn't fire the last round of that ladder, which was 45.5gr.

The 168 gr string is labeled in order from lightest charge to heaviest as 1-10. The 175 string is roman numerals from I-X, and the 180 string is A-i. There are 3holes labeled "spot 1" etc... those were spotters of nominal charge I fired to be sure I would hit paper in a reasonable place. There are 3 unlabeled holes - those were where a 3" aiming disc was placed for me to shoit at. There are NO mistakes here, I had a partner in the pits pulling the target to label each shot. All shots "felt" good. Not to say im a miracle shooter, but im not bad, and these felt just fine.

Without further ado...

 

[jbailey]

Re: Ran some ladders - what do yall think?

I like 1, 2, 3;
and D, E, F
and I had a really tough time seeing the roman numerals.

 

[turbo54]

Re: Ran some ladders - what do yall think?

I made that post with a smartphone, and with the pinch-zoom feature, you can really zoom in and see that picture great. I'm on the computer now, and it is nowhere near as good for veiwing... If you save the picture and then view it with Windows picture/fax viewer, you can zoom in and it's much better.

1,2 are vertically stacked pretty well, but they seem impractical because they are lightly loaded.

5,6 seem good. At 45 and 45.5gr, seems like it might be more practical than 1,2.

I,II are close, but again, probably impractical.

VII,VIII are dead nuts, and even IX appears to be in that "node".

D,E,F look great to me. I will definitely focus attention here!

I intend to run a finer ladder next. Think I should go directly to a .1gr increment, or what?

How strange is it that some "hotter" charges hit lower than charges several steps lighter?

 

[MALLARD]

Re: Ran some ladders - what do yall think?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I intend to run a finer ladder next. Think I should go directly to a .1gr increment, or what?

How strange is it that some "hotter" charges hit lower than charges several steps lighter? </div></div>


.1 increments is a waste of time, you can do .3 though, put more shots into your groups , shoot 3 rounds at each charge weight instead of one. Do it round robin style.

how were you able to keep track of your individual bullet holes ? i dont understand how you did that.

 

[turbo54]

Re: Ran some ladders - what do yall think?

The range I shoot at has target pits. Meaning there is a place for a guy/gal to stand (safely) while you shoot at the target over their head. They watch the berm for a dirt splash. When they see one on the target they are attending (there are 20 lanes), they pull the target down, find the hole, mark it, then send the target back up.

Your suggestion sounds like an OCW test, not a ladder...agree?

 

[jbailey]

Re: Ran some ladders - what do yall think?

No, he is still talking ladder.
.1gr is waste of time. .3 is good, for the nodes you ID'ed in first round. I think your analysis of the nodes looks good. Next time, do each bullet on its own paper target - much easier to analyze.

 

[vman]

Re: Ran some ladders - what do yall think?

I would stick with the 175 over the 168 and 180 smk... the 175 has a less drastic boat tail

VII and VIII look good

 

[MALLARD]

Re: Ran some ladders - what do yall think?

hey turbo that is great