Ladder Test vs QuickLoad

[flyingagg]

I have been scouring through the reloading posts, both here and other boards and it seems that more and more people swear by the Ladder Test method. I am probably stirring up a hornets nest, but If I have QuickLoad, calibrated to my case capacity and powder burning rate, isn't it better than the Ladder Test?
I would like to hear your comments/experiences, but I would be mostly interested to hearing from people who have used both

Thanks in advance
Good shooting!!!
Andronikos

 

[whit]

No, quickload can't account for variances in barrels. Some might have deeper rifling, others might be rifled with a worn cutter. Pressure will be different in different barrels. I have a 30-06 that fouled really badly so I used Tubbs final finish on it. It took more powder to reach the previous velocity.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Tjay]

Quickload is a guess of what happens when you pull the trigger and a ladder test is what actually happens.

 

[flyingagg]

whit - Your comments make sense to me for the exceptions

Tjay, have you ever used QuckLoad? Both methods require iterations/calibrations. QuickLoad can give you a good starting point to get there faster

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

Quickload is a base or a guide...Ladder testing is the real deal and shows ACTUAL results. Which is ultimately what we are striving for, correct? I use QL as a guide, much like a loading book. But nothing replaces actual trigger time like a ladder and chronograph results, period.

 

[flyingagg]

I don't just take QL without trigger time.
With ladder test you are looking for a "node" with load increments and chrono. Once you find the general load for the node, you try to fine tune it.
With QL, you start very close to the node, you get closer after you have actual data with chrono and "trigger" time and get back to the range for fine tuning.
Both methods, used correctly, require trigger time, chrono and iterations. I think both methods work.

 

[SJB358]

Quickload is a base or a guide...Ladder testing is the real deal and shows ACTUAL results. Which is ultimately what we are striving for, correct? I use QL as a guide, much like a loading book. But nothing replaces actual trigger time like a ladder and chronograph results, period.

Same here. I use QL to let me know where I’m at but nothing replaces bullets on paper with an accurate chrono.

 

[TackDriver284]

I, seldom, like to play with Quickload checking for case volume ( fired cases ) and entering data such as velocity / COAL / powder burn adjustments after a day at the range. I use Quickload just for fun and to get a ballpark on where the nodes could be. Quickload is not a bible, just a guide. Most of my shooting is based on 3 shot groups at 200 yards with a chronograph and final tweaking for seating depths to tighten groups. I seldom use ladder testing, but I do agree that ladder testing has more relevant information than Quickload. Seeing what is on paper counts.

 

[flyingagg]

SJB And TackDriver, you use QL as it is intended. I never suggested QL is more than a guide where a node might be. I was looking for input from people who have used both to see which method gets you there faster. Ladder test to find a node and then fine tune or QL to find a node and then fine tune.
I see Ladder Test people are passionate and I understand why. It works. I spend most of last night reading articles and I found at least new four variations since Creighton Audette's initial concept.

Ryan Furman has an nice video and talks about doing the ladder test at 1000 yards or at least 600 yards. I can NOT shoot 1000 yards. I like to shot and hunt but I know my personal limits. I am pushing it to 500. Can't just bring my heart rate down.

I agree with both, nothing replaces time on the range.

Thank you both fur your input